Is Fashion Art, or Is It Clothing?

1. Is fashion art?

Is fashion art?

This question has been asked time and time again.

There are clothes exhibited in museums. Sometimes runways become like theaters. Clothes can approach physical expression, social critique, sculpture, and installation. Designers are sometimes spoken of not merely as clothing makers, but as thinkers or artists.

On the other hand, clothing is something to be worn.

It touches the body. It moves. It gets dirty. It is washed. It is sold. It has sizes. It has prices. It has inventory. It has distribution. It is used in daily life.

As long as this reality exists, calling fashion pure art leaves a certain sense of discomfort.

Therefore, the question of whether fashion is art cannot be simply affirmed or denied.

Rather, I think what is important is to look at which designers brought fashion closer to art, and which designers thought about fashion while keeping it at a distance from art.

In that, we can see the duality of what fashion is.

Fashion is expression. But at the same time, it is a commodity.

It is a philosophy. But at the same time, it is a tool worn on the body.

It can enter a museum. But it also enters a closet.

This duality is precisely what makes fashion interesting, and what makes it difficult.

2. Fashion as art

What designers who view fashion as art have in common is that they do not let clothes end as mere garments.

For them, clothes are not things that cover the body, but media that generate questions.

What is beauty? What is the body? What is gender? What is death? What is society? What is memory? What is technology? How far can humans be transformed?

They present these questions in the form of clothing.

At that moment, clothing transcends utility and approaches philosophy and expression.

Alexander McQueen is a prime example of this.

His runways were not merely presentations of new collections.

They were theater, ritual, psychodrama, and at times, a presentation of violent beauty.

The body was not just adorned; it was wounded, transformed, and mythologized.

Clothing is not just beautiful.

It is terrifying.
It is painful.
It is fleeting.
It is strong.
It is unsettling.

The Met held McQueen's Savage Beauty as an exhibition to honor his extraordinary contribution to fashion The Met. What is important here is that his clothes became objects to be exhibited, appreciated, and interpreted, rather than just commodities.

For McQueen, clothing was a narrative using the body.

And that narrative was connected not only to beauty, but also to death, violence, nature, class, history, and gender.

When this happens, fashion approaches art.

At the very least, it is read as an expression using the medium of clothing.

3. Rei Kawakubo and the destruction of beauty

Rei Kawakubo is also often spoken of as someone who brought fashion closer to art.

However, in her case, rather than citing art, she destroys the very concept of clothing itself.

Beautiful clothes.
Feminine clothes.
Clothes that follow the body.
Easy-to-wear clothes.
Understandable clothes.

She shakes those premises.

Comme des Garçons clothes often deform the body.

They swell.
They distort.
They hide.
They shift.
They become asymmetrical.
They betray the contours of the body.

There, clothing does not exist solely to make the body look beautiful.

Rather, it re-questions what the body is.

The Met held the exhibition Rei Kawakubo/Comme des Garçons: Art of the In-Between in 2017, presenting her work as a challenge to the conventions of beauty, taste, and fashionability The Met.

What is interesting here is the reason why Kawakubo's clothing is treated as art.

It is not because she made clothing look like paintings, thereby bringing it closer to art.

It is because she broke the rules of clothing from within.

Is clothing something that shapes the body?
Is clothing something that makes one look attractive?
Should clothing be commercially accessible?

She presented such questions in the form of clothing.

For Kawakubo, rather than fashion becoming art, it shakes the very boundaries of fashion itself.

That shaking possessed the intensity to enter a museum.

4. Viktor & Rolf and Wearable Art

Viktor & Rolf are figures who must be included in this discussion.

They pushed fashion to the boundary between art and performance.

The National Gallery of Victoria introduces the exhibition Viktor & Rolf: Fashion Artists as an exploration of their avant-garde creations and the concept of wearable art NGV.

Viktor & Rolf's clothing often appears less like garments to be worn and more like devices that critique the institution of fashion itself.

Dresses that look like wearing picture frames.
Clothing adorned with giant letters.
Couture layered like dolls.
Silhouettes that detach from the body and stand up almost like museum exhibits.

