Artistic Reputations

[FrozNlite]

These thoughts and questions are born out of a discussion I had with my really good friend/roommate the other day, and I thought this would be the perfect group of people to ask about our theories.

Within the world of the visual, performing, and fine arts, each specific form has its own "reputation," so to speak, in modern society. From the perspective of the greater population as a whole, some are more highly valued (ex. music) than others (ex. fashion), when looking at their professional manifestations as what people choose to spend their time and money on. Their "reputations" are definitely different, however, when viewing those just starting out in these industries; one needs to look no farther than the stereotype of the "starving artist" the thespian/visual arts/dancer/singer/poet/etc. struggling to make a name for themselves while making ends meet, which is often met with snide disdain.

In the grand scope of these art forms, each are defined, essential manifestations of human creation that further humanity as testaments of our ability. However, it's frustrating to see and feel like several of these forms, at least in modern society, are held to much higher regard than others, no matter the brilliance, hard work, and determination of those leading their industries.

As those who know me have probably already guessed, the benchmark art form discussed from this perspective between my roommate and I was fashion. We feel that of all the artistic forms available it is the one with the worst public reputation, seen as "frivolous" and "unnecessary," when job prospects in the industry are either the same or greater in terms of availability and pay than, say, a career in visual arts, dance, or photography, and the amount of artistic depth/cost the same as other industries (ex. depth of a painting v. a peacock feather jacket, at similar prices).

Why is this? Why is fashion held with such low respect among the general population? Anna Wintour, the legendary editor-in-chief of U.S. Vogue and described by Forbes as "the most powerful woman in fashion", once said in an interview that she feels like her brother, an editor for a London newspaper, views her career and industry as "silly." What would cause even a family member to feel that way, to belittle the person who essentially runs the industry?

Now this isn't just me ranting about fashion, as my artistic passions lie with many other forms and I have friends within every industry on the list. What about them? What about all other forms of art? Are there some that, no matter what level you're at, are still held to higher regard than others? For example, is it more socially acceptable and encouraged to become a rock musician or movie star instead of the next Emeril Lagasse or Andy Warhol? And if you believe so, why?

I'm sorry for the long post but I wanted to get everything out there for discussion, and I really wanted to ask you guys because I feel, again, that you're a good test group: most people in an internet community like ours tend to be Math & Science driven, pursuing careers in said fields or, say, Computer Science. Art, therefore, is something you consume, yes daily, but most consciously for entertainment. Therefore as, consumers and not creators of art, or at least most art forms, what are your thoughts on the whole?

BLAH. Thanks for the read and your musings!

[KhainiWest]

Because fashion is stereotyped as a shallow and fickle industry and there's truth to that

[aslemn]

Well, I tend to look for three things in any artwork piece: Effort, Technique and Inspiration, being inspiration the secondary criteria.
I can't really stand some pieces from modern artists, because they are some sort of anachronism; back in the time where those were born, they had a reason to be such strange stuff, it was all about developing art to break the canons, to make "crappy and nonsense art" to convince people about the war times, and talk about human stupidity; but nowadays, it's just plain stupid to do these.

Some years ago, a German artist came over to my town, she "built a sculpture" for an event. (It was just some pieces of sawdust, and pieces of mirror thrown into a pile on the floor). A maid of the local gallery actually did "clean" it up, the woman was completely out of her mind and furious, she left saying that she was going to bring everyone to the court; but seriously, I can't really give so much value to such a work.

For me, art doesn't NEED to be explained, it can be a plus, but it can't just be a need; I can't really understand who the hell would pay a million dollars for that blank canvas with a black outline that was said to be "a mirror"; If it's already zero technique, zero effort, and just inspiration that IS NOT EVEN CLEAR and REQUIRES an explanation, how the hell is that so valuable?

I find it actually funny that people value canvas made with a machine (No idea of it's English name, but we call it the "Paint Mixer", it's just a machine with holes, you drop the paint in there and it mixes with others and goes through the holes into the canvas). A new painting is done within a minute, sold for a thousand dollars and the artist gets credit FOR pineappleING NOTHING; yet people are prejudiced with something so simple as Digital art.

