Monthly Archives: March 2009

Fashion is Not Art

Posted on by
Fashion hangs onto art’s coattails, by association trying to sneak into the fine arts balls. But this is not a fairy tale, and fashion’s foot does not fit this slipper.

Last night I read 2 magazines, both mentioned the trend toward art prints in fashion, where designers have produced a skirt that reminds one of Rothko or Pop art. Fashion creating pieces directly inspired by art is just a most blantant example of how they try to borrow some of art’s status. They use artists to create ad campaigns, their photographers often photograph art as well as fashion. But there is a line between the two. One magazine devoted pages to Richard Avedon, who has an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The exhibition, however, singles out his portraits, rather than his fashion photographry. I enjoy his work, but that doesn’t make the clothes that he photographed art.

Much like the art world, the fashion world seems creative, navel-gazing, fun and self-aggrandizing. Yet despite the fact that designers use art as their inspiration for clothing and that people who photograph clothes may or may not be artists in their own right, and despite the cultural significance clothes might have, fashion is not art.

Why fashion is not art:

It is utilitarian.
It is common.
It is commercial.
It is not beautiful.

It may be a beautiful skirt, with skirt as the qualifying noun that allows the adjective beautiful to be applied, but it is not beautiful. And while art may influence fashion, when does fashion influence art?

In Blithe Spirits

Posted on by

If you’ve watched the news these days, you might have noticed some grim predictions. But when times get worse, entertainment gets happier, and that’s the case with this new play. Easy to disparage such entertainment as a ‘laugh machine,’ but I think that pure fun is a merit itself.
Noel Coward, when once asked how he wanted to be remembered, answered “By my charm.” The playwright and performer had no end of charm, as those who have seen the revival of Blithe Spirit at the Shubert Theater will not doubt. For the umpteenth time, this charming play is being revived, and to great effect.

The character Charles (Rupert Everett) is throwing a dinner party with his second wife Ruth (Jayne Atkinson) and invites Madame Aracti (Angela Lansbury) in order to get material for his next novel about a psychotic medium. They propose to hold a seance, with the result of bringing back Charles’s first wife Evelyn from the other side. The ghost of his first wife can only be seen by Charles, and it drives his second wife–understandably–crazy when he starts talking to the ghost.This simple scenario spins into all matter of situations, not the least of which involves how to return spirits to the other side, as Ruth wishes desperately to do.

The cast would draw a house on it’s own, between the impressively vivacious Angela Lansbury whose first appearance in Alfred Hitchcock’s Gaslight was over 50 years ago, to the Broadway debut of the beautiful Rupert Everett. Angela Lansbury is an energetic old kook whose seance dances are a delight, while Rupert Everett throws off poised bon mots like a true dandy. Both Christine Ebersole and Jayne Atkinson hold their own against these—dare I say it—charming stars, with a rivalry that makes for many a comic moment.

The times when Coward wrote the play are not dissimilar to our own. Written in 1944, Coward had just left London after his office and apartment were destroyed by a German bombing and wanted to create a “very gay, superficial comedy.” With stocks plunging and unemployment rising, a battered New York audience could use nothing better than this clever comedy and it’s excellent cast.

Another Kippenberger at MoMA video?

Posted on by

Some might say I’m cannibalizing my own content value by showing you another, better (in some respects) video of the Martin Kippenberger exhibition. My video is here, by the way.

This video tour is by New York Magazine art critic Jerry Saltz. I knew something like this was in the works. When I was doing the a little video reconnaissance, I bumped into Saltz, a camera guy, and a MoMA employee. I followed part of their filming through the exhibition and really enjoyed listening to Saltz. Also, watching him stand next to the sculpture Martin, Into the Corner, You Should be Ashamed of Yourself was quite fun.

So in terms of video, let’s see how things stack up.

Jerry Saltz’s Video V. Art Ravel’s Video

Non-shaky camera v. Some very wobbly bits
Clear sound levels v. Awesome soundtrack
Access to exhibition v. Difficulty getting images
Knowledge of artist v. Charmingly fresh perspective (?)

My gorilla effort may not have the polished production of New York Magazine’s; in fact, it barely has transitions. Even so, I think between my music and my lovely self, it’s a fun romp through the MoMA show. Perhaps I’m biased.

*Commenters who prefer my video will be sent a brownie.