For Viktor & Rolf, clothing is both something to be worn and a form for questioning what fashion is.

In their 2008 Autumn/Winter collection, three-dimensional 'NO' letters appeared on the clothing, and Vogue recorded that the show strongly emphasized the gesture of refusal represented by 'NO' Vogue.

Furthermore, in their 2019 Spring/Summer Haute Couture collection, 'Fashion Statements,' internet-style short phrases were placed on giant tulle dresses, and Time reported that the collection connected with meme culture and statement fashion Time.

The interesting thing about Viktor & Rolf is that while they create clothing, they also reveal the institutions in which that clothing is situated.

Shows.
Images.
Consumption.
Appreciation.
Words.
The body.
Exhibitions.

They bring all of these together onto the stage of fashion.

That is why their clothes follow concepts rather than the body.

Here, fashion moves significantly closer to art.

However, this approach is different from the theatricality of McQueen or the structural deconstruction of Kawakubo.

Viktor & Rolf turn the fashion system itself into a stage.

While creating clothes, they also turn the mechanism by which clothes are viewed into a work of art.

5. Designers who translate art into clothing

Yves Saint Laurent connected fashion and art in yet another way.

He translated art into clothing.

A prime example is the Mondrian dress.

He transferred the composition, color planes, and lines of the painting onto the garment.

Here, fashion quotes a painting and reconstructs it on the body.

The brilliance of Saint Laurent lies in the fact that he turned something to be admired into something to be worn.

Paintings are on walls. Clothes are on the body.

Paintings are stationary. Clothes walk.

Paintings are admired. Clothes are seen in everyday life.

Saint Laurent bridged this distance.

However, there is a danger here as well.

When art is quoted in clothing, fashion moves closer to art, but there is also the risk of merely borrowing the surface of art.

Printing a painting on something does not make it art.

Quoting art history does not necessarily add depth.

What is important is how the citation connects to the structure of the clothing and the sense of the era.

In the case of Saint Laurent, the modern image of women in the 1960s, the straightening of the body, and graphic composition overlapped.

Therefore, it did not just become a transfer of a painting, but clothing of the era.

6. Concepts and technology bring clothing closer to art

Hussein Chalayan is a designer who brought fashion closer to conceptual art.

His clothing is often both a garment and a device.

Furniture becomes clothing.
Clothing transforms.
It connects with migration, exile, memory, architecture, and technology.

In Chalayan's work, clothing becomes less of something to wear and more of something that carries a concept.

This is a typical route for fashion to approach art.

Clothing transcends practicality to express ideas, memories, and social conditions.

The body is not a canvas, but a place where concepts emerge.

Iris van Herpen is also a designer who took fashion to the intersection of technology, the body, and sculpture.

Her clothing looks like sculptures worn on the body.

3D printing.
Architectural structure.
Organic forms.
Connection with science and technology.
Extension of the body.

At the Museum of Fine Arts Boston's techstyle exhibition, works by designers including Iris van Herpen and Viktor&Rolf were introduced as examples of how technology changes the form and function of fashion MFA Boston.

Here, clothing is not just fabric.

The materials themselves are experimented with.

New forms emerge around the body.

Iris van Herpen's work is not so much about fashion becoming art, but rather about fashion existing at the intersection of science, technology, and sculpture.

And at that intersection, clothing becomes a medium for imagining the body of the future.

7. The position that fashion is not art

On the other hand, there are designers who have considered fashion not to be art.

This does not mean they view fashion as inferior.

Rather, it is a stance that protects the reality inherent to clothing.

Clothing is worn.
It is sold.
It is used.
It is washed.
It has sizes.
It has prices.
It has seasons.
It has inventory.
It has customers.
It has a life.

If you separate it from this reality, fashion ceases to be fashion.

Karl Lagerfeld is well known as a figure who thought of fashion and art as separate things.

An article by The Met introduces the fact that Lagerfeld said, "Art is art. Fashion is fashion." The Met.