I've seen MANY around here babbling pomegranate about how easy and how poor digital art is, because they say that if you require a program, it's just something a computer can do by itself; when it's pineappleing not; doing digital art sometimes is even more complicated than doing it on paper, I take more time doing it with this tablet than I do with paper, and it takes at least a year to get used to a tablet, as it just looks like nothing you do on "physical" art.

I'm both open to some forms of art as I'm stubborn to those stupid anachronisms; and Fashion is one of them; being really sincere, I don't really like a part of fashion, maybe because of it's universe (that possibly is the reason some people don't value it, because I've heard many associating it to a universe that asks for "skeletons using frivolous clothes", they seem to heavily dislike the culture around it, and how it sometimes dictates things, opposing to the freedom of art; that's what I heard), but fashion exists outside that situation.

I actually admire fashion, as it fulfills the mentioned criteria more than many forms of modern art; it requires a lot of technique, a lot of effort on the small details, and can express inspiration; I tend to make people look at other manifestations of such art, like how movies and even games require specialists to design the character clothes with an extremely delicate and beautiful amount of details, all clothes have a reason to be that way, some even represent the character's personality, fantasy can be associated with it, and personally, I think that representing personality onto clothes is just fantastic; I prefer fantasy over the default fashion world, but I try to understand it too.

Fashion is an extremely underrated form of modern art, as digital art is to some people; I just can't really stand how those require so much effort and are so underrated, yet some two minute paintings done without even knowing how to hold a pencil or a brush are so valuable.

[icephoenix21]

Because fashion is stereotyped as a shallow and fickle industry and there's truth to that

Regardless of it having truth to it or not, it is still a needed industry, and in my opinion, should be respected as such.

I've seen MANY around here babbling pomegranate about how easy and how poor digital art is, because they say that if you require a program, it's just something a computer can do by itself; when it's pineappleing not; doing digital art sometimes is even more complicated than doing it on paper, I take more time doing it with this tablet than I do with paper, and it takes at least a year to get used to a tablet, as it just looks like nothing you do on "physical" art.

Fashion is an extremely underrated form of modern art, as digital art is to some people; I just can't really stand how those require so much effort and are so underrated, yet some two minute paintings done without even knowing how to hold a pencil or a brush are so valuable.

QFT. There is no magic button in digital programs that just 'make you a better artist and produce awesome digital pieces of art'. The same concept could be said for fashion. It takes knowledge beyond that of a basic education to do. It's not something I can do, so kudos to those who can.

[KhainiWest]

Regardless of it having truth to it or not, it is still a needed industry, and in my opinion, should be respected as such.

How exactly is fashion needed?

[Razmos]

How exactly is fashion needed?

Because how else would we know if tiger stripes are in this season?

(I don't get how it's important either)

[ImagineAll]

Because fashion is stereotyped as a shallow and fickle industry and there's truth to that

Shallow in what sense? It's a generally accepted fact that people are scrutinized and judged by their appearance in all walks of life, not solely limited to the fashion industry. It may be a little more fine-tuned and peachy due to most working in it being far more socially aware of what is in and what is out, but I'm sure most would agree that this is true for any group of any specialized work force.

And fickle? Are you kidding me? Fashion is as ever changing as an industry as any other industry in the world. The technology industry says hello.

[icephoenix21]

How exactly is fashion needed?

I like having new clothes, new styles, etc.

Who wants to wear the same thing for years to come?

While most people don't buy things straight off the runway, other brands and clothing lines derive from it.

No fashion, no designers= no new clothing styles.

[KhainiWest]

Shallow in what sense? It's a generally accepted fact that people are scrutinized and judged by their appearance in all walks of life, not solely limited to the fashion industry. It may be a little more fine-tuned and peachy due to most working in it being far more socially aware of what is in and what is out, but I'm sure most would agree that this is true for any group of any specialized work force.

The industries very existance is in fact a reinforcment of judging that is frankly unnecessary. And in my personal opinion you'll be judged and scrutinized based on your income rather than "fashion". That's what it comes down to, and it's a shallow way to live to be quite frank.

And fickle? Are you kidding me? Fashion is as ever changing as an industry as any other industry in the world. The technology industry says hello.

...Making it fickle, it's not only very judgemental about the whole in and out phases, but changes, quickly. All because of rarity really, technology is ever changing because it grows efficient, that's a pretty terrible comparison.

