keywords:
"to argue"= to present reasons for or against a thing; to dispute; to debate.
"to persuade" = to convince; to induce somebody to believe.
communicative purpose:
- to present, explain, clarify, and illustrate a viewpoint (the author's) (so far, the goals are identical with those of the expository essay) + to persuade the reader that personal views are more valid than another person's viewpoints
move pattern:
Move I: Introducing the issue in contention.
Step 1: introductory remarks to identify work + artist + issue in contention
Step 2: acknowledging counterthesis and counterpoints (the other person's viewpoints)
Step 3: providing specific details (who, what, when, where)
Step 4: stating the thesis (personal viewpoints - in one complete, unified statement about the issue in contention, precise enough to limit the issue, but general enough to ask for support, not too obvious, and showing the changes proposed to the counterthesis)
Move II: Presenting counterthesis and counterpoints
Step 1: Restating the counterthesis and enlarging upon it (in the introductory move, we have just formulated it; now we have to show the reader that we bothered to understand what the other person's thesis really claims; therefore, we use our own words to explain what we understood and to convince our reader that we know exactly what the other opinion is)
Step 2: Presenting/restating counterpoint 1 (using our own words to show what the first point of proof used by the other person was)
Step 3: Presenting/restating counterpoint 2
Step 4: Presenting/restating counterpoint 3
Move III: Arguing thesis and providing evidence/proof
Step 1: Restating our own thesis and enlarging upon it (we have to make sure the reader fully understands what we claim)
Step 2: Providing constructive argument 1 and evidence/proof to support it (the weakest) to fight against counterpoint 1
Step 3: Providing constructive argument 2 and evidence to support it (stronger) to fight against counterpoint 2
Step 4: Providing constructive argument 3 and evidence to support it (the strongest) to fight against counterpoint 3
Step 5: Disagreeing with counterpoint 1 (refutation 1)
Step 6: Disagreeing with counterpoint 2 (refutation2)
Step 7: Disagreeing with counterpoint 3 (refutation 3)
Note: We can place side by side (mirror) our constructive argument and our disagreement with the other person's counterpoint in the same step by convincing the reader that our argument and evidence to support it are correct and are better than the other's.
Tasks:
DEADLINE March 9
"to argue"= to present reasons for or against a thing; to dispute; to debate.
"to persuade" = to convince; to induce somebody to believe.
communicative purpose:
- to present, explain, clarify, and illustrate a viewpoint (the author's) (so far, the goals are identical with those of the expository essay) + to persuade the reader that personal views are more valid than another person's viewpoints
move pattern:
Move I: Introducing the issue in contention.
Step 1: introductory remarks to identify work + artist + issue in contention
Step 2: acknowledging counterthesis and counterpoints (the other person's viewpoints)
Step 3: providing specific details (who, what, when, where)
Step 4: stating the thesis (personal viewpoints - in one complete, unified statement about the issue in contention, precise enough to limit the issue, but general enough to ask for support, not too obvious, and showing the changes proposed to the counterthesis)
Move II: Presenting counterthesis and counterpoints
Step 1: Restating the counterthesis and enlarging upon it (in the introductory move, we have just formulated it; now we have to show the reader that we bothered to understand what the other person's thesis really claims; therefore, we use our own words to explain what we understood and to convince our reader that we know exactly what the other opinion is)
Step 2: Presenting/restating counterpoint 1 (using our own words to show what the first point of proof used by the other person was)
Step 3: Presenting/restating counterpoint 2
Step 4: Presenting/restating counterpoint 3
Move III: Arguing thesis and providing evidence/proof
Step 1: Restating our own thesis and enlarging upon it (we have to make sure the reader fully understands what we claim)
Step 2: Providing constructive argument 1 and evidence/proof to support it (the weakest) to fight against counterpoint 1
Step 3: Providing constructive argument 2 and evidence to support it (stronger) to fight against counterpoint 2
Step 4: Providing constructive argument 3 and evidence to support it (the strongest) to fight against counterpoint 3
Step 5: Disagreeing with counterpoint 1 (refutation 1)
Step 6: Disagreeing with counterpoint 2 (refutation2)
Step 7: Disagreeing with counterpoint 3 (refutation 3)
Note: We can place side by side (mirror) our constructive argument and our disagreement with the other person's counterpoint in the same step by convincing the reader that our argument and evidence to support it are correct and are better than the other's.
Move IV: Concluding by enhancing the validity of the thesis
We conclude by reminding our reader (in other words) what we claimed and by suggesting that our arguments were (far) more convincing than the other person's. We must always remember to be polite! We must always remember that our simple claim of truth (our truth) is not convincing without providing proper arguments and evidence. After all, it is the reader who decides who is more effective!
