Designed to appeal to as many as possible -- Vineyard Vines, J Crew, Ralph & Tommy -- All reflect fashion at its most mundane. Which is why some styles of the past are so interesting. In a way, we're endorsing past generation's aesthetic and taste... sometimes over hundreds of years. That's not so much what fashion does as it is what art does.
Posts
4 comments:
Of course it is art. But of course, some art is worthless, and a lot of "worth" is determined by opinion.
Like music, the styles, or art, that endure are those that posses something appealing beyond a certain time, era, or fad.
People thought Picasso and cubism was a fad, but he did it well enough that all these years later, even if it isn't your taste, it is still good.
I hear a nice pair of shoes works the same way.
I think the one guy in the GTH pants would claim it's art.
Some fashion is certainly art, and some is definitely not. I think there's plenty of room for differentiation on the spectrum. A classically styled jacket from (ex.) Anderson & Sheppard will speak much more of "aesthetic and taste" than any of the fast fashion brands glutting the scene today, I think. Though as brohammas notes, it's all opinion. This might end up as a high art v. low art question.
Not sure. But 'art' is often merely fashion. Banksy anyone?
Post a Comment