Chalayan

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

Both afterwards(2000) and burka(1996) should be considered as art. They both express an idea in a physical form. The materials used could suggest that it is a fashion statement, however the way they have been presented shows that they have been considered more as an artistic statement rather than fabricated.

I think the artwork is presented very uniquely and the ideas involved make the viewer think deeply about the message's Chalayan is portraying. The Burka(1996) is quite controversial in the way that the model is exposed, when the whole idea of the object is to cover as much skin as possible- in this way this work can be seen as more art like rather than fashion. Afterwards(2000) is seen in a material light as the object is designed and displayed as a skirt, however the raw materials used suggest that it is an art piece and to look further into the ideas being projected. There is not a great deal of difference between artwork and fashion. They both project ideas as an object physically, however fashion is more of an presentable form rather than physical object that is observed rather than warn. Overall I believe its the viewers opinion on what art can be considered as.

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?

Art is should be considered as art in every way it is produced, the fact that it was sold and produced for a soul purpose should not change the way it stands in any way. sure, the artists reputation and the way people consider this artist could be discussed differently, but that still doesn't effect the object created. For both The Level Tunnel(2006) and Repose(2006) Chalayan was commissioned to work for companies- he would have been given rough guidelines as to what was to be created, however his own personal expression would have been moulded to both artworks- hence having a piece of his own 'imagery' expressed throughout both artworks.

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?

when I researched Absent Presence I found the short clips that previewed the film very interesting. Chalayan's work has taken another path in the name of art. I however could not find many influences that could have inspired this artist to create this film. Saying that, I think the sudden influx of documentaries being made over the last 10 years could have inspired him to 'uncover the unknown' in that sense.

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 personally believe that the artwork that is being created/ designed by the artist should be exhibited in the artist name. However, if the artwork is created more than 50% by assistants/ other artists then this should be documented and named wherever the artwork is presented. I do believe that the artists that display their works as their own when they have not contributed more that 50% are not being true to themselves or the name of art. I get the impression that artists such as Damien Hirst has forgotten/ brushed to the side some of his earlier work like the preserved shark which is a kind of selling out as soon as fame hits. I do not agree with this.