Art and fashion are two creative fields that humans involve themselves, and it’s no surprise that two often mold together in more ways you can think of.
As a prime example, think about music and pop culture. The biggest headliner is of course Lady gaga, who often incorporates art and art installation-like features in her garments and performances. There are numerous other music artists who follow this trend. These examples of art in fashion are of course, more often than not, not wearable, and their purpose is probably only to be a part of the visual character that the artist is try to go for, molded into clothing wherein the body is the canvas.
Popular high-end fashion brands also incorporate art in their work. It can range anywhere from theatrical to minimalist. On one end, we have designers like Galliano or Lacroix who put on such a great display of intricacy and detail in their work. There are also designers who utilize household materials that aren’t needed anymore and turn them into clothes, sort of like a sculpture that’s shaped to look like clothes, which is eco-friendly and saves environment of garbage. Down the line, we have more minimalist approaches like incorporation of mosaic appliqués and origami structures. There are brands such as Versace which adopt art icons such as the medusa and Greek etchings into their clothing line. And there are even more subtle forms like art prints or the dying of the piece of clothing itself.
Implementing art in clothing has always been on trend. Art works are great sources of inspirations and no doubt it is reflected in designs of major clothing lines. That said, these items can also fetch high prices just because of the artistic implementation of the clothes. To get the desired effect, companies of course need to invest on the process to manufacture such a design. And if it isn’t the technical aspect, just from the fact that recognizable artworks are featured in these clothes. Despite high prices, people may still indulge on these things. Just like people’s adoration for reproduced art, art in fashion gather interest because it provides a cheaper cost to experiencing art. And who doesn’t love a creative and artistic tee?
Art and fashion are so intertwined that you’ll almost always see both in a fashion show or art exhibitions. People who attend exhibitions are often seen in their fashionable attire. We could still probably see this melding of art and fashion in the future years to come.
One of the things I hear from people all the time is that art can either be abstract or realistic. When you see that the image or scene being depicted in a painting consists of people, houses, things that you would see exactly as it is in real life, it would be called realistic. It is then termed abstract if it’s out of the ordinary, weird proportions and structures, and anything which is not readily understandable. There are however some misconceptions about this division, and here’s what.
When people see things like houses or people, they are actually called representational art, because these images stand for or represent actual images, objects, persons or settings around us. So paintings like the Mona Lisa, American Gothic, and even some of Picasso’s work, are considered representational artforms. Note that even paintings portraying disproportionate or fantastic proportions in the human body are representational; as rule, they just have to be something that can be found in nature. Non-representational are, however, well they don’t represent anything in nature. This where your Mondrians come in, all those geometric paintings, the seemingly random abandon of paint splatters of Jackson Pollock, and Vasarely’s optically illusory treatments. When you look at these paintings, you’ll note that none of the images present in the paintings are occurring naturally around us.
But in any sort of division of things, there comes a gray area where some paintings are considered representational by others, while some will look at them as non-representational. Some of Pollock’s works are good examples; his paintings can often look distantly reminiscent of some underwater terrain, like a trench or corals, and yet for some they won’t see this. See, this is when it gets tricky—depending on a person’s experience, on what he has seen, he would be looking at a painting differently compared to another person with different experiences as well. They might disagree in what they’re actually seeing, whether it’s a flower—thus representational—or a smudge of red in the busy canvas—hence non-representational. Nevertheless, the viewing experience isn’t to be hindered by these nuances. This is only to make aware of how paintings are actually classified.
Often, these representational paintings are replete from the 15th to the 19th century, with people often having to depict daily life and sociability. By the 20th to 21st century, with all that the industrial revolution has sprouted, artists have probably turned to all sorts of bizarre new creations around them as inspiration. There are also stereotypes of people who prefer one style of painting over the other: that those who lean to representational paintings are sensitive and those who are into non-representational paintings are adventurous or unconventional
Whatever it is you are drawn into, it can be agreed that paintings of any style can be a visual treat. Just keep in mind the art terminologies like you’re an expert at it.
Have you ever been to a museum, seen a painting and just had the time to stare at it? Well most of us don’t have the moment to go down and visit one, let alone if there is any that exists nearby. But how about looking on the internet, you know for paintings, go to reddit or one of those sites that lists famous works of arts? Well you ought to, ‘cause you’ll never know what magic you’ve been missing in your life.
What people consider as art can be a complex matter. It might be that my understanding of what art is may be different from yours, and that could lead to some disagreement which ones are art which ones aren’t. We may be looking at the same painting but we think of different things about it. Some people prefer complex things, like a very detailed oil painting of a ceremony or war. Some like the three-dimensional nature of sculptures, while others find fascination in the seemingly deceptive simplicity of abstract art. Personally, a piece of art speaks to you when, from the moment you lay eyes upon it, feelings, emotions and a certain kind of understanding and meaning dawn upon you; I think that’s how you know what art is.
When you look at a piece of art, you’ll probably notice that you are fascinated and so fixed by it. Maybe at that moment you might miss it but if someone were watching they could tell you’ve been captured by that object. While art serves no intrinsic purpose, it must be admitted that they capture the imaginations of many and often that is enough reason to see them. If you try searching for paintings on the web for paintings of Botticelli or Dali, you’ll find yourself wondering how they’ve orchestrated such image, what goes on their mind and how did they think of it and things like how bizarre or unique the subjects of the painting are. When you see pieces of art in the flesh, it’ll even be more mind-blowing. The texture, color, dimension, how organic (or inorganic) they appear all that your mind processes all at once and produce a final sensation of awe. Truly, a piece of art can be quite an experience to behold.
Seeing art inspires people. They might inspire children to engage in art as well, or can just make you feel good all over. Just the thought that something so weird, beautiful, or fantastic has existed makes you feel positive of what the human mind can come up with. Somehow it makes you strive to be creative in your own way as well. So I highly suggest going out and try to see art in its rawest form. Cheers!