How do you decide when it's time to sell a jacket?

[navetsea]

I think it depend on their creator's intention.
if the person who made it consider him/herself an artist and the item is made to be their artistic expression then it is an art.

and then usually they would make something that looks outrageous, hard to understand, make people wonder, and then priced astronomically so nobody would buy it, or if someone do buy it then certainly it won't be a jacket to be worn.

however I doubt that was the intention of jacket makers in general, I think they just want to make well made jackets that is easily understandable by their clients that would love to buy and wear, and tell others about their brand.

 

[Plumbline]

Is utility and function necessarily divorced from art?
View attachment 86568

Thats closer to Art than a fully functional motorcycle - shocking brakes, rubbish saddle, awful riding position, pretty poor engine and at best average suspension ... a Suzuki SV650 would out handle and out perform it in almost every capacity. I never understood the logic ... like people who buy an Enfield Bullet because of it's "look" in spite of the fact that it's a pretty shocking motorcycle by any standard (even the standard of the 1950's). Then again I never really got the "Cafe Racer Thing"... all pose not "goes" and the reliability, durability and functionality argument replaced with one of form IMHO

Big J .. the Spitfire and Concorde were designed for very specific functionality (the Spitfire re. speed and maneuverability - Concorde re. speed alone TBH) not Artistic or aesthetic merit and I don't believe they are works of art they happen to look very appealing like my dinner last night ... but that doesn't make them art. They were also not that functional .. the Spitfire's main limitations being range and combat durability ( in fact the Hurricane shot down more German aircraft than the Spitfire which gained it's mythical status because of the Battle of Britain) and Concord's demise was primarily down to it's payload ( passenger) and operating cost limitations it was also by all accounts not a very "good" aircraft.

Many have the view that if a thing "looks" good (a totally subjective perspective) then that makes it "ART" or if it is expertly crafted therefore it's "ART" or if it's well designed then it's "ART" ... which is simply not a view I subscribe to (sorry) or maybe I'm just more practical than artistic

 

[Big J]

@Plumbline, I never said that the Spitfire or Concord were designed to look good, rather the exact opposite; their designs are 100% utilitarian. Coincidentally, they both happy to be pretty. I argue simply that single purposely utilitarian design does not preclude the possibility of beauty. The Harrier jet was also designed utilitarianly, yet it's as ugly as sin.

Regarding definitions of art, what do you regard as art? Could you give a couple of examples please? There's lots of art I don't like, but I still appreciate that it is art. For example, there's whole genres of music I wouldn't bear to listen to, clothes I wouldn't wear, cars I wouldn't drive, but they are still art.

 

[ProteinNerd]

I never see jacket as an object of art, nor a car, or motorcycle, or sword

I have to disagree there. I have a 400 year old Katana that has been verified as used in battle and has Hozon certification that means it has been deemed worthy of preservation by the NBTHK. In essence I've seen less impressive swords in museums....to say this isn't a work of art is just plain wrong.

 

[Plumbline]

What do I consider ART (physical as opposed to performance) ... a well executed painting (be it landscape, portrait or occasionally even abstract - though I struggle a bit with abstract), sculpture especially when representative of life form ( sorry .. an unmade bed or a pile of bricks isn't ART IMHO). The dictionary definition is good:

"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

If I consider something PRIMARILY because of it's functional crafting or capability (even though it may be very beautiful as a secondary consequence e.g. the timeless design of the 5 pocket W color motorcycle jacket) then to me it isn't "ART" .... if I'm admiring something PRIMARILY because it has been created or crafted for it's beauty or emotive power (even though it may happen to be functional as a secondary consideration e.g. it will cover a stain on my wallpaper) then that is ART

Performance "ART" is broadly the same but using the human body for beauty or emotive power e.g. singing, dance or acting for example. If it's being used for functional activity e.g. cooking then that's not ART IMHO.

I guess in summary it's the INTENT rather than the product.

Leather jackets are functional but also happen to be pretty .. one well known practitioner articulates my perspective re. the functionality leather jackets well .... he doesn't refer to Artists or ( good forbid) Artisans designing or making leather jackets but CRAFTSMEN ( I'm sure there's no sexist intent either - just for the record). His principles are "made to last and made to be repaired" - durability and functionallity - "made impeccably" "never in fashion but never out of fashion" - not fashion almost.

Just MHO

 

[navetsea]

I have to disagree there. I have a 400 year old Katana that has been verified as used in battle and has Hozon certification that means it has been deemed worthy of preservation by the NBTHK. In essence I've seen less impressive swords in museums....to say this isn't a work of art is just plain wrong.

but the phrase "work of art" means something that is well designed, made with the greatest of skill, immaculate, beautifully crafted,
while the object can be anything, it can be a well designed software, it can be an engine of a car, it can be a clever plan, can be an overtaking manuever by an excellent race car driver, can be a delicious dish, can also be a sword
at the time it was created it was designed as a tool to kill, also as status symbol of the warrior who carried it, pride of the craftmanship of the blacksmith who made it, it is only when people found it again after all the history behind it then it is labelled as art, it's your decision to put it on a special place and see it as art, which is fine,
sometime when we sit on the beach we find a really beautiful looking shell, and we bring it home, if I put it on my desk as an object to look at then from that moment on it becomes art to me, but when I put it on my desk as a paper weight, then it is nothing more than a pretty looking paperweight from last vacation to me.

a painting on the wall, for the painter who did it it can be an art if he put his feeling into it, and hoping the painting would speak something to the viewers, can also be a quick cash if that is the 245th of the same running horses scene he did just because that kind of painting sells quick.
that painting for the buyer can be an art if he likes it for what it is, and be inspired by the technique or the lifelike of the horses (even when the painter who did it can do it in his sleep and don't think much of it because it was done so often)
but another buyer of the same painting can also see it as room decoration just because it has matching color tone with the curtain in that room, in that case the painting is not an art for that buyer.

just my point of view though.

