Nowadays, we are constantly being told how to act in order to avoid a certain disaster. At first, people try to investigate what it is about and cooperate. The problem is that within sometime listening in the media to the same future catastrophe happening they get bored and just ignore it. This is generally because the disaster is seen as a future idea that won't affect them so they aren't concerned at all.
From my point of view the problem lays in the sense of monotony. People need something to give some spunk to their lives! So when an actual disaster happens they get more worried (because is something new) but just for a short time and sometimes only if it has affected them personally. If not, they will just continue waiting for some spectacular thing to happen...
All this talk of impending disaster has got us thinking - just what exactly constitutes a threat in London? In a society so saturated with colour, culture, noise, art, and the downright absurd (added to that London trait of acting like there is nothing unusual going on when there clearly is!), exactly what would it take to make a Londoner feel threatened?
I think the response of one of the people we spoke to in Piccadilly Circus really summed up just how immune London has become. When asked what would it take to make him feel threatened, or even a tad concerned, he replied - the police telling me to.
London's response to the bombings (admittedly after a few hours of feeling a little shaken) was to get right back on the tube and act like it never happened. I admit, now whenever I see a higher than average number of those flourescent police jackets at a station my heart starts to race a little. But not as much as it did 2 years ago - it's becoming normal.
So it makes me think what would actually happen should a disaster occur - would Londoners feel threatened? I think there is a distinct possibility that we may not even notice the warning signs. More likely we would just think 'they must be shooting a new movie', or perhaps 'it's just another weirdo doing an art project'....
Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui / Antony Gormley have created a different dimension to show and describe Architecture, Art and Fashion, they have done something out of the ordinary: Sutra, with the Youtube linked above you can see how the juxapositon of the loose clothing of Shaloin monk compared to Gormley's Building Blocks. This show was created by Labri's interest in Martial Arts created an experiment for this piece of Art. As this peice of mixed media 'Art work' have shown a link between clothing and Buildings. Even though Gormley have create the large wooden boxes as sculptural counterpoints to the human bodies, we can see how the structure and the monks' clothing depend on each other...
From my senses I think in a very broad and vague point that Architectures and Fashion links also, there are shows to try and prove this. But and on the other hand that there are no links if you try to link them together in a specific point.
Fashion and architecture are influencing each other in many ways. Many architects get ideas from some fashion designs and also many fashion designs are influenced by some architectures.
Fashion and architecture are very different and people normally think there are no connections between them but because many fashion designers and architects nowadays are trying to link the fashion and architecture and get ideas from each other, they are getting similar in some ways and have connections
The Skin+ Bones exhibition in London has shown the "parallelism" in development between Architecture and Fashion, but emphasized the point that they have never intersect. The "parallel" development includes the process such as deconstruction, references such as printing, geometry etc. However, if for many of the projects, the fact that if the architects had made references from fashion is very ambiguity as many of the objects such as the Yokohama Terminal, Lars Spuybroek etc had their very own architectural concept.
The examples that I thought really get close to the intersection of fashion and architecture was Yohji Yamamoto's Secret Dress from Wedding Collection, in which hidden compartments were designed to allow storage for accessories. This is very similar to the idea of architecture in containing space and containing objects. Imagine architecture as a room with drawers containing user's accessories, this dress acts as a "moving room"/ "mobile room", in which this space and objects is allowed to follow the movement of the user.
I think it is human nature to be curious about what we do not understand. It is this curiosity that ignites our imaginations and causes us to speculate. The demise of the planet and the end of human kind has been predicted by many past generations and present society is no different. We are constantly bombarded with evidence to how we, the human race, are destroying the planet and pelted with pleas from environmental groups to change our habits or face extinction. Even more recently, the words “Food Shortages” have splashed headlines globally, and yet very little seems to have changed in every day urban living.
It seems we all feel for those who have experienced disaster, and yet, when faced with an impending catastrophe, very little is done by individuals to try and prevent it unless they directly feel the effects. There is a disconnect for those that hear about an event compared to those that experience it directly. It is this disconnect that makes events seem, in may ways, surreal or fictitious. I believe this detachment from reality could potentially be a greater disaster for the human race than any ecological or warfare catastrophe because it is this separation that will inhibit a unified front in preventing an imminent ending.
Experiencing different districts.
Today was an extremely interesting day, I am still mulling over everything that has happened, but I think we all gained a lot of insight on the way people function and how groups of people develop very different mindsets.
Piccadilly Circus. A very interesting, but almost frustrating, experience. No one cared. There was the odd photo taken of us here and there, and yet not a worry to be had. All I can really say is that I am very surprised that we did not become a spectacle, and to be honest, I am still somewhat confused as to why we were not. Perhaps it is because those that have come to see Piccadilly Circus are really there just to see Piccadilly Circus.
Canary Wharf. Although our visit was cut quite short, we saw something that I had never considered. This was the difference of how different groups perceive threat. I am amazed that, to the police, we posed such a huge potential threat––not even potential threat, more that we might make the citizens uncomfortable––that we were threatened, although politely so, to be brought to the station if we were to leave our jumpsuits on. And while all of this is occurring not one single ‘non-authoritative’ person, that we know of, felt threatened by us in the least. It is very intriguing to me that what the authoritarians decide is threatening to others is, in fact, not at all.
