Anxiety said:

My pleasure!

ZombieKitten said:

Design can be artistic, but by its very nature, design requires function (and form), whereas art does not. It doesn't mean design is less than art, they are just different, in my professional opinion.

I would wear this

luv4u said:

Maybe u could hypnotise people with it...

Go to Prince's house

Haute couture is art. That's the point. Some people do wear it as clothing, but that's not what it's for. It's meant as a way to showcase design, shape, and colour.

chillichocaholic said:

@ hynotise

No thanks, I got my own prince

DevotedPuppy said:

so what happens when art riffs on design?

luv4u said:

Oh Good Grief!!!
Okay...point taken Hypnotise the husband for MORE sex

Anxiety said:

good point!

This one's all kinds of awesome. Its like a black hole or some shit.
But where is her head go?

momentofbliss said:

this one rocks!

BlackAdder7 said:

well maybe not but they can be inspired.

these things look a bit like what hipster kids wear these days:












[Edited 10/7/08 23:12pm]

Anxiety said:

The most classic Org answer of the year goes grossly ignored.

sammij said:

I think that is just making fun of my profession

DevotedPuppy said:

Or you could say haute couture is art that requires a human being in order to be displayed.

Byron said:

ZombieKitten said:

someone take that thing off her head so she can eat!!!!!

rushing07 said:

my god have you guys seen how i dress?
i guess i should no longer post pictures.

ZombieKitten said:

well it isn't, and if you read more on warhol you'll see that...

i'm not getting into the discussion because i don't know enough about art yet to claim i do (like so many have before here )

so...

sammij said:

Anx, you answered your own question. It's ART, not design. In the example you posted, Warhol removed the function of the box/brillo pads, thereby rendering it art. There weren't any Brillo pads in the box to use, it wasn't the design of the typeface that he was most concerned with; it was the idea of taking something from popular culture and making it into art (and making fun of the art establishment at the same time). He took away the function of the box and made it into art.

Sorry, I have had this conversation ad naseum with my grad school friends as well as on here at least three times. Art is not design and design is not art. (Possible exception: architecture.)

DevotedPuppy said:

Lines blur.
But I agree.

BlackAdder7 said:

Maybe Pierre Cardin is gunning to be hired as the costume designer of a futuristic movie? I like that black & white outfit...I want to eat clams, now for some reason. Like others have stated, it is art.
[Edited 10/8/08 11:46am]

Byron said:

Well, I suppose you could, but I think that's a weak argument. Art should be able to stand alone (literally and figuratively). If you need a body to display it, I don't think it really works as art. Paintings, sculptures (except site-specific installations), prints, do not need special display to be successful as art.

DevotedPuppy said:

But if architecture is a possible exception, why not haute couture? It really isn't meant to be functional. It exists for it's own sake.

I disagree with you and whoever taught you that.

DevotedPuppy said:

There's another exception.

Your definition is falling apart.

CarrieMpls said:

Site specific installations are not design. They are art. The argument in this post is that art does not need a body to be displayed upon, which is different than the art is not design argument. So two arguments, each with one exception, thus far.

CarrieMpls said:

Because architecture can do both--stand alone as a sculptural monument (read: non functional art) or be design (read a functional space). If you adhere to Byron's idea about haute couture being art that needs a body to be displayed, then it doesn't straddle both areas (art & design). Haute couture only works when it's functioning as clothing on the body, not hanging limply on a rack.




Well, then I guess you disagree with some of the most influential modern art historians and critical theorists. (Not including myself, just my graduate school professors.)

DevotedPuppy said:

So, because paintings require hangers, wires, hooks and such to be displayed, it isn't art?



That's an even weaker argument than what I said, though. The manner in which art is displayed determines if it's art? Makes no sense.




So why should site-=specific installations be given a pass, and not haute couture?

DevotedPuppy said:

It could easily be argued that haute couture is not design as well. Would body painting be considered functional simply because it requires a human body for it to be displayed?



So, does this become classified as "functional" because it uses the human body for its display? Does it fail the "art" test because it can't literally stand on it's own?



[Edited 10/8/08 13:49pm]

DevotedPuppy said:

And she wouldn't be alone...there are a number of influential modern art historians and critical art theorists who argue that functionality does not disqualify something as art. (I attended an art college as well lol )
[Edited 10/8/08 13:54pm]