Move V: (optional) Works cited.
Task 1: Read the text Fashion Art: To BE or Not to Be, by Maria Hritcu. Pay attention to the thesis, to the counterpoints and constructive arguments; which of them convinces you most? Which side do you tend to take? Why? Express your own viewpoints on these matters (provide your own thesis, arguments, and evidence).
DEADLINE March 9
Hodiș Thomas – Design – Anul 2
ReplyDelete5. The Argumentative Essay
Fashion Art: To BE or Not to Be, by Maria Hritcu
Move I: Introducing the Issue in Contention
Step 1: Introductory remarks (work + author + issue)
In her essay “Fashion Art: To BE or Not to Be”, Maria Hritcu discusses whether fashion should be considered art or mainly a commercial and practical field. The issue concerns the artistic status of fashion and the criteria used to define art.
Step 2: Acknowledging the counterthesis and counterpoints
Some critics argue that fashion cannot be art because it is functional, temporary, and influenced by profit and consumer demand. In their view, art should be independent from utility and the market.
Step 3: Providing specific details (who, what, when, where)
This debate appears both in museums and in the fashion industry. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has organized fashion exhibitions, and designers such as Alexander McQueen and Coco Chanel have had a strong cultural impact through their creations.
Step 4: Stating the thesis
I believe that fashion can be considered art when it expresses a clear creative vision and communicates ideas, even if it remains functional and commercial.
Move II: Presenting Counterthesis and Counterpoints
Step 1: Restating the counterthesis
The opposing view claims that fashion does not qualify as art because its main purpose is practical. Clothes are made to be worn and to serve everyday needs.
Step 2: Presenting counterpoint 1
Functionality limits artistic freedom because designers must respect practical constraints.
Step 3: Presenting counterpoint 2
Fashion is temporary and depends on changing trends.
Step 4: Presenting counterpoint 3
Fashion is part of a profit-driven industry, which makes it seem closer to business than to art.
Move III: Arguing Thesis and Providing Evidence
Step 1: Restating my thesis
Even with its practical and commercial aspects, fashion can be art when it becomes a meaningful form of expression.
Step 2: Constructive argument 1
Function does not exclude art. Architecture is both useful and artistic, and the same can apply to fashion. Designers like Alexander McQueen created collections that explored complex themes.
Step 3: Constructive argument 2
The temporary nature of fashion does not cancel its artistic value. Other art forms can also be short-lived but still significant.
Step 4: Constructive argument 3
Commercial context does not eliminate creativity. Coco Chanel influenced social attitudes through her designs, showing that fashion can shape culture.
Step 5–7: Refutation
Therefore, practicality, temporariness, and commercial aspects do not automatically disqualify fashion from being art.
Move IV: Concluding by Enhancing the Validity of the Thesis
I support the idea that fashion can be art when it shows originality and cultural relevance. Although the counterarguments are reasonable, they are not strong enough to deny the artistic dimension of fashion. In my view, fashion becomes art when it expresses ideas and influences society, not when it simply follows trends.
Parauan Francesca - Design - An 2
ReplyDeleteHritcu's strongest point is her third argument, which shows how famous artists directly inspired designers like Yves Saint Laurent. I take the side that fashion is indeed art because it requires the same conceptual and technical mastery as traditional fine art mediums.
Move I: Introducing the issue in contention:
While some critics argue that clothing is merely a functional and commercial utility, I firmly believe that conceptual fashion is a legitimate form of fine art that uses the human body as a dynamic canvas.
Move II: Presenting counterthesis and counterpoints:
The opposing view claims that fashion cannot be art because it is fundamentally constrained by its practical purpose of clothing the body, and its mass-produced nature strips it of unique artistic purity.
Move III: Arguing thesis and providing evidence/proof:
I counter this by arguing that avant-garde fashion intentionally sacrifices comfort for aesthetic expression, requiring the exact same complex spatial and sculptural skills as traditional fine art. Furthermore, designers like Alexander McQueen have used their runway collections to explore profound themes like historical trauma, proving that fashion delivers powerful cultural commentary far beyond mere commercialism.
Move IV: Concluding by enhancing the validity of the thesis:
In conclusion, although everyday garments serve a basic practical need, the profound creative boundaries pushed by visionary designers firmly secure conceptual fashion's rightful place in the realm of true art.
