Art is defined as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." It's not hard to see where or how fashion may play a role in such a broad definition especially when considering that the word fashion is generally used to refer to clothing.
To me, fashion and art are one in the same. I mean, how could you not watch some of the Paris couture shows and think you were living in some type of gallery?
If anything, I've come to appreciate art much more because of my interest in fashion. With fashion and art collaborations on the rise it's easy to see why so many more have come to reconcile the two.
To say that fashion is not art is just as good as saying some art isn't really art. The "othering" of anything artistic is pretty ironic, don't you think? Sometimes it doesn't make sense to one person; the work of Jackson Pollock may be written off as "something a child could've done," but art doesn't HAVE TO make sense--at least not to you. Its appeal is no less artful because you are unable to appreciate it as such. It's a beautiful thing to be able to express yourself creatively; just because the canvas is different doesn't make the art any less worthy.
The bottom line is that fashion is another form of art but I also don't need anyone to agree with me on this; your opposition just furthers my point that not only are fashion and art subjective but so is the difference between them.
Hannah Rose Prendergast