It isn’t. Art questions societal mores and the established order, while high fashion is a brute enforcer of these things. We can think designs are pretty, or the craftsmanship is amazing, and still recognise this.
If high fashion is art, it is the propaganda art for capitalism and patriarchy.
I don’t think all art has to question societal mores/the established order. Sometimes It’s just a creative endeavor or just an expression of creativity. I think fashion is similar to architecture as a form of art. It’s something that can be purely utilitarian, but because we like to be surrounded by pretty things, people get creative.
I would even say that questioning societal mores/order is not at all a prerequisite for art. Obviously a lot of interesting stuff does that, but really most things don’t.
Would you really want to say that Bach and Mozart didn’t make art? They pushed *artistic* boundaries, not social ones. I would say the same for Monet and Cezanne. Even for, say, Picasso and Stravinsky—challenging norms and tastes is not the same thing as challenging mores and the establishment. Was Balanchine not an artist, because he was a classicist? Are Gershwin tunes merely the product of skilled craftmanship? Are Shakespeare’s plays unartistic because they push *artistic* rather than social norms?
Because the Western world is set up as is, most art by women, queer folk, PoC, etc., can be considered pushing social/establishment boundaries merely by *existing*. But that doesn’t mean White dudes can’t make art as well. And really, would you want to claim that Martha Graham, Kehinde Wiley, James Baldwin, Osvaldo Golijev are making art solely *because* they are challenging social mores? That’s an insult to their talent, their artistry.
Yep. And as much as I enjoy Regretsy, the people who think they can determine what is and is not “real art” usually seem a little naive to me.