Brick Lane. Definitely the most interesting conversations were to be had here. People here were very willing, and almost yearning, to take a part in what we were doing––example: the two guys following us :). Here although we were often perceived as performance art, people were very curious to understand the meaning behind our actions. Once again our predictions proved very wrong. Again however, no threat was perceived. One comment I found very interesting in one of our little chats was that this gentleman felt that if we were to use uniform movement and/or sounds, then he might find us quite intimidating.
Bank. This was a very different experience from all the other districts. Here people were not afraid to look. But eye contact was out of the question, as soon as it was made they would look away. Apprehensions could definitely be felt here.
So much for not writing an essay... sorry it’s so long, I tried to stay more brief at the end...
There are obviously 2 kinds of relations :architecture - fashion design as practices and other kind of relations :building - clothing as products . relation between building and clothing which are basically relations in formal and functional aspect and relation in meanings or messages . And as practices both architecture and fashion design are about future, about predictions , projections.... Architectural design is always about seeking for solutions ,answers ..which may be difference from fashion design. .Both architecture and fashion design are reflection of society and though have more or less parallel development through history with other forms of art but there is different process , or different way from context to concept., similarities and differences in approach to existing physical context , cultural context, social, political ….. and than relations in dealing with identity of person and identity of place , where architecture is about creating sense of where we are and fashion deals with sense of who we are , and illusions of both where we are and who we are.
All buildings, belonging to various styles and time periods, can be assessed on the basis of 3 parameters - Form, Function and Meaning. The emphasis on one of the three often leads to compromise on one of the other two. Therefore, a 'good' building is one that strikes a working balance between the three. Fashion, on the other hand, lays much more emphasis on Form and Meaning, effectively blurring out the very necessity of Function. Function, therefore, is almost unexplored territory to a large extent, as far as Fashion is concerned. This opens out a whole new haven of possibilities in developing trends and concepts in clothing. Other than the basic function of providing protection and shelter from the external, the idea of MULTI-PURPOSE garments is one that defines a user's activity in a garment, just like activity is defined in a functionally designed space. In a time where gadgets are getting smaller by the season and the interface between the individual and his world is becoming more micro-level , Fasion needs to not just dabble in the abstract but move further along onto the avenues of multi-functionality.
8 comments:
Nowadays, we are constantly being told how to act in order to avoid a certain disaster. At first, people try to investigate what it is about and cooperate. The problem is that within sometime listening in the media to the same future catastrophe happening they get bored and just ignore it. This is generally because the disaster is seen as a future idea that won't affect them so they aren't concerned at all.
From my point of view the problem lays in the sense of monotony. People need something to give some spunk to their lives! So when an actual disaster happens they get more worried (because is something new) but just for a short time and sometimes only if it has affected them personally. If not, they will just continue waiting for some spectacular thing to happen...
All this talk of impending disaster has got us thinking - just what exactly constitutes a threat in London? In a society so saturated with colour, culture, noise, art, and the downright absurd (added to that London trait of acting like there is nothing unusual going on when there clearly is!), exactly what would it take to make a Londoner feel threatened?
I think the response of one of the people we spoke to in Piccadilly Circus really summed up just how immune London has become. When asked what would it take to make him feel threatened, or even a tad concerned, he replied - the police telling me to.
London's response to the bombings (admittedly after a few hours of feeling a little shaken) was to get right back on the tube and act like it never happened. I admit, now whenever I see a higher than average number of those flourescent police jackets at a station my heart starts to race a little. But not as much as it did 2 years ago - it's becoming normal.
So it makes me think what would actually happen should a disaster occur - would Londoners feel threatened? I think there is a distinct possibility that we may not even notice the warning signs. More likely we would just think 'they must be shooting a new movie', or perhaps 'it's just another weirdo doing an art project'....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_cMBDeIGAE
Show with Fashion and Architecture
Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui / Antony Gormley have created a different dimension to show and describe Architecture, Art and Fashion, they have done something out of the
ordinary: Sutra, with the Youtube linked above you can see how the juxapositon of the loose clothing of Shaloin monk compared to Gormley's Building Blocks.
This show was created by Labri's interest in Martial Arts created an experiment for this piece of Art. As this peice of mixed media 'Art work' have shown a link between clothing and Buildings. Even though Gormley have create the large wooden boxes as sculptural counterpoints to the human bodies, we can see how the structure and the monks' clothing depend on each other...
From my senses I think in a very broad and vague point that Architectures and Fashion links also, there are shows to try and prove this. But and on the other hand that there are no links if you try to link them together in a specific point.
Fashion and architecture are influencing each other in many ways. Many architects get ideas from some fashion designs and also many fashion designs are influenced by some architectures.
