George_Washington
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,962
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
mixedmedia said:What does fashion and fitness have to do with art?
Ask yourself: actors, comedians, directors, screenwriters, film producers, playwrights, singers, songwriters, musicians, music producers, painters, sculptors, artisans, illustrators, comic book artists & writers, novelists, etc., etc......do you really suppose most of these people tend to be conservative?
Even though you say you're trying not to stereotype, and I trust you on that, I'm still a little insulted. Not only at your use of fashion and fitness to define "art." But also at your suggestion that conservatives support "art" because they are more likely to spend money on fitness and fashion and that somehow makes liberals not as creative. How long did you think this theory through before you posted it?
Engimo said:If you think that science and mathematics are dry and boring, you've obviously never delved into it to any depth. Mathematics is all about elegance and beauty, and a damned lot of creativity. When you're dealing with genuine, high-level math, there is very little computation or number-crunching going on. Trying to create a mathematical proof requires massive amounts of reasoning ability and creativity, and it should not be belittled.
If you don't believe me, look up something like Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. It is simple, elegant, and brilliant.
George_Washington said:Well, fashion is definitely a form of the arts and fitness goes hand in hand with fashion, since the vast majority of designer clothes are made to fit people who are in shape.
Yes! Not all of them but I think a lot of them are more conservative than people realize. Look at the conservatives in Hollywood and in the past...Mel Gibson, Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, Tom Selleck, Drew Carey, Tom Arnold, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. There are a lot of them. I'm not saying that they are all, "ultra conservative." Just that they have right wing leanings.
How is fashion not art???? I don't understand. Fashion is just as much art as anything else is. I didn't mean because conservatives have more money by any means. When did I say that? I don't know who actually has more money. There are tons of liberals in America who are very wealthy. My point was just that conservatives, I think, tend to support the fashion industry more than liberals.
mixedmedia said:George, I like you and don't want to fight with you, but if you think the fashion industry is just as much an art form as any other, than I could easily draw the conclusion that conservatives have "artless" imaginations. You think Mel Gibson considers The Passion to be on par artistically with the newest Armani suit? I think many liberals see fashion as a shallow meaningless preoccupation. I know I do. They're just clothes. They bring nothing to the lives of other people. They do not provoke thought and emotion. Those things are the functions of ART. I view fashion as a consumer commodity like cars and technology. It is not art in the way of Citizen Kane or a Rembrandt self-portrait or Mozart's Requiem. They simply cannot be compared.
And fitness has absolutely NOTHING to do with art. It is a matter of health, and for many, another expression of consumerist self-absorption.
mixedmedia said:I think many liberals see fashion as a shallow meaningless preoccupation. I know I do.
George_Washington said:Oh Jesus. That's not what I meant, Enigmo! I didn't mean that math sucks or something. I had more math classes than most people in my field of study. What I meant was that some far left wing liberals I've seen just don't have the same kind of dynamic personalities that their conservative counterparts have.
No, I did not say that Armani clothes are art.George_Washington said:Ok so wait, you admit that Armani clothes are art but yet you say fashion as a whole isn't?
So you think a pair of shoes are on par artistically with Dostoevsky's The Idiot? You believe a dress has the same artistic value as Beethoven's Ode to Joy? You believe fashion sketching is on a par with Van Gogh's Starry Night? And you want to call me shallow? I don't know if you're aware of this, George, but Zoolander was a COMEDY. :roll:Media, fashion designers are artists just as much as anyone else. I'd like to see you tell Giorgio Armani, Roberto Cavalli, Donatella Versace, J. Lindeberg, the Dolche & Gabanna duo, Kenneth Cole, Ralph Lauren, or any of the other leading modern designers that they have worked hard for years perfecting their drawing, painting, designing, and creative talents only to be told that they are not artists. Gianni Versace was just as good a sketcher as anybody who works for Disney or anybody in the last 50 years, for that matter.
No, I support art. You are ignorant of what art is. No hypocrisy.Really, that's just stupid and utterly ridiculous. See what I mean? You liberals claim to support the arts...but only when it's something you consider to be art. Thanks for proving my point. What's really, "shallow" are people like you that choose to pick and choose what you consider to be art and then say that we don't support the arts. Absolute hypocrisy.
