There is a specific type of art out there that's sole purpose is to gain a better scientific understanding of our ourselves and our environment. I am currently in the process of writing my art history thesis paper on photographers from the early twentieth century that practiced a thing called sequential photography. People like this include Eudweard Muybridge and Etienne-Jules Marey who would photograph people, animals and objects in motion to gain a better understanding of how they moved realistically versus how we had thought they moved because it would be too fast for the naked eye to depict. Although their work is now put on a pedistool for pioneers in photography essentially the only reason they were using photography was for scientific purposes.
For example it wasn't until Muybridge sequentially photographed a horse galloping in mid-air that we even knew how horses feet moved when they ran. Before these photographs people had assumed that horses ran front legs first and then the back legs followed but Muybridge proved that in fact all the legs came together at one point simultaneously in mid-air.
I find this sort of scientific photography to be extremely intriguing because I guess on some level I can relate to it. Though my work and this blog may talk about fashion and clothing, all materialistic things, it could be argued that it is only by analyzing the superficial language of dress that one may arrive at certain conclusions regarding both singular and group identities. Ignoring the surface would leave us with no hints as to the cultural and psychological significance of a sign system which is by definition superficial and whose depth lies precisely on the surface.
Dress is a manifestation of the unconscious at work, in that it is a superficial phenomenon, like symbolic language, which, also like language, speaks volumes about submerged dimensions of experience. Clothing, then, does not just operate as a disguising or concealing strategy. In fact, it could be regarded as a deep surface, a manifestation of the 'unconscious' as a facet of existence which cannot be relegated to the psyches innermost hidden depths but actually expresses itself through apparently superficial activities.
Art uses symbolism to capture the idea, to wring it from a transcendental realm and body it forth to human eyes. In my art I am attempting to document and explore my psyches innermost hidden depths that get expressed through superficial means. Is this really scientific? I think so, other's probably don't; this seems to happen a lot.
When I look at other personal style blogs I find myself being disappointed so often, not because they aren't art majors like me that over think every single thing but because I go to their site hoping to understand them on a deeper level after being drawn in by their appearances and I leave feeling like there is far too much un-checked narcissism in the world. There is so much potential today with social media sites becoming more popular with every passing moment to be able to learn more about each other beyond shallow superficial veils and yet so many of us choose to remain at that level and not go any deeper; not even question going deeper and that saddens me. It saddens me because I have spent my whole life trying to understand how my materialistic desires have a more significant and thoughtful depth to them and often I feel like the whole fashion industry is against me. Don't get me wrong, I know there are plenty of personal style/art bloggers out there who recognize the potential blogging has in understanding ourselves as individuals and as a group beyond pure consumerism but sometimes I worry that there are too few of us and too many of them.
I'm clearly going off on a rant here but really my point is that this blog, all of my documentation and writing and musing can be a scientific art. These things that we pass off as trivial and superficial actually reflect our psychology, sociology, ethnology, economic stand point, unconscious desires, and so forth. The invisible world, the underside of an object or experience should make you question what is supposed to be viewed: the visible or the invisible? Is it the way that we dress or the meaning behind the way that we dress that's most important? Both if you ask me and that is why I think that personal style blogs can be considered a scientific art if the author chooses to approach it from a symbolic stand-point rather than a narcissistic one.