On September 12th, The New York Times had an article that discussed the new art exhibit in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It discussed the display of textiles from all around the world and different time periods. What I found most interesting was whether or not this type of clothing would have been considered art by our class. We had said that art was beautiful to look at and didn’t really have much purpose. However, this didn’t really prove to be true with this exhibit. As the article had said, the result of the exhibit was, “a feast of transcendent artifacts variously embroidered, woven, dyed and printed, and one of the great art experiences of the season.”
This was interesting to read because this article made the case that even clothing and other textiles from old time periods could be considered art, even though clothing seems to have the only purpose of being worn and protecting our body. Therefore, I decided to look up the definition of art. According to Merriam-Webster, art is “something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings.” So this shows why we had a hard time coming up with something that isn’t art.
Based on the article, I felt that anything created to represent a feeling or idea or is simply beautiful to look at can be considered art. It doesn’t even need to send a message. It could be as simple as a picture of a flower or even the flower itself because nature had to be created somehow, no matter your religious beliefs. I also think it was interesting to note how the article talked about the different aspects of the exhibit and put it in its historical context. One example, “cultures nearly clash in a towering tapestry of embroidered silk made in China for the Portuguese market in the first half of the 17th century.” This textile shows not only beauty in its creation, but also the designs of the time period it was made in. It is both informative and aesthetically pleasing.
So, the point that I wanted to make with this article is whether or not our opinions for art are now changed after reading about this exhibit. We consider the Metropolitan Museum of Art to be a beacon of good art and in this case, the appropriate definition for art. Therefore, if they included textiles and clothing in their exhibit, we should reconsider the notion that art can only be painting, sculptures, and other physical objects created for the sole purpose of being treated as art. Art can be anything around us that we can consider to be pleasing to look at or that causes us to think about an idea or message. And as the museum exhibit did, we should allow even things that we wouldn’t consider art to broaden our perceptions on the topic and discussion of the importance and significance of “art” in our lives.
Works Cited
Smith, Roberta. “Threads of Many Cultures, Embroidering a World.” Rev. of Art Exhibit.The New York Times [New York City] 12 Sept. 2013: n. pag. 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 13 Sept. 2013.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/arts/design/interwoven-globe-a-300-year-survey-of-textiles-at-the-met.html?pagewanted=2&pagewanted=all&_r=0>.
“Art.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2013.
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art?show=0>.
I thought I’d start out by mentioning that I like your topic and how you wound it down to, “What is art?” because that is a good question to answer before we get deep into this class. I think it’s nice how you made your way from defining art as something that is just there and look nice to a much broader definition. Instead, art is seemingly everywhere, and I do agree with this. This idea is present in the different museums around us, for many would say the MOMA includes many unconventional items or even household items, yet who is to say they are not art? I believe many things around us everyday are art. Even the activities we partake in are art, whether it be playing music, drawing or cooking. In the end we create a result that is oftentimes unique and beautiful.
Yeah clothing is art! I love the idea how clothing, a necessity we all take for granted, having its stake in art history. The skill it took to make something not only beautiful, but functional is breathtaking. With craftsmanship replaced with automated production, clothing is still a complete embodiment of creativity and self expression. I agree how the met is a leader in art, but whether it does or doesn’t have an exhibit for clothes means very little. Nobody dictates what art can or cannot be.
Your blog makes me realize how large the world of art is. Its amazing.
whoops i accidentally commented on your reply and not the post itself. ignore that haha
I definitely agree with you. Clothing is most definitely an art. Art can really be anything. Something that you may not think is art, is probably art to somebody else in this vast world.
I think the museum is using the clothing and the textiles to show the different cultures of different countries and people, during different time periods. Through clothing the museum is probably able to distinguish between cultures and their beliefs. You can learn a lot about a culture by the clothing they wear. You can also learn what the designs meant to all the different cultures by analyzing the clothing and the people it came from. Each culture has a reason for making the clothing and designs, and now, it is our to depict and analyze in the MET.
I do believe that textile could be a type of art because it is beautiful and it takes skill to design. Fashion is considered art today, so textile would just be an old fashion version of fashion. I do agree with you that art could be anything that represents a feeling or idea, and there is no limitations to what can be considered art. But I do not totally agree with the dictionary definition of art. I do not believe that art has to be beautiful. For example, a painting of a gross figure. This painting may make you feel disgusted, but it is still art in the sense that it was “created with imagination and skill.” As I said there should be no limit to what can be considered art, so art should not be defined by only beauty.
Clothing, in my opinion, is a form of art. Producing clothing involves the coordination of colors, the choosing of fabric, and creativity. The textiles from different periods must give insight into the time and place they were from. This can help assign the meaning of “art” and what was “aesthetically pleasing” to the people and places each textile represents. It also portrays how the definition of art has always been very broad and subject to personal taste. I do not fully agree with the Merriam-Webster definition that art is “something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings.” In fact, I believe it is possible for art to be created through lack of skill, and it may appear gruesome and pointless. Therein lies the true beauty of art, the idea that art is defined by you and no one can deny your judgement.
