Syndicated from The Black Renaissance
Dialogues that attempt to define the relationship between fashion and art have existed for decades. From the couture creations of high-brow ateliers to accessible street-style chic, fashion has become a term that evokes a spectrum of responses whether it is indeed a form of art. It is nebulously subjective, because it ranges from banal commerciality, to the impractically exquisite gowns of haute couture. Though the discussion of fashion and art is not entirely original, as CEO of Deluxeword’s Daniel Jeffreys admits, he along with a series of fashion industry experts took to the stage to discuss the issue in the belief that the topic has become timelier than ever. And thus, in a hallowed room hosted by the Savannah College of Art and Design Hong Kong, a panel discussion took place. The discussion ranged from the importance of art collaborations in the China market, to the looming and ominous presence of luxury conglomerates, to the pressures that designers face to create products at an alarming rate. In essence, the panelists brought light how the fashion industry has evolved into its present relationship with art.
Moderated by Daniel Jeffreys, the panel discussion included respected figures such as Bartley Ingram from JOYCE Boutique, Christie Wo from Charmode Luxury and Kitty Go from the Financial Times and China Daily. Together, they brought forward a series of thoughtful, insightful observations. One of the topics looked at the factors that have lead to the proliferation of artist collaborations. Designers face enormous pressure to perform and produce at an alarming rate. These collections are generally characterized by the recycling of old ideas, rehashed in different combinations, colors and materials to give the appearance of newness and novelty where there is in fact none. With designers expected to produce several collections throughout the year (spring/summer, fall/winter, pre-fall, limited editions, dispersion lines etc), there is no longer time to create quality ideas. These partnerships are a convenient attempt to draw new ideas from an industry that does not run at the frenetic pace of fashion. They bring a sense of credibility and cultural depth from another industry that does not have the rampant commercialism of fashion.
In addition, attitudes were decidedly mixed as to how artists such as Yayoi Kasumi and Takashi Murakami should be viewed in light of their collaboration with Louis Vuitton. On one hand, these artists who have already established themselves as mavericks on the forefront of the design industry, could be considered as sell-outs. With such a respected loyal base, what else is there to be gained for these artists? On the other hand, fashion was seen as a credible vehicle to proliferate awareness of these figures to the general public, some who might not otherwise have had the opportunity to be exposed to such works. Whereas art is generally confined to the untouchable white walls of a gallery, fashion can roam the streets in liberal and democratic style. Fashion is art’s wearable cousin, printed on an ordinary white tee and worn to Sunday brunch. And it is not only artists who can benefit from such an exposure, for no talk about luxury brands can be complete without considering the ominous presence of conglomerates such as LVMH and Richemont. For these savvy businessmen, limited-edition art collaborations are a credible brand-building exercise, moving the emphasis of the luxury products away from quality and timelessness. They help to inject these products with an aura of class and cultured cachet to an industry oft attacked for its vapid emptiness. There is also the spike in media and publicity hype when an esteemed luxury brand offers a never-done-before exclusive product that ventures away from the restrictions of priceless archives. In essence, these partnerships are proven, profitable paths.
Art collaborations however, are not a business strategy open to all luxury brands. Kitty Go felt quite strongly that ailing fashion houses cannot use this strategy as a means to save themselves. It is only when fashion houses have distilled and propagated their signature design DNA such that there is top-of-mind consumer familiarity, should they venture into new territory. Otherwise, brand confusion is an obvious and harmful danger. In other words, these alliances can only be the icing on the cake for those who have the privilege and opportunity to do so. It can never be the necessary and stable foundation on which brands are built. Thus, for emerging fashion labels such as those in China, such a move would not be in their interest. For these new brands, they do not yet have the recognizability and consumer familiarity to recreate the kind of hype and reception that behemoths like Louis Vuitton can enjoy. Many of these designers are still learning how to scale their business on both a domestic and international level. Moreover, Bartley Ingram was also pointed out that unlike Chinese contemporaries in the modern art scene, China’s fashion designers are still attempting to shape their own individual voice. They have not reached a certain level of maturity.
As the SCAD discussion of fashion and art winded down, Daniel Jeffreys recounted a time in his younger days when he came across a window display of a dress possessing such beauty that he had to buy it. At that time, he had no functional purpose of the dress, other than to enjoy the depth of its immense beauty. The story highlights the depth of fashion at large, whether it be a beguilingly simple dress you come across on the street, or the fantastical journey of a Haider Ackermann runway show. At its best, fashion can charm you, arrest you with its immensity, and transport you to a place faraway from the doldrums of everyday life. These moments of vivid human experience teach us that despite all the intellectual abstractions and commentary about fashion and art, that indeed, they have the transformative power to be both the one and same.
Image Source: SCAD Hong Kong