Introduction
Fashion and art are two distinct systems both socially and economically (Caves, 2000; Geczy & Karaminas, 2012). They have ādifferent modalities of reception [and] presentationā and are āsubject to different responses within the economyā (Jelinek, 2018, p. 296). Art fits into the so-called high-culture production field, while fashion is a creativity-based industry (Jelinek, 2018; Steele, 2012a, 2012b). For some scholars, fashion products are mere commodities āwith a commercial natureā (Jelinek, 2018, p. 294). For others, fashion is a āform of visual art, a creation of images with the visible self as its mediumā (Maynard, 2012; Miller, 2007; Simon, 1995; Wilson, 1987, p. 9). Albeit often perceived as two worlds apart, art and fashion are increasingly converging in mutually advantageous ways, especially when it comes to luxury, one of the fastest-growing sectors: in 2018, the market for personal luxury goods was ā¬260 billion, with a growth of 6% (Bain & Company, 2018).
This book deals with the artification of luxury fashion brands, that is, their transformation into art (Kapferer, 2014, p. 371). Having been hotly debated lately, the phenomenon of artification has attracted both the praise of those who see in it an opportunity to purify luxury goods from their long-stigmatized link to unnecessary excess and amorality (Dubois, Laurent, & Czellar, 2001; Kapferer, 2014) and the criticism of those who view it as a desecration of art. Despite strong criticism, mainly based on the assumption that artification is instrumental only for achieving marketing and sales goals (to the detriment of artistic integrity), there are many upsides to artification processes in the context of luxury fashion brands.
The overall purpose of this book is to explore the ways in which the luxury fashion industry and the art world might join forces, both strengthening the luxury brand reputation and supporting the flourishing of the arts and the economic sustainability of nonprofit arts organizations. In particular, the authors aim to delve into the synergies, contaminations, and hybridizations between luxury fashion brands and art. This book investigates such phenomena by presenting different case studies of fashion businesses āartifyingā their brands by establishing various types of interactions with the art world.
In this chapter, we propose an overall framework distinguishing among several levels of artification processes in the luxury fashion industry. The chapter is organized as follows. First, we review the concept of artification, illustrating its multidisciplinary nature and highlighting the mutual benefits for luxury fashion companies and art organizations that engage in artification processes. Second, we propose a classification of artification processes based on different degrees of interaction between the luxury fashion and art sectors. In particular, we identify synergies, contaminations, and hybridizations as incremental stages of the artification process.
The Concept of Artification
Albeit apparently recalling a negative or derogatory meaningāmainly for its association to the idea of the āfabrication of what is artificialā and as ācommoditization, destructive of the authenticity of thingsā1āthe term āartificationā must be employed in mere descriptive terms (Shapiro, 2004a, p. 1). In her seminal article, Shapiro describes artification as āthe transformation of non-art into art [that is] a transfiguration of people, objects and actionā (Shapiro, 2004a, p. 1).2
Artification can be read as a consequence of āa general objectification of culture occurring in many societiesā (Shapiro, 2004b, p. 2) and of the blurring between high and low culture characterizing the so-called āculture societyā (Morato, 2003; Shapiro, 2004b), where the boundaries of art are not well-defined (Shapiro, 2004b). As Shapiro (2004b, pp. 2ā3) puts it, there are two basic assumptions on which the artification concept is based: (1) the belief in the superior value of artworks, conceived as outcomes of a process rather than as objects. Artification does not deal with the intrinsic nature of art but with the activity through which art is generated (Heinich & Shapiro, 2012b); and (2) the multiplication of legitimizing bodies. Once, legitimation was the prerogative of a few privileged bodies (e.g., the Academy of France) who used to discern what held artistic value and what did not. In contrast, the power to legitimate an object has now become the right of multiple legitimating bodies, including the audience, newspapers, collectors, gallery or festival directors, sponsors, etc. (Shapiro, 2004b, pp. 2ā3).
Therefore, artification can be regarded as a consequence of the cultural democratization characterizing the postmodern era (Shapiro, 2004b), which allows for ācountless possibilities in the world of art and architectureā (Firat & Venkatesh, 1995, p. 242), also giving those who were once considered outsiders and marginalized groups a chance to enter the art world. Thanks to artification, genres such as breakdance, hip pop, video art, and computer art acquired artistic dignity and value (Shapiro, 2004b).
Rooted in many fields and allowing for multiple levels of analysis, artification dynamics have been studied by different disciplines. From a biological stance, artification is the individual attempt to assure the survival and evolution of the species (Dissanayake, 2011) From a sociological standpoint, artification is used by individuals to achieve the right to self-expression and authenticity (Shapiro & Heinrich, 2012) From a socioeconomic viewpoint, artification is the consequence of the individualās reaction to crucial changes occurring in important institutions (i.e., family, workplace, etc.) and an attempt of individuals to use art to restore their identi...