This statement might sound cold.

However, it is quite important.

It is not that Lagerfeld did not understand art.

On the contrary, he himself was deeply involved in photography, publishing, architecture, decoration, and art history.

Even so, he said that fashion is different from art.

Why?

Because fashion has speed.

It has seasons.
It has a market.
It has sales.
It has customers.
It has a body.
It has trends.

While art can exist on a relatively long timeline, fashion is always exposed to the present.

This immediacy is both a weakness and a strength of fashion.

Lagerfeld's position does not place fashion below art.

It was something that allowed fashion to stand on its own as fashion.

8. Designers Who Bring Us Back to Reality

Miuccia Prada is also a designer who, while deeply involved with art, does not simply turn clothing into art.

Prada is strongly connected to contemporary art through the Fondazione Prada.

However, her clothes are not purified into works of art.

Rather, they function within the realities of society, politics, femininity, ugliness, intelligence, desire, and consumption.

Prada's clothes do not follow easily understood beauty.

Sometimes they are dowdy.
Sometimes they are strange.
Sometimes they are unnatural.
Sometimes they include ugly elements.

But that is closer to real human beings.

W Magazine introduces the perspective that Miuccia Prada has of defying stereotypes of beauty and sexiness W Magazine.

At Prada, clothing is more of a tool for reality to think with than it is art.

Giorgio Armani can also be categorized as a designer who thought about fashion by keeping it at a distance from art.

Armani's clothes are strongly tied to the realities of the body and daily life.

Especially with suits, he significantly changed the expression of the male body and power.

Not rigid structure, but softness.
Not intimidation, but flowing elegance.
Not decoration, but tailoring and air.

Armani, rather than making clothes into objects for appreciation, organizes the reality of the wearer.

Reports on an interview in an art magazine introduce the idea that Armani does not consider fashion to be art Presse Nachrichten.

This stance is quite important for fashion.

Clothing is not just for looking at.

It is also something that helps people stand in society.

Issey Miyake, while also being a designer very close to art, did not confine fashion as art.

PLEATS PLEASE would hold its own in an art museum, but essentially, it is clothing to be worn.

It can be folded.
It is washable.
It is lightweight.
It allows for movement.
It changes to fit the body.
It can be used in daily life.

Sculptural quality and practicality do not conflict.

Herein lies the unique value of fashion.

Fashion can be art.

However, there are parts that can only be completed by being worn.

9. The real difference between the art camp and the non-art camp

Looking at it this far, the difference between the art camp and the non-art camp is not simple.

The art camp is high-minded, and the non-art camp is commercial.

That is not the point.

Rather, the two differ in what they emphasize about fashion.

Those who view it as art expand clothing into questions.

Body.
Beauty.
Gender.
Society.
Death.
Memory.
Technology.
Institutions.

They think about such issues through the medium of clothing.

On the other hand, those who view it as not art pull clothing back to reality.

The wearer.
Life.
Market.
Body.
Function.
Customer.
Commerce.
Time.

They emphasize such conditions.

These two seem to be in conflict, but in reality, both are necessary.

With questions alone, clothing drifts away from life.

With reality alone, clothing becomes merely a product.

The strength of fashion lies in the space between the two.

Clothing is a question, and at the same time, it is a tool.

It is an ideology, and at the same time, it is a commodity.

It is an expression, and at the same time, it is something that touches the body.

When this ambiguity is lost, fashion becomes weak.

10. So, why did the 'no sewing machine' argument ignite such a fire?

Here, I would like to shift the conversation to a recent exchange on Threads.

In short, the phrase 'no sewing machine needed' triggered a stronger backlash than I had imagined.

Of course, the backlash itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

For those who have been involved in clothing production, it may have seemed as though sewing machines and fundamental techniques were being treated lightly.

I can understand that feeling.

Clothing touches the body. Sewing is important. Patterns are important. Materials are important. Structure is important. Naturally, there are things that cannot be realized if you create them without knowing the basics.

Therefore, this is not to say that techniques should be taken lightly.

