McQueen's Savage Beauty at the Met

Organized by The Costume Institute and on at the Metropolitan Museum of Art through July 31. The installation of this exhibition was fantastically done (in both senses of the word). More here.

Ravels in Review Friday

Hello bloggy reader! And welcome to another installment of Ravels in Review Friday. Although stupefied that on this Spring day snow is falling, I shall persevere. Neither rain, nor sleet, nor snow, nor internet connection problems shall keep the blogger away.


We really were well-rounded artworld citizens this week, as we jumped from an informative post on Albrecht Durer's painting, which drew some admiring glances of the basest kind from readers, to current topics such as how fashion is (not!) art and whether public art becomes part of the landscape. (If art needs to be on a gallery or museum wall to be recognized as art, what does that say about the nature of art?) Then we had some laughs with the stellar cast of Blithe Spirit, currently playing at the Shubert Theater.

Lastly, but certainly not leastly, we have a video of Art Ravels on a trip to MoMA for the Martin Kippenberger exhibition! It's very exciting: there's music; there's lights; there's my voiceover; there's some shaky camera work. Let me know how you think it ranks next to another Martin Kippenberger at MoMA video.

Also, I would like to do another art video adventure. Does anyone have suggestions on where I should go?

Fashion is Not Art

Fashion hangs onto art's coattails, by association trying to sneak into the fine arts balls. But this is not a fairy tale, and fashion's foot does not fit this slipper.

Last night I read 2 magazines, both mentioned the trend toward art prints in fashion, where designers have produced a skirt that reminds one of Rothko or Pop art. Fashion creating pieces directly inspired by art is just a most blantant example of how they try to borrow some of art's status. They use artists to create ad campaigns, their photographers often photograph art as well as fashion. But there is a line between the two. One magazine devoted pages to Richard Avedon, who has an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The exhibition, however, singles out his portraits, rather than his fashion photographry. I enjoy his work, but that doesn't make the clothes that he photographed art.

Much like the art world, the fashion world seems creative, navel-gazing, fun and self-aggrandizing. Yet despite the fact that designers use art as their inspiration for clothing and that people who photograph clothes may or may not be artists in their own right, and despite the cultural significance clothes might have, fashion is not art.

Why fashion is not art:

It is utilitarian.
It is common.
It is commercial.
It is not beautiful.

It may be a beautiful skirt, with skirt as the qualifying noun that allows the adjective beautiful to be applied, but it is not beautiful. And while art may influence fashion, when does fashion influence art?

Fashion Saves Economy

Christian Dior, couture 2009. Similar to images in recent posts, this dress is not recession-friendly.

This is a classic example of a patently untrue headline written to get attention, and lure the reader into the rest of the article. Fashion, despite the importance it gives itself, not to mention our necessity for clothes, could not save the economy alone, and the tents going up in Bryant Park and across the city for New York Fashion Week are certainly not going to do so. But don't tell that to the designers or newspapers.

Reading fashion week coverage, the recession is on everyone's (including Diane Von Furstenberg's) lips. While saying times are tough, designers are also saying that they are necessary to a vibrant economy, that they create jobs, that it is always important for a woman to look and feel beautiful. Sorry designers, this may be a recession without breadlines, but that doesn't mean people are buying couture.

Von Furstenberg's vision of recession

The thing is, I believe them on a certain level. A recession influences style, both larger trends and what an individual can afford to wear, but it also doesn't take away a person's interest in looking good. The need for beauty hasn't dimished.

From the other side of the tracks, art has been claiming style as it's own as a result of the recession. The confluence of fine art and fashion, much like art and advertising, is not new. But only recently have I heard someone say that,

“I think I represent the future of contemporary art and the synthesis of so many worlds that include contemporary art, like fashion. We can try taking it into the wider reaches of our culture in general, making it more accessible"

as the young Nicola Vassell does in a recent New York Times article. I have mixed feelings about the synthesis of fashion and fine art. Fine art has never been married to practical concerns of life and daily wear and tear, and a beautiful dress has never moved me like a beautiful painting.

Marc Jacob's recession chic

On the other hand, the intersection of life and art is fascinating, and fashion is an excellent example of that. The New York shows have a lot to deliver if they plan on saving the economy, beautifying women, and retaining the art to their fashion on a budget. For coverage of the shows, click here and the excellent commentary of Suzy Menkes click here. Let me know what you think about fashion as art.