If fashion was purely about selling clothes I doubt you'd be asking that question on this forum, as there would be no SHOWstudio.

And, vice versa, in what waY does art relate to selling clothes? Shops sell clothes. SHOWstudio is NOT a shop.

i disagree, penny, i think fashion is about selling clothes. the idea of fashion is simply a device to get people to buy new wardrobes every year. most fashion magazines are glorified compendiums of advertising/ trade magazines for the business. showstudio mixes quite a lot of artsiness in to the point where it's not really fashion anymore, but art about fashion.

mme. thatcher (somehow i doubt that's really you) i don't get your point. you're right, showstudio isn't a shop. umm, art doesn't really relate to selling clothes, except in fashion. was that what you were getting at.

First off, the statement "how does this art relate to fashion? cause it has nothing to do with selling clohtes" is a non-sequitur. Of course fashion, on some level, is about selling clothes, but it's not ONLY about that. You'd have to be extremely narrow-minded to argue that a project is redundant purely because it has NO reference to the sale of goods. People sell their art but that isn't (always) what motivates them. In fact, the design of clothes and the selling of them are completely separate most of the time. You seem to have a definitive dichotomy between the processes driving the production of "art" and that of "fashion" (which I assume you believe is sales?)

Just because I buy a piece from a designer's collection doesn't mean I don't appreciate the expertise & vision that has went into making it: separating the consumption of clothes from the consumption of art is problematic. Ultimately most things in a modern, advanced capitalist society are about selling, so if you apply the imperative of "selling clothes" then our culture (as it already is in many cases) would be bland & uninspiring.

And of course I'm not the REAL Thatcher, now that would be a treat (don't you get a JOKE?) But by the looks of your astute capitalist reasoning in your previous posts, I would hazzard a bet that you'd be ideal for picking up the baton were she left off.

it's not that i didn't get your joke, maggie, it's that your sense of humor blows. pretending to be a crotchety old politician!! thigh-slapper! hilarious!!

oki, follow my logic: no matter how artsy/non artsy a project is, if it's going to be considered fashion, clothes have to be involved. clothes were involved in fash-off, but so peripherally, at about the same level as costumes in a ballet, that it's not so much about the clothes as the actions being performed. maybe it's considered fashion cause the participants are a designer and a fash photographer, but really it could have been done by a choreographer and a cameraman, and then it would be labelled something else entirely. i'm not saying clothes cannot be artistic, and if that's how you interpreted me i'm very sorry. as in, sorry for you. if clothes weren't artistic i wouldn't have anything to do with making and photographing them.

by the way, it isn't much of a burn to compare me to maggie thatcher, cause being from the states i have no idea what she did, other than help g.h.w invade iraq the first time, which was actually quite commendable. maybe she reformed welfare laws and put you off the dole.

See, I thought you said in your first post, that it didn't relate to fashion 'cause it wasn't about "selling clothes"? Now you are saying that it didn't relate to fashion because it wasn't about clothes. Make your mind up. And yes, you're right, being from the states I bet comparisons to Thatcher are probably aryan character traits. Better luck next time.

Why steal my name? Bitch

nffe, i think depicting clothes is advertising them, cause someone is going to be like "oh i want that" (provided it's good). so it is possible for something to neither concern fashion, nor depict clothes. see, there actually isn't a contradiction there. how 'bout you admit i have a valid opinion that you don't agree with? thanks in advance.

valentine, so sorry i took your name, i wasn't aware of your existence when i chose it. i'd change it, but i don't think i can. let me know if that's wrong.

anyway, the point is, i like fash-off. apologies for the mild contentiousness.

Of course it is possible for something to neither concern fashion or the depiction of clothes. That's pretty obvious, non? But I still don't understand how this relates to your original post, or the succeeding one. But anyhow, all good - too tenuous to keep these discussion(s) ongoing.