Gardener said:There is a young woman I have noticed around town here. She has a towering mohawk that must stand two feet above her head and is colored in vaying hues of green and blue and pink. Her clothes are this wonderful pastiche of pieces she must have found in second hand stores, with layers of taffeta and leather and bangles and lace, all thrown together almost haphazzardly, but really not haphazzard at all. I think it's great, because she has obviously put a lot of time and work into it, and IMO she is a walking art piece. I like the effect she gets.
Now, I don't think this is what GW necessarily had in mind, but I do think there are instances where fashion can be art.
Engimo said:Then I change my criticism. Your argument is not flawed on the basis that it mischaracterizes so-called "left-brain" fields of study, it is flawed on its brash generalizations, lack of any meaningful quantitative information, and nonsensicality.
mixedmedia said:So you think a pair of shoes are on par artistically with Dostoevsky's The Idiot? You believe a dress has the same artistic value as Beethoven's Ode to Joy? You believe fashion sketching is on a par with Van Gogh's Starry Night? And you want to call me shallow? I don't know if you're aware of this, George, but Zoolander was a COMEDY. :roll:
No, I support art. You are ignorant of what art is. No hypocrisy.
First off, I am not a sir. I am a woman. What was the purpose of this debate, GW? You purported that liberals aren't supportive of art because they are not into fashion. That is an inane and insulting theory so I chose to debate you on it. Poor you.George_Washington said:I believe it is you sir, that is ignorant about what art is. Art isn't just limited to paintings or musicial compositions. The original purpose of my thread wasn't to debate what art was but that's what you want to turn it into, than fine.
No they are not. Art is supposed to make you feel something. It is supposed to show you the world through the eyes of the artist. Clothing, while it can be a channel of creativity and used to promote a personal style, it is not art.A pair of shoes, a dress, a suit, etc...is on par artistically with Dosteovsky or any other painters, musicians, and whatnot.
I have heard of all of them actually. How much do you know about the fine arts, about literature, about music?Come on Media, how much do you really know about art and fashion? Fashion has been a hobby of my for a long time. I bet you hadn't even heard of half of the names I mentioned.
Fashion is design, George, it is not art. But, you know what? You want to call it that, then fine, I really don't care. What I do take exception to is your shallow assertion that because liberals aren't "into" fashion and fitness then they are not supportive of the arts which is the biggest bullshit theory I have seen purported about liberals here yet. Congratulations.Anywhere, all of the major cities that support the arts, New York, London, Paris, Milan, etc. all have art schools with fashion programs. Fashion is very highly regarded as an art form because every design begins as a sketch, rather it be with pencil, brush, etc. There are people that spend many years drawing and painting in order to design truly original, "couture" outfits that are one of a kind. That is why so many art museums around the world have fashion exhibits.
mixedmedia said:No they are not. Art is supposed to make you feel something. It is supposed to show you the world through the eyes of the artist. Clothing, while it can be a channel of creativity and used to promote a personal style, it is not art.
I have heard of all of them actually. How much do you know about the fine arts, about literature, about music?
Fashion is design, George, it is not art. But, you know what? You want to call it that, then fine, I really don't care. What I do take exception to is your shallow assertion that because liberals aren't "into" fashion and fitness then they are not supportive of the arts which is the biggest bullshit theory I have seen purported about liberals here yet. Congratulations.
George_Washington said:There was never a quantitative basis for my argument in the first place, Enigmo. I was thinking about the nature of conservatives and liberals and I wanted to just put out my thoughts for people to read, so that we might have a discussion. As usual though you have to get anal and overly analytical about the whole thing.
Well, perhaps with hindsight, maybe you can see that you should have named this thread "Republicans are more supportive of the fashion industry." As a person who has been reading books since she was old enough to read, is a film buff, a lover of music and art (and the mother of artists - one of whom also is very much into clothing design, but has the artistic insight to know fashion is far from the Sistine chapel) I took a grand exception to your conjecture.George_Washington said:Oh and clothing can't make you feel something? Clothing can't make you see the world through the eyes of the artist? That is so naive. I bet if you asked any professional artist those questions, he or she would say yes. Clothing is just as much art as any drawing or painting is. If someone paints something and puts it on a shirt, how is it being on a piece of material any less indicative of its artistic properties than if that person would put it on a canvas?
