Sustainable fashion

[Guest]

Here's a thread for discussions on sustainable fashion.
Let me start off with the following intro from Wikipedia:

Sustainable fashion, also called eco fashion, is a part of the growing design philosophy and trend of sustainability, the goal of which is to create a system which can be supported indefinitely in terms of environmentalism and social responsibility. Sustainable fashion is part of the larger trend of sustainable design where a product is created and produced with consideration to the environmental and social impact it may have throughout its total life span, including its "carbon footprint".

There are many issues that could be discussed here, from the question of what exactly falls under sustainable fashion design, which designers follow the idea, which fabrics are environmentally friendly, which economical and ethical concerns might be of interest here, etc.

I'd like to start the discussion with a question I've been wondering about, and haven't got a clue about the answer: the aesthetics usually related with this type of fashion design. Even though, according to this Wikipedia article "Designers say that they are trying to incorporate these sustainable practices into modern clothing, rather than producing "hippy clothes." " - I am not sure how spread this attitude actually is. From what I've seen around (but maybe I haven't looked at the right places?), most of the eco-friendly designs usually come with some some back-to-the-nature aesthetics, which I can't stomach anymore :) Three types of products where I think this is especially obvious is underwear, bags and shoes. Don't know what the case is elsewhere, but in EU, at least from my own experience, it's incredibly difficult to find underwear (socks, pants, night shirts, etc.) that's both made of eco-friendly fabrics and clearly sweatshop-free, and that at the same doesn't have this "natural vibe" to it (flowers, bows, and similar shit :p). As for the shoes, I am not sure what exactly the situation is with leather that is processed in environmentally friendlier ways, but I think it's mostly a similar problem like with vegetarian-friendly shoes: the designs are mostly everything but interesting :) The same goes for the bags.
Now, the question is, why is this so? Is the majority of those interested in buying this type of products really into this kind of design/aesthetics? Or is there maybe a confusion about who the potential customer base actually is, and what they are looking for? Maybe the reason that eco-friendly products aren't that attractive is that they usually don't have an interesting design to them?

This is just one of the questions, so if you reply to this thread, and you're rather interested in other issues, feel free to ignore it, and start off with something else :)

[cowsareforeating]

it is hard to sell luxe and eco-friendly; design is at a premium nowadays and it is harder to sell materials predominantly not seen as "the best".

that being said, a lot of performance outerwear uses recycled poly (gore-tex and polartec) and sustainable trackable wool (smartwool, icebreaker)

however that is a far different crowd from runway or at least "show" designers like the ones discussed on this forum.

[Patroklus]

I have some trend reports that are getting very excited for found objects entering into textile and fashion design. Keep your eyes open in 2013, I guess.

[cowsareforeating]

i know where you're coming from, but i am not very convinced by the argument that it's hard to sell luxe and eco-friendly because of the fabrics. take for instance Stella McCartney's shoes: how come they sell for such a high price? sometimes even her secondhand shoes have a really high price. and her key clientele is obviously into "luxe", if not for avant-garde... i actually have an impression most of her customers don't even know/don't care the shoes aren't made of leather. i just find that a really interesting phenomenon.

Point taken and no criticism of stella, as I am not familiar with her work...

But are people buying her clothes or her label? That would make a crucial difference I suppose.

I know you are no fan of the meat industry, but revamping of the cotton industry and further usage of recycled synthetics would make a larger scale impact methinks.

I guess it is a lack of communication between entrepreneurs with environmental vision and designers interested with those textiles. I'm sure they're out there just with minimal exposure.


Edit: continuing my ramble, its just wasteful to produce low grade fibers for low grade textiles that are thrown away. It drains the soil of its nutrients and doesn't neccessarily make more money for businesses, but only increases the volume of sales.

[Heirloom]

people are forgetting about not just each singular item, but the VOLUMES in which they are produced...
I don't like the idea of fashion being sustainable as the biggest salespoint, only to introduce new styles every season...

I'd rather see people repair and rework what they already have. and instead of buying that sweater, learn how to make it yourself from old garments.

[Heirloom]

i wasn't saying that everyone should be making their own clothes, but that if you want to stay consistent, and you're really passionate about being environmentally friendly, you could, and be even more eco friendly than stella mcfartney. I don't like when designers take credit for being eco friendly, when being a fashion designer is one of the least eco friendly choices you can make.