I like having new clothes, new styles, etc.

Who wants to wear the same thing for years to come?

While most people don't buy things straight off the runway, other brands and clothing lines derive from it.

No fashion, no designers= no new clothing styles.

You like, you don't need. And the perspective of it's industry is not only on what it produces but it's attitude it presents. In my opinion the industry is no more fake/shallow/unforgiving has being an actor in hollywood. It's a huge conglormorate that says "buy this because we think it looks nice generally", there's no importance to that, like at all.

[ImagineAll]

How exactly is fashion needed?

You can make statements like these because you're blissfully unaware of the hardwork and innovation that goes into launching the shirt you wear out and the pants you put on when you get home from a long days work. You view it as an unnecessary expenditure because you weren't there when that item (or at least the one that it was branched from) was showcased at a fashion show in
Paris during the 1990's. You're able to do this because someone else put forth the time and effort to create such a product.

Fashion is the single most socially relevant and frequently used form of art in the world, and people simply do not realize and appreciate that fact enough.

[aslemn]

How exactly is fashion needed?

It can be a great addition when used; I'm not talking about nor I really give a damn about which clothes are perfect for this season, but I'm more focusing on the knowledge about that outside the catwalk.

It's necessary on many different situations, if you need to make a movie about a certain period of time, you'll need someone that pays attention to every single detail of the clothes from that time so he can create other models to fit the theme and get a nice effect on the movie, you need to study about many different styles, opposed to using someone that knows nothing about it and end up with the characters using something ridiculously wrong; it's necessary to games as well, as about every game has a clothes designer for it's character, and doing that may require a lot of knowledge about color and materials, because many of those are actually representing the character by it's clothes.

I actually prefer to see and think about this hidden, yet extremely necessary extent of fashion, than the other part of this universe. Focusing on this branch, I can see the whole effort and amount of knowledge required to admire it as a form of art.

[KhainiWest]

You can make statements like these because you're blissfully unaware of the hardwork and innovation that goes into launching the shirt you wear out and the pants you put on when you get home from a long days work. You view it as an unnecessary expenditure because you weren't there when that item (or at least the one that it was branched from) was showcased at a fashion show in
Paris during the 1990's. You're able to do this because someone else put forth the time and effort to create such a product.

Fashion is the single most socially relevant and frequently used form of art in the world, and people simply do not realize and appreciate that fact enough.

Kind of like farmers with food? Or glass molders that make vases in sicily? Every product requires hardwork, that's a silly thing to even bring up. You also have to consider how far up the food chain you're going. My girlfriend loves shopping for purses and high heels specifically, I don't understand the allure and some of the styles I do see (she fortunately doesn't buy) are so tasteless, skanky and just ridiculous. I mean who want's to buy a high heel covered in yellow spikes? Or pumps that are so bright red it looks like they were just spray painted? The worst part is these styles were once revered as "EVOLUTIONARY".

It's really the arrogance that comes off from these fashion shows that bother me, variety is always good and a plus. It also has an oppurtunity for specific artists (fabrics/patterns, ect.) to thrive. So I don't believe this type of operation deserves this "holy" respect you guy's are claiming. Neither does sports but people eat up that barbaric crap for breakfast anyway lol

[FrozNlite]

The industries very existance is in fact a reinforcment of judging that is frankly unnecessary. And in my personal opinion you'll be judged and scrutinized based on your income rather than "fashion". That's what it comes down to, and it's a shallow way to live to be quite frank.

Interesting thought for you: one of fashion's biggest benefits is in first impressions. I agree that I think people can be very shallow when judging others, but you cannot deny the reality of first impressions in our world. In anything from fleeting seconds to quick minutes, two people meeting look at every facet of a person they can to determine how they feel about that person, whether that's if they're interested in talking with them at the bar, curious about continuing an interview for a job, or deciding what kind of treatment one receives in the service industry.

Time has solidified that those who do not care for their appearance are not treated the same as others. Is that fair? Absolutely not, but in a brief moment what would you do? This is the intersection between fashion and social psychology, when things like a potential job or date or a ticket on that next flight after yours was cancelled are on the line. And those who dress well are consistently held to higher esteem than those who don't.