Designing clothing is also a but of science because you have to know about materials, chemistry, etc, but it is also art.
Well, obviously I have broader definition and a more open minded attitude of art than you do. I suppose people who draw for video games and other technological things aren't actually artists either.
It was just a conjecture of mine, it wasn't meant to be something that should be, "academically rigorous." But I do think it holds some merit. Traditionally, liberals have attacked designers for their use of animals in their clothing because a lot of animal rights groups tend to be Democratic. I remember how back in the 80s, Phil Donahue attacked Armani and other designers for using animals. There are just certain industries that Republicans support more than Democrats do. For example, Republicans give more funding to the financial industries whereas Democrats give more funding to the Motion Picture Industry, overall. I remember looking at the list of contributions a while back.
mixedmedia said:Well, perhaps with hindsight, maybe you can see that you should have named this thread "Republicans are more supportive of the fashion industry." As a person who has been reading books since she was old enough to read, is a film buff, a lover of music and art (and the mother of artists - one of whom also is very much into clothing design, but has the artistic insight to know fashion is far from the Sistine chapel) I took a grand exception to your conjecture.
She is my daughter....she is not a designer, it is a hobby with her - she is still a teenager....and we have different opinions on many things, yet I will always support her in anything she chooses to do. As always. My opinion on fashion doesn't bother her or get in the way of her doing whatever she wants to do. It's not as if I have a running campaign against fashion.George_Washington said:That's ok. I like art and films, too. But still, you say you have a son who's designer but yet you object to fashion? I would think you, being a mother, would want to support your son's chosen career path...
Well, why didn't you say any of this in your OP?Maybe I should have explained myself more. My reasons for my post were because of the attacks the fashion industry has taken from animal rights groups. There are many things that designers do in other countries like you know, Italy and such, that would be highly objectable over here. Such as the use of baby lambs for shoes, the use of rabbit fur and many other natural animal skins. A lot of people think that fashion designers just export their clothes to China just because of the cheaper labor. There's some truth to this but there are also more lax enviromental laws over there and in other parts of the world, which has to do with the way leather and suede is processed. I don't know all the details but for example, the Marc New York company makes their leather coats in China because the way they treat and process the leather isn't allowed over here because it's supposedly bad for the enviroment.
Well, just to open your eyes to the broad range of opinions out there, my daughter, who is very much into fashion, is also an animal lover and does not support the fur industry.You know, groups like PETA for one constantly protest the fashion industry. Here's an example:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Fashion/Fashion-controversy/2005/02/11/1108061836882.html
I object to groups like these and I also object to things that the EPA does and other enviromental regulations.
Maybe because great works of art deserve to be preserved and fashion designers make millions of dollars every year?And I realize there is a difference between classic works of art like the Sistine Chapel, the classic artists like Leonardo, etc. But really, art is a matter of opinion and that's why I object to the liberal policy of making people pay taxes dollars to support museums that they consider to be, "more worthy art" than other kinds. I mean this is the main point I object to about the liberal mentality towards art. Maybe I could just as easily say other kinds of art are, "shallow and meaningless."
mixedmedia said:Well, why didn't you say any of this in your OP?
Well, just to open your eyes to the broad range of opinions out there, my daughter, who is very much into fashion, is also an animal lover and does not support the fur industry.
Maybe because great works of art deserve to be preserved and fashion designers make millions of dollars every year?
George_Washington said:Hmmm...but think about that concept, "great works of art". You're thinking of just the old kind of stuff like the renaissance paintings, sculptures, etc. But are those the only things that are great works of art?
One thing that might spark your curiosity-A Burmester preamplifier sits in the Berlin Museum of Art. The people of Berlin think that it is just as much art as it is science. I would even say that science, art, and mathematics are all intermixed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?