snoops
February 18, 2005 - 09:06 AM
Quote:
I am shocked at the way the public has precieved Wendy. I actually think that she is the most real person that has been on the show and for her to be attacked the way that she has been outrages me. Wendy has spoken the truth about Austin and Kevin. They did lack managment skills in those challenges and did not put forth their best efforts in conveying what they wanted or needed. It seems that too many people are judging her based on their own personal preferences toward the other people on the show and are not seeing the truth of the matter that she has remained honest during her time on the show. I will admit that sometimes her designs even make me wonder but still, she won a few challenges and has proven herself and for people to hate her so much and for Jay and Kara to be such whiners about her making it to the finals outrages me. They would not have so many emotions or feelings about the whole situation if they did not feel threatened. I just wanted to say that out of everyone on the show, Wendy has remained open, honest, and has also proven herself so that is what really counts in a contest like this.
Not this argument again! Jaybear, I know no one wants to go and read all 420+ pages of stuff on this board, like I cumulatively have, but you, if you have time, watch the show from the beginning and go to wendy's site. You'll then know why *honesty* is subjective. Wendy may have been very articulate about her feelings to camera (remember this - to camera), but not to her fellow designers on the show. They were there - they thought she was friendly, but that wasn't the case in the end.
I do agree that to have a room of people not believe in you day after day is frustrating and disheartening. What Vanessa said on the reunion show was unduly harsh: "we felt sorry for you because you were a terrible designer....," but somewhere along the way, Wendy herself became devious and conniving - maybe to cope?
DeViL44
February 18, 2005 - 09:08 AM
FINALLY, somebody on this board knows what im talking about. In my opinion, Wendy HAS been the most honest person on this show. And yes, fashion's art is all part of the design as well as the function of the dress to be completed. The same can go for you're ability to be a good leader and function AS a good leader in order to keep your business and designs stable in a talented format. Im not a great explainer, but I know what im talking about. I KNOW why Wendy trashed Austin and Kevin. It's common sense too. People say she's too much of a backstabber, but in reality, she isn't. If Wendy was a backstabber...she would have been nice to Kevin all along, said he was FANTASTIC leader, and said his design for the 2055 outfit was awesome...but she didin't do no such acts. She knew from the start that kevin wasn't a good leader and she decided to tell that to the judges. Why did she tell it to the judges? Not because she wanted to stay in...but because the judges specifically asked her what she thought of kevin's leadership. She Wendy replied with what she thought of from the very beginning. It's not like Wendy thought Kevin was a fantastic leader...and then she backstabbs him on the runway saying he wasn't. She knew all along that Kevin wasn't a good leader from the start. Evidence of this is when the director asked Wendy about the pod-coat...and she replied saying that it wasn't going to be made and that the reason for that was because of kevin's lacking of leadership. Guys, when you know something isn't right...you stick to it. You don't forget about it...change your mind and say "Kevin was a great leader." just for the soul purpose of having a good relationship with kevin. I don't care if he's your friend or not, fashion is business too...and if you can't be a good leader, than aren't going to be very successful in the business itself. Wendy knows this. She's 40 years old and she's been in the fashion business for 15 years...well, her LITTLE business, lol. But she knows what she's doing and she isn't trying to use malicious trickery to put herself to the third spot like mario said. The judges don't look at you're personality, they look more at you're talent on the runway. And Wendy's talent is good in my opinion. She's honest. Honesty...wether negative or positive...is needed in the design industry AND in the real world too.
PoohBear66
February 18, 2005 - 09:11 AM
I think I agree with your view that 'art' and the process of creating it becomes watered down in our commercially driven world. It has been happening for years. When the painting salons in Europe were fashionable the tastes were, I think, dictated to a certain extent by the rich who financially supported the salons. Artist, like Degas and Monet, who deviated from the norm were often shut out. Without rich patronage (like $100k to start their own fashion line) they had to take whatever work was available, like illustration work, and 'sell out' to whoever would pay them to do what was required. (geez, I hope that run on sentence makes sense!!) I have an artist friend who does commercial jobs to pay the bills and his own projects to be happy. He puts as much work into the commercial gigs as he does into his personal projects. He listens to his clients and tries to fulfill their expectations while preserving the integrity of his art and designs. Fashion designers must do the same to survive and make a living. That being said, I think KS will probably get the $100k prize. While her designs are not the type BR would mass produce, they are more 'main stream' than those of Jay, and she has the design strength and 'signature' to have her own line. Wendy may be the best designer to fit with the BR environment, but her general body of work, in my view, lacks that certain something that would making an entire line possible - or profitable. Jay does not fit neatly in either category. His tendancy to stamp all his designs with his 'signature' and the general direction of his work seems too outside of the main stream for BR. While I would love to see him launch his own line, I don't think the corporate world (PR, in this case) is committed enough to risk-taking to give it to him.
Just MHO.
PoohBear
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 09:11 AM
Quote:
No offense intended, Sarah Catherine...but I know I particular resonated with fastfashions comments because even the fine arts are now becoming so commercialized that the same can be said for the fine arts as for fashion. That unless you are widely popular, meaning if millions of people don't want your work, then you and your work are nothing. That if you don't create work that sells, and ideally sells alot meaning it must appeal to a broader audience, that you're living in a delusional fantasy land. And as a result it has created this almost Kincade-esque mentality that requires them to produce work that will appeal to the widest audience possibl, mass produce and mass market their work, sell it on QVC or the Home Shopping Network or whatever, and if they are successful, then they are a successful "artist." Which some people argue couldn't be farther from the truth.
But artists need to survive like everyone else, so we all need to "sell out" to a certain degree...so we take less chances, are less innovative or groundbreaking than we might be if all we had to worry about was art for arts sake. Much like in the fashion industry and its need to sell clothes, artists need to sell their work in order to survive. And imho that stymies the progression of the art form, be it paint on canvas or clothing design. And as I said, we're not even talking here about making a living, but making a fortune via mass marketing, which waters down the process even more so and hence retards overall growth.
