schiaparelli-prada-conversation

Vous devriez également aimer

  • Weekend Inspiration #189
    Lifestyle
    Weekend Inspiration...
  • Weekend Inspiration #188
    Lifestyle
    Weekend Inspiration...
  • Total Ease
    Style
    Total Ease
  • Weekend Inspiration #187
    Lifestyle
    Weekend Inspiration...

44 comments

Ajouter le votre
  • Ferreol B 19 août 2012, 9:02 / Répondre

    Love it <3
    Have a good sunday!
    Ferréol

  • Serena 19 août 2012, 9:05 / Répondre

    The word “artist” is indeed confining even if it’s merely a general definition..thank you for sharing!

  • Carolina I. 19 août 2012, 9:18 / Répondre

    Like Prada’ statement, though its products are far from being accessible to many. I cannot afford anything by Prada, most of my friends neither…
    Xoxo

  • Jennifer D. 19 août 2012, 9:24 / Répondre

    The artist part is interesting. But i think making dresses is sculpting as well.

    Jennifer
    http://www.thewhitestudio.be/

  • Gigi 19 août 2012, 9:32 / Répondre

    Tout est dit.

  • Tian 19 août 2012, 9:48 / Répondre

    Two amazing women, very interesting quotes. But I’m not sure I agree with the one by Prada; why must art be confining?

    aspiringforever.blogspot.com

  • Jessie 19 août 2012, 9:52 / Répondre

    some true words of wisdom. i absolutely love that. i must go and see this exhibition. it is absolutely ridiculous that i have not seen it yet!
    xx, http://wordbyjessie.com/

  • Cultureshockart 19 août 2012, 10:32 / Répondre

    Oh M. Prada’s comment is so provocative. I can’t disagree more. How is the term “artist” old-fashioned and “designer” isn’t? That sounded so alienating. To the extent that she felt the term is limiting I agree with that, but I personally think Contemporary art is a confluence of design, art, music, performance and fashion.

    Sadly, fashion is neither accessible nor relatable to all- at least Prada’s fashion universe isn’t (and sadly art suffers the same problem). Oh, this has got me fired up and I haven’t even had my coffee yet! Love it!

  • justine 19 août 2012, 10:49 / Répondre

    democracy is confining and doesn’t relate to modern times either. why use the word ‘democracy’ to describe what isn’t and never was democratic about an art form that survives only by commercial sales?

    i don’t mean anything about a consumer culture or politics, i mean simply that if she doesn’t consider herself an artist, what is she selling, and why? it can’t just be ‘clothes for clothes’ sake’… ha!

  • Chloe 19 août 2012, 10:49 / Répondre

    Je vais à New York jeudi, je me demandais justement si l’expo valait le coup. Avis d’une experte Garance ?

  • Debbie 19 août 2012, 10:53 / Répondre

    Schiaparelli was an artist & Prada a sculptor of shoes.

    Life/Style blog at http://intrigueimports.wordpress.com

  • Liz 19 août 2012, 11:32 / Répondre

    J’adore!

    J’ai des citation de Coco Chanel sur mon blog pour son anniversaire! Va voir!

    http://lavieenliz.com

  • Yenia 19 août 2012, 11:33 / Répondre

    HA! Oh, Garance!
    Pictures are not allowed in there…
    No worries, I wont tell ;)

    (I took several myself as well.)

    Happy Sunday! x

  • ml 19 août 2012, 11:44 / Répondre

    As an artist (and former fashion designer) myself, I think both women have very limited ideas of the definition of art. I’m very surprised by the Prada quote especially since they are amassing one of the largest art collections around. And accessibility and democracy is not what I would think of when I see their clothes.

    The division between art and design have come a long way and the lines are now often blurred if not readily accepted and embraced by both sides. Easy examples: Vanessa Beecroft, Yayoi Kusama, Murakami for LV etc… When I was coming up, design was still the ugly stepchild.

    They are both artists to the extent of their talents. But the context is confused by their own rigid definitions.

  • Sevan 19 août 2012, 11:58 / Répondre

    Je suis d’accord avec Mme Schiaparelli mais pas avec Mme Prada. J’aimerais qu’elle s’explique sur ” the terme artist is old fashioned” ??!!!
    Quant a sa derniere phrase, elle ne parle surement pas de ses designs qui sont, pour la plupart d’entre nous, inabordables.
    On peut au moins se delecter en regardant ses creations en photos.

  • Carole 19 août 2012, 1:24 / Répondre

    i found Schiaparelli hard to wear…..Prada joyous to wear….Muccia is a true socialist.

  • Gaby Lang 19 août 2012, 1:34 / Répondre

    Exactement!
    Merci pour avoir partagé cette citation.

    Gaby Lang,
    http://gabylang.blogspot.ca/

  • Sabrina 19 août 2012, 1:41 / Répondre

    Love this. Have a lovely weekend!

    x
    Sabrina
    apixiesviewonfashion.com

  • Chloe 19 août 2012, 3:08 / Répondre

    I wish everyone could wear Prada :)

  • Annarose Market Vintage 19 août 2012, 3:26 / Répondre

    J’ai eu la chance de voir l’expo en Avril, elle est magique!

    Les vestes de E.S m’ont rendues folles avec leurs coupes ajustées si parfaites, leurs broderies si contemporaines!

    Les films sont assez bouleversants, la magie opère et le dialogue entre les deux femmes si réel!

    ANNAROSE MARKET VINTAGE
    Htpp://www.annarosemarket.com

  • Sonia 19 août 2012, 4:20 / Répondre

    Love it. Particularly Prada’s quote.

  • Geneviève @ Entre essentiel et accessoire 19 août 2012, 4:27 / Répondre

    Voilà des citations chocs! Interesting….
    Je crois que le monde de l’art n’aime pas être “ramené”, “rabaissé” à la mode! Alors quand le monde de la mode prétend égaler, voire surpasser le monde de l’art… La polémique n’est pas loin!
    Tu souhaites probablement susciter le débat, Garance, mais j’avoue que j’aime aimer la mode sans philosopher! Et que je suis encore sous le charme de tes magnifiques photos de vacances.
    ;-)
    Je crois cependant que le débat va être animé et reviendrai lire les commentaires!!

  • Geneviève @ Entre essentiel et accessoire 19 août 2012, 4:31 / Répondre

    PS: Malheureusement, l’expo correspondante n’est pas à Paris. Quel dommage!

  • Justinevry 19 août 2012, 4:32 / Répondre

    Bonsoir,

    Est-il besoin d’ajouter quelque chose?

  • Geraldine 19 août 2012, 4:34 / Répondre

    J’ai aimé cette expo et comment les tenues de deux époques distinctes dialoguaient comme leurs créatrices lorsque mis côte à côte. J’ai adoré sur les écrans les images noir et blanc immobiles qui bougeaient imperceptiblement, notamment le pli d’une robe blanche. Magique !

  • Maria Ana 19 août 2012, 4:41 / Répondre

    I adore this quotes. They are so true and show a great intelligence about the quoters.
    They also should be read by the people that think fashion is shallow…

    beijinhos
    thebeautylover.blogspot.com

  • emilia 19 août 2012, 5:23 / Répondre

    Ah oui ,sans doute-surtout Prada est accessible a tous.Hypocrite!blahblahblah

  • theoutfitdiaries 19 août 2012, 5:56 / Répondre

    I love fashion, but relating fashion to democracy is just wrong. There’s nothing democratic about fashion. Fashion is expensive. There’s no way around it. Therefore only those who can afford it, can access it. Fashion (and I’m talking big designers here) in the first place isn’t meant for everyone. It’s for the wealthy to distinguish themselves from the rest.
    A very hypocritical thing for Prada to say, I think.

  • someone 19 août 2012, 6:22 / Répondre

    Et en effet Schiapparelli est très démodée, très “passée”, contrairement à Miuccia qui étant en avance est intemporelle.

  • Miami 19 août 2012, 6:36 / Répondre

    Isn’t it interesting that Schiaparelli equates a dress with a three-dimensional object that is to be gazed upon, while Prada seems to be making a commentary on the end triumphing over the means. That is to say, for Prada, maybe it does not matter what you call the person who makes the clothing, but what matters is that the object of adornment is accessible.

    So, does it really matter what someone is called? Maybe.

    I think it can matter a great deal what someone is called, whether that person is called “an artist,” or whether that person is called a “designer/maker of high-end clothes for whimsical people with disposable incomes who appreciate beautiful design”. There is lots of room for interpretation – no matter the definition, or who does the defining.

    What I love about this discussion, Garance, is the way we are practicing intellectual materialism by breaking down these quotations.

    Personally, I have always revered artists because I see them as problem-solvers.

    And yet, if someone does not want to be called “an artist” or be seen as “an artist” then that is useful information. There must be satisfaction when people know themselves well enough to be able to define themselves using their own language.

    In conclusion, this kind of thought always makes me crave chocolate-covered strawberries – in any form!

  • Nini Piccola 19 août 2012, 7:20 / Répondre

    I recently graduated from an art school and despite the fact that I have a studio and try to make art every week I don’t feel comfortable calling myself an artist. I agree with Miuccia, it is an old fashioned term. Honestly I’m not really sure what to call myself, yet. @cultureshockart I don’t think Miuccia intended HER clothes to be accessible and democratic! I think she knows full well PRADA is not attainable to all but today with fast fashion and vintage finds many of us are able to create style on a democratic budget!
    Saluts!

  • Simone 19 août 2012, 7:29 / Répondre

    two amazing women! two different approaches to fashion.

    http://bgeschichten.blogspot.ch/

  • karina 20 août 2012, 12:26 / Répondre

    accessibility?!

  • CultureShockArt 20 août 2012, 1:37 / Répondre

    @Nini
    Taking Prada out of the equation I think fashion is attainable to “more” especially through our use of new media, but it is certainly not available or accessible to all. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t be a regular commenter on this site if I didn’t love and respect both fashion and art. I just take issue with many elements of Prada’s quote (particularly the “artist” piece because she draws a line of demarcation between her design and her extensive collection of Contemporary Art).

    The entire point of the show @ the Met was to juxtapose their philosophies, process and design, so it is not surprising that the interpretations of the above quotes follow both the similarities and disparities between the designers.

  • Lucila 20 août 2012, 3:28 / Répondre

    Are you kidding me? Democracy? Prada? Everyone wears it? Insulting…

  • Cindy 20 août 2012, 5:59 / Répondre

    Pourquoi tout paraît si simple quand tu les entends parler?
    http://classy-dressing.com/wp/back-to-reality

  • vintage hype 20 août 2012, 6:54 / Répondre

    C’est étrange de parler d’accessibilité quand on est Prada. En revanche, son commentaire est provocateur et un peu déconnecté de la réalité. Miuccia est donc bien une artiste.

  • Lionel 20 août 2012, 8:18 / Répondre

    J’imagine qu’il faut plutot voir la mode en général comme accessible à tous, pas Prada particulièrement (bien que rien n’empêche d’en porter).

    Voir que même les plus grands n’étaient pas prédisposés à le devenir remonte le moral, un futur génie des défilés se cache peut-être derrière ces commentaires, qui sait :)

    Très belle journée!
    Lionel,
    http://thetrendytrooper.blogspot.fr/

  • Nini Piccola 20 août 2012, 4:23 / Répondre

    @cultureshockart unfortunately distance prevents me from attending the Met show so surely I’m missing some of the nuances. Hopefully I will be able to have a look at the catalogue one of these days. As to Prada’s desire to not be called an artist perhaps it may have something to do with her political science/communist history? Does she feel uncomfortable being called artist because the Italian communists of the 60s would have been considered them too bohemian and idealistic for while a designer actually “produced” products? Albeit fashion… Who knows I’m probably making assumptions. As to collecting art I have no objection to that! Better than horrible blingy yachts or cars etc.

In The Spotlight