 

[Monitor]

but the phrase "work of art" means something that is well designed, made with the greatest of skill, immaculate, beautifully crafted,
while the object can be anything, it can be a well designed software, it can be an engine of a car, it can be a clever plan, can be an overtaking manuever by an excellent race car driver, can be a delicious dish, can also be a sword
at the time it was created it was designed as a tool to kill, also as status symbol of the warrior who carried it, pride of the craftmanship of the blacksmith who made it, it is only when people found it again after all the history behind it then it is labelled as art, it's your decision to put it on a special place and see it as art, which is fine,
sometime when we sit on the beach we find a really beautiful looking shell, and we bring it home, if I put it on my desk as an object to look at then from that moment on it becomes art to me, but when I put it on my desk as a paper weight, then it is nothing more than a pretty looking paperweight from last vacation to me.

a painting on the wall, for the painter who did it it can be an art if he put his feeling into it, and hoping the painting would speak something to the viewers, can also be a quick cash if that is the 245th of the same running horses scene he did just because that kind of painting sells quick.
that painting for the buyer can be an art if he likes it for what it is, and be inspired by the technique or the lifelike of the horses (even when the painter who did it can do it in his sleep and don't think much of it because it was done so often)
but another buyer of the same painting can also see it as room decoration just because it has matching color tone with the curtain in that room, in that case the painting is not an art for that buyer.

just my point of view though.

Agreed.

 

[ton312]

Agreed.

I second the notion! There we have finally answered the question that has been posed across the ages. Now can we move on to "What is the meaning of life?"

 

[Monitor]

I second the notion! There we have finally answered the question that has been posed across the ages. Now can we move on to "What is the meaning of life?"

No way. I've got a lot more to say!

 

[MisterCairo]

I second the notion! There we have finally answered the question that has been posed across the ages. Now can we move on to "What is the meaning of life?"

Duh, it's 42...

 

[MisterCairo]

All I know about art is what Red Green once said about art: "If I can do it, it's not art..."

 

[Edward]

Duh, it's 42...

Yes, but what's the question?

Girls MUST wear leather.

Now you're talking my language. Course, I'd make the same ruling for men. No sexist.

For me...I'm fairly certain my latest Aero order will answer the question about a leather jacket Being a work of art.
View attachment 86565

Quite so!

I never see jacket as an object of art, nor a car, or motorcycle, or sword, or wristwatch, leather shoes
sure they can be designed to look pretty or rare, or even one of a kind if you customized them, but they are made to be used, to be worn, until it wears out.

there are art pieces that borrows the shape of motorcycle or jacket, or pen or some other functional objects, but they are clearly designed not to be ever used, and most of them at least to me look stupid, because automatically we relate them to their function, and see how completely useless they are, why bother pose as a functional object why not just make a sculpture or something.

but what do I know.... nowadays half eaten cake can be art too,

Art, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Art Vs Utility? The two don't preclude each other. Both the Spitfire and Concord are 100% utilitarian designs, but are they not also beautiful works of art?

The spitfure is such a graceful thing, it's easy to forget (and all the more shocking when you remember!) that it's design purpose ws, ultimately, to kill another human being in a similar work of art. Though none of the others quite had the lines of the Spitfire.

 

[Edward]

 

[pak]

Big J. I'm thinking about your 'Art is not science'. Without mathematics and science most art would not exist. Without math and science is it noise or music. This goes back to the question 'What is art?'

 

[Monitor]

Big J. I'm thinking about your 'Art is not science'. Without mathematics and science most art would not exist.

How do you mean?

 

[handymike]

Art has leaned heavily on both math and science since Leonardo Da Vinci.

 

[Monitor]

Art has leaned heavily on both math and science since Leonardo Da Vinci.

Yeah, but that was his thing. Art really doesn't need neither math nor science. In fact, some of my favorite pieces of art are completely devoid of it.

 

[Edward]

Art has leaned heavily on both math and science since Leonardo Da Vinci.

Indeed. I remember even when I was at school thinknig there was something very wrong when the 'creative' kids were pushed in the arts, and those with less imagination seen as natural scientists / mathematicians. The most insulting thing I've ever heard was the headmaster of aschool in NI who wrote against a pupil's application to read law at university "Has no imagination. Will make an ideal lawyer." The day any field is devoid of creative thinkers, it is dead.

 

[MisterCairo]

Big J. I'm thinking about your 'Art is not science'. Without mathematics and science most art would not exist. Without math and science is it noise or music. This goes back to the question 'What is art?'

Let us examine the math and science behind this "art". Voice of Fire. Purchased for $1.8 million by Canada's National Gallery in 1990. Apparently worth $40 million today:

https://www.gallery.ca/sites/default/files/styles/ngc_scale_1200/public/Voice of Fire.jpg?itok=KU5gM01y&timestamp=1497109301

There was much snickering about this at the time. Even more when it was discovered, after several years in the gallery, to have been hung upside down...

 

[Monitor]

Even more when it was discovered, after several years in the gallery, to have been hung upside down...

That story alone justifies the price.