Dracea Luca-Vlad
ReplyDeleteAnul 2
Licenta
Foto-Video
Art has traditionally been considered the domain of humans, expressing emotion, experience, and personal creativity. Works by artists such as Vincent van Gogh or Marcel Duchamp demonstrate that artistry is linked to intention and personal perspective. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) can generate images, music, and text that resemble human-made art, raising the question: Can AI be considered a true artist? While some argue that AI’s creations can evoke emotion or provoke thought, I argue that AI cannot be considered a true artist because it lacks consciousness, intention, and authentic emotional experience.
Supporters of AI as an artist claim that impact on the audience is enough to define art, citing examples like AI-generated paintings or music that move viewers. They also point out that some human art, like Duchamp’s ready-mades, challenges traditional ideas of authorship and intention. Finally, they argue that human artists are influenced by prior works, so AI’s use of datasets is no different.
However, these points do not establish AI as a true artist. First, art is communication from creator to audience. Van Gogh’s paintings reflect his inner struggles, which AI cannot experience. The emotional effect of AI-generated work arises in the viewer, not in the machine itself. Second, even avant-garde movements involve deliberate human choice and critique; Duchamp intended to challenge artistic norms, whereas AI follows preprogrammed algorithms without intention. Third, human creativity is shaped by personal biography and emotion. AI lacks a life narrative and consciousness, meaning it can only imitate, not innovate.
In conclusion, AI may produce visually or intellectually stimulating works, but it cannot be called a true artist. Art requires conscious intention, emotional depth, and personal experience—all uniquely human. AI remains a powerful tool that supports creativity but cannot authentically participate in the creative dialogue that defines true artistry.
Lovasz- Pager Andrea, Conservare si Restaurare, anul II.
ReplyDeleteFashion as Art: To Be or Not to Be
In her essay Fashion Art: To BE or Not to Be, Maria Hritcu explores the complex relationship between fashion and art. Her main thesis is that the real question is not whether fashion is art, but how we can define the aesthetic boundaries that determine when fashion becomes art. Hritcu highlights that although fashion is often considered applied or decorative art, it shares many characteristics with fine art, from creativity to conceptual expression. She supports her thesis with several constructive arguments while acknowledging opposing viewpoints.
Some critics argue that fashion is not art because it is primarily practical. Unlike art, which explores new ideas, uses innovative media, and reflects contemporary issues, fashion is intended to be worn. A Gucci purse or a D&G belt, no matter how beautifully designed, is still a functional object rather than a work of art. According to this perspective, fashion may resemble art in appearance, but its purpose separates it from true artistic expression.
However, Hritcu provides compelling counterarguments. She notes that fashion requires technical and artistic skills comparable to painting or sculpture: designers must master drawing, color theory, pattern combinations, and the transformation of 2D sketches into 3D garments tailored for specific bodies. Moreover, fashion can tell us about the culture and aesthetics of a particular era, just as pottery or frescoes provide historical insight. While prêt-à-porter clothing is made for everyday wear, haute couture often transcends practicality, existing as conceptual and aesthetically striking pieces that can be admired in museums.
The strongest evidence Hritcu presents comes from examples of designers directly inspired by fine art. Yves Saint Laurent created a famous wool jersey dress inspired by Piet Mondrian’s paintings. Gianni Versace referenced the work of Andy Warhol, Rudi Gernreich drew on Pop Art patterns, Emilio Pucci incorporated Op-Art designs, and Donna Karan’s 2003 spring collection referenced the unique symbolism in Native American culture and the pottery of Virgil Ortiz. Even Miuccia Prada has her own art foundation, bridging fashion and contemporary art. These examples demonstrate that fashion often draws directly from artistic sources, making it more than just practical clothing.
Personally, I find the strongest argument to be the evidence of artistic inspiration. When designers directly reference paintings, sculptures, or historical art movements, they create garments that communicate ideas, emotions, and cultural narratives, just like traditional works of art. Therefore, my own thesis is that fashion can indeed be considered art, particularly when its aesthetic, conceptual, or historical qualities go beyond functionality and engage in creative expression. Fashion, like art, uses visual language—color, shape, pattern—to convey meaning, and some garments, especially haute couture, deserve to be appreciated as works of art in their own right.
In conclusion, not all fashion is art, but certain forms, particularly haute couture and conceptually rich collections, meet the criteria of artistic expression. The boundary between fashion and art is fluid, and creativity, concept, and inspiration determine whether a piece of clothing can be recognized as art. Just as museums display historically or culturally significant artifacts, they can also showcase fashion that exemplifies artistry, demonstrating that fashion is not only functional but can also be a powerful form of creative expression.