However, what was interesting was that the discussion did not end with just technical theory.

Originally, the points of contention should have been as follows:

To what extent are sewing machines necessary in clothing production? How should sewing techniques be positioned? How should we handle outsourcing, 3D, AI, and the reconstruction of ready-made products in the modern production environment? To what extent does the act of making clothes include these things?

But in reality, at a fairly early stage, topics like age, school, region, and years of experience were brought up.

This is not a discussion about the work itself.

What kind of clothes are being made? What kind of structure is being considered? What kind of production method is being chosen? What is the meaning behind those choices?

Instead of those topics, the discussion shifted toward confirming who has the right to speak.

Here, we can see the issue of technical legitimacy in the fashion industry.

11. The moment technical discussion turns into personal attacks

Discussing technique itself is necessary.

Clothing is something that touches the body.

Sewing, patterns, materials, and construction are all important.

Therefore, respect is necessary for those who can use a sewing machine, those who can sew, those who can draft patterns, and those who have built up their experience in the field.

However, there are moments when technical discussion shifts into an examination of personality or attributes.

Have you ever properly made clothes? Which school did you learn at? Which region is that school in? How many years have you been doing this? Which workplaces have you been through?

Such questions can have meaning as verification in some cases.

However, when they are used not to examine a work or an idea, but to silence the other person, the discussion is no longer about technique.

It is a confirmation of hierarchy.

Where do you stand? Are you on the side that is allowed to speak? Are you the kind of person who is allowed to enter this domain?

It becomes that kind of verification.

What is happening here is not a discussion of technique, but the management of legitimacy.

Those who possess the technique confirm the hierarchy to protect their own position.

Of course, one cannot simply label that as evil.

Those who have built up their skills have things they want to protect.

The more someone has spent a long time learning, the more strongly they will react if it seems like someone is saying in a few words that their technique is unnecessary.

There is also pain in that reaction.

However, once you start attacking the other person's attributes there, it becomes a different story.

Technology is inherently meant to make clothing better.

However, at times, technology becomes a tool to distinguish who is legitimate and who is an outsider.

I feel a sense of discomfort here.

12. Context is omitted on social media

Of course, there was also a problem with how I wrote this.

In a short post, when only the words 'no sewing machine needed' stand out, it looks like a denial of the technology itself.

In reality, I did not mean to say that sewing machines are unnecessary.

I am not belittling sewing techniques either.

I did not mean to say that the basics are unnecessary, either.

What I wanted to say was that the entry point to clothing design does not need to be limited to sewing machines.

There are multiple ways to make clothing.

Sewing.
Outsourcing.
Reconstructing ready-made products.
Designing in 3D.
Considering concepts and structures using AI.
Designing from the perspective of materials and ownership systems.
Thinking about clothing including branding and distribution.

Clothing design is not just about sewing.

However, on social media, context is easily omitted.

Short sentences.
Snippets.
Extreme interpretations.
Reaction speed.
Quoting.
Amplification of emotions.

In that environment, the phrase 'no sewing machine needed' was received as an argument that technology is unnecessary.

What was happening here was not just a simple misreading.

People react to what they fear.

The more someone has built up their skills, the more sensitive they become to technology being treated lightly.

The more someone has learned in school, the more they react to the value of their education being denied.

The more someone has struggled in the field, the more they feel a strong sense of discomfort at the words 'easy to make'.

That is a natural reaction.

We live in an era where the value of traditional skills seems to be wavering due to AI and increased efficiency.

That is precisely why the phrase 'no sewing machine required' resonated not just as a discussion of production methods, but as a denial of everything they have built up.

However, what is needed there is not to silence the other party.

It is to look at why you reacted to those words.

13. Not a denial of technology, but a discomfort with technological absolutism

I will confirm this many times: this is not a denial of sewing machines.

It is not a denial of fundamentals either.

It is not a disregard for skill.

People who can sew are strong. People who can draft patterns are strong. People who understand materials are strong. People who know the relationship between the body and fabric are strong.

