The anxiety you mention seems to be pervasive to the forum as a whole. A lot of debates/squabbles are about who or what is up-coming, in or on the way out, what or who is great, good, indifferent or bad. There’s a sense of hierarchy with ‘art’ and established ‘artists’ at the top of the heap, and the forum sometimes seeming like a place where a lot of jostling takes place for upward bound space on ladders leading to perceived pole positions. Aspiration for validation. Or recognition.

I’m a bit confused by your line of questioning. Painting, sculpture, performance, film, video, photography... fashion. Are you suggesting that art is something quite separate to any other discipline under discussion? Is art passé, irrelevant, or still covetable and nebulous and outré enough to warrant continuous debate? You state that art is a thorny term – what do you mean by it?

beautiful to see this topic debated and disected in such an intellegent and moral way, forum is truly beginning to speak, Its crazy how we recycle this banter of who or what is the newest or the bestest, a play ground for our ego's,

sorry to bring up old stereotypes, but my website the other day was called ''Saarrf London''now i full well understand what the person was saying but i thought what a cop out, what an ignorant way to look at forms of expression; even if its from a certain geograph or ethnecicity. will you blind yourself from seeing by saying you already see?

every time you come on here, you mention the saarrf london thing. what is that? why the hell did you put your website out there and ask for feedback if you couldn't deal with it? I wasn't even putting your stuff down for crying out loud! it just looks a bit like the saarrf london scene, dunnit? what's wrong with that? When I lived in saarrff london i lived with two other painters who painted in a similar style and a lot of their saarrrff london affiliates shared in this aesthetic as well. i am sure people outside saaarrrff london paint like this as well but it just so happens that it is, well, as far as i am concerned, quite a saarrff london look.

i take my work very seriously, its my life, i suppose im a bit sensitive about it, but your opinion is your opinion

ah, this old chestnut. this is from an article by Amy de la Haye, Tate Magazine 2003.

'...tradition still confines fashion to a lowly rung on the cultural ladder, certainly when compared with other visual arts.
There are many reasons why this might be: 'fashion' is both ephemeral and self-regarding in nature; its links in commerce serve to taint it. Fashion has also had the struggle against a distaste for any display of ostentatious luxury, especially in those countries where the establishment is in debt to a puritan cultural inheritance..'

'...yet fashion - of which dress is arguably the most obvious external manifestation - is deeply personal. It enjoys an intimate relationship with the bodies of its wearers, and, once worn, is infused with their life stories. There can be no better visual and tactile expression of any given epoch than its fashions: consider the Victorians' whale-bone corsets, the short skirts of the 1920s, the post-war self-indulgence of the New Look and the iconoclastic zips and safety-pin fastenings on Punk.'

Personally, in this country, I think that the twentieth century saw a mystique develop around fashion, a mystique that grew with the ever-dwindling numbers of those who actually knew how to make clothes. In the old days, dress was simply a given and nobody would have thought about sticking clothes in a museum; it would have been considered totally absurd! Because most of our generation didn't learn how to sew or create clothes like our grannies and mums, the whole thing has become rarefied, and today is the exclusive domain of the fashion school student. With the birth of a celebrity mad era, clothes have become even more important in what we perceive to be glamorous, successful and aspirational and because of this designers are akin in some circles to contemporary high priests. I suppose that this explains the transformation from what was before just a craft to an 'artform' in many people's estimation. If you ask me, these people are just wallies.

i suppose you think you've proven your point, you kick your feet up, i wish you would listen to some Bob Dillan at the same time,

i agree with allot of it, but you see the reason why all of it amounts to bullshit (so called Fashion in 2006) is bacsue fashion has been trying to chase after fake ideas and illusions about self.

When you get top fashion designer taking inspiration from small tribes in the kalahari desert, or some village in china and putting them in a glass buildings,

what your doing is mocking the art form and what it was created for, because it wasn't ment for a cold glass case, but a warm body to fullfill its meaning and purpose.

Im well aware that you can spend time prepare an amazing four course meal, only to have it come out as waste a couple hours later, its just the way the world works.

Fashion in most indiginous cultures is not fashion like we experiance it here in this sector of the WORLD its a cutural language that speak of a man or a woman's position in society, how many children they have, there rights of passege, things that are true and not illusions
like,, i look so cool with this bomber jacket, or Marc Jacob's bag.

I know what you are saying about taking your work seriously, and it shows in the quality of your work,I do not know the London street culture scene, and I saw you work as diffrent to what I have seen by others, you have a lot of imagination, and go beyond the lens to experiment and get results.
I expect a lot from my work, and like you it is everything to me, as a ceative person you sacrifice nearly everything for your interpritation of art.
Keep with it Funkliquid, you are not the only one with this sort of pashion, from what I have ween I think that you have all ready got what it takes to be a very good fashion,street ,lifestyle photographer and film maker.

ART IS USELESS....im not sure if this was the thread i posted this 3-word sentance, but to follow up -thats whats great about, and for me defines art...fashion is not art,it has a use,documentary photography,...whatever...if it has a use-its just not art for me,the more useless,beautifull,and extreamley useless it is the better....THAT IS ART...!

I started reading "the end of art" by Donald Kusbit. I was on public transport and some guy came up and started abusing me, telling me he was "deeply hurt" by me. the book has a picture of Damien Hurst's "home sweet home" on the cover.

I dont think art is useless.

Sorry its 'Hirst' of course