Fashion today sits at the intersection of utility and art. While some argue that fashion is practical, trend-driven, and ephemeral, and therefore not true art, it can also combine skill, creativity, and conceptual depth. Haute couture and museum-exhibited designs show that fashion communicates ideas, reflects culture, and draws inspiration from traditional art forms, as seen in Yves Saint Laurent’s Mondrian dress or Versace’s Warhol-inspired pieces. Everyday mass-produced fashion may prioritize utility, but artistic intention, technical skill, and cultural significance distinguish fashion as a legitimate form of art. Thus, fashion can be art when creativity, execution, and concept align, even if not all garments achieve this status.
ReplyDeleteIn “Fashion Art: To Be or Not to Be,” Maria Hritcu discusses the debate about whether fashion should be considered art or simply a practical product. She presents the argument that fashion is not art because clothes have a practical purpose—they are meant to be worn. However, she also shows that fashion involves creativity, artistic skills, and inspiration from well-known artists. Personally, I believe that fashion can be a form of art, especially when it expresses ideas and creativity beyond simple clothing.
ReplyDeleteOne argument that convinced me the most is that fashion designers use artistic skills similar to painters or sculptors. Designers must understand drawing, colors, shapes, and proportions to create garments that look visually interesting and fit the human body. Turning a sketch into a real piece of clothing requires imagination and technical ability, which are also important in traditional art.
Another strong point is the connection between fashion and famous artworks. For example, Yves Saint Laurent created the famous Mondrian dress inspired by the paintings of Piet Mondrian. Also, Gianni Versace used ideas from the pop-art works of Andy Warhol in his collections. These examples show that fashion and art often influence each other.
Even though fashion has a practical purpose, this does not mean it cannot be artistic. In my opinion, some everyday clothes are simply products, but many designer creations especially haute couture are closer to works of art. For this reason, I think fashion can definitely be considered a form of artistic expression.
Reading the work The Art of Fashion: To Be or Not to Be, by our colleague Maria Hritcu, I also opened a small window into the world of fashion. I viewed fashion over time as a whim, as a fad, and although I worked in this field of clothing, I was not at all interested in walking around dressed in fashion. It was only when I went through a professional divorce that I sought deeper meanings of this profession.
ReplyDeleteMaria Hritcu raises the question of whether Fashion is an art or not. She goes through all the stages of an argumentative essay, starting with the introduction to the subject of the argumentative dispute, providing examples of fashion designers between whom she makes comparisons, comparing plastic art with conceptual art, formulating the thesis, presenting the counterthesis and counterpoints, presenting weak, less weak and strong constructive arguments, giving examples for each and ending with the conclusion.
I personally like how she conceived her work. Argument 1, that in designing a collection the designer needs the same skills that an artist must have, seems to me a good argument in favor of the idea that both the designer and the artist are endowed with the same sets of skills and consequently both can make art. My opinion is that this is a conclusion by association but it can stand.
Argument 2, which is intended to be stronger, emphasizes the practical and artistic side of the fashion industry and distinguishes between ready-to-wear and haute couture, drawing a parallel between a painting that hangs on the wall and a fresco, both of which are considered art, while ready-to-wear is not. It also refers to the presence of fashion items in museums, which makes them art objects. My opinion is that over time both clothing items and works of art have undergone great changes in perception by society. Nowadays the question of whether an art object is considered art or not is increasingly being asked both in specialized environments and in the profane world. I believe that through the act of creating a collection, (studying what colors are worn, what models, what is demanded on the market, studying historically what others have created, etc.) the designer can consider himself a creator, an artist in the true sense of the word even if he creates everyday clothing items. That is if we refer to the conception and execution.
Argument 3 brings into question the fact that designers were inspired by works of art and gives examples of Yves Saint Laurent, Versace, Rudi Gernreich, who were inspired by the works of Mondrian, Andy Warhol or Pop-art. I agree with this point of view according to which, some designers used the notoriety of famous works of art signed by well-known artists to position themselves on the same value level as them, contaminating themselves with their celebrity.
The influence of art in fashion is something I could not deny because both art and fashion are intertwined. They cannot exist in isolation, history proves this if we look back a little. Clothing, like art, was a mirror of society and still continues to be even if nowadays everything seems different than it is.
Maria's conclusion is that, even if fashion can be defined as a form of expression in contemporary society, just like art, the means being different as well as the results, fashion is still an art because in its conception the skills of an artist are needed and it is influenced by past and present art forms.
I believe that the definition of art encompasses many forms and aspects under its umbrella and when we say art we do not strictly refer to a work of painting or sculpture but we can include