As for the fact that fashion or furniture design are by definition more function driven than say a painting on canvas, I disagree. There are many examples of fashion, furniture design, architechture, and craft that are fully functional but still considered art. I think what maybe the teachers or leaders in the fashion world are talking about it more of the other...i.e. if you want to make money and be successful (i.e. make big money) then you need to appeal to a wide market. Which is sad. Because in a sense it contributes to our training as a society to value that which everyone else deems valuable and is worthy of the "mass market." It's not flawless design, or innovation, or anything groundbreaking that usually makes something palatable to the broadest markets...it is more formulaic and whittling down to the most common denominator elements that most people will find appealing and want to have. Which is nothing about art imho. Sorry to disagree, at least in part. Hopefully you'll get what I'm trying to say, as its not the "problem" (if in fact there is one) of individual artists or designers, but of our society as a whole and how our values have become sort of skewed too much toward one thing than the other.
I guess that I don't think seeing that furniture/fashion/architecture (good example, I was trying to come up with more but didn't hit on that one) as more concerned with function than sculpture or painting to mean that they aren't art at all. I think that they are certainly art forms, but in a bastardized way, to an extent. (Please don't take offensive to this...I mean it in the way that theater is called the bastard art...that when you work in collaboration you lose the "high" art vision, and I think that all of the art forms that also have a function to them need to be collaborative)
I guess I also don't see a big shift in society of not valuing progressive art. I don't think society's in general accept change well, so those artists who do progress their art into new territories are not appreciated in their time. That's as true of the past as it is today.
I also think that maybe we're not acknowleding the nature of fashion as a commercial art as it has always been because of frustration with the commercialization of other art forms. Theater, fashion, architecture...any of these art forms that require a collaborative effort to produce, must also make money in order to be able to keep producing their art. If you can't afford rent on your stage space, or to pay the stichers, you can't keep making your art. The monetary demands on producing a series of paintings are much less than in producing a line of clothing.
Fashion designers (traditionally) aren't huge fortune makers. They make enough to keep producing, just like other artists, with very few exceptions.
luvinkpenz
February 18, 2005 - 09:16 AM
Quote:
Quote:
quote:
LOL I noticed that!!! I am sure Kevin is the sweetest guy in the world, but he really seems kind of creepy sometimes. He reminds me of Professor Snape from Harry Potter.
haha, he is SO professor snape! he creeps me out.
*hides pictures of Professor Snape with kiss marks all over it behind back*
Huh? What pictures? I have no idea what you're talking about.
*bats eyelashes innocently*
Does the picture have a mustache on it?
luvinkpenz
February 18, 2005 - 09:21 AM
Quote:
If Wendy has no talent as a designer then what does that say about Tim, The judges, the client judges and the show as a whole? Just because she said what she felt was true she is called divisive and evil. Kevin WAS a bad leader. Austin WAS a bit of a push-over. Kara Saun DOESN’T own the color orange. Wendy was the only designer there who came off with grace and aplomb. The rest looked like a disappointed bunch of children left out of the pep rally! Even Jay, who I at first that was the most talented, is looking like a foulmouthed court jester. The funny thing is a big population of the posters on this site are acting the same way. Crossing their arms and pouting cause their favorite isn’t winning and fighting back with “But Wendy’s not a designer!” PUHLEASE!
She’s creative, attentive and resourceful as well as whip-smart! Dowdy!? Excuse me, but do any of you read Vogue? A couple months ago there was an article about the HOT trend of granny chic and PRADA! Wendy GETS IT!!!
And if Kara Saun hasn’t made it big by now after all these years of being in the trenches don’t you see why? She’s a copycat, a good one.
All I can say is that next Wednesday I will be part of the PEPPER RALLY! Cause I’m a PEPPER, he’s a PEPPER, she’s a PEPPER – wouldn’t you like to be one too?!
Wendy- - - graceful???????? okay that made me choke on my tic-tac
nabakov5
February 18, 2005 - 09:22 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Talent is more than just artistic ability demonstrated by all the contestants, it is an individual dealing with all aspects of their craft, striving to improve and meet the objectives and paying attention to being a business professional - as said by Michael Kors.
I couldnt disagree with you more. I assure you that Vincent Van Gogh was totally unable to market his work! LOL your opinion is colored by capitalist market concerns. Michael Kors is an extremely boring designer of ladies who lunch color by numbers clothes. He's a good business man. Never mistake that for true artistic creativity. We'd never have Chagall or Georgia O'Keefe if viewed good art as a package that fails on its commercial worth. Let's get some higher ideals into this Happy Meal society of ours, huh?
i couldn't agree with you more....since when did our artists need to be accountants/advertising execs/marketing gurus....let art speak for art and business speak for business
canesgirl4u
February 18, 2005 - 09:23 AM
Kara is definitely the best. She was my FAVOURITE from day one! The girl has style and I hope to be buying something from her line in the future! Good luck!
cimmaron
February 18, 2005 - 09:24 AM
Since we are talking about "talent," I think one can have a "talent" for creating clothes that people will wear and buy. But, to me that's not the same as having a talent for fashion design. Wendy may be able to create clothes that are marketable to lots of people. But, in my opinion Kara, Jay, and Austin have a talent for creating fashion. Isn't that the difference...clothes vs. fashion. I think that the postal challenge was a great example of this. Wendy's "clothing" was all about utility whereas the others were involved with creating some art (ie, fashion) that happened to also be functional.
MissingPR
February 18, 2005 - 09:27 AM
Very true, Sarah Catherine. It looked like Wendy did very well in interpreting what other people wanted/expected from her as evidenced by the challenges she won than relying on any internal vision or voice that was her own. Which lets face it, can be a good thing in the "real world." But I too would prefer someone with an already existing and more better defined voice that would probably naturally be tempered with time and adjusted for their personal buying publics, like Jay, Kara, or Austin.
As for Bravo hoping it would create controversy but not having anyway of knowing, you're certainly right about that since the episodes were pre-filmed and all. And here's a writer that seems to say that Bravo in fact did hope and was pleasantly suprised at the reaction of when Austin was eliminated if you want to read it. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/
2005/02/17/project_runway_is_true_to_form/
luvinkpenz
February 18, 2005 - 09:28 AM
Quote:
On a side note, while we're discussing Wendy's strategy...anyone else think that the blue eyeshadow, bad dye job, thick glasses and blechy clothing was more strategy? To invoke pity and make her appear as a weak contendor, so that the other designers, not thinking of her as a real challenge, would be more inclined to confide in her about themselves and their designs?
