My comment re: Murakami was too long, so here's the rest:
Yea, I'd say so. The bags make sense in terms of Murakami's practice (esp. notions of branding, fake v. real, etc.) but I'm not necessarily sure that someone who buys a bag, scarf, etc. will understand that or directly engage with it, especially if they're not already familiar with his work--I think to a lot of people, these were just limited edition items and as such, highly coveted. On the other hand, Louis Vuitton (and any other company that does artist collabs.) gets a lot out of that association--in addition to the aura of "cool" that comes with contemporary art, the brand gets to pretend that they're selling more than just products.
I think you raise an excellent point. We shouldn’t pretend that people’s experience with a scarf or bag is the same as a print or painting. Just because an artist designs it doesn’t mean anything more than adding a new veneer of “cool” to the same old product. Many of Louis Vuitton’s collaborations with artists is simply surface design, and the artists do nothing to significantly change the product. If only companies asks artists to reimagine their products, right? Now THAT would be cool.
Posted by hyperallergic