[syed]

Thank you so much for starting this thread

Is the majority of those interested in buying this type of products really into this kind of design/aesthetics? Or is there maybe a confusion about who the potential customer base actually is, and what they are looking for? Maybe the reason that eco-friendly products aren't that attractive is that they usually don't have an interesting design to them?

There is a eco-friendly shoe shop in Covent Garden that sell vegan-friendly leathers and the like which I have looked in a couple of times when I'm in the area. Like many eco fashion producers they seem to, like you say, feel the need to proclaim that choice through aesthetic and look. I think the issue for the most parts is that eco fashion unfortunately tends to slot into a lifestyle choice. When I see the people that go in there to shop, the majority invariably fit into that rather comically stereotype of the eco-warrior - all peruvian knits and such. It is a marked visual identity, and purposely so. I guess by being more visible they assume they are raising awareness more easily.

As of yet most of the clothing lines that are eco-friendly seem to start off with that, it is their selling point - they are eco first, design and aesthetics come second. Heaven forbid anyone mistake them for non-eco, so they design in such a way that it is readily apparent to the outside observer. There are of course exceptions, but it is something I have noticed and always found rather odd. I suppose it is inevitable, as it is certainly a way of drawing attention and awareness.

I don't think there needs to be major changes to make positive changes (although in the long run that would be nice), rather simply changing the way people consume would help. When you see people shopping in H&M or Primark every week, wearing something once and then tossing it, it screams of waste and mindless consumerism. I suppose in a way it is the outcome of the conclusion of the postmodern citizen - constantly consuming in order to create an identity. People are cycling through visual identity after visual identity, using cheap fast-fashion to mark that out, and in the process ethics and sustainability go out the window.

I thought Faust's post from the Silent thread made a good point...

My main problem with chain stores (and let's face it, Uniqlo is the single bright spot among them) is not that they produce cheap shit per se, but other, socioeconomic problems. Many people don't have money, and that doesn't mean that they should be banished to Kohl's. My problem is that the ostensible purpose of these stores - making fashion affordable - is often overshadowed by the real purpose - driving consumerism. There are people who buy stuff from there every week, then throw it out, sometimes with tags still on them, and they don't feel bad about it. Then come sustainability problems. Then sweatshop problems. Another problem is more of a philosophical nature, having a relationship with material things that surround you, caring for them. Try throwing out a $1,000 coat - not so easy; you cherish it more, and there is something good about that.

Many issues could be resolved if people just kept clothing for longer and bought less crap on impulse. Will try to elaborate soon.

[genevieveryoko]

you mean, make my own shoes or what? :P i fail to see the idea.

speaking of consistency is a tricky ground though, and tends to blur discussions whenever certain ethical principles are involved. the argument used against a certain principle-driven mode usually then has a form: "you uphold the value X, but if you wanna uphold it completely, then that implies you should also do Y." - as if there is only one principle X that guides the entire practice life. just to give an example: say, person A says they'd like to donate to charity. Then person B says: well, if you really wanna be consequent/consistent in your approach, then you should give up all your pleasures and donate 90% of your income.
:p

yeah i agree, there is no ideal or optimal way to be eco-friendly, and cynical as it sounds, buying a few sustainably produced garments makes little difference if we don't question and try to change the whole cycle of production and consumption. i think heirloom is perhaps getting at reducing the rate of production of new items, rather than suggesting that everyone make everything for themselves. it's great that stella is using faux leather to meet the needs of a certain clientele...but she's still using a new material. creating a synthetic leather will most likely produce many non-environmentally friendly byproducts. i wonder if any shoemakers experiment with recycled leather? that could be interesting. the stella mccartney boots you've posted below are really quite lovely, but i would argue that just because they're not leather, doesn't make them sustainably produced. maybe there is more behind them; I'm not familiar with her label. and i think that there is definitely potential for leather goods to be produced sustainably in conjunction with small scale local agriculture. i think heirloom is also getting at the fact that no matter how good the intention of the designer, the fact that something was produced "sustainably" in fashion is almost always ultimately used as a selling point, rather than as a side note being "just the way it is" or should be. more sustainable would be that the designer has decided to work outside of the seasonal system of fashion, designing things at a pace that flows naturally with their internal drive to create, using materials from sources that work outside of the trend-driven textiles industry, and doing small scale local production...and able to make a living! sorry i know i'm going off in the deep end . it's a bit less suspect to market sustainably produced goods in the food industry, because there's no way getting around the fact that we have to buy food on a regular basis, and what we eat has a direct effect on our health. it's like the whole american apparel thing - it's cool that they're sweatshop free and all that, but it's not so cool that they produce loads and load of useless poor quality crap.

