The Revered Outcome of Simplicity

I’ve had the brilliant advantage of knowing several interesting things from my interesting friends. Not too long ago, a good friend introduced me to the complexity of Fine Art-ism. In her words, she claimed that the field she has dived into was eventually pointless at the end of the day. I asked why. She said, “Fine art is exactly that. It’s fine, but you don’t get much out of it. There’s no use for it other than for artistic and aesthetic purposes. And some even fail at achieving both.”

Before, I’ve always loved how artists work. Most artists don’t do it for the money. They do it for the art, just for the art. But when the artwork itself fails its own artistic purposes, then what is the point of the creation in the first place? None. You may argue that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. But what if, IF, there’s no one to behold the beauty? Does that mean the artwork is nothing except for the creator’s eyes?

Voice of Fire - Barnett Newman

Let’s take the Voice of Fire by Barnett Newman for example. What do you see in this 5.4m x 2.4m painting? Honestly, I see some unnamed country flag. Would I believe that painting cost $1.8million? Hell no. Unless there’s a trick involved in making the painting (a magic genie, naked dancing lady popping out at night, or that the lines are painted without help from a ruler), I would’ve made the most ungentle frown on my face just like everybody else.

But you know what? There is no such trick. The painting was considered to be so beautiful to so many eyes, yet repulsive to the others (especially abstract painters who are actually making abstract pieces). Then again, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Such a simple, yet vivid painting has attracted mass attention and mass money to itself. It’s as if the simplicity of this work was screaming for itself. It’s like the simplicity was the most striking thing this painting evoked.

 

AH… YES, SIMPLICITY

 

That word may be the reason of my life. I prefer life simple. I prefer my style simple. I prefer myself and my surroundings simple. I just love simplicity. And I may not be the only one here. Elegant simplicity have long haul the graces of the runway carpet. Designers such as Raf Simons, Alexander Wang, Ralph Lauren, and Valentino are known to love not going overboard with their collections. Yes they’ve had collections that stunned jaws and break floodgates, but simplicity has always been key. However, twisting boundaries of simplicity to make it worth our while is ironically not that simple. Well, of course if it’s so simple we’d all be sending models to the runway, wouldn’t we?

(photographs taken from Style.com)

 

Alexander Wang Resort 2014 Collection

Armani Prive Fall 2013 Couture Collection

Ralph Lauren Resort 2014 Collection

Valentino Fall 2013 Collection

 

What’s your outlook on life and fashion? The simpler the better, or the complete opposite?

 

 

 

-The Dilly Chic-

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

4 Thoughts.

  1. I like simplicity in practical areas of life, but don’t think you can really carry the concept into art. Art exists on several levels and what appears to be simple is often deeply complex. For example, Jackson Pollack’s technique in making his drip paintings was sophisticated and took him a long time to develop. Just because uninformed viewers perceive art as simple doesn’t mean it is. And the notion of economic value reflected in the prices paid for artistic masterpieces is also complicated.

    • Thanks for pointing it out! What I’m trying to say in this post is that the simple things are really the ones that blow you away. I often wonder why the better the designer, the simpler the clothes appear to be? Then I realized that the so called simple things in fact, actually require precise details and skilled craftsmanship, sometimes even more so than the complex creations.

      You always bring up such great points in your comments, really really appreciate it

  2. I hardly can comment on the Art. I do not see myself knowledgeable enough on that front but as for style and fashion I think… more than simple.. the designers you features are minimal.

    In my head there is a fine line. I have seen people here using “simple dressing” to mean that they will just not dress up at all and show up in a run of the mill tee and jeans. There is nothing wrong with that if that is what they like… but that and what Wang or Theyskin does is not the same by any measure.

    It is the seemingly simple silhouettes that take the most efforts. Frills and embellishments, in comparison is easy. And of course you have mentioned that as well “Well, of course if it’s so simple we’d all be sending models to the runway, wouldn’t we?” It is really about perfect proportions, fits and fabrics.. I have an example from experience…

    You would think… a white shirt is so commonplace and would be so easy to find… I have looked everywhere.. from a cheap store to fast fashion ones – Zara, Mango.. and once in a local designer store as well. And there was a difference… and at the end of my hunt I am only left wondering what a Jil Sander shirt will feel like… no one will get it why I want to spend a fortune on “just” a white shirt… but simple is not so simple.

    Maybe that holds true for art as well. But I wouldn’t know that yet.

    Swati @ The Creative Bent

    • I totally understand what you’re saying. It’s what I’ve been telling my friends and families forever! Whenever I want a nice fitting jeans, they usually either don’t fit nicely or have too many ornaments on them. The ones that are “clean” and simple are the more expensive ones which are out of my budget. Same thing goes for shirts, dresses, shoes, etc. The nicest, simplest ones are the best ones really

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*