Raf Simons x Brian Calvin
SYMBIOSIS
TEXT: ETHAN POTTER
PHOTOS: SOURCE UNKNOWN
When I embark on the process of selecting a writing subject, I am repeatedly finding myself drawn to explore tensions exist most prominently in my head, spawning from a comment that just couldn't sit right after digestion. Although my primary motive for writing is for reader entertainment (and subsequent education), a secondary accomplishment is often finding a resolution to these internal conflicts. My tension du jour is that of ‘Art and Fashion’, specifically if there the ability for transition from one discipline to the other, are they interchangeable?
When you take into perspective a rather simmered down definition of both, in a contemporary context, the answer is seemingly no. There is a clear bridge that parts two lands and it is now burning. Undoubtedly, there is a strong similarity between both disciplines when reflecting on the starting phase of a project-its conception. The same muscles of creative intimacy are being flexed and perhaps a “Fashion” project might share the same creative direction as an “Art” project, as Junya Watanabe said “I think fashion is a way to express myself, and in that sense it is very close to art”. However the bridge is continuing to smoulder, as we look into the proceeding steps. Contemporary art boasts a broader range of mediums in which it can exist, simply, it escapes pertaining to a purpose, or as it is commonly states “art just is”. Fashion, ultimately has to pertain to some purpose in order for it to obtain such a moniker. I am weary of using the phrase “practicality” because it would only take a quick stroll through the past few runway seasons to identify a gaping hole in practicality *cough* Comme des Garçons *cough*, but it requires a purpose none the less. Laurent Calquin, president of luxury conglomerate Kering (formerly PPR) Americas refined this to its essence, stating “In fashion you have to think about how our designs will be reproduced. Your (the designer) efforts will only be successful if you think about distribution, production and multiplication”. Whilst this definition is obviously very economically geared, it alludes to the simplest point of divide, a pragmatic interpretation, or as Australian visual artist Vicki Lee put it “Design is understood. Design has a reason”.
" Would we have Jil Sander without Minimalism? Would Galliano’s Dior be anything without Oriental art? "
Topman Collection S/S15
Of course the relationship between fashion and art is incredibly historical, and it seems evident that rather then one fighting to be other, the seem to show a unified and symbiotic bond. I feel that Lazaro Hernandes of Proenza Schouler (who have recently produced a collaboration with contemporary artist Bjarne Melgaard) summarised fashion's relationship with art so succinctly when he said “I think there is a tendency in the fashion world to glorify art.” This is where i see art in fashion, as the highest point it could ever strive for, art-potheosis it can never achieve, but this would explain why we see such a huge abundance of designer and artist collaborations. A constant advocator of this marriage seems to be Raf Simons with notable collaborations with contemporary artists such as Brian Calvin (I think we all saw that coke can print enough times to never want to drink it again) and most recently, and to enormous critical (and we can expect commercial) success, a collaboration with long time friend Sterling Ruby. But at a more basic level, Art is critically influential to the movement of fashion. Would we have Jil Sander without Minimalism? Would Galliano’s Dior be anything without Oriental art? The answer to these questions requires little more then a scroll through style.com’s collection archives. And this now brings us to the second half of the relationship, what does art get from fashion? In simple terms it gets an audience. The realm of Art can be rather intimidating to those on the outside, and from personal experience it appears to require a wider range of research to reach an acceptable level of appreciation-so fashion makes it accessible, not in the way that every tom, dick and harry can have a Rothko hanging in their hallway, but in the sense that they can feel educated and traverse in the glaring halls of art(through the wearing of garments). Simply, it kinda goes like this: Did you know Keith Harring because of his decades of technicoloured political graffiti? Or do you know him because you saw that shirt in Uniqlo that time?