In reply to saint:

How do you know how Nick Knight sees his own work?

In reply to Jarvis:

I agree, the post you are responding to is ridiculous, pompous and muddled - I don't blame him, though - I blame Foucalt, who he's obviously influenced by. Poor guy.

So, the fashion industry is about making money. Of course, but this doesn't mean that nothing good can come of it as an externality.

The music and film businesses are about making money. So, by your logic, they are inherently right wing and reactionary, too? Nothing good or of value can come out of them either? Obviously, that's nonsense.
Even the highest forms of fine art can be said to be about making money. Oh, but that's 'western capitalism' and so it's inhernetly wrong!! Right?

I also have an issue with how you disingenuously slag off Nick Night and Showstudio. So, the latest project isn't really art, it's advertising! You don't say! Wow, nothing gets by you, huh? As some guy pointed out in this film 'soup can - art. art - soup can.' It's hardly like he's trying to pull a fast one on the audience. It's obvious to anyone with grey matter that it's a promotional campaign for a company, and it doesn't make any pretension to not be. It's also smacks of 'THIS is art! THAT is not!' which is simple-minded.

You also go on about 'shallowness', the 'surface of things' - it's photography, fashion and visual art, isn't it? Of course it's about the visual, the 'surface of things'. If you want something more deep, read a book.

Ach, I have more to say but don't have time.

In reply to Landon:

Wow, what a sneering response.

Firstly, nowhere in my first post did I say 'nothing good' comes from the fashion industry. Go back and read it again. My comment is about the STRUCTURE of the industry, it's political position (on the whole) and the importance of discussing this. Amazing things are produced by creative people from inside this system and it's interesting to look at the different ways they embrace this or keep it at arms length. My point is that surely this is something worth discussing within the framework of a debate about fashion and politics.

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with making money! And running a buisness DOES NOT make you right wing. It is possible to run a business and still be broadly responsible and socially engaged. To value quality of life over profit in other words. The fashion industry (like the music and film industries) are not autonomous machines. They are collections of people who have the option to decide the path they would like to take. And yes, in my opinion the western capitalist project is inherently wrong. Look around you for a moment!

So, in the light of the above I'm distrustful of many of the elements of this site/project. It depresses me that so much of the content engages with form (how things look and/or are made) rather than content (history and context). I am simply calling Showstudio out about its particular choices and its position in the fashion industry within the framework of a discussion/project about fashion and politics - a discussion started by Nick Knight. If I can't do this now then when?

And yes, I am dissappointed with the quality of the work presented (on the whole). Why must fashion be shallow/only about the surface of things. Why can't clothes, cloth, stitching engage deeper ideas? After all, it is possible to look at a hunting jacket from the 18th century and treat it like a book - as a historical document about class, technology and trade. At the end of the day Showstudio is not promoted as a run of the mill forum/showcase for the workings/mechanics of the fashion buisness. Nick Knight actually makes some big statements about art/creativity which I think it is important to call him on.

Finally, I find that making a strong personal decision about what is and isn't art/good/bad very liberating. I have my own particular manifesto which I've tried and tested over a number of years. Warhol wasn't necessarily right (or wrong) you know - he was simply applying his own particular manifesto to the culture that surrounded him...

In reply to Jarvis:

Excellent ! ...."in my opinion the western capitalist project is inherently wrong. Look around you for a moment!'' ... this is an understatement !

The western capitalist project has gone totally, totally wrong, madness is the right word and we only need to look at how it has China under its
spell, combining the very worst of 'socialism' with the very worst of capitalism .... a deadly combination, an unstoppable Pandora box !

In reply to Jarvis:

" Why must fashion be shallow/only about the surface of things. Why can't clothes, cloth, stitching engage deeper ideas?"
The people that Show studio works with on a regular basis are exactly the sort of people that would believe and agree with that. Look through the archive you will find work with Hussein Chalayan, Watanabe, Bjork, Viktor and Rolf, Margeila ,Westwood, Mc Queen, Bernard Wilhelm, Peter Saville,Raf Simmons,Jason Evans, Yamamoto, the Chapmans,Tracy Emin,David Chipperfield, the list goes on and on ..an opera ,a two year long project on contemporary performance art , previously unseen films of Bourdin and Blumenfeld. All for free. Doesn't seem much to do with the capitalist system to me.

In reply to Jarvis:

"Why must fashion be shallow/only about the surface of things." because when anyone tries to talk about issues such as politics and fashion which is clearly trying to widen the parameters of what fashion can express people like you react with such hostility.

In reply to Jarvis:

"The series of films in this 'art + politics project' are a case in point - almost without exception they are shallow and clumsy with nothing interesting to say."
I feel you have missed the point ,these are films made by people not using their primary skill set ( sorry I can't think of another way of putting it ) ,these are films by make up artists , models, set designers , photographers, nail technicians, stylists and so on virtually no one is a film maker but they are all willing to try and experiment and try to say something. The point is that they all brave enough to try and say something and for that I applaud them.
If projects like this didn't exist I fail to see how the fashion will ever change.

In reply to Jarvis:

'It is possible to run a business and still be broadly responsible and socially engaged. To value quality of life over profit in other words.'

Of course, who's arguing against that? Who wants UNBRIDLED capitalism with no government oversight? That's not what 'western capitalism' necessarily entails. The other side of the coin to western capitalism is liberal democracy - which in the larger scale of history has been incredibly beneficial in so many ways - indeed, just 'look around you for a moment!' Why it's failing is the 'liberal democracy' part - governments are failing to rein in capitalism and steer it in a way that's in accordance to the will of the people.

I still disagree that there is something inherently wrong with 'western capitalism' - and apparantly so do you as you assert in the same breath that there is nothing wrong with making money, or that running a business doesn't make you 'right wing, reactionary'.

You were still saying that for an artist to maintain any integrity they shouldn't be associated with corporations - or else they are maintaining the status quo and are inhernently right wing and reactionary...I mean, come on! It's shallow, polarized and binary thinking.

Re: the Political Fashion project, they are not the authors of the films, they are providing the venue for fashion in a political context. As an experiment, to see what will come of it.

Your other aesthetic criticisms of this site just don't ring true to me at all.

(btw, I know it's Nick Knight, not Night - sorry!)

In reply to Jarvis:

You say in your post that "fashion" trivializes life but your argument is that then fashion should be just about the trivial .
I can't reconcile your position with the obvious realities that I see in the fashion world. Just to take one example ,that of Rei Kawakubo of Comme des Garcons,Please explain how can you possibly call her work "right wing" or "reactionary" or how can you look at her work and dismiss it as trivial ?