After discussing what art is as a class, this topic is very relevant. Art can mean different things to different people, and while some may say clothing is not art, I agree with you that people must reconsider this opinion, especially now that the Metropolitan Museum of Art agrees with you. Art is generally thought to be a drawing or painting, but when art is portrayed in 3-D, in clothing or textiles, it can have even more of an impact on a person because of its physical presence. Clothing is most certainly art, as some of the most elegant, detailed, and unique creations are manufactured through the avenue of clothing. I think almost everybody would agree that some of the high end stores on Madison Avenue are places were art, at the highest level, is being sold. However, I do not think there is anything artistic about a plain white t-shirt.
I really enjoyed how the article mentioned different countries and time periods, giving the reader a broader of view of what art can be considered. I also appreciated the fact the the Webster definition of art was quoted for us, so that any body who read the article was working off the same meaning of a very abstract term. While everybody has their own interpretation of art, it’s important that everyone works within the same context.
I want to first start off by letting you know how much I enjoyed reading your post. While most people associate art with paintings and music, I feel that clothing as well as fashion should definitely be considered as art. In one way this is thanks to the clothing designer and their style. But I also think that a large part of the art of clothing is in regards to the person wearing it. How do they wear it? What do they wear it with? etc.
Another point that you made that I fount interesting was when you said that, “I felt that anything created to represent a feeling or idea or is simply beautiful to look at can be considered art. It doesn’t even need to send a message.” While I do agree with the idea of anything representing a feeling or is simply beautiful can be considered art, I do feel that all art does have some sort of message. In this case the message is the feeling or emotion you experience while experiencing the art.
Overall I really enjoyed reading your point of view on this article, which I feel was an excellent choice, given its clear relationship to our class.
In my opinion, clothing can and should be considered art because it is a design, a form of expression, something that may be seen differently by each individual who beholds it. Art is open to interpretation and often these interpretations lead us to decide whether or not we like that particular piece. The same can be said for an article of clothing.
In addition, no one creates a piece and hides it from the world. They wish to showcase it and have people appreciate it. They wish to convey their notions of beauty to the public (sometimes combining it with their culture) and that is what fashion is. The designer wants people to wear their creation just as a painter or a sculptor wants their artwork displayed in a museum or gallery.
I find it interesting that you brought up the idea of whether or not clothes can be considered art. I believe that it can. In my history class several years ago, we made it a point to discuss whether or not clothing counted as freedom of expression. I believe that it does. If you think about it, people wear clothes to represent their religions or beliefs and as a result, it can go under the freedom of expression clause in the constitution. Now if it counts as expression- it means that it is a form of art, as art is anything that expresses thoughts and feelings. Through our clothing choices we can advertise our beliefs and ourselves to others.
Clothing is definitely art! My family often frequents to the Met, and I remember once when I was little there was an exhibit on shoes and fashion. I was fascinated by it, and even have a little shoe magnet from there to this day. If fashion wasn’t art, why would there be a whole week devoted to it annually here, and in places like Milan? Fashion even starts off with simple drawings and ideas!
I like that you included the Merriam-Webster definition of art. I believe art definitely can serve a purpose. The idea of art is really subjective and I think the phrase “to each his own” really expresses what art is. It’s different for everyone. While you and I may think fashion is art, there are definitely people out there who completely disagree. I think the most important thing is to be open to everything. For example, while I think modern art is not “really art,” I still like to give it a shot and try to understand it. That’s my opinion and it’s okay. I think it’s nice for everyone to have different opinions about certain topics..otherwise, the world would be pretty boring!
I think anything can be art simply because the standard of art is subjective. Some might find a stick figure artful, whereas others won’t. Some might find clothing to be art, and others won’t. Certainly, if clothing were found at the MET, most would be influenced to see it as art. But in the end, visitors could decide for themselves that no, clothing is not art, and explore another exhibit.
I personally define art as anything where I could take something from it. So if there’s a drawing of one stick figure has something to tell or convey, then it is art. Textiles are definitely art because we can learn a lot about a culture and an ancient time.
Great read! I don’t think that our classification of what art is disqualified clothing or other textiles from being art. We had a lot of definitions of art in the class and what would classify art, at one point it felt like anything and everything was art. But for the purposes of this class, if I recall correctly, we arbitrarily settled on specific forms of media including paintings, drawings, music, sculptures etc. We also mentioned that the purpose of art could include entertainment, expression or communication among others. But still, some textiles could be a form of communication and expression. Fashion is definitely a means of communication and expression as well. The article even mentions that the exhibit displayed “fabrics and finished textiles that traveled along them, spreading ideas about design, technique and fashion that were imitated and adapted by people in far-flung locales.” There were principles of art and design involved in the textiles and clothing being displayed. Some served practical purposes as clothing and some pieces were decorative pieces, some both. Although the definition of art varies widely and it is subjective, I do think these textiles qualified as art based on our arbtiary definition.