The perfect example is, again, in jobs: if you were an interviewer, how would you respond in the 15 minutes you had with a potential candidate if they arrived on time looking slovenly, unkempt, with a dirty appearance and a rank odor? Sure they may be an ungodly genius in your field with an impressive resume, but perhaps one of their biggest faults is organization and time management, which is seen in how they present themselves at an interview. Would you want to hire them, especially if in this job market the next person you interview might have the same credentials but arrive beautifully put together?

@aslemn and @ImagineAll said it well when they highlighted fashion's subtle impacts in every facet of one's life. Just because they're not readily noticeable doesn't mean they aren't swaying someone's perception or opinion of you. Sure you can dislike that people judge based on fashion, but why not play it to your advantage by dressing well?

You like, you don't need. And the perspective of it's industry is not only on what it produces but it's attitude it presents. In my opinion the industry is no more fake/shallow/unforgiving has being an actor in hollywood. It's a huge conglormorate that says "buy this because we think it looks nice generally", there's no importance to that, like at all.

See above regarding importance, but with regards to the arrogance, I agree. Hell, I've heard from plenty of big names in the industry I worked with this summer that they especially dislike the "snobbery" and "egotism" seen within the fashion world. But there are plenty who aren't like that, and it's important to ignore someone's hubris in any walk of life. At the same time those with excessive self pride may still create amazing works of art or entertainment (see: my love, among many, for Lady Gaga), so it's also important to note the separation between hubris and creation.

Fashion is the single most socially relevant and frequently used form of art in the world, and people simply do not realize and appreciate that fact enough.

Actually I would argue that food is the most socially relevant and frequently used form of art in the world, and staunchly stand behind increasing its reputation among art forms. But I agree with fashion high up there, at either #2 or #3, for, again, its impact in almost every facet of daily interaction and personal identity.

[Miek]

I think people tend to focus on the wrong side of fashion (the allure, industry, etc). Of course it's fickle, that's kind of how business works right? To say we don't need fashion is just like saying we don't need entertainment at all. It's just like saying we don't need the video game industry to survive, we don't need the sports entertainment to survive. In fact we all these in our society. We need "industries" (maybe hobbies) to stimulate our body and mind. What's the harm in admiring a beautifully draped dress?

I mean I don't think it's any different from you judging "bright red pumps". That part of fashion is about expression, the art of styling. Something about wearing a statement piece (something you adore) helps empower you and your whole confidence in general. You're an idiot if you think it has to be a $1,000 jeweled bangle, or a couture $5,000 dress. You coordinate your outfit around a Super Mario pin you friggin' love, that's your statement piece. Some people don't get it, and that's fine, you don't need to care about it.

Watch any episode of Project Runway, and try to tell me these designers don't deserve the recognition they get. Just like any other company, they work just as hard if not harder (because it IS so fickle) to maintain their brand, their company. One day you're in! The next day you're out! Whole fashion houses risk everything every year to put on a show.

To say fashion shouldn't be as highly regarded as other art forms is complete ignorance. Fashion is basically wearable art, architect and design all in one. Styling is about empowering and expression.

Hate the game, not the players!

[KhainiWest]

Interesting thought for you: one of fashion's biggest benefits is in first impressions. I agree that I think people can be very shallow when judging others, but you cannot deny the reality of first impressions in our world. In anything from fleeting seconds to quick minutes, two people meeting look at every facet of a person they can to determine how they feel about that person, whether that's if they're interested in talking with them at the bar, curious about continuing an interview for a job, or deciding what kind of treatment one receives in the service industry.

I'm lost where you're going with this, first impressions when going into the fashion industry or in general? Sure clothes matter but most "fashionable" things I'm referring to aren't related to business apparell, although I do digress it does exist. And when you speak of fashion how broad are we going? That could go as far as haircuts, or how you shave. It's rather broad so I just focus on the whole stereotypical runway. I'm ignorant when it comes to fashion, extremely, so I'm the best example of stereotyping, first impression ironically.

Time has solidified that those who do not care for their appearance are not treated the same as others. Is that fair? Absolutely not, but in a brief moment what would you do? This is the intersection between fashion and social psychology, when things like a potential job or date or a ticket on that next flight after yours was cancelled are on the line. And those who dress well are consistently held to higher esteem than those who don't.

