arts of clothes

For many of the opera costumes, the ones in odd sizes or past their prime, the wait is in vain, their requiems sung. And that is where E. V. Day comes in.

the project For City Opera Costumes, Lofty New Roles, now suspended in the promenade of the David H. Koch Theater.

the artist Ms. Day composed sculptures by using the vintage opera costumes.

Another artist, also a female named Lucy Orta had projects of refuge clothes in 1990s.

She had the "refuge wear" as a serie which included many styles of clothes made for refuge. The serie also has a name "Modual architecture" meaning that the clothes is considered to be an personal architecture——body architecture.

Deprived of work, money, shelter, the third world is gradually invading the major capitals. Survival is the new slogan of the decade. By involving individuals in difficulty, whether isolated or as part of a group, and encouraging them to participate in collective actions consisting notably of producing Refuge Wear or Survival Kits, the artist clearly raises the question of the citizen, underlining his role as a part of the whole. To be a citizen is to participate in society

This is interesting to see how two artists consider the element "clothes" in totally different ways that have pushed clothes to two extreme ways. One is totally nonfunctional while the other is all about function even it's original concept is more meaningful. And they both have done good job on their own subjects.

This is what we face today——too many possibilities. It is even harder to chose what to do than to do; to chose which part we can work on the subject or object than to work on them. And no choice will be considered as the best.

Design for whom

Design is supposed to make life better.

While reading the post i-beam designs vision in white apartment which is talking about one's dream apartment in white, I personally find it's unrealistic——the big white space looks peacefully beautiful, even better with a sea-view.

The question is, how many people will be able to live in such a house or place. Any interior design idea based on large space and beautiful view seems to be meaningless when you think of that.

I always thought about this problem——isn't interior design suppose to solve the problems that architecture leftover? That means an interior designer's job is to design interior no matter how fancy the house or the view is.

That's why I remember the video I saw few days ago——A Japanese house-remodel show presented how a designer amazingly reconstructed a very small house living 4 adults.

This project not only showed how great the house has been remodeled, but more behind it.

Good design is always considered as extra money. An Alessi teapot is certainly more expensive than regular ones; a juice extractor designed by Philippe Starck is also expensive even though it's not so practical. Those design satisfy people more aesthetically. But most people can only afford the regular ones.

I saw how happy the family whose house has been remodeled was. It reminds me that design should serve everyone without costing extra money. What most people really still need is to solve real problems. Design is important, but what's more important is how design can bring people happiness.