ONE: Chalayan works in clothing, like Afterwords (2000) and Burka (1996), are often challenging to both the viewer and the wearer. What are you personal responses to these works? Are Afterwords and Burka fashion, or are they art? What is the difference? Not all clothing is fashion, so what makes fashion fashion ?
According to the Oxford Dictionary online Fashion is 'a popular or the latest style of clothing, hair, decoration, or behavior.' This for me is when a new style or look becomes to enter the fashion world is takes off and you will soon see it repeating itself in many forms and styles. My personal responses to Chalayan's works is mixed. First his work, Afterwords, which is an exploration of materials and a integration between textures. In the photo of the skirt you are able to see that originally it looks similar to a table, you then are able to pull it over your shoulders and it opens out to reveal a skirt. This innovative design makes Hussein unique and has the viewer questioning, is it furniture or fashion?
The second fashion piece, the 'Burka' is a Burka slowly shortening until everything is revealed but the face of the women. I personally interpret this as a identity piece, it challenges an item of clothing that is used to hide identity. When the Burka slowly shortens, i find the viewer becomes shocked, as the clothing item is known to cover the whole body, but to leave the eyes showing, and when the whole body is revealed is it s shock to the system and we are not used to viewing the Burka like this. i believe this is both fashion and art. T
I believe that both Afterwords and Burka are fashion and art. The difference to me between the two is art is where a difference has been made to fashion, and fashion is something wearable .
People enjoy art and fell as if they are able to connect with it, it is an enjoyable ting to look at and experience. by having/using art to advertise a product you art also as an strict getting publicity, therefore Chalayans work is able to benefit hugely from doing this as his name gets known more and more and he is able to get more work out. It also gives the artist an opportunity to widen their creativity, it could be a new and different experience for the artist. I believe that it is still art, just used in a different way. Even if it used to sell a product it still at the end of the day is art, if you were to take away the commercial side of it an audience would still visualize it as art.
Walking down queen street and seeing a New Cops Recruitment poster looking very similar to Banksy's work this was another example of art in advertising, it just helps get the message across with new media, it is fresh and recognizable to younger people as they are more familiar with Banksy's art, they then are able to stop and look at the poster as they know the artist style then hopefully they read the poster, then it become successful in advertising.
3. Chalayan’s film Absent Presence screened at the 2005 Venice Biennale. It features the process of caring for worn clothes, and retrieving and analysing the traces of the wearer, in the form of DNA. This work has been influenced by many different art movements; can you think of some, and in what ways they might have inspired Chalayan’s approach?
I believe this piece of art would fall into the post modern category. By using modern technology to look at the DNA in clothing to make art, looking further in identity and hybridity all comes back to post modern art. When researching about this film i came across a blog which made a relation between this film and 'Afterwords' which i found interesting. It explains, 'in the Afterwords the clothes were representing what is outside, in Absent Presence, they include what is inside, or in other words our DNA and identities. With this study, it is possible to know who we are, what we do, how we react according to clothes; and this is not a matter of designing of the clothes but because they are biologic parts of ourselves. Once again we encounter hybridity in a way presented in the post-colonial theory and the thinking of Homi Bhabha'
4. Many of Chalayan’s pieces are physically designed and constructed by someone else; for example, sculptor Lone Sigurdsson made some works from Chalayan’s Echoform(1999) and Before Minus Now (2000) fashion ranges. In fashion design this is standard practice, but in art it remains unexpected. Work by artists such as Jackson Pollock hold their value in the fact that he personally made the painting. Contrastingly, Andy Warhol’s pop art was largely produced in a New York collective called The Factory, and many of his silk-screened works were produced by assistants. Contemporarily, Damien Hirst doesn’t personally build his vitrines or preserve the sharks himself. So when and why is it important that the artist personally made the piece?
In my opinion i personally think that the artwork hold a lot more value when the process it goes through to be made is done with the artist. From the initial idea to the finished work. This is not to say that artists who have the initial idea but others produce the works, that their work has less value. When the artist it involved in the making i believe they are putting themselves into the work, they will express their feelings throughout the process into the work making it their own. The artist then also will have a strong connection with the work making it their own. So when is it important that the personally made the piece, when and where they are able to, if the are building a huge piece of art assistance obviously will be needed, but if they were to do a painting, but didn't paint it themselves, for me it no longer becomes a personal piece of art, therefore no pager becoming theirs.
http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/8/view/5209/hussein-chalayan-at-the-design-museum.html
http://usedmagazine.co.uk/?p=1542
http://fashionableturkey.blogspot.co.nz/2010/11/transnationalism-and-hybidity-in-art-of.html
http://oxforddictionaries.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment