Margiela x H&M ???

[nellytheelephant]

Sure, Johnny. I am not painting everything with the same brush. I am saying though that there is probably a significant number of people like I described. Obviously, I, nor anyone else, have the numbers, but anecdotal evidence like this (plus the fact that most H&M stores of the world are located in well off areas) speak pretty strongly to my point.

Ok. I see your point. I suppose I went on to tar everyone with same brush. Rich and poor / enlightened and unenlightened alike. ; )

Perhaps the good goal can be achieved but perhaps at the expense of encouraging consumerism and the like in some people, or to some extent in all people. This seems to be the crux of fashion as I know it.

Data would be very useful to indicate in either case. And I'd be interested to read any studies carried out in this area...

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

It's a rare pleasure to read such informed and thought-provoking discussion on this topic. I can understand anybody railing against the absurdity and waste of fast fashion, and the crass extravagance on display. But I'd like to humanise the Great Unwashed who shopped at H&M last week and offer an objective opinion on the clothing if I may.

So I got up early last week to join the queue and see the whole collection for myself while it was still in the shops. The experience was a good-natured scrum comprising all ages, with glamorous ladies of a certain age being particularly well represented. The collection ran the gamut from the fabulous to the self-defeating, with some pieces working extremely well and others not so much. But the successes were a credit to the collaboration, and I'm impressed with the standard of the garments I came away with. And I know clothes. I'm hard to impress.

I've only ever bought one piece from Margiela before now, and I ended up giving it away because it wasn't a great fit. That said, MMM has been a huge influence on how I dress (in classics, vintage, bespoke etc) in particular the way the clothing requires that you impose your own sense of identity on them, rather than vice versa. To put it another way, MMM is more than any other brand highly contextualised.

With that in mind, I found it interesting to see just how well the simpler garments translated to the the format of the mid-range RTW basic. Consider a piece like the bra body for example, with its ugly-beautiful connotations of decidedly unsexy lingerie, and translate that to the context of the high street chain store and the suburban wardrobes in which it has inevitably ended up. Doesn't that seem like the ultimate subversion of the eroticisation of the female form, and shouldn't that merit at least some discussion?

You can think me plebeian, misguided or desperately uncool for even setting foot in H&M, I don't mind. I don't know you and you certainly don't know me. I don't expect to change anybody's opinion, because if you don't step outside this deep but narrow intellectual context and judge these things on their own merits, well, you'll probably see nothing but excrement everywhere you look.

And I've scored me a lovely pantsuit in a size 78 for a very reasonable price and I really couldn't be happier.

-----

Oversized trousers, reproduced from s/s 2001.

Black medium weight wool, lined in the front to below the knee with viscose. Shell fabric has a crisp, smooth hand and a soft drape. Excellent cut and fit. Attention to detail, such as a generous 6" deep hem with a grosgrain binding to protect against heels. Finished to a better standard than a comparable pair from Dries, and arguably as good as my favourite pants from Acne. Stellar.

[Shucks]

arguably as good as my favourite pants from Acne.

lulz.

[Faust]

Thank you for your post, foxtrot. There still remains the problem of fast-fashion driving consumerism and there still remains the problem of sweatshop labor in Asia. Hopefully your purchase will stand the test of time and you will have it for years to come.

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

There still remains the problem of fast-fashion driving consumerism and there still remains the problem of sweatshop labor in Asia. Hopefully your purchase will stand the test of time and you will have it for years to come.

Thanks Faust, I expect it will. I don't buy clothes if I don't expect them to last at least three to five years. FWIW, less than a third of my wardrobe is sourced from the high street, the rest is thrifted, hand made or designer pieces. I'm only interested in buying from brands insofar as they produce something beautiful of high quality that will stand the test of time (the acne pants are at least five years old, beautifully finished, have survived numerous washes and still look like new, so the laugh is on you, Shucks )

The sweatshop/fast fashion/consumerism argument is perfectly valid, but targeting H&M and this particular collaboration is something of a straw man, as it can be directed at pretty much the entire output of Western culture. If you seriously want to avoid this phenomenon, you'd better throw away your mobile phone and unplug yourself from the Internet right away, because the microelectronics industry is responsible for just as much hardship, exploitation and environmental degradation as the fashion industry, if not more so.

The other side of the argument is of course that industrialisation is an essential part of a country's development, with