There is no doubt about that.

However, the fact that technology is important is different from technology being the only entry point.

Being able to use a sewing machine and being able to think about clothing have overlapping parts, but they are not exactly the same.

Making clothes is not just about sewing.

Thinking about the body. Thinking about materials. Thinking about time. Thinking about ownership. Thinking about distribution. Thinking about repairs. Thinking about what happens after it is let go. Thinking about how to exist as a brand.

These are also part of making clothes.

What I want to criticize is not technology.

It is the structure that uses technology alone as the basis for legitimacy.

Only the sewing machine is the entry point. Only those who have gone through school can speak. Only those with many years of field experience are correct. Only those who can sew can think about clothing.

It is a sense of discomfort with such a closed structure.

Fashion education should be a place that teaches techniques, but at the same time, a place that opens up how we think about clothing.

If technique becomes a wall to shut others out, it is not education, but a hierarchy.

Of course, if the entrance is widened, the number of crude works will also increase.

Shallow proposals that only use AI will emerge.
People who make irresponsible comments without knowing sewing will appear.
There is also the danger of thinking about clothing only through images.

That danger exists.

That is precisely why technique is necessary.

But at the same time, there are questions that cannot be seen through technique alone.

Ownership.
Time.
Traces.
Secondary markets.
Repair.
Embodiment.
The relationship between brand and customer.
The value of clothing after it has been used.

Such questions cannot be resolved just in front of a sewing machine.

14. If we talk about fashion as art, technique alone is not enough.

Here, I return to the first question.

Is fashion art?

If we are to talk about fashion as art, measuring legitimacy solely by whether one can sew is too narrow.

McQueen expanded clothing into theater and views on life and death.

Kawakubo re-examined the very form of clothing.

Viktor & Rolf turned clothing into a critique of the fashion system itself.

Chalayan connected clothing to memory, movement, and architecture.

Iris van Herpen took clothing to a space between technology and sculpture.

Their work cannot be discussed solely by whether or not one can use a sewing machine.

Of course, there is advanced technology behind them.

There is sewing, structure, materials, patterns, and the power of craftsmanship.

However, their importance lies not just in the technology itself, but in what that technology is used for.

What questions were they trying to ask by making these clothes?

Which views of the body did they shake up?

Which social premises did they critique?

Which institutions did they turn into a stage?

Which future bodies did they imagine?

We need to look at this.

In other words, if we think of fashion as art, technology is the means, and a question is necessary.

It cannot exist without technology.

However, it cannot exist with technology alone.

15. However, as long as it is clothing, it cannot escape technology.

On the other hand, if we think of fashion as clothing, technology is unavoidable.

Clothing is not an image.

It touches the body.
It has weight.
It has friction.
It has a range of motion.
It has heat.
It has sweat.
It requires washing.
It has wrinkles.
It has tears.
It requires repair.

No matter how strong the concept is, if it does not work on the body, it becomes weak as clothing.

No matter how close it is to art, if you ignore the materials and structure, it becomes just an image.

Therefore, denying technology is dangerous.

Precisely because we live in an era where images can be created by AI, the weight of the technology inherent in real clothing is increasing.

There are things you cannot understand from an image.

The weight when worn.
How the shoulders drape.
The resilience of the fabric.
The finishing of the seam allowances.
The friction of the lining.
Changes after washing.
The structure that allows for repair.
How it loses its shape after long-term wear.

These things reside within technique.

Therefore, what is needed is not a rejection of technique.

Nor is it technical absolutism.

It is about connecting technique with inquiry.

16. What should fashion education teach?

Behind the reactions this time lies a question about fashion education itself.

Fashion education should teach technique.

That is certain.

Sewing.
Pattern making.
Materials.
Structure.
The body.
History.
Specifications.
Processes.

There are limits to discussing clothing without knowing these things.

However, if fashion education makes technique the sole basis for legitimacy, another kind of limit emerges.

