i agree..just a slight difference..

when u say fashio is design it's true..
but architecture is a sum of different things one of which is design..

wouldn't u agree?

I know little about fashion and what it would mean to be practicing in that particular field.

but i cant help but think that there are just as many variables that contribute to the design of a jacket that there are for a building.

well it's good that u know.. cause i do 2 , for a short period of while unfortunately... i think people should explore that..
and that's why i had posted last week an article about koolhaas and herzog de meuron & prada.. but the discussion always ends architecture over here .. and sometimes people ignore or refuse admitting that there are other designers...
well, it;s true about the jacket example.. but i was speaking that architecture had a larger definition that fashion...

fashion is vilified because it's high prefile end is elitest($$$) and the uber-skinny trend of the past few decades has made some people feel bad about themselves- that aside.

I had a fashion habit for about 2 or 3 years. followed the collections , designers carreers , and houses or brands. (it got out of hand , i kicked it finally, and have only an enormous mag. collection i hope to sell on ebay!)

fashion and arch are quite similar,- design, aesthetic, execution, there is capital F fasion the way there's A architecture
I don't know if you were referring only to the concept of fashion, or the scene as well- either way the parralles remain fairly strong.
look at the clothes/bldg of a time period, and it tells you a lot.
though fashion as we know it today, runways & brands is less than 100 yrs old
the nature of fashion is ephemeral, but that is often what people dislike about it most- it would be like not liking arch b/c a building lasts.
at my school there was once a small lecture with about 5 designers(none big) , and i was totally dissapointed- i had perhaps projected to much theory onto it. (but what else could explain kawabuko, miyake, yammamoto, etc) McQueen is doing incredible things as is JPG

i could talk about this forever- i will collect my thoughts and come back later

btw...Wim wenders did a nice little docu-film with yohi yammamoto called notebook on a city i think - it's short and interesting

I may be able to give an answer if you can tell me what you mean by "authenticity and appropriateness of the design".

ultimately when you really consider how our profession moves through trends, it really has taken a page from fashion, all we need now is fall and spring collection. interestingly i have been fascinated with fashion and its potential within architecture - although not new - and architectures potential within fashion, i.e. detailing, theory, etc....this is a good topic keep on keepin on!

When I was in school, most of my very "learned" professors would call designs of the "fashion flavor"- KITSCH. They would strip the design of any kitsch until it was pure function, similar process to what mindless offices use with the International Bulding Code.
It seems they want their buildings to be "timeless", like an icon, I guess so that it will keep 100% tenancy so they can make alot of money. No tenant-no money.

...which makes me think, what is the relationship of fashion with function, can function be a fashion, can fashion be a function or functional. Is it possible to make an International Building Code for fashion and why not? Should we make as part of the architectural exam a test of one's ability to be fashionable and why not? If building function can be reduced to an essence and function can be fashionable, can fashion be reducable and controled and why not?

gustav, awesome.
to test ones Fashionability.

this is always a good topic.

to call architecture fashion is to call it disposible.
this may be what people strive for. i don't

Yes, that is the definition of fashion. It is that it goes out of favor.

What is the difference between (the disposable fashion of) "Hot Pants, circa 1972" and disposable diapers?
cars
the in philosophy
car color
the latest hip, cool, hot, smoken', teeny bopper phrase

fashion changes fast, architecture is slow, so by the time it has been build... it's out of fashion...

i totally agree with rutger...... very true.. that's why architecture is getting lost as means of communication.

not neccesarily, -
in architecture the construction process is considerably faster than it used to be (fater than in antiquity, than the middleages..etc) thus arch today might seem more like fashion than arch of yesteryear.

there needs also to be a distinction made between fashion as an adverb, 'X is in fashion' and fashion as an industry. .
...and take into consideration that fashion also just means to make. it is in that sense closest to arch. you fashion a bldg without having the slightest involvement in fashion in the other senses of the word.

I think it would be interesting to see a graph showing different types of buildings and how long they last on average. by type i would like to see what theoretical category they fit into. What material they are constructed of. what there location is, city, state, country.

I am guessing that what we would see is that the life-span of a building is out of the hands of the architect and design. I am guessing that the socio-economic condition of different places determines the life-span of buildings.

>>>

I do think architecture or the building industry changes as fast as any other practice... fashion and business. It's a profession that is at the whim of technology and economy. we do what we can with what we can.

1919, Vienna::
style / fashion
Loos: The fashion of a period is called its style, regardless of whether one is talking about ladies' hats or catherals.
Wagner: Fashion is easy to understand and influence, but style, a rigid and refined taste whose critique demands concentration and understanding is more complex.

In Vienna, these issues had more to do with that time's impression of social realtions, social processes, objects, the body, and understanding of publiciity. today is no different. But this time it seems there is "taste" to contend with.

2001, New York / Tokyo::
taste / fashion
Koolhaas: I don't think it's simply about fashion. There is such a complete, across-the-board commodification today that expectations have shifted from a didactic experience to an entertainment.
Herzog: ... we are more interested in what people are wearing, what they like to wrap around their bodies. We are interested in that aspect of artificial skin which becomes so much of an intimate part of people.

follow-up: Ed Mitchell "Lust for Lifestyle," Assemblage 40.