So I have finally managed to cull through the photos from my
most recent trip to the De Young Museum with Mom.
This time around it was all about The Art of Bulgari: La Dolce Vita & Beyond, 1950–1990. The
exhibition should really be labeled “conspicuous consumption.” It is mind
boggling to imagine anyone really owning one of these incredible pieces. These jewels may escape the confines of their
velvet prisons for a day or two on the neck of some Hollywood
star, but most of their lives are probably spent inside a cold, dark
vault. Which is sad, right?
I have the same problem with incredible
vintage fashion. It is meant to be worn,
but its life will be shortened by daily wear and tear. So it is better to preserve it in the pristine
setting of a museum or vault, or should it be out in the world? I am not sure which answer makes me more comfortable. What I do know is . . . I have never seen such gorgeous emeralds
in person, and probably never will ever again!
Photos really cannot do justice to these pieces, and I am so pleased
that I had a chance to see them with my own eyes.
A trip to the museum always gets me into a heated discussion
with my boss about what deserves the title of “art” and what truly belongs in a
museum. He would never be caught dead in
the Bvlgari exhibit (even though he visits this museum frequently). He insists that these things are a sell out
and that fashion exhibitions and the like do not belong in an art museum.
I did manage to get him into the Gaultier exhibit last year (but that
probably had more to do with the fact that I happened to mention there were
quite a few photos of attractive young models showing quite a bit of flesh).
How can something (even if it is made of fabric or mineral) with exquisite attention to composition, color, form, line, etc., not be considered art? And is the creator of these "fashion" pieces not considered an artist?
I do not always want to see the suffering of the world on
display – sometimes escapism is needed, even on the walls of a museum.
Can’t something be just about beauty for beauty’s sake? Does it have to make some political impact to
be important?
In my world, it certainly does not. That may be naive, but it is how I get through the day.
Dress: Made by me, Vogue 883
Bolero: Made by me,
Butterick 4927
Hat: Vintage
Shoes: Colin Stuart
Necklace: Banana
Republic
Earrings: Shadows
My goodness, that dress and cape is just exquisite! I'm sorry, it just overshadowed the talk about jewels and Bvlgari... What a beautiful fit and fabric.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you - I always feel that art (and music) should be things you enjoy in some way. It doesn't have to necessarily be 'easy' and can challenge you, but ultimately, it's supposed to be a form of enjoyment is it not? And beautiful clothing, expertly made, is definitely a work of art.
ReplyDeleteyou look so beautiful. the dress and the cape are awesome and the styling ready for the red carpet
ReplyDeleteKiller outfit!! Where does one find stunning fabric like that? Is it quilted, or just appears quilted at a distance? It is a marvelous fabric with the dress and cape design. BTW, did your mom give birth to you at the age of 12 or something??? She looks like your beautiful older sister.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
DeleteThis was one of those Fashion Fabrics purchases from years ago that turned out better than expected (that doesn’t always happen!). I knew that I wanted to make this Eva Dress repro with it and ended up picking the green, instead of a blue. Now I am mad that I did not get both - I don't know where the company sources the fabric and they disappear rather quickly. The best way to describe it would be a dupioni weight (this is a rayon/acetate blend as I recall) with a checkered pattern woven into it that has been embellished with an eyelash yarn. Remember a few years ago when novelty yard were all the rage? That is what it looks like, but meshed into a fabric. So it is textured, but lightweight.
I ended up using a heavier lining to help give the dress a bit more structure, but other than that it really is a beautiful fabric, which always makes a dress, in my opinion!
Love your outfit! Sigh, if I owned those gems, I'd be wearing them for breakfast every morning! Gemstones and jewelry are some of the few beautiful vintage things that aren't fragile, and can take the rigors of wear. As for your boss, well, some people have a very narrow view of what is ART--I like to let everyone into the pool. All the best . . .
ReplyDeleteYour outfit is exquisite. The Bulgari exhibit is on my to-do list but I haven't had the chance to get out there -- I think I'm running out of time to see it! What constitutes art is an age-old debate -- people can have strong views. I agree with you!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Jean! I believe the exhibit is around until mid-February. If you get a chance, I would stop by - seeing them in person really is an experience!
DeleteHow can your boss work along side you and not see that fashion can be art? so many of your creations and re-creations are works of art in themselves!! hey ho, to each their own! love the jewellery photos, Thank You
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, he is well aware of the effort that goes into making my clothing, and will comment on new makes in a complimentary manner! The fact that I "dress up" most days makes it normal for people who see me on a daily basis.
DeleteThis outfit is fabulous all you need is one of those Bulgari gems to complete it:) I love this period in fashion history. Wonderful fabric too!
ReplyDeleteWell said. I couldn't agree with you more. Beautiful dress!
ReplyDeleteMy husband took me to see Princess Grace's wedding ensemble and all of the accoutrements that went along with at the Philadelphia Museum of Art a couple of years ago. We have also gone for other displays and just to hang out. (He is the artsy one of the two of us.) But seeing Princess Grace's dress was breathtaking. It was lovely. And her maid's dress was just beautiful. All of the pictures I'd ever seen were black and white so seeing it in "color" so to speak was a real experience.
ReplyDeleteI just can't stop staring at your outfit. It's so beautiful, and it fits you so perfectly. Also I love that you wear such lovely clothes to museums. I always feel like I should dress up a little for all the exquisite items on display.
ReplyDeleteThis dress is nothing short of stunning! I love the fabric choice! The cut and hang is marvelous and the little capelet adds so much!
ReplyDeleteAs for clothing and jewels being kept in a vault, museum, etc. not being worn, I'm all for it. Yes, it is sad that the items are not being worn, as they were meant to be, but if they are worn, they could be worn out, and become so damaged that they will no longer exist, and then future generations cannot look at and learn from them. While there will still be photos of course, there is something about seeing the real deal and studying it.
As for beauty for beauty's sake, yes, I am all about that! :)
xoxo
-Janey
I guess that for me art can be in any medium (fabric, furniture, a mechanical design of a car, a painting, a performance, a toaster) and it can be beautiful or not, political or not, new or old, the creation of one person or of a team. But I draw the line at art needing to be something that was made with intent and something that was made with talent. I could knit a beautiful sweater following a pattern- so could any average person with practice; so this to me is craft, not art because it didn't require any special talent. But some of the knitted designs by Herbert Neibling are art to me- they required a talent that most people wouldn't have and they created something with a uniquely recognizable style. I don't consider "craft" inferior to "art", just different. And I think art should be made with intent, not accidental. The intent might be to make something beautiful, or to make a political statement, or simply "I would to create something that takes really simply shape elements and see if I can make something that is visually complex and ornate."
ReplyDeleteThe jewelry should be worn- seriously, the whole point of using precious metals in jewelry is that they don't degrade and disintegrate. With careful wearing gold jewelry can manage hundreds - if not thousands- of years of wear. When it stays in a museum, it gets looked at once and forgotten. No jeweler bothers to learn the skills that were used to create it because they aren't going to be making anything like it. The tradition and art dies. When it gets worn, it encourages people to wear beautiful things and inspires the creation of contemporary work that will become the future "old masterpieces." The surest way to kill a traditional skill is to confine it to a museum.
I love you dress and cape ensemble -- it looks so cozy, yet absolutely feminine and stylish.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that art does not have to be political. I believe that couture houses of the past and of the present can be and should be considered artists. I think a lot of people can't reconcile with that because it is fairly new concept. In the past designers like Chanel and others were viewed simply as shop keepers pretty much, at the beck a and call of all the rich people to keep them dressed. These days, when personal appearance and fashion have been reduced to jeans and an old t-shirt, some people realize that the "vintage" techniques of making clothes is indeed an art. Finally the work of the people who spend hours making lace fabric by hand for a specific dress a designer has in mind has been recognized as an art form, or attaching beads by hand onto a dress to make it look like leopard print -- it is art (I've seen Gaultier exhibit last year -- live in the Bay Area as well). Anyone can be an artist. Creating is art. There can be high and low art. But I think fashion design and creation of a dress can be very much a high art.
Sublimely beautiful ensemble!
ReplyDelete♥ Jessica
*PS* You and your mom look so much alike. It's heartwarmingly sweet!
Your outfit is so beautiful, and what a lovely photo of you and your mum!
ReplyDeleteThe museum-problems you named I encounter pretty regularly, being an art historian specialized in applied and textile arts. So many art historians exclude applied arts from their schedule, claiming it to be only "design" (which I object, of course). It really is a struggle.
And yes, wearing and using antique items means to destroy them on a long therm view. But on the other hand, being in a museum robs them from their intended use, forching them to stand still in a sterile environment, not functioning anymore as they were meant to do. And this does not only apply to applied arts at all. Medieval altarpieces were made to be opened and shut, portraits of kings served diplomatic purposes on foreign courts and the scenes on tapestries carried meaning, being used on special occations and carefully chosen to match the event. All this things can't be practised anymore in a museum. We have to preserve those things, no doubt, but it is important that we still keep in mind that those items had a life before they became an inventory number.
Every item we use will be vanished in the far or near future. But maybe this is life. Only 1 out of a 1000 works of art from the middle ages survives until today, maybe it is because of this we appreciate it as much as we do. Would it be something special if it was just one out of a 1000 pieces we still had?