Ruttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To paraphrase Krauss:

"fashion can never be art because of the commercial aspect, with american copyright laws not allowing for reproduction"

"American law priviledged function and use, and it therefore failed to recognize in dresses the intellectual property rights developed for works of art as products of the mind. instead of reinforcing Poiret's claim to authorship as an artist, the law recognized only his right to commercial trademark protection of his couture label, and as we shall see it compelled him to acknowledge that his name signified his status as a businessman, not a fine artist." 

------------------------

Pointless rambling and thinking: 

what if other artists become the label --because sometimes it seems that their name has ensured their status (though still they are seem as producers of things or thing are produced under them) what if "pollock" brand clothes ensured that it was legit... though (who the F*@k is jackson pollock) proves that ...hmmm..welll... rigorous testing is underwent to ensure that it is legit art .. and that only the high class can have a real important piece of art work... ::ELITIST?!:: if i made a line of dresses and their label was the artists name... then it would be art about art and artifice... im not sure if i want that...

What does it mean for you to have a designed thing --> financial you have the means for it and you must flaunt it i guess... and that you know what's fashionable (what does that word even mean ?!)

-what if art was created under the guidelines of whats fashionable ... (i think that happens already).. ok so.... what am i doing ... Preserving integrity ... HOW?! by one person grueling over it ... maybe someone will just be able to appreciate the rigors of ones pains and labors?.. probably not .... we'll seeeeeeeeee