Madame Gres and Christian Lacroix

[miliosr]

So, I was leafing through the NY Times Style Supplement yesterday and I came across two separate articles discussing two separate fashion retrospectives:

-- Madame Gres at the Museum at the Fashion Institute of Technology

-- Christian Lacroix at the Musee des Arts Decoratifs in Paris

All this got me to thinking: Is haute couture an art? Or is it a craft (albeit a craft at a very high level?)

Discuss.

[bart]

All this got me to thinking: Is haute couture an art? Or is it a craft (albeit a craft at a very high level?)

Am loooking forward to the responses. Certainly the number of "arts" has expanded since the original -- what was it originally? -- four arts? seven lively arts? nine muses?

If you Google "the art of" you'll find a vast array of choices including "the art of kissing" and "the art of schmoozing."

Personally, I don't know the answer, and certainly all classifications are arbitrary and subject to the constant devaluation of language categories. But I do know that haute couture is a huge money-maker for art museums.

[perky]

I remember reading somewhere that the actual clientele for haute couture is only about 2000 women. It's an extremely limited clientele, due to the high cost of the garments and the fact that they are fitted directly on the client. Also a gown that takes 1000 hours to hand bead is not something you can manufacture for the masses. Having said all that I don't think the exclusivity of haute couture makes it high art, although some designers ( John Paul Gautier, Claude Montana) have more of an high art mentality than others. Perhaps you're right miliosr in calling it a fine craft.

[dirac]

Having said all that I don't think the exclusivity of haute couture makes it high art, although some designers ( John Paul Gautier, Claude Montana) have more of an high art mentality than others. Perhaps you're right miliosr in calling it a fine craft.

Interesting question, miliosr. I don't think you can call it a high art, but you could call designers like Balenciaga artists. (You can call designers like de la Renta something too, but not on a family-friendly board.)

[zerbinetta]

I think haute couture was probably an art through the age of Coco Chanel. Certainly Fortuny, Poiret, Babani, Gallenga, Boue Soeurs, Caillot Soeurs, Worth, Erte were artists, using the metier of women's clothing. They were sculptors, painters, architects of textile.

Since Chanel perhaps it might be called High Craft but there were still artists working in the field: Yves Saint Laurent, Valentino, Gaultier yes, Romeo Gigli (although he seemed to have lost his juice when he lost his muse), the early Charles & Patricia Lester, early Tom Ford and others (name your favorite).

Since the Golden Age of fashion (pre WWII), it would seem that men fare better than women in this industry. And it is an industry now. The "haute" couture creations are the loss leaders for the less expensive line and for the perfumes, handbags et al by the same designers.

And what do you so dislike about Oscar, dirac?

[miliosr]

While my natural inclination is to fall on the "haute couture as High Craft" side of the divide, I would have to agree with dirac that Balenciaga came as close as any designer ever has to making High Art.

If Nan Kempner was still with us, I would love to pose this question to her as she was supposed to have owned, at the time of her death, one of the greatest haute couture collections in private hands in the world.

This discussion has gotten me to thinking about architecture in addition to haute couture. Is architecture an art? Or a craft??

Just thinking out loud . . .

[perky]

This discussion has gotten me to thinking about architecture in addition to haute couture. Is architecture an art? Or a craft??

Just thinking out loud . . .

When I read that sentence I immediately thought of two buildings that qualify as art , both churches, Notre Dame du Haut by Le Corbusier and La Sagrada de Familia by Antoni Gaudi.

[Petra]

I'm not sure what the answer - or whether there is an answer - to the question whether fashion and architecture are art or craft, but I do know that there has to be craft (or technique, if you prefer) before it can become art.

There is no point whatsoever in a beautiful building if it doesn't facilitate and advance the purpose of the building, whether it's a residence, place of worship, library, etc. I also question fashion that only looks good on people with certain figures, in this day it is usually those with elongated and attenuated figures. One of the primary purposes of clothes is to flatter and beautify the person wearing the clothes, so if a designer is incapable of perfecting his craft to suit multiple bodyshapes, he isn't a very good designer (in my humble opinion).

By the way, this discussion should probably distinguish between wearable works of art and haute couture. The work of Hussein Chalayan for example is art but it isn't necessarily haute couture.

[dirac]

zerbinetta writes:

I think haute couture was probably an art through the age of Coco Chanel. Certainly Fortuny, Poiret, Babani, Gallenga, Boue Soeurs, Caillot Soeurs, Worth, Erte were artists, using the metier of women's clothing. They were sculptors, painters, architects of textile.

I think also of the wonderfully extravagant Charles James.

And what do you so dislike about Oscar, dirac?

I may not have been fair to him, zerbinetta. I was speaking about those frilly glorified prom dresses he used to produce in such numbers and still does for all I know. I hated those!

Since the Golden Age of fashion (pre WWII), it would seem that men fare better than women in this industry. And it is an industry now. The "haute" couture creations are the loss leaders for the less expensive line and for the perfumes, handbags et al by the same designers.

I think that's the crucial point.

I'm not sure what the answer - or whether there is an answer - to the question whether fashion and architecture are art or craft, but I do know that there has to be craft (or technique, if you prefer) before it can become art.

Very true, GWTW.

[miliosr]

One other point to make about haute couture: The words "haute couture" get tossed around a lot these days but the only people who can truly call themselves "haute couturiers" are those who are licensed by the government of France. (Or so Tim Gunn told me on Project Runway!)

perky's mention of the two churches as works of art got me to thinking: What is that tipping point where a work with a utilitarian function crosses into art? (And does the original function cease when it does so??)

Still thinking out loud . . .

[dirac]

I don’t think there’s an answer to that, miliosr, unless it’s ‘I know it when I see it.’

Clothes and buildings fulfill a utilitarian function as well as a potentially aesthetic one, and if the latter is privileged over the former that would seem to be a pretty serious flaw.

(However, in many eras women’s clothing – often some of the most beautiful women’s clothing -- was not made for the comfort and ease of the wearer but in effect to restrain, imposing limits, sometimes severe limits, on women’s freedom of movement, even adversely affecting their health, as in the heyday of corsets. This occasionally holds true today, as well.)

[Old Fashioned]

This discussion has gotten me to thinking about architecture in addition to haute couture. Is architecture an art? Or a craft??

Architecture is studied extensively in art history courses, so I've always assumed architecture is (or can be) art.

Is haute cuisine art? Is ventriloquism art (as the winner of America's Got Talent called it)?

[Old Fashioned]

Clothes and buildings fulfill a utilitarian function as well as a potentially aesthetic one, and if the latter is privileged over the former that would seem to be a pretty serious flaw.

Regardless of wearability (is that a word?), there are so many outfits on the runway that simply don't look right anywhere else, not even on celebrities on the red carpet.