Who says such things need to be stated in a negative context? As a human you have to be shallow in order to be safe, that goes as far as stereotyping people based on race. The only difference in that example is that you can purchase and change your appearance, while you can't really change your skin color, well in a rational way. The entire corporation is shallow and fickle, but to be good at what they do they need to be. I find it slightly refreshing that you aren't denying it but justifying why they have to, which is completely accurate.

The perfect example is, again, in jobs: if you were an interviewer, how would you respond in the 15 minutes you had with a potential candidate if they arrived on time looking slovenly, unkempt, with a dirty appearance and a rank odor? Sure they may be an ungodly genius in your field with an impressive resume, but perhaps one of their biggest faults is organization and time management, which is seen in how they present themselves at an interview. Would you want to hire them, especially if in this job market the next person you interview might have the same credentials but arrive beautifully put together?

You're getting hygeine mixed up with dressing up.

@aslemn and @ImagineAll said it well when they highlighted fashion's subtle impacts in every facet of one's life. Just because they're not readily noticeable doesn't mean they aren't swaying someone's perception or opinion of you. Sure you can dislike that people judge based on fashion, but why not play it to your advantage by dressing well?

The thing is you're trying to justify fashion yet argue the stereotype that comes generally with it. When someone like me, who know's little about the industry, hears fashion, the first thing that comes to mind is "LATEST MUST HAVE", circumstances. It's a cult to be honest, and it's no surprise how it's quickly regenerated in cheaper materials yet still retain the same like for the 10th of the price. That's why I consider the industry a frivolous endeavor and retains an image most women can't live up too. Specifically american women.

Actually I would argue that food is the most socially relevant and frequently used form of art in the world, and staunchly stand behind increasing its reputation among art forms. But I agree with fashion high up there, at either #2 or #3, for, again, its impact in almost every facet of daily interaction and personal identity.

True but that's an entirely different argument entirely.

[SaptaZapta]

Some disorganized comments on the fashion industry (might edit later if I have time).

It's nice to have variety, but I don't want anybody dictating that if I don't wear a neon-colored semi-transparent shell top that falls off one shoulder this summer, I am a criminal. (Or that if I keep on wearing it next year I deserve all the scorn I get). I don't want to be unable to find pants with the waistline at the, you know, waist, just because somebody decided that this year we must all show off our pelvic bones and/or the spare tires padding them. I don't want to be pre-judged at a job interview just because my glasses with the big lenses still work fine and I haven't felt the need to spend $500 to replace them with narrow rectangles.

When I buy a painting or a statue to decorate my home, they are good for years. Fashions may change but they change slowly and gradually, and generally a good work of art is appreciated even after it's not "the latest fashion". With clothes, a perfectly useful item that was considered fabulous last year is intolerable this year for arbitrary reasons that are no more than decrees by the "industry". Why was neon green ridiculous last year, but mandatory this year, and probably ridiculous again next year?

Music has trends too, but even if [style_name] is "in" this year and all you'll hear on a top-40 channel, there are still plenty of channels playing other styles, and the CDs or downloads are available almost as easily if you happen to like Rock, Metal, 50's pop, or even Opera.
Clothing fashions, however, change every season, and other types of clothes will completely disappear from shops. You like your jacket lapels the way they were last winter? Tough. Wait a decade or two, maybe they'll return. For now, get with the times.

Other complaint is that fashions are made for models. They are then sort-of scaled for people who might be a little shorter or fuller, but not really. And then you see people walking around looking horrible because they're wearing things that really don't compliment their build - but as I mentioned before, you just can't find other cuts in normal stores. Not all of us can afford to have our clothes tailor-made.

[Aircalibur]

I like to think of Fashion more or less how I think of other art. It's really interesting the different ways that people interpret it. I can't honestly imagine buying into high fashion, the way I might buy into art. For one, men's fashion is terribly expensive, and for another, burgundy is in this year, and that is so not my color.

But you know, I've always thought there should be more fashion museums. I mean, fashion in the Victorian era easily warrants a museum, but modern fashion you see on runways? It's just like art. Some is contemporary, some is abstract, and some I swear to god people were tripping on some good pomegranate when they made it.

