Walking the fine line between contemporary art and contemporary fashion can lead into those super-semiotic woods where the grass is artificial and art's theoretical language turns into babble
Submitted by Wayne on Sat, 2012-07-07 15:53.
Submitted by Wayne on Sun, 2008-02-17 03:05.
Submitted by Wayne on Tue, 2007-10-23 00:00.
I worked all through the weekend, which I usually hate doing. One of the gigs was a shoot where a rising photographer friend of mine said "I like your Imagist thing. It is well put together, but I'm totally confused by it." Truth be told I'm completely confused by it too. After years of a love-hate tension with the thing, I have finally conceded that I'm seriously in love with the idea of fashion. Same for art. Or at least the idea of art. The relationship between the two, art and fashion, is the seed of the confusion my friend was invoking . Artists like Seth Price perfectly solve this conflict for me. Not because Seth Price is fashionable (god forbid!) but because he has really influential ideas about industrial images : the value of those images and the disposable nature of those images. Lately when I look at fashion images it occurs to me that all of fashion is a high grade form of industrial waste. Which possibly makes me love it more.
New York magazine may have damned Seth with faint praise when they named him as one of their 10 Young Masters of the new art boom by leading his blurb with this sentence "It’s hard to know what Price is best known for—his plastic vacuum-formed sculptures of breasts or contributing the same press release as his “art” to multiple shows." A press release as "art". I love it!