Week 3- Hussein Chalayan

Hussein Chalayan, Burka, 1996

                   Hussein Chalayan, Afterwords, 2000

Hussein Chalayan, still from Absent Presence, 2005 (motion picture)

1. Chalayan’s works in clothing, like Afterwords (2000) and Burka (1996) , are often challenging to both the viewer and the wearer. What are your personal responses to these works? Are Afterwords and Burka fashion, or are they art? What is the difference?

Not all clothing is fashion, so what makes fashion fashion?

To be honest, I am not a fashion kind of person so I don't really know much or think about much when I see one. Both of her work is looks and I can see that it is challenging to both the viewer and the wearer. It is challenging because in "afterwords", the model who wears the metal skirt (it looked at metal to me) was challenged by its weight and in "Burka", the models were challenged because on how less of materials they had to wear. I think its really hard to not let most of the people to think it in a wrong way. I would consider them both fashion and art because it is wearable, therefore, its fashion. It might not be a type of fashion that all people accept due to the material used. It is also art because of its uniqueness. For example, in "afterwords", the model doesn't just wear the skirt then walk on the run way but instead, a video was recorded and other things appeared before that. I think he was trying to show how furniture are wearable too!

 

"Afterwords" 2000

As for "burka", its not something you would wear on the streets but again, it is wearable. I think it is art because of its weirdness. Its just an art work that I don't understand the meaning of making it. Maybe he was trying to grab his viewers attention as he is a kind of designer where he only design something that is unique and making clothes that is opposite to the ordinary. I don't really know what makes fashion fashion but I would say fashion is something that is wearable on human bodies.

 

2. Chalayan has strong links to industry. Pieces like The Level Tunnel (2006) and Repose (2006) are made in collaboration with, and paid for by, commercial business; in these cases, a vodka company and a crystal manufacturer. How does this impact on the nature of Chalayan’s work? Does the meaning of art change when it is used to sell products? Is it still art?

The level tunnel(2006)

Repose (2006)

I couldn't say it's not art. Everything can be art. It's not like getting benefit,therefore getting paid, from his work makes hes work not a piece of art. Every artists wants their art to be recognized and famous and Chalayan's got that by designing for commercial business and was able to let a wider range of people to see his work. I think its a very good way to show what he does and to me, it doesn't change anything about art. I think fashion design is still his strongest part and where he showed most interest in.

3. Chalayan’s film Absent Presence screened at the 2005 Venice Biennale. It features the process of caring for worn clothes, and retrieving and analysing the traces of the wearer, in the form of DNA. This work has been influenced by many different art movements; can you think of some, and in what ways they might have inspired Chalayan’s approach?

This film is "A video installation telling a story based on identity, geography, genetics, biology and anthropology. The film questions whether the extent to which identities can adapt to new environments." I think humanism is definitely inspired Chalayan and also science and biology in particular and humanism and biology has a link together because it is about human bodies and in this case , DNA. I also think some of post modernism too, because where he featured the process of caring for worn clothes in the film is a irony of challenge to something that is opposite to what ordinary people would think. It is also an art as process, performance, production and intertextuality.

4. Many of Chalayan’s pieces are physically designed and constructed by someone else; for example, sculptor Lone Sigurdsson made some works from Chalayan’s Echoform (1999) and Before Minus Now (2000) fashion ranges. In fashion design this is standard practice, but in art it remains unexpected. Work by artists such as Jackson Pollock hold their value in the fact that he personally made the painting. Contrastingly, Andy Warhol’s pop art was largely produced in a New York collective called The Factory, and many of his silk-screened works were produced by assistants. Contemporarily, Damien Hirst doesn’t personally build his vitrines or preserve the sharks himself. So when and why is it important that the artist personally made the piece?

I reckon it is not important where an artist have to make his own art work. The ideas and how it should be made or what it should be made of is more important but of course if an artist makes everything him/herself would be great beyond great. For an fashion designer like Chalayan does not require to be able to have the skills to make clothes in order to be a fashion designer. For a special designer like him, the ideas are what he is most capable of. Also more Damien Hirst, he has the idea and is famous for putting dead animals into

vitrines but he didn't need to have the skills to make a vitrine. He produces the idea and find what he needs. The most important point im trying to provoke is that, if artist are meant to make their own everything from their ideas, their ideas would really be limited due to what they are only capable of. 

Echoform (1999)

Before minus now(2000)

The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (1991)

Hussein Chalayan: The man of the moment. The independent features. Retrieved from: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/features/hussein-chalayan-the-man-of-the-moment-2306216.html

Absent Presence. Retrieved from:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0768786/

Hussein Chalayan. Retrieved from:

http://www.husseinchalayan.com/#/home/

Damien Hirst. Retrieved from:

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/H/hirst.html