That thought had crossed my mind too
fastfashion
February 18, 2005 - 09:29 AM
Quote:
There is a very big difference between high art of painting and sculpting and that of fashion. Artwork like a painting doesn't require anything from the public. It's between the painter and the canvas, and anyone else is strictly an observer. This is not true with fashion. People have to actually wear the designs for them to be clothing, otherwise the fabric and design becomes a sculpture. Fashion is form and function, just like furniture design, for example.
------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Sarah Catherine, I disagree totally with the aforementioned quote. I see no difference. Art is art. we arent talking about tube socks and color by numbers. Paintings don't exist in a vacuum. If there is no viewer, is there art? (if a tree falls in a forest...etc) High fashion is just as much art as a good painting or a good book. The medium makes no difference for true art. True art communicates between humans, living or dead :-)
I dont mean to be harsh, it's just my opinion that our society wants to commodify everything to its lowest common point- money. And art isnt about money.
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 09:36 AM
Quote:
Since we are talking about "talent," I think one can have a "talent" for creating clothes that people will wear and buy. But, to me that's not the same as having a talent for fashion design. Wendy may be able to create clothes that are marketable to lots of people. But, in my opinion Kara, Jay, and Austin have a talent for creating fashion. Isn't that the difference...clothes vs. fashion. I think that the postal challenge was a great example of this. Wendy's "clothing" was all about utility whereas the others were involved with creating some art (ie, fashion) that happened to also be functional.
The way I put it before is that Wendy is talented as custom designer, but is not a fashion designer, in that she doesn't have the vision (imo, of course) to create a collection.
However, I think that the clothing vs. fashion arguement has a lot of gray area. Certainly most of what we see on the runway is "fashion" and lacks the restraint of function. But I don't think that having function makes it only clothing. I think there can be things that are fashionable and functional (like what we saw in the postal challenge). I think that Kara and Jay have the talent for creating functional fashion, Austin has the talent for creating fashion, and Wendy has the talent for creating functional clothing, to use your words. I think that in the clothing vs. fashion debate there has to be a third option...the work that Jay and Kara produced falls into both catagories (especially for the postal challenge).
fastfashion
February 18, 2005 - 09:41 AM
I guess I just place equal value on all human functions :-) My brain needs to be fed just as much as my belly - a chair or a movie? I need them both, sometimes at the same time!
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 09:47 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a very big difference between high art of painting and sculpting and that of fashion. Artwork like a painting doesn't require anything from the public. It's between the painter and the canvas, and anyone else is strictly an observer. This is not true with fashion. People have to actually wear the designs for them to be clothing, otherwise the fabric and design becomes a sculpture. Fashion is form and function, just like furniture design, for example.
------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Sarah Catherine, I disagree totally with the aforementioned quote. I see no difference. Art is art. we arent talking about tube socks and color by numbers. Paintings don't exist in a vacuum. If there is no viewer, is there art? (if a tree falls in a forest...etc) High fashion is just as much art as a good painting or a good book. The medium makes no difference for true art. True art communicates between humans, living or dead :-)
I dont mean to be harsh, it's just my opinion that our society wants to commodify everything to its lowest common point- money. And art isnt about money.
No need to apologize for disagreeing, I don't mind. Heck, I disagree with you, so we're even.
I think that a painting can still be art even if it's not seen by anyone, yes. Because I see the function of painting to be an expression of the artist, and they are expressing themselves whether they choose to let anyone see it or not. The artist themselves views it, and gains something from the act of creating it.
I think that fashion has a different function, by it's very nature. I don't think that it is as personal (maybe individual is the better word here) as painting or sculpture.
I'm not saying that fashion isn't art. I'm saying it's a different *type* of art, which I think is still just as valid. The medium, the interaction it involves, all of these make a difference not only in the form and function of the art, but in how it is perceived.
And that's fine that you think our society just wants to commodify everything down to money, but I think you're ignoring the reality of production. To produce a collection requires money, to produce several collections in a row requires a constant flow of money. I don't think money negates art.
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 09:50 AM
Quote:
As for Bravo hoping it would create controversy but not having anyway of knowing, you're certainly right about that since the episodes were pre-filmed and all. And here's a writer that seems to say that Bravo in fact did hope and was pleasantly suprised at the reaction of when Austin was eliminated if you want to read it. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/
2005/02/17/project_runway_is_true_to_form/
Thanks for the link! I skimmed it a bit, am going to go back and read it fully later, but wanted to get back to thank you for it.
fastfashion
February 18, 2005 - 09:55 AM
And that's fine that you think our society just wants to commodify everything down to money, but I think you're ignoring the reality of production. To produce a collection requires money, to produce several collections in a row requires a constant flow of money. I don't think money negates art.
---------------------------------------------------
no no, thats backwards. I dont have a problem with using money to buy supplies/creating a line or a dress for yourself etc. - making art for art's sake as opposed to making art to make money are two different things.
and I disagree, real art is not a dialog with yourself, I've heard that in soooo many student workshops "I dont care what you say, I did it for myself" ok- then it isnt art- it's therapy. :-)
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 09:56 AM
Quote:
I guess I just place equal value on all human functions :-) My brain needs to be fed just as much as my belly - a chair or a movie? I need them both, sometimes at the same time!
I'm confused by this. Do you think I don't place equal value on all human functions? I think that's actually what I'm trying to get at, that art can be art even if it's functional. And that chair we both like is a better *chair* if it's got a good form and function. A chair that is beautiful (or artistic, since certainly not everything artistic is "beautiful" by soceity's standards) but that you can't sit in...is it really a chair? Or a sculpture that resembles a chair?
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 10:01 AM
Quote:
no no, thats backwards. I dont have a problem with using money to buy supplies/creating a line or a dress for yourself etc. - making art for art's sake as opposed to making art to make money are two different things.
and I disagree, real art is not a dialog with yourself, I've heard that in soooo many student workshops "I dont care what you say, I did it for myself" ok- then it isnt art- it's therapy. :-)
Hey, I know a lot of art therapists who would say the line is blurred.
Maybe I'm just not as concerned with qualifying art as "real" or "true". And I think that art for art's sake is oversimplistic. Art is so varied, that I feel we have to acknowledge that it's done for all sorts of reasons. I don't think anyone who creates art does it for money's sake, though...there are a lot better ways to make money.
