"Fashion is just trends and crazes, it is not art."
My group and I, having just seen the incredible House of Dior exhibition at the NGV and knowing all we know about fashion and its technicalities, completely disagreed with this statement. Nevertheless, we set out to four different locations in the CBD to try to clarify our point of view. Along the way, we couldn't help but be constantly brought back to one of the most contentious philosophical questions: what is art?
We agreed on a very concise definition of art to bring with us: the creative realisation of an artist.
LOCATION 1: BOUTIQUES ON COLLINS ST
A visit to some of the high-end labels along Collins St brought up many of the same thoughts as the Dior exhibition: so much talent and purpose goes into designing and producing these items. One notable element was the attention to detail: each gem and decorative stitch was carefully placed, contributing to the concepts behind that collection. One of the employees explained to us the story behind some of the collections, highlighting the meaning behind what the designers conveyed through their clothes and accessories.
LOCATION 2: FASHION AT THE NGV
If something is displayed at a national art gallery, most people can probably agree that it's art. These outfits were so beautifully and carefully crafted. The artists formed the ideas for all of the beading, stitching and prints. If these dresses were printed onto a canvas there would be no qualms about anything, and the fact that they are wearable does not change anything.
LOCATION 3: FAST FASHION
Towards the end of the day, we bid goodbye to all of the glamour and focused our attention on some of the more mass-produced fast fashion retailers around emporium and Bourke St. There, everything became slightly more complicated. It's clear that aesthetics and structure were taken into account when designing the garments, however it was the ethical side of things that made us wonder if they qualified as art. Is something art if the creator's intention is not to make art? Is it art if the person producing it has no say in making creative decisions, and is just going through the motions of a production line? At the end of the day there are a million factors I could go into that both dispute and support this point, but I'm not sure that mass-produced fashion can generally be classed as art.
LOCATION 4: HOUSE OF DIOR EXHIBITION
The Dior exhibition was not only beautiful but very informative on the topic of how couture fashion is produced. Videos showed how each button was sewed on individually, and the various processes and prototypes that designers go through to create their garments. All this aside, just because a textile work is wearable, why does that open up debate over whether it's art or not? If anything the structural considerations going into a fashion design make it even more definitely art. The dress pictured below is a John Galliano design, with particular attention paid to the complex folds of the fabric. This would have taken extreme skill and tribulations to get perfect, which to me defines it as a sculpture, not just fashion. And honestly, everything was just gorgeous enough to be classed as art in my eyes.
The statement uses 'trends and crazes' to dispute that fashion is art, but who says art has to be everlasting? History is divided into different art periods with distinctive styles and mediums, and just as art changes with the times, so does fashion. Fashion is art, with fabric its canvas and the human form a gallery to share it with the world.