Wearing fashion isn't for me though. I'm fine with my 300$ suit, but I can't get all the extra finery. I'll stick with my cheap Aeropostale crap. At least it's comfortable.

[FrozNlite]

I'm lost where you're going with this, first impressions when going into the fashion industry or in general? Sure clothes matter but most "fashionable" things I'm referring to aren't related to business apparell, although I do digress it does exist. And when you speak of fashion how broad are we going? That could go as far as haircuts, or how you shave. It's rather broad so I just focus on the whole stereotypical runway. I'm ignorant when it comes to fashion, extremely, so I'm the best example of stereotyping, first impression ironically.

I'm talking about first impressions in general, and yes, when I speak of fashion (at least in the context of this thread), I'm speaking of the art of appearances, and therefore yes, fashion, beauty, hygiene, body stylings, etc.

Who says such things need to be stated in a negative context? As a human you have to be shallow in order to be safe, that goes as far as stereotyping people based on race. The only difference in that example is that you can purchase and change your appearance, while you can't really change your skin color, well in a rational way. The entire corporation is shallow and fickle, but to be good at what they do they need to be. I find it slightly refreshing that you aren't denying it but justifying why they have to, which is completely accurate.

I'm confused what you mean by me "justifying why they have to be shallow and fickle." The content of the art is shallow or fickle, but I can understand why some may view its usage as being shallow or fickle given its ultimate purpose in appearances, which many people don't view with as much importance as, say, the ability to cure cancer. I'm also not saying that designing a beautiful dress is in no way close to the importance of curing cancer, but that within the realm of the art world it's a highly impressive skill worth respect.

Finally, I'm also not saying that I agree with the many people who find fashion's usage to be "shallow or fickle," as it's not; again, the boiled down point I'm trying to make is that appearances matter much more than people give them credit, as it's through first impressions based on appearances that people can assert a sort-of power. My mentor at InStyle once told me he views fashion as a form of persuasion, not just in the intimate, sexy "get-into-bed" sense but, again, in the ability to sway one's opinion of you towards a higher esteem by simply looking put-together.

The thing is you're trying to justify fashion yet argue the stereotype that comes generally with it. When someone like me, who know's little about the industry, hears fashion, the first thing that comes to mind is "LATEST MUST HAVE", circumstances. It's a cult to be honest, and it's no surprise how it's quickly regenerated in cheaper materials yet still retain the same like for the 10th of the price. That's why I consider the industry a frivolous endeavor and retains an image most women can't live up too. Specifically american women.

Ready for the biggest secret in fashion (that's also not really a secret): the "LATEST MUST HAVE" the "SEASONS TOP TRENDS" - they're all just inspirations for how people want to dress in accordance to their personal style. I'll post more about this in response to Sapta below.

Some disorganized comments on the fashion industry (might edit later if I have time).

It's nice to have variety, but I don't want anybody dictating that if I don't wear a neon-colored semi-transparent shell top that falls off one shoulder this summer, I am a criminal. (Or that if I keep on wearing it next year I deserve all the scorn I get). I don't want to be unable to find pants with the waistline at the, you know, waist, just because somebody decided that this year we must all show off our pelvic bones and/or the spare tires padding them. I don't want to be pre-judged at a job interview just because my glasses with the big lenses still work fine and I haven't felt the need to spend $500 to replace them with narrow rectangles.

When I buy a painting or a statue to decorate my home, they are good for years. Fashions may change but they change slowly and gradually, and generally a good work of art is appreciated even after it's not "the latest fashion". With clothes, a perfectly useful item that was considered fabulous last year is intolerable this year for arbitrary reasons that are no more than decrees by the "industry". Why was neon green ridiculous last year, but mandatory this year, and probably ridiculous again next year?

Music has trends too, but even if [style_name] is "in" this year and all you'll hear on a top-40 channel, there are still plenty of channels playing other styles, and the CDs or downloads are available almost as easily if you happen to like Rock, Metal, 50's pop, or even Opera.
Clothing fashions, however, change every season, and other types of clothes will completely disappear from shops. You like your jacket lapels the way they were last winter? Tough. Wait a decade or two, maybe they'll return. For now, get with the times.