And I think that fashion is made not just for the sake of making a dress, but to see people wearing that dress. I don't produce plays for my sake, I produce them so that people will see them. I don't build furniture so I can look at it, I build it so I can use it.
fastfashion
February 18, 2005 - 10:03 AM
I guess I dont understand what you mean by some forms of art are "bastardized" - that doesnt make sense to me.
MissingPR
February 18, 2005 - 10:03 AM
I don't know about that. I think clothing has a function, but fashion is an art. There is a difference imho. For example, I've heard alot of even Austin lovers say they just didn't like that bo peep dress lol. But I LOVED it!! I would never wear it...even if it did fit me but there was just something about it. The color, the way the fabric flowed over the runway, the construction of it. I just found this place a week or so ago, and then realized that the dresses had been available for auction. And not that I had the money anyway, but if I had, and if I could choose just one dress out of all of them, i think I would have chosen that dress. Just to have. Call it costumey, totally innappropriate for the challenge, unwearable, complete and total fantasy...but it really moved me somehow. That's art. It doesn't have to fit into your lifestyle, or in the case of 2-dimensional art, match your couch. It's just there to be appreciated for what it is, something that was created by a human being with some vision who wanted to make that vision a reality.
fastfashion
February 18, 2005 - 10:05 AM
ok- now I get it. Looking at it or using it is the same to me. I dont think either is a real difference. The way you use a painting is by looking at it. And you may wear a dress but the other people are looking at it- unless it's a really big dress :-)
Somuchforthat
February 18, 2005 - 10:06 AM
Quote:
I am kinda sad that Austins collection didn't have his usual flair. I am wondering if he had as much time to work on his collection as the other three, or did the producers realize late that he would have to be in fashion week not spoil this weeks episode? You would think that they would have said something to him on last nights episode that he would have to do a collection for fashion week, but it wasn't even mentioned.
From what I understand, the reunion show was taped either Wednesday or Thursday before the Friday runway show at Fashon Week.
My theory is that the 3-week hiatus of the PR broadcasts in December threw the broadcast schedule off by one week too many. (The series was actually shot in summer 2004.) Thus sometime after that broadcast scheduling goof, they had to appeal to Austin to put up a runway show because the week before FW, the four finalists were Austin, Jay, Kara and Wendy. So to keep the secret until the "final three" show aired, they had to have a decoy. I suspect that Austin had about a month to put anything whatsoever on the runway....and I only think he agreed because of his inherent decency. It may have cost him some respect in the design community -- his collection was mostly recycled from things he already had -- but since this circumstance is now an open secret, I think he'll get a few dispensations for it, and even a little respect for his character, from them.
nabakov5
February 18, 2005 - 10:07 AM
quote: "There is a very big difference between high art of painting and sculpting and that of fashion. "
I disagree with this. I think the concept of "art" becomes very disjointed and elitest the moment we begin making distinctions between such formalistic and constructed subcategories as "high art" and "low art"....it is problematic in that as soon as a general judgement is made concerning art as a group rather than intrinsicly individual, we are automatically inclined to come up with a standard for judgement, and standards do not belong in the same realm as art. I love these sorts of debates, however, and because i'm the dork that i am, i looked up "art" in the oxford english dictionary and i found a definition that i've never thought of....it has holes, but is really a very interesting way to think of art...."art: Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."....isn't that oddly right on?
fastfashion
February 18, 2005 - 10:09 AM
exactly- clothing versus high fashion.
a rain poncho from AAA versus vintage Dior.
fastfashion
February 18, 2005 - 10:11 AM
that's the worst, bloodless, "soul-less" :-) definition of art I have ever heard. eeheheheh
nabakov5
February 18, 2005 - 10:19 AM
Quote:
that's the worst, bloodless, "soul-less" :-) definition of art I have ever heard. eeheheheh
i kinda like it...i think it speaks to the way art can be a "force" just as nature is a force....i thought it was very interesting...when i think of how an artist could "counteract an act of nature" i immediately thought of Jackson Pollack....but you know, that's just me
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 10:19 AM
Quote:
I guess I dont understand what you mean by some forms of art are "bastardized" - that doesnt make sense to me.
LOL...sorry bout that. It's what my theater professors would say to us. We were in the fine arts building, but I think (and of course, I get this from my professors, who I'm sure got it from whomever taught them) that a lot of the "high" art studies (painting, sculpture, drawing, etc.) consider theater to be a "bastard" art because of it's collaborative nature.
Like...I can be a scene painter, an artist in my own right, but I still have to compromise my art in order to fit in with the whole production. The costume designer has to work with the lighting designer to make sure the lights don't make the costumes look green when they're supposed to be red. It's not just the artist working in their medium, free to do what they choose.
I guess a fashion designer could be true to their vision and design whatever they wanted, but if no one is willing to wear it, or if other designers don't draw influence from it, what are they really contributing?
I'm not explaining this well enough...Fashion has to fit into context. Of the society, of the climate, of the event, just like costumes have to fit into context of the play being produced. A painting doesn't have to fit into context of society, it's much freer to go in any direction and still influence society.
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 10:24 AM
Quote:
ok- now I get it. Looking at it or using it is the same to me. I dont think either is a real difference. The way you use a painting is by looking at it. And you may wear a dress but the other people are looking at it- unless it's a really big dress :-)
But it's a very different experience to wear a dress than to look at a dress. Or to look at a chair or to sit in a chair. I guess I don't see how you can say they are the same, because I feel so strongly that they are different. But that's my baggage, not yours.
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 10:30 AM
Quote:
but it really moved me somehow. That's art. It doesn't have to fit into your lifestyle, or in the case of 2-dimensional art, match your couch. It's just there to be appreciated for what it is, something that was created by a human being with some vision who wanted to make that vision a reality.
I think I figured out a key point in what we're going round and round about, and that's the vision of the artist. I agree that the dress was beautiful, but I'm into fantasy. However, I don't think that Austin's vision was just to create the dress, but to create the dress *for her to wear*. I see that desire to see one's designs being worn as a major part of a fashion designers vision.