Why make clothes?
Whose body is being envisioned?
What kind of time is being undertaken?
How will it be owned?
How will it be repaired?
How will it be let go?
How does it connect with AI, 3D, outsourcing, and the secondary market?
How does it exist in society as a brand?

These questions will also be necessary for the future of fashion.

There is not just one way to enter the world of garment making.

Some start with the sewing machine.

Some start with materials.

Some start with the body.

Some start with 3D.

Some people enter through AI.

Some people enter through brand design.

Some people enter through ownership or the secondary market.

Some people also enter through art.

None of these entry points are sufficient on their own.

That is precisely why we must connect these entry points rather than closing them off.

Those who entered through the sewing machine connect to the inquiry.

Those who entered through AI connect to materials and the body.

Those who entered through branding connect to sewing and structure.

Those who entered through art connect to the reality of being worn.

Therein lies the potential for the future of fashion education.

17. In the AI era, the entry points for clothing creation will multiply

In the AI era, the entry points for clothing creation will multiply even further.

More people will enter through images.

More people will enter through concepts.

More people will enter through prompts.

More people will also enter through 3D and simulation.

More people will also enter through branding, distribution, and ownership design.

From the perspective of traditional fashion education, this might seem precarious.

In fact, there are some precarious aspects to it.

If you think of clothing only in terms of images, the body is left out.

If you look only at styles created by AI, the material is left out.

If only the concept takes precedence, the reality of being worn is left out.

Therefore, technique is necessary.

However, at the same time, there is no need to close off new entry points.

The entry point changing is different from the basics becoming unnecessary.

It is fine for someone who started with AI to learn sewing later.

It is fine for someone who started with brand design to learn about materials later.

It is fine for someone who started with ownership or secondary distribution to learn pattern making later.

The traditional order is not the only correct path.

There is clothing creation that starts with a sewing machine.

There is also clothing creation that starts with something other than a sewing machine.

The problem is not where you started.

The question is whether, in the end, the body, material, time, ownership, technique, and inquiry are connected.

18. Conclusion: Fashion can be art, but it cannot escape being clothing.

Is fashion art?

The answer depends on the case.

There are designers like McQueen who expand clothing into theater, narrative, views on life and death, and physical expression.

There are designers like Kawakubo who break the very concept of clothing and shake the definition of beauty.

There are designers like Viktor & Rolf who turn the fashion system itself into a stage and present clothing as wearable art.

There are designers like Saint Laurent who translate art onto the body.

There are designers like Chalayan and Iris van Herpen who connect clothing to concepts, technology, and sculpture.

Their work can certainly be read as art.

On the other hand, there are designers like Lagerfeld, Prada, Armani, Miyake, and Chanel who have protected the reality of clothing by thinking of fashion at a distance from art.

For them, clothing was inseparable from the body, daily life, function, commerce, and society.

There is no superiority or inferiority here.

Expanding fashion into art is important.

Pulling fashion back to reality is also important.

And the reactions surrounding the argument against the sewing machine well illustrate this tension between the two.

If we speak of fashion as art, it is narrow to measure its legitimacy solely by whether it can be sewn.

However, as long as fashion is clothing, it cannot escape from the body, materials, sewing, and structure.

Therefore, what is needed is neither a denial of technology nor technological absolutism.

It is about how to connect technology and inquiry.

Clothing can become art.

However, art alone is not enough.

As long as it is clothing, it touches the body, passes through time, is owned, gets damaged, is repaired, and enters someone's life.

It cannot completely detach itself from that reality.

Rather, it is precisely that inability to detach that makes fashion, fashion.

Art changes how we see the world.

Fashion changes how the body exists within the world.

In that difference lies the unique strength of fashion.

Void Lab is a small laboratory that observes the changes of the times as they appear in clothing.

Why do brands sell stories? Why is luxury spreading into everyday life? Why are trends reclaimed by the market?

Focusing on our weekly and monthly fashion observations, we decipher the nuances of fashion, brands, consumption, and culture.

For 980 yen per month, you get unlimited access to all paid articles. You can also talk freely on the message board.

For those more interested in changes that don't yet have a name than in finished answers.