Sunday, April 11, 2010

Responding to questions

I have chosen 2 questions that I found interesting to explore in a physical way

1. In order to wear something must it relate to an area of the body?
- anchoring points of garments ie waists, hips, shoulders- must they be used?
- how would you physically put something on if it didn't relate to the body? Spray paint? Body paint?
- Creating external structures which house the body- this still needs anchoring point though which relates to an are of the body
- OTHER possible anchoring points that are rarely used- FINGERTIPS, FEET? EARS? HEADS!
- What else relates to areas of the body that aren't considered as 'garments'?
-HAIR, scent, jewellery, nail polish
(still have aspects of design within, SURFACE DECORATION- in Fashionology these are considered feminine rather than in the 1400's where it was non sexual and rather a class distinction- interesting aspect of concept to research?)
- CHAIRS? ergonomically designed to shape body but not a garment
ADVERSE IDEA: In order for something to relate to the body must we need to wear it?

2. Could a shadow of a garment be in its 2D form but applied to the body?
- could this be created by using different garments in different situations ie walking upstairs- then lifting this shadow image and creating a garment out of it
ie. like old school silhouettes
- 2D clothing, is it still a garment even if its only on one side of the body?
- could this be sustainable?
- many fronts and plain body suit underneath?
- FLAT OUTFIT ie suits perfectly sewn just with no back? or even photographs?
- Velcro body suits with aspects of flat garment shadows applied- like collars
-Trace shadows in different lights onto butches paper as pattern- use jersey (from first experiment) to fit. --------Would that still be a garment or a waste of time?

No comments:

Post a Comment