this wednesday october 29 i went with a few friends to the chanel mobile art exhibit designed by zaha hadid, a world renowned architect. chanel hired 15 modern artists to create installation pieces for their mobile art exhibit inspired by their infamous quite quilted 2.55 handbag which is now celebrating it's 50th anniversary. hence all the commotion. the mobile in and of itself is a gorgeous ingenious design that can be taken apart, packed up, and shipped across the world. (in fact it was first in hong kong before tokyo and then new york) in english we were assigned two articles, one with a neutral perspective and one with a completely opinionated bias against the mobile declaring it a "cynical marketing gimmick" that is "delusional" and "exploiting the so-called intersection of architecture, art and fashion." in fact, according to nioclai ouroussoff of the new york times, it is "a black hole of bad art and superficial temptations...an elaborate mousetrap for consumers."
is it not possible for fashion and architecture to be art as well? do consumerist and materialistic qualities disqualify things from being art? is it possible to view art objectively from social issues or do they automatically apply?
if you're interested:
carol vogel nytimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/arts/design/24zaha.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=chanel+mobile&st=nyt&oref=slogin
nicolai ouroussoff nytimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/arts/design/21zaha.html?scp=8&sq=nicolai+ouroussoff&st=nyt
chanel mobile site: http://www.chanel-mobileart.com/