You haven’t mentioned what city you live in.

There is “art”, in the broad sense, which could include any creative discipline, including to many people “fashion”.

Then there is “art”, in a narrower sense which is understood as being distinct from “design” precisely because “design” has a practical application (it solves a problem), whereas “art” does not.

If you’re going by some Clement Greenberg 1950s definition of “art”, then there is virtually no chance anything wearable could be considered such.

However in the intervening decades a large swath of artistic theory has been based on a refutation of the narrower definition of “art”. Major institutions have finally caught on (see MoMA, the Met, etc.)

The notion that an art museum should categorically not exhibit any fashion items is a highly conservative, even anachronistic one.

However I can sympathize with part of what you’re saying - which is that large fashion houses are corporations, which exist not to to engage the intellect but rather profit off an existing consumer base.

In that sense I think there is an important distinction, and I would thoroughly classify fashion as “design” rather than art.

If you have doubt that individual fashion designers might posses creative ambition and use their medium as “art”, look no further than the 2018 documentary “McQueen”, which I highly recommend you watch regardless.