[xmattyx]

Thanks for starting this thread. It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, and probably will have more to say in the future. However, for the time being, I would like to point out that animal leather creates a huge amount of "non-environmentally friendly byproducts." I would imagine the negative impact is magnitudes greater than polyester, waxed cotton or whatever microfiber (even PVC, perhaps) the faux stuff is created from.

[Heirloom]

you mean, make my own shoes or what? :P i fail to see the idea.

speaking of consistency is a tricky ground though, and tends to blur discussions whenever certain ethical principles are involved. the argument used against a certain principle-driven mode usually then has a form: "you uphold the value X, but if you wanna uphold it completely, then that implies you should also do Y." - as if there is only one principle X that guides the entire practice life. just to give an example: say, person A says they'd like to donate to charity. Then person B says: well, if you really wanna be consequent/consistent in your approach, then you should give up all your pleasures and donate 90% of your income.
:p

yes, i agree

[xmattyx]

Similarly, Matt and Nat lining being made of recycled plastic bottles.

[genevieveryoko]

Thanks for starting this thread. It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, and probably will have more to say in the future. However, for the time being, I would like to point out that animal leather creates a huge amount of "non-environmentally friendly byproducts." I would imagine the negative impact is magnitudes greater than polyester, waxed cotton or whatever microfiber (even PVC, perhaps) the faux stuff is created from.

of course. i guess i meant "relative" levels of sustainability, where leather goods can be produced in small quantities, using 'best' tanning practices, in conjunction with humane meat production. but of course we all know that eating meat isn't the most sustainable way to get your protein, and that it is a luxury.

[syed]

^ Yup, I think organic leather is definitely one way forward, albeit not for people who are vegan/vegetarian. The tanning process creates some rather nasty by-products, however organic leather is made using various environmentally friendly tanning processes (as well as animals raised in better conditions). I know Muji use organic leather for some of their products (as well as organic cottons for some of their clothing).

Recycled leather sounds like a really interesting option though, especially in terms of how different broken-in and aged leather would be. You wouldn't need to distress or artificially age the leather because it would already be pretty much done.

[genevieveryoko]

As for the shoes, I think there is something like recycled leather, but I'm not sure. Though, when it comes to vegetarian-friendly shoes, the concern here for those who are interested in them is not only eco-friendliness, but more ethical reasons concerning leather itself. So, here there may easily pop up another moral dilemma, and one needs to decide in view of what he or she considers more important in the given context (for instance, I guess that for most of us, the idea of shoes made of one's dog's dead skin sounds horrible no matter how "sustainable" it may be... and some people feel the same way about any other skin/leather). So a production of vegetarian-friendly shoes may require a different type of rationale to them, after all.
Fortunately, there have been some improvements in this sector as well. For instance, the last collection of Olsen Haus shoes was made out of recycled old tv-s, so that's at least something :)

p.s.
Note the word "eco-chic" in the above (linked) article - arghhhhhhh! (there should be a smiley that vomits here).

i completely understand and respect that your enthusiasm for vegetarian friendly shoes lies primarily in an ethical concern, and secondarily in an environmental one. at what point are sustainable fashion, and moral/ethical fashion related? of course this could be highly personal. i guess that could lead us into another philosophical discussion which could be "when is luxury justifiable" or even "what is luxury". ok, i hope i'm not creating an impetus to make this thread too confusing...i already got lost and feel like i can't contribute to the "philosophical topics" thread unless i read it and reread it like 10 times

ps - those TV shoes are cool!

[xmattyx]

of course. i guess i meant "relative" levels of sustainability, where leather goods can be produced in small quantities, using 'best' tanning practices, in conjunction with humane meat production. but of course we all know that eating meat isn't the most sustainable way to get your protein, and that it is a luxury.

Gotcha! I think a lot of people take the steps involved in leather production for granted, where they think "Just kill the animal and you've got the material!" So I wanted to point that out.

On topic: via The Discerning Brute Luxury brands must wake up to ethical and environmental responsibilities