I think part of how we appreciate fashion is by wearing it, so that "wearable" bit is key to me...but I think, again, that it falls into a third catagorey than the ones we use of clothing vs. fashion. Like Jay's BR dress...it was art, but it was also wearable. (okay, I just brought that up because I love that dress and if I had been able to afford to get just one dress I would have gotten that one...though it would have turned into 2-dimensional art because I certainly couldn't wear it. <sigh>)
sexilexi
February 18, 2005 - 10:31 AM
My fav. is kara. Her disigns are unbelieveable. i can't belive austin and alexandra are both out. They were 2 of my other favorite. Though jay is great to. Humm wendy!! Can't stand her. She's the devil in hiding. I hope she goes down. She is 2 faced and a back stabber.
luvinkpenz
February 18, 2005 - 10:35 AM
Quote:
Go Wendy!!
I simply cannot wait until Wendy wins!!
long wait
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 10:37 AM
Quote:
I disagree with this. I think the concept of "art" becomes very disjointed and elitest the moment we begin making distinctions between such formalistic and constructed subcategories as "high art" and "low art"....it is problematic in that as soon as a general judgement is made concerning art as a group rather than intrinsicly individual, we are automatically inclined to come up with a standard for judgement, and standards do not belong in the same realm as art. I love these sorts of debates, however, and because i'm the dork that i am, i looked up "art" in the oxford english dictionary and i found a definition that i've never thought of....it has holes, but is really a very interesting way to think of art...."art: Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."....isn't that oddly right on?
You're my kind of dork. I love looking up words in the dictionary. I think that definition is very interesting, holes and all. Art is so hard to define, it feels like that was an attempt at having a good starting point of discussion.
Regarding standards of judgement...while I agree that with many forms of art this is a really terrible thing to have, I think it's really prevelant in fashion, do you agree? And if so, why do you think it's there? Is it because of the commercial nature of fashion, or the blending of business and art? Does it come from the fact that fashion makes money, or that fashion, over time, has developed standards that work as far as wearability go?
HazelEyedBoriqua
February 18, 2005 - 10:41 AM
hi i just liked to say first is my name is jessenia i'm a 17 year old chicago high school student. Bravo is by far the best channel ever. but anyways i don't want to make a comment that will make people angry because i do not think in any way that i am fashion inclined but from just watching all the episodes (thank god for tivo) that the competition is solely judged on design and etc. a person like me who just watches for entertainment i can;t judge from a professional point of view I only see the drive of a person and their personality. in my opinion i enjoyed every single contestant and the garments they created but my Favorite PERSON on the showe was Wendy. yes i know what most think but i like her. on the episode where they were all together just chatting, i feel that everyone finds her as an esay target to well... talk crap about, especially Vanessa i thought she was just outright mean and immature.but moving on to a different point, when Kara Saun and the rest made the statement of Wendy be " strategic" i feel that that waht a contest is all about. its not about making freinds and playing by the rules. at the end of the day every one wants to come out on top and nomatter howe many fake comments people make , it is physcalogically(i don't know about the spelling) proven that in every human being has and "egotistical inner self" as my mother likes to say. so basically all i'm saying is that Wendy was just playing the game and thats why I liked her, AND i HOPE SHE WINS! thanks for this opportunity
Chinchilla3
February 18, 2005 - 10:44 AM
Quote:
Wendy has always been a "long shot" from the get-go. I don't believe the conspiracy theorists who insist that the producers were telling the judges who *would* remain. (I also believe in Santa Claus, by the way. I choose to. On purpose.) I think she is also the oldest of all of them (I can't remember Kevin's age, I think he was the only other one close in age). And people can write what they want - she designs for people like me - generally mainstream, living in a smaller urban area. And I like at least some of what she did. (Not the candy dress, however.)
The joke on people who want to use Wendy's words to condemn her is this - people's vision/description of themselves is largely incomplete and filled with blind spots. Large ones, usually. Has she been in it to win? Absolutely. Does she see it as a matter of professional survival? Yes, if she has any sense at all. (Witness the Vanessa impact.) And, oh by the way, once a woman is staring 40 in the face, professional survival equates very quickly with emotional survival in a way that is utterly and completely incomprehensible to the younger women. Only three years or so separate Kara Saun and Wendy Pepper - but I assure you that those three years make an incredible difference in how a woman sees the world, and how she attempts to deal with it. If what she has been doing is successful and largely satisfactory (as it seems to have been for Kara Saun), 40 brings more assurance. If she is still struggling to make her mark, or to play a significantly different game professionally (as I suspect is true of Wendy), 40 beomes the challenge of one's life--living life authentically and up to one's full potential has more meaning than ever before. Emotionally, 40 is the beginning of the make-it-or-die decade. It's tough. She may very well have intended to be a complete strategist 24/7, but the kind of pressure cooker environment on the show would have made that all but impossible.
The other thing that people forget - although Wendy was smart enough to recognize it - is that being the one who barely avoided elimination week after week after week is incredibly stressful. It's like failing, except the report card reads "D-" in all the subjects instead of "F." It's enough to have a person waiting, barely breathing, for days/weeks for the other shoe to fall. Only it doesn't. Sometimes there's good news (Banana Republic / Nancy O'Dell). Usually not. And then when the other designers start piling on - not confronting her directly, but attacking in packs, or gossiping behind her back for hours, nearly the whole process becomes an exercise in misery. And the cliche of "misery loves company" is, at the very least, a truism - so when the rest of the gang had a chance to find out how much fun it was to have their work ripped to shreds on the runway, well, gosh, golly, gee whiz, guys, now you have a small peek into the world of Wendy Pepper. And if they've been back-stabbing along the way, well, gosh, let me see if I can summon up even a crocodile tear..... Rats. I can't. Darn. Oh, well. <veg> So yeah, I can't blame her in the least for wanting Kara, Jay, and Austin to share the "joy" even if it happened only once.
Do I see her winning this one? Not unless Kara implodes and Jay suffers a design drought. And even though I think Kara's character would benefit from slamming into a professional brick wall at top speed just once, I can't wish it on her. And I like Jay too much to wish him a dry spell. I mean, how can you dislike a guy who moans, "I hate Wendy" - and then apologizes for saying it? Honest, utterly real, and disarming because he shows signs of having some empathy with Wendy, even if he'd rather not.