Other complaint is that fashions are made for models. They are then sort-of scaled for people who might be a little shorter or fuller, but not really. And then you see people walking around looking horrible because they're wearing things that really don't compliment their build - but as I mentioned before, you just can't find other cuts in normal stores. Not all of us can afford to have our clothes tailor-made.

In continuing with my comment to Khaini above, all of what is seen as the "cult" of the industry, the "latest must haves," the "biggest trends" - they're all just inspirations for your personal style. At the end of the day style is an individual manifestation of your personal identity, an avenue of expression all your own that shouldn't be some thoughtless conglomeration of every current trend of the season. If it is, people would probably scorn you for trying to hard.

My point is this: say there are 8-10 major trends every season. You in no ways need to wear EVERY SINGLE ONE throughout that season. A great example would be Camo, which is a huge trend in both womens and menswear this Fall. I HATE Camo, and would never wear the style unless some unique example presented itself that was totally separate of what I see day in and day out in Wisconsin - which, of course, I have yet to see.

That's the same with, say, neon as a trend this summer, as you exampled. I love neon but not being awash in it. A great way to wear the trend, as most good magazines highlighted this season, was also to not douse yourself in it but add little pops: a neon bag, a neon skirt, neon socks.

Long story short, trends are merely patterns in the fashion of the season, not dictations of how individual styles should change. As Coco Chanel once said, "Fashion fades, only style remains." Style is what appearances are made of and what is ultimately scorned or praised, and style boils down to your knowledge of your body type and ability to compliment it with appropriate clothing, while infusing elements of trends each season that YOU like.

I will say, too, that there are probably 100x more fashion brands out there than most people know. I myself thought I knew most brands before working at InStyle this summer, and found I knew maybe 30% of them. In other words, just because you can't find something in a fit or cut you like at one store doesn't mean 50 others don't actually make it. And wonderfully, with the advent of the internet and sites like eBay, people can now find those pieces from bygone years and seasons for reasonable prices by connecting with sellers online.

************************************************** ************

The bottom line is that fashion is WORK. If you want to look good, you need to put the time into researching and experimenting with what looks good on YOU and YOUR body type. Note that I did not say money, because with the advent of fast fashion and the internet, looking put-together - not necessarily the most runway-trendy person, but put-together - isn't unreasonable for most people. And because there's an abundance of information on how-to for your individual self, to choose not to put in the effort is a statement of laziness, nothing more.

[Fiel]

I'll give my thoughts on this, but I'll be the first to say that I don't know a damned thing about fashion. I've never had enough money to care about it. I'm certain once I have more money then I'll care more about staying a bit up to date.

I view fashion as a war of brands, not looks. Wear the right brands with something that came out in the past few years and I think I should be fine. When I hear people work "in the fashion industry" I tend to think of the popular definition of it: the runways in paris, italy, and new york with all sorts of frilly useless clothing. I completely understand that the way I view fashion is completely naive and at this point I have not done enough research to know the wide range and depth there is to the field. I assume that fashion is even more complex than computers - it's been around for millenia after all.

However, looking at the entertainment industry, the fine line is drawn between popular accord and discord in relation to how much thought is required to understand it. People view poetry, painting, and art history as something esoteric because they have to interpret what the artist meant when creating it. Performance arts requires less of this because usually in theater the morals are explained and in rock music the vibe of the song allows you to understand the meaning behind the poetry of the music. Rock music also requires little thought - I don't have to think about it much to appreciate it.

[SaptaZapta]

The bottom line is that fashion is WORK. If you want to look good, you need to put the time into researching and experimenting with what looks good on YOU and YOUR body type. Note that I did not say money, because with the advent of fast fashion and the internet, looking put-together - not necessarily the most runway-trendy person, but put-together - isn't unreasonable for most people. And because there's an abundance of information on how-to for your individual self, to choose not to put in the effort is a statement of laziness, nothing more.

And there you have it. That is why people don't view fashion as art.
Art should not be work, or not that kind of work.
The artist works, the public consumes. We view, we listen, we like or dislike, but we don't have to work on it. We are not tested on it.
When the "art" of fashion is to come up with 8 or 10 different new trends each year and then make the public work to make them fit, that's not art. That's a capricious game of "Simon says".