Hussein Chalayan

1. Chalayan’s works in clothing, like Afterwords (2000) and Burka (1996) , are often challenging to both the viewer and the wearer. What are your personal responses to these works? Are Afterwords and Burka fashion, or are they art? What is the difference?

I think the two works are both art and fashion, but it sways 70/30 to art than fashion. The reason why i think this is because Chalayan combined both fashion wear, or for the Burka (2000), an everyday clothing and by simply by challenging the wearer and viewer is a point made by art. But the reason why the scales tip more to the art side than the fashion side is because fashion, to me, is more for everyday wear or a special occasion dress as opposed to what the Burka (1996) and Afterwords (2000) is something you might show inside an art gallery with like-minded beings and to run around naked waist down or carry a huge table like structure is not something seen as comfortable, yet see as 'acceptable' in today's society.

2. Chalayan has strong links to industry. Pieces like The Level Tunnel (2006) and Repose (2006) are made in collaboration with, and paid for by, commercial business; in these cases, a vodka company and a crystal manufacturer. How does this impact on the nature of Chalayan’s work? Does the meaning of art change when it is used to sell products? Is it still art?

The impact on Chalayan's work should be a positive one, if seen in a positive way. It gains recognition for the work itself, but it will be seen differently in the art world and the people who are in it, because to me, its like getting one of Raphael's paintings and running around Queen street with it above your head. Its still art I reckon, just like a Lamborghini Murcielago LP670-SV is art on wheels and it should still be art if it was created as art such as a human was to be human.

3. Chalayan’s film Absent Presence screened at the 2005 Venice Biennale. It features the process of caring for worn clothes, and retrieving and analysing the traces of the wearer, in the form of DNA. This work has been influenced by many different art movements; can you think of some, and in what ways they might have inspired Chalayan’s approach?



Having a look at the picture itself makes me think of someone or nearly everyone in today's society confined in a box or room like that. Its actually quite post-modernist due to it's meta-narrative theme of gathering traces in the form of DNA from clothes. And saying so about DNA and stuff, kind of makes you think about shows like CSI and SVU, which also has a pop culture influence to it.

4. Many of Chalayan’s pieces are physically designed and constructed by someone else; for example, sculptor Lone Sigurdsson made some works from Chalayan’s Echoform (1999) and Before Minus Now (2000) fashion ranges. In fashion design this is standard practice, but in art it remains unexpected. Work by artists such as Jackson Pollock hold their value in the fact that he personally made the painting. Contrastingly, Andy Warhol’s pop art was largely produced in a New York collective called The Factory, and many of his silk-screened works were produced by assistants. Contemporarily, Damien Hirst doesn’t personally build his vitrines or preserve the sharks himself. So when and why is it important that the artist personally made the piece?

It is because we, as people, want to see what we are capable of individually. We see that when an artist hands down and actually putting in the soul and passion into his or her's work which would give that quality and special touch to it. That all disappears when we know it wasn't them who made the work, which leaves the buyer's paying for the name of the work and not both the work and the name, like a car for example, Lexus and Toyota. Same company, but you almost pay $10k extra for the name Lexus on the car.