After watching the last show (the "let's have them all back and stage a confrontation" episode) I was horribly disappointed - in both the show and the designers other than Wendy. Rude??? Oh. My. Word. Let's all *not* applaud when Wendy enters, even though it is merely an act of politeness. Let us all pile on and tell Wendy she's wrong, untalented, and merely the beneficiary of someone else's mistakes and/or the judges' naivete. Let us, by all means, show in every way possible how much we dislike her AND let's pile on with "everybody hates you" and "no one has anything good to say about you". Factually that's inaccurate - and it's cruel to say that. Not just rude. Cruel. Fashion may be a [expletive deleted] - but nearly every designer on that stage adopted the part as their own and provoked my disgust.
Wendy took that bashing like she'd taken everything else dished out all season - with her game face on. If she wasn't asked a direct question, she generally kept quiet. Those, folks, are survival tactics, pure and simple. And they were still necessary among that group. So, write what you will, I simply don't see Wendy as a villain. Whether or not she wins Fashion Week, she has still done what few others on that show did - she got to the end. She also did what many in that group did *not* do - she won two challenges. And I would bet that she learned a lot. Call her what you will, I call her a winner, in spite of herself.
I completely agree with you! I understand that some of the designers began to dislike her as the challenges wore on and they caught on to what she was doing, but apparently they were in some ways against her from the beginning. Poor, possibly drunken Vanessa informed her on the recap show how everyone felt so bad for her because she was a horrible designer, in other words saying that they felt she should not have been there in the first place. Even if no one said it directly to her before or even if she didn't over hear them say it, you can FEEL that kind of thing. I don't know about you guys, but if I knew or had an idea people thought this about me, I would have no remorse wiping their a**es across the floor and back either.
Also, I am aware the designers were upset with her, but it was UNBELIEVABLY RUDE not to clap for her. They may not have wanted to, but they should have anyway. Not only is adhearing to social grace part of being an adult, showing respect (whether you want to or not) is expected and should be done: something they did not do. Also, though the fashion industry is brutal, it is an industry that values grace, and if these designers cannot muster the energy or manage to put their bitterness and hostility aside, maybe they shouldn't be allowed part of it.
desperatewannabe
February 18, 2005 - 10:51 AM
First off, thanks so much for starting the most intelligent thread ever on these boards. It seems to me that this discussion depends entirely on how the question is framed, and therefore who is framing it. To quote from George Orwell (well, allegedly) "All art is propoganda, but not all propoganda is art."
If the question is "Is Fashion Art?" then the answer can be yes, certainly to the extent that fashion is visual and requires artistic skills. Then there is the question "Does art have to fulfill a function?" Many would say no, that the purpose of art is art, hence the "art for art's sake" argument of the latter half of the 20th century.
But Orwell, among others, disagreed with that. All art is meant to convey something to someone, the viewer or listener. If you believe that fashion is to convey a point of view not just to the wearer, but to those who are seeing the wearer, then it has to be wearable, at least by someone. It doesn't necessarily have to be popular -- you can loathe something someone has done, but that might in fact be the intended reaction, in which event the art has fulfilled its purpose.
If the artist wishes to have his or her view widely seen and appreciated, however, it would be helpful for the art to be immensely usable, and perhaps, therefore popular.
Now back to the original quote and my new take on it "All Art is popular, but not all that is popular is art."
MissingPR
February 18, 2005 - 11:01 AM
Quote:
Quote:
but it really moved me somehow. That's art. It doesn't have to fit into your lifestyle, or in the case of 2-dimensional art, match your couch. It's just there to be appreciated for what it is, something that was created by a human being with some vision who wanted to make that vision a reality.
I think I figured out a key point in what we're going round and round about, and that's the vision of the artist. I agree that the dress was beautiful, but I'm into fantasy. However, I don't think that Austin's vision was just to create the dress, but to create the dress *for her to wear*. I see that desire to see one's designs being worn as a major part of a fashion designers vision.
I think part of how we appreciate fashion is by wearing it, so that "wearable" bit is key to me...but I think, again, that it falls into a third catagorey than the ones we use of clothing vs. fashion. Like Jay's BR dress...it was art, but it was also wearable. (okay, I just brought that up because I love that dress and if I had been able to afford to get just one dress I would have gotten that one...though it would have turned into 2-dimensional art because I certainly couldn't wear it. <sigh>)
And you're probably right about that. I believe one of the quotes from the BR episode was of Austin saying how much it would mean to him to know that women across the country would be wearing his dress. And he probably felt the same way about the bo peep dress...but the poor thing apparently knew little about rock and roll lol. But where it may have in fact failed as a design doesn't make it any less art, you know? Like again fastfashion I think said that the difference between art and clothing could be summed up in the difference between a AAA rain cape and a vintage Dior rain cape. I'm sure in creating the vintage cape Dior wasn't thinking "oh, I'm making art" lol, but it is art nonetheless. But it isn't MORE art because it was also functional and wearable in its time or now. It is art because it can stand on its own and be appreciated whether it is "functional" or vital to ones existence for any practical reason. A combination of art and function might be ideal, but there can be art without "function" i.e. practicality in fashion, the same as there can be function without art. I guess the trick is telling which is which, and which is more important to you, how much of one you're willing to give up to acheive the other, or ultimately how to get to a point where you can do both. Which isn't entirely different than other forms of art. Sure the art exists whether no-one buys or looks at it or not. But I read a really good description of art once, that said the purpose of art was to either change the world in some way i.e. the viewers perceptions of it, or to change art i.e. the progression of art itself. So if it doesn't acheive one of those ends, like fashion, it doesn't "function." So it's not really about a person standing in front of a canvas or behind a camera...it's about trying to either break the existing boundaries of art itself or reach out in some way to your fellow human beings on an emotional, spiritual, primal level.
MissingPR
February 18, 2005 - 11:05 AM
PS-And I'm totally with you on Jay's BR dress. Wow! I'd give anything to have that dress...just to hang on my wall, look at the stitches, touch the fabric etc. Fanstastic.
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 11:08 AM
Ooooh, great post!
I guess I would be one who agrees with Orwell, then, at least on the point of art fulfilling a function. I just have a very broad understanding of what qualifies as a function.
Quote:
Now back to the original quote and my new take on it "All Art is popular, but not all that is popular is art."
This is an interesting take, but I'm not sure if I agree. I don't think that all art is popular. You yourself said that fashion doesn't necessarily have to be popular, if the point of fashion is to convey a point of view. Or do you not believe that's the point of fashion?
I think my take on the original quote would go more like "All art evokes strong reactions, but not everything that evokes strong reactions is art", though that's a pretty rotten way of putting it.
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 11:21 AM
Quote:
And you're probably right about that. I believe one of the quotes from the BR episode was of Austin saying how much it would mean to him to know that women across the country would be wearing his dress. And he probably felt the same way about the bo peep dress...but the poor thing apparently knew little about rock and roll lol. But where it may have in fact failed as a design doesn't make it any less art, you know? Like again fastfashion I think said that the difference between art and clothing could be summed up in the difference between a AAA rain cape and a vintage Dior rain cape. I'm sure in creating the vintage cape Dior wasn't thinking "oh, I'm making art" lol, but it is art nonetheless. But it isn't MORE art because it was also functional and wearable in its time or now. It is art because it can stand on its own and be appreciated whether it is "functional" or vital to ones existence for any practical reason. A combination of art and function might be ideal, but there can be art without "function" i.e. practicality in fashion, the same as there can be function without art. I guess the trick is telling which is which, and which is more important to you, how much of one you're willing to give up to acheive the other, or ultimately how to get to a point where you can do both. Which isn't entirely different than other forms of art. Sure the art exists whether no-one buys or looks at it or not. But I read a really good description of art once, that said the purpose of art was to either change the world in some way i.e. the viewers perceptions of it, or to change art i.e. the progression of art itself. So if it doesn't acheive one of those ends, like fashion, it doesn't "function." So it's not really about a person standing in front of a canvas or behind a camera...it's about trying to either break the existing boundaries of art itself or reach out in some way to your fellow human beings on an emotional, spiritual, primal level.
I think I get what you're saying, and I agree for the most part. I just get concerned when we only give the AAA rain cape vs. vintage Dior rain cape examples. If those are representative of the clothing vs. fashion line, then what do we call all of the rain capes that are somewhere in between those two extremes? Where is the line of what is clothing and what is fashion?
I guess I wouldn't say a rain cape was more art if it was both fasionable and functional, but I would say that it is a different type of art than one that is strictly fashionable, especially if it lacks function to the point where it is unwearable.
Like Jay's dress....If I owned it and hung it on the wall it would be a very different type of art than if I hung it in my closet and wore it out to parties occassionally (or every day until it fell apart, as I would do if I could wear it )
nabakov5
February 18, 2005 - 11:24 AM
You're my kind of dork. I love looking up words in the dictionary. I think that definition is very interesting, holes and all. Art is so hard to define, it feels like that was an attempt at having a good starting point of discussion.
Regarding standards of judgement...while I agree that with many forms of art this is a really terrible thing to have, I think it's really prevelant in fashion, do you agree? And if so, why do you think it's there? Is it because of the commercial nature of fashion, or the blending of business and art? Does it come from the fact that fashion makes money, or that fashion, over time, has developed standards that work as far as wearability go?
hmmmm...i had to think about this for a while. yes i agree that judgement seems more prevalent/necessary concerning fashion. for a minute i was also thinking that yes, perhaps it is because fashion is so closely associated with business, but then i think i changed my mind. maybe judgement is more prevelant because fashion, more so than any other art genre that i can think of right now, is directly tied to our perception of identity. let's see if i can say that better. when i think of the 1920's i think of flapper dresses, scarves and hats, tassles, garter belts and powdered faces. when i think of war or george orwell's 1984 vision, i think of bland colors, uniforms, symbols sewn on sleeves, (kevin's future design)....fashion is hopelessly imbedded in my perception of different generations, different icons and different points in history. maybe its like that for everyone and maybe that's why public forum/public judgement is more "needed" (needed isn't the right word)when we talk about art that is worn on the body, since ultimately the fashion becomes a part of our perception of reality and history. at least i think that's what i think. what do you think?
nabakov5
February 18, 2005 - 11:27 AM
To quote from George Orwell (well, allegedly) "All art is propoganda, but not all propoganda is art."
that's so weird....i was just responding to another post and i used orwell to make my point too....then i scrolled down and found your reference....orwell must be in the water today...
birdaileen
February 18, 2005 - 11:35 AM
a few things to notice about austin's interview on the advocate.
1) unlike vanessa, he likes Heidi and praises her : I got to do Heidi Klum’s Halloween costume last year. It was this fabulous red, sort of sexy witch, low cut, with this huge hat and a broom. It was really fun to work with her.
So I take it you got along well with Miss Klum?
Yeah. She’s fabulous. I sort of worked with her once or twice before, but I don’t think she remembered me. I used to make the wings for Victoria’s Secret’s fashion shows. That was one of my old jobs. On the show she was really, really sweet and definitely beautiful in person, even more than on television.
2) he didn't end up doing nancy's oscar gown: After losing the challenge of designing a Grammy outfit for Access Hollywood’s Nancy O’Dell, she asked you to do her Oscar dress. Are you doing it?
I didn’t have a chance to. It was my fault. I should have pursued that, but I’ve been involved with the show since August, so I never had an opportunity to. I would certainly love to work with her.
3) he is working on a website (finally!!): Has the show opened doors for you professionally?
It did a little bit. I’m working on putting my Web site together—AustinScarlett.com—and I’ve made a few different connections.
4) wendy is mean!! (what a SHOCK): At first I thought they were sort of editing to make Wendy seem more evil than she was, but by the end, I thought she deserved her villain status. She wasn’t very nice.
And I don’t think a lot of us realized it at first. She definitely had me fooled into thinking she was my friend for quite a while. She would come with all these wonderful things, like “Oh, Austin, you’re the best and la-di-da” and then she totally stabbed me in the back. After that I could sort of see that she had been doing the same thing to everyone. None of us knew the extent of it until the show came out and her private interviews came out. When she eliminated Kevin, that was pure evil and it was not edited at all. She was really that evil.
great article, whoever first posted it, thank you!
PoohBear66
February 18, 2005 - 11:36 AM
Quote:
"First off, thanks so much for starting the most intelligent thread ever on these boards."[end quote]
DITTO!!
I can't begin to tell you how much I am enjoying this thread. Not only for the intelligence displayed in the conversation, but the respect for frequently differing opinions.
sarahcatherine
February 18, 2005 - 11:39 AM
Quote:
hmmmm...i had to think about this for a while. yes i agree that judgement seems more prevalent/necessary concerning fashion. for a minute i was also thinking that yes, perhaps it is because fashion is so closely associated with business, but then i think i changed my mind. maybe judgement is more prevelant because fashion, more so than any other art genre that i can think of right now, is directly tied to our perception of identity. let's see if i can say that better. when i think of the 1920's i think of flapper dresses, scarves and hats, tassles, garter belts and powdered faces. when i think of war or george orwell's 1984 vision, i think of bland colors, uniforms, symbols sewn on sleeves, (kevin's future design)....fashion is hopelessly imbedded in my perception of different generations, different icons and different points in history. maybe its like that for everyone and maybe that's why public forum/public judgement is more "needed" (needed isn't the right word)when we talk about art that is worn on the body, since ultimately the fashion becomes a part of our perception of reality and history. at least i think that's what i think. what do you think?
I think you're pretty spot on. The only thing I would emphasize more is that it seems representative not only of our collective identity, but of our individual one. Fashion can be so personal, can say so much about the person wearing it. And that because it is so personal, because we use it to represent ourselves, we don't shy away from saying "ugh, no, that is awful" or "oh my goodness, that's the most amazing thing ever" because we judge the clothes on whether we would wear them or not...we can't be objective about it.
I think there's also something to the judgemental nature because of how timely fashion is. A painting can be appreciated years and years after it was painted, but if your designs don't work for the here and now rarely will they be appreciated in the future. I think fashion designers have to be "of" their time, while other artists are more free to be "ahead of" their time. This probably is because of the ties to culture and perceptions of generations that you are talking about.
nabakov5
February 18, 2005 - 11:40 AM
we seem to be getting closer and closer to asking that unaskable question "what is art" which i love. its probablly one of the oldest conversations and is still being reworked and revised today. here's a question for any of you that would like to take a bite. i don't know the answer, but someone asked me this once and ever since i've never been able to think of art the same.
...a painter paints the most beautiful painting ever in the history of paint....he doesn't show anyone the peice....instead he takes the painting and buries it deep in the desert. he then returns to civilization and begins telling everyone of the painting, how spectacular it flawless it is, how it answers all the questions art has ever posed, and before long the entire world knows of the painting. so, is this art? if it is art, which part? the painting itself, the knowledge that it exists? the act of the painter painting a "mental" picture to the world explaining what it looks like?
i don't know if this will hit home with anyone else, but i find it very interesting, and also applicable to how we categorize fashion as either revolutionary or reactionary...
aguynamedWayne
February 18, 2005 - 11:40 AM
Not to rain on anyones parade, but in the real world of fashion, it matters very little who actually "wins" this competition (if it can truly be called one). The prize money in terms of what it takes to start up a fashion house, is not nearly enough capital to do the job. Plus, without a distribution deal with at least one if not several major Department Stores (to carry and sell the line)thier dreams will die a quick and cold death. No such distribution contract is included with winning Project Runway. Despite some misinformation to the contrary, the winner will not be designing for BR. The winner will only get "helpful" consultations with BR. Without having a distribution deal, or the business acumen to attain one, none of these designers will go anywhere in the Fashion Biz. That is not to say that one of the designers from the show won't be able to use the media attention to further thier career, because one or several just might. But to do that, they need a partner who knows the business. Time will tell if any are intelligent enough, or lucky enough to find one. That is reality. Ask anyone who works on fashion ave. in NY and they will tell you much the same (as a matter of fact, someone who has worked in the fashion biz in NY for over a decade; just did.) And on a personal sidebar, I have to say I would be shocked if Wendy wins. And not because of her "talent" level (which seems to have been debated on this site, adnauseum), but rather by her own attitudes and actions that have led to her having the worst case of bad press any new designer has ever had. In the fashion world, much like politics, perception is everything. The producers of Project Runway spelled out this school of thought when they discussed the problems with the model Morgan. Saying that she couldn't be portrayed in any other way than negative. And even asked how any modeling agency would want to sign her, after witnessing her performance on Project Runway. Wendy, either purposefully or by accident of fate, has turned off a large section of the viewing public. Though she seems be gaining at least a few defenders, she has got incredibly bad press. Her talent as a designer has been judged to be poor, and her personality at best, is devisive. Press like that is a death sentence to a designer. Like it or not, even if she wins, no major financial backer will risk loosing money on a mediocre talent with bad attitude. And though the way people view her may indeed be wrong, that does not matter. For as I've said, Perception is everything! It may not be right, but it's the way it is.
nabakov5
February 18, 2005 - 11:43 AM
Quote:
Quote:
"First off, thanks so much for starting the most intelligent thread ever on these boards."[end quote]
DITTO!!
ABSOLUTELY...AGREED!!!
I can't begin to tell you how much I am enjoying this thread. Not only for the intelligence displayed in the conversation, but the respect for frequently differing opinions.
isis101
February 18, 2005 - 11:46 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Feb12.htmlnot as informative about wendy and her post-PR views as austin's q&a at advocate, but it's an interesting read. check it out.
ps, for non wendy fans pls don't shoot the messenger. hehe. peace.
signladybc
February 18, 2005 - 11:48 AM
Quote:
I suspect that Austin had about a month to put anything whatsoever on the runway....and I only think he agreed because of his inherent decency. It may have cost him some respect in the design community -- his collection was mostly recycled from things he already had -- but since this circumstance is now an open secret, I think he'll get a few dispensations for it, and even a little respect for his character, from them.
His inherent decency and a reality check. He *still* had an opportunity that very few new designers get--a runway show during fashion week. So if some of his designs were recycled or whatever they were still seen by a huge audience. The boy's mama didn't raise no fool. Whatever the circumstances he took advantage as well he should if this is his planned profession.
BTW--loved his speech at his elimination also--acknowledging the opportunities he had during the show--opportunities for his future. He's a smart boy and he will go far!
SignLadyB _,,/