Burka (1996) Hussein Chalayan
Afterwords (2000) Hussein Chalayan
1. Chalayan’s works in clothing, like Afterwords (2000) and Burka (1996) , are often challenging to both the viewer and the wearer. What are your personal responses to these works? Are Afterwords and Burka fashion, or are they art? What is the difference?
Not all clothing is fashion, so what makes fashion fashion?
My Personal response to this particular work is that the work is clearly a western spin on an eastern concept. The artist is implying that when a part of eastern religion or culture is placed in the west, instead of taking that idea away, they turn it in to something the people of the west can relate to, by making it sexual and therefore more appealing, so to speak.
I think that both these pieces can be called art, just as both can be called fashion. The reason for this being that in fashion, the extreme pieces you see on the runaway and so forth look like this- they are inventive and crazy and not intended to be worn. Henceforth making them fashion and art. Also, who to say what is art and what art is not, this depends all on what the artist or designer wants to call it and how the audience wants to interpret this piece.
Fashion is made fashion because it is created with an idea in mind, it follows a thought process and interests people. I disagree that not all clothing is fashion, because I think that it is. The reason I think this is because all clothing is fashion to SOMEONE, or has been fashionable at SOMETIME.
2. Chalayan has strong links to industry. Pieces like The Level Tunnel (2006) and Repose (2006) are made in collaboration with, and paid for by, commercial business; in these cases, a vodka company and a crystal manufacturer. How does this impact on the nature of Chalayan’s work? Does the meaning of art change when it is used to sell products? Is it still art?
When this happens I believe that yes, it is still art it just means that the idea behind the create has changed and instead if being art for the sake of art it has become art for commercial reasons. The opinion of him as an artist would absolutely change and a lot of respect probably had been lost for him as fellow artists would say he had sold out. No one is really to say for sure whether this is true or not, it is just personal opinion.
3. Chalayan’s film Absent Presence screened at the 2005 Venice Biennale. It features the process of caring for worn clothes, and retrieving and analysing the traces of the wearer, in the form of DNA. This work has been influenced by many different art movements; can you think of some, and in what ways they might have inspired Chalayan’s approach?
There are many movements that Chalayan could have been influenced by. In his work 'Absent Presence' he relates the work to ideas such as identity, geography, genetics, biology and anthropology. I think he has been influenced by post-modernism, as he shows a disregard for previous ideas of modernism.
Absent Presence (2005) Hussein Chalayan
4. Many of Chalayan’s pieces are physically designed and constructed by someone else; for example, sculptor Lone Sigurdsson made some works from Chalayan’s Echoform (1999) and Before Minus Now (2000) fashion ranges. In fashion design this is standard practice, but in art it remains unexpected. Work by artists such as Jackson Pollock hold their value in the fact that he personally made the painting. Contrastingly, Andy Warhol’s pop art was largely produced in a New York collective called The Factory, and many of his silk-screened works were produced by assistants. Contemporarily, Damien Hirst doesn’t personally build his vitrines or preserve the sharks himself. So when and why is it important that the artist personally made the piece?
Once upon a time this was not the case whatsoever. However now that the times have changed, if an artist has money then he can do whatever he chooses. It would be deemed necessary that before an artist of any kind start off from the bottom, creating his own works, in order to establish himself. When he has made this establishment and created a large enough revenue then no one really cares whether it is the 'artists' or the 'unknown workers' create the piece.
Readings, Spring, Summer (2007) Hussein Chalayan
References
Hussein Chalayan, Art 100, (2011) http://art100.wikispaces.com/Hussein+Chalayan
Hussein Chalayan, 2005 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Chalayan, H., (2011) Hussein Chalayan - From Fashion and Back: Bss Bijutsu
I agree with you that in this case Chalayan has turned the idea sexual and i can see your point as to him altering it in this means to make it more appealing to the more sexualised nations in the west. the pieces he has created are indeed extreme and follow the common fashion show runway idea of making extremes that aren’t so practical and more for the show that is a runway but i disagree with you in some cases as Chalayan has made his work intendin g for them to be worn by those who are forced to travel and move around as a means of taking their things with them.
ReplyDeleteI don’t mind art made for commercial reasons i think in some ways it helps artist who may not be able to create their art due to financial barriers and also get the artists name and work more available to the public. I agree with you in the case of artists making their own work in comparison to them offloading parts to others it depends on money the artist has available and their status as to whether it matters if they created all of their work or only part of it.
Hello Gwen. I enjoyed your personal response to both Chayalan's works. To debate whether these works are either one of a piece of fashion or art is indeed a struggle. Therefore I have to agree with you that they are not one or the other, but both art and fashion. I also feel you made a valid point on how Chayalan links his works to the industry and how this link impacts the nature of his works. The point you made mentions that the idea behind these links was not for the sake of art, but more for commercial reasons. I have to somewhat agree with your personal opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree it is still art. A lot of art works in the commercial intentions have been highly recognized it selves of artistic value. Commercial intent exists in past and today; in a long history it was explained. Today some artists are in the middle of criticism but nobody is sure; it was said by you. I think the debate toward just artist should do more in-depth exists for keeping the art’s essence or the future development so the debate toward him isn’t just doing a bad thing. However, the artists themselves should always wary to avoid damage their identity despite the coexistence of art and commercial reason.
ReplyDeleteI like your response to question one about the work being a Western spin on an Eastern concept, and how the burka is made more appealing by making it sexual. I also (like you) thought that Chalayan had sexualized the burka, something which is seen by all cultures as being so very un-sexual. I like all the other comments you have made in question one, I found them all very interesting. As you have shown in your blog you know a lot about fashion and its intentions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say in question two. I think the definition of art is so very broad, meaning just because something creative and is made for a commercial business doesn’t stop it being art.
I found your response to Chalyan's works rather insightful about fashion being art or not and agree that they are both. I think it should be common thought to consider fashion as a form of art and found the question to be subtly contradicting. I also found this question to be almost comical because of the post-modern idea of having no right/wrong answer is clearly exampled here. I think it raises questions of our post-modern society becoming so opinionated that there is never a right answer, so what is the right answer? Perhaps its merely a educated response.
ReplyDelete