Art Couture

Haute Couture:The term haute couture is protected by law and according to the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture based in Paris, France. Their rules state that "Only those companies mentioned on the list drawn up each year by a commission domiciled at the Ministry for Industry are entitled to avail themselves thereof". The criteria to which a fashion house must adhere in order to be categorised haute couture were laid down in 1945 and updated in 1992.
These rules are simple, to be designated as haute couture a minimum of fifteen people must be employed at the workshops and must present to the press in Paris each season (spring/summer and autumn/winter) a collection of at least thirty-five runs consisting of models for daytime wear and evening wear.
However the term haute couture has been misused by successive ready to wear brands and high street labels since the late 1980s so that its true meaning had become blurred with that of prêt-à-porter in the public perception.
The French term for ready-to-wear (not custom fitted) fashion is prêt-à-porter. Every haute couture house also markets prêt-à-porter collections, which typically deliver a higher return on investment than their custom clothing. In fact, much of the haute couture displayed at fashion shows today is rarely sold; it is created to enhance the good name of the house. Falling revenues have forced a few couture houses to abandon their less profitable couture division and concentrate solely on the less prestigious prêt-à-porter. These houses are no longer considered haute couture."

I learned that there is a legal definition of Haute Couture watching Project Runway the other night. Project Runway is a reality tv program that arranges for 16 clothing designers to compete under deadlines with very limited budgets. There are many reasons I find this show compelling but the most surprising aspect of the program for me is that we see gorgeous fashion and imagination does not take very much time or money.

The program is brilliant because it utilizes the established order of fashion and the joy of beautiful clothes, yet exhiliarates me as it pulls away the curtain confirming our spirit is the real commodity in the world.


Mark Federman has a motivational essay posted at his blog. I agree that part of innovation or imagination includes the following attitudes.

• See what isn’t there.
• Think what no one else can think.
• Do what no one else dares to do.
• Multiply your mind by giving it away.

You'd have to read his essay to see if you feel he has techniques you can be inspired by, but for the sake of this post, I am going to take a leap...besides I think these four things have the potential, at least partly, to represent the imaginative personality.

Prisoner's Dillema: rational self-interest hurts everyone.

Art today could be an event horizon. It is suffering by not being embraced by the public due to a war of status and fear within it's ranks.I don't care if it's high brow or low brow. Those are terms that mean something to people with low self-esteem. I believe the very wealthy, the curators and collectors who run the Art Mafia are actually very insecure nervous folks. They worry about keeping their money, keeping their power, running the world. and looking "cultured".

Culture can not be bought. It might self regulate and self generate.

The book Collapse by Jared Diamond says that so far, the very few civilizations that have survived have done so because they chose to do so.

When civilizations wait and do not self regulate, they have collapsed. They are abandoned and /or collapse. Jared Diamond wonders what the residents of Easter Island thought about when they cut down their last tree.

At the moment, I would say our civilization has not chosen to survive. What would it look like if we chose to survive? We would demand a $1 dollar a gallon gas tax. We would control all of our consumption: personal and corporate. We would share water and food, in a different economic manner than we do right now.

All our means of production and survival are based on the basic economy of how we distribute our food. We lock it up and sell it back to ourselves. It might be a metaphor for art.

Can artists provide an accessible natural narrative for the mainsteam? Or will everybody keep playing the game established by totalitarian agriculture?

At the very least, fashion might be a good metaphor for art. We see one small group of people making money from art by selling it to another small group of people. Then that group of people re-sells it if possible, hires people to account for the value of that small segment of art being made.

"prêt-à-porter collections, which typically deliver a higher return on investment than their custom clothing. In fact, much of the haute couture displayed at fashion shows today is rarely sold; it is created to enhance the good name of the house."

In the meantime, a larger group of people is making art and would sell it to anyone, but it is considered not as valuable, historically or culturally by the cultures dominant few who buy art.

Perhaps artists need to think about these strange games.

Perhaps the comparisions between haute couture and visual arts could be messed with?

Perhaps artists should consider approaching their profession by studying what recording artists have done.

Why not sell art for a lower price, but with a legal contract for royalties?

Artists need to start to embrace the idea that although our bodies have mortality, our imaginations do not. We have infinite ideas within us. We are able to produce an infinite dialoque with the world. That is how we should value our art.

At the moment we are playing with a mindset of consumers who see us as one-hit wonders. It is up to artists to overthrow the dictatorship of people who lack the imagination to survive. We desire selling to zombies who believe they can buy culture, and worse, immortality.

Drive a stake through their hearts, you are magicians!