Fashion and architecture are very different and people normally think there are no connections between them but because many fashion designers and architects nowadays are trying to link the fashion and architecture and get ideas from each other, they are getting similar in some ways and have connections
The Skin+ Bones exhibition in London has shown the "parallelism" in development between Architecture and Fashion, but emphasized the point that they have never intersect. The "parallel" development includes the process such as deconstruction, references such as printing, geometry etc. However, if for many of the projects, the fact that if the architects had made references from fashion is very ambiguity as many of the objects such as the Yokohama Terminal, Lars Spuybroek etc had their very own architectural concept.
The examples that I thought really get close to the intersection of fashion and architecture was Yohji Yamamoto's Secret Dress from Wedding Collection, in which hidden compartments were designed to allow storage for accessories. This is very similar to the idea of architecture in containing space and containing objects. Imagine architecture as a room with drawers containing user's accessories, this dress acts as a "moving room"/ "mobile room", in which this space and objects is allowed to follow the movement of the user.
Disbelief in Disaster.
I think it is human nature to be curious about what we do not understand. It is this curiosity that ignites our imaginations and causes us to speculate. The demise of the planet and the end of human kind has been predicted by many past generations and present society is no different. We are constantly bombarded with evidence to how we, the human race, are destroying the planet and pelted with pleas from environmental groups to change our habits or face extinction. Even more recently, the words “Food Shortages” have splashed headlines globally, and yet very little seems to have changed in every day urban living.
It seems we all feel for those who have experienced disaster, and yet, when faced with an impending catastrophe, very little is done by individuals to try and prevent it unless they directly feel the effects. There is a disconnect for those that hear about an event compared to those that experience it directly. It is this disconnect that makes events seem, in may ways, surreal or fictitious. I believe this detachment from reality could potentially be a greater disaster for the human race than any ecological or warfare catastrophe because it is this separation that will inhibit a unified front in preventing an imminent ending.
Experiencing different districts.
Today was an extremely interesting day, I am still mulling over everything that has happened, but I think we all gained a lot of insight on the way people function and how groups of people develop very different mindsets.
Piccadilly Circus. A very interesting, but almost frustrating, experience. No one cared. There was the odd photo taken of us here and there, and yet not a worry to be had. All I can really say is that I am very surprised that we did not become a spectacle, and to be honest, I am still somewhat confused as to why we were not. Perhaps it is because those that have come to see Piccadilly Circus are really there just to see Piccadilly Circus.
Canary Wharf. Although our visit was cut quite short, we saw something that I had never considered. This was the difference of how different groups perceive threat. I am amazed that, to the police, we posed such a huge potential threat––not even potential threat, more that we might make the citizens uncomfortable––that we were threatened, although politely so, to be brought to the station if we were to leave our jumpsuits on. And while all of this is occurring not one single ‘non-authoritative’ person, that we know of, felt threatened by us in the least. It is very intriguing to me that what the authoritarians decide is threatening to others is, in fact, not at all.
Brick Lane. Definitely the most interesting conversations were to be had here. People here were very willing, and almost yearning, to take a part in what we were doing––example: the two guys following us :). Here although we were often perceived as performance art, people were very curious to understand the meaning behind our actions. Once again our predictions proved very wrong. Again however, no threat was perceived. One comment I found very interesting in one of our little chats was that this gentleman felt that if we were to use uniform movement and/or sounds, then he might find us quite intimidating.
Bank. This was a very different experience from all the other districts. Here people were not afraid to look. But eye contact was out of the question, as soon as it was made they would look away. Apprehensions could definitely be felt here.
So much for not writing an essay... sorry it’s so long, I tried to stay more brief at the end...
There are obviously 2 kinds of relations :architecture - fashion design as practices and other kind of relations :building - clothing as products . relation between building and clothing which are basically relations in formal and functional aspect and relation in meanings or messages .
And as practices both architecture and fashion design are about future, about predictions , projections.... Architectural design is always about seeking for solutions ,answers ..which may be difference from fashion design. .Both architecture and fashion design are reflection of society and though have more or less parallel development through history with other forms of art but there is different process , or different way from context to concept., similarities and differences in approach to existing physical context , cultural context, social, political ….. and than relations in dealing with identity of person and identity of place , where architecture is about creating sense of where we are and fashion deals with sense of who we are , and illusions of both where we are and who we are.
All buildings, belonging to various styles and time periods, can be assessed on the basis of 3 parameters - Form, Function and Meaning. The emphasis on one of the three often leads to compromise on one of the other two. Therefore, a 'good' building is one that strikes a working balance between the three.
Fashion, on the other hand, lays much more emphasis on Form and Meaning, effectively blurring out the very necessity of Function.
Function, therefore, is almost unexplored territory to a large extent, as far as Fashion is concerned. This opens out a whole new haven of possibilities in developing trends and concepts in clothing. Other than the basic function of providing protection and shelter from the external, the idea of MULTI-PURPOSE garments is one that defines a user's activity in a garment, just like activity is defined in a functionally designed space.
In a time where gadgets are getting smaller by the season and the interface between the individual and his world is becoming more micro-level , Fasion needs to not just dabble in the abstract but move further along onto the avenues of multi-functionality.
Post a Comment