Can fashion be considered a form of high art, or does its commercial nature limit its artistic potential?

[Anonymous]

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

That is an excellent question.


Obviously when it comes to the framing of what dictates an art’s value, you have multiple facets to look at beyond just the material value of the price tag itself. You also have to look at the medium, the audience impact, the time taken to make said piece, etc. this does not only dictate the value of production and price for the art but the emotional value as well. There’s plenty to be said about the monetary value of Van Gogh’s artwork, despite the fact that they weren’t highly values in his time (another thing to consider) but the social and emotional impact of his pieces is why they’ve stood the test of time. With fashion in particular, there are definitely pieces worthy of saving not just because of who made them, but who wore them. All of Elvis Presley’s stage costumes, for example. How many copies of that famous bedazzled white jumpsuit do you see worn by Elvis impersonators? That had a massive impact on how people in the 50’s looked at jumpsuits, he made them a thing. But this, like Van Gogh’s work, also carries a historical value to it, something that is incredibly difficult to determine when we’re not quite history to the generations after us. I specifically recall the movie Idiocracy, made in the early 00’s where they had to find some ridiculous shoes for prisoners to wear in a scene and they found this small company selling some that fit what they were looking for, confident it would never take off or be of any real societal value because of how ridiculous it looked. It was Crocs, which had their own massive boom about 10-15 years after the movie’s production.


When it comes to fashion and high fashion in particular, there does seem to be a focus on the price tag before anything. This could also just be a side-effect of late stage capitalism in the west where everything needs to be either creating monetary value or be of monetary value to be considered worth something. Truthfully, I can’t judge the artistic value of fashion anymore than I can code a video game with no education on the subject. I think the point of high fashion is to challenge that mindset of money first, to create without the intention to sell, to challenge how we see the art we put on our bodies in the same way cosmetics is as much a means of self-expression as it is a sign of shame for not meeting beauty standards. I think there is definitely something to be said about how much elitism and classism seem to flock in the art world but also how intense their own focus is on fashion. The rich and powerful set all of the trends as we know them, Queen Victoria’s wedding was such an opulent display of luxury for her time that it created the entire wedding industry as we know it today - white gowns and white cakes.


I think this pulls into question just how much money matters in the art world itself. Banksy is notorious for hating such conventions to the point of destroying his own work so it can’t be sold, and that is an incredibly valid criticism of how art has to function today in order for an artist to be seen as “worthy” in the sense that they are worth something. But it’s undeniable that money has influence and that influence tells us what matters in a roundabout way. We can’t discount the work that goes into fashion’s creation, everything came from someone’s mind and was made with the purpose of not just clothing but making the wearer feel beautiful as if they themselves were art. I wouldn’t say that the capitalistic focus in art takes away from it necessarily, but it can certainly create a social class barrier that blocks the ability to understand the artist and their intentions. The monetary value does not dictate if something is art or not, passion does. As long as the creator is passionate about their work and brings their visions to life in any medium, I would say it is indeed art.


TL;DR - Fashion/high fashion is art in spite of commercialism

[andreasderjuengere]

If it's art, then more on the low side.
I think that there are too many shape restrictions from the side of those who are made to use the product/result.

[AI Opinion]

Fashion is a fascinating form of expression that melds creativity, culture, and identity, much like high art. Think of designers like Alexander McQueen or Karl Lagerfeld; their work transcends mere clothing and taps into the realm of artistic narrative and vision. Couture shows often resemble theatrical performances, blurring the lines between fashion and art 🎨👗.

While the commercial aspect of fashion undeniably exists, it doesn’t necessarily limit its artistic potential. Consider how art itself has commercial elements, yet retains its status. Just like in art galleries, you can find both commercial success and profound innovation walking hand in hand down the runway. So, yes, fashion can absolutely be considered high art, bringing stories and aesthetic experiences that resonate deeply with people, just like a painting or a sculpture would.

[Anonymous]

without doubt... nothing limits it just to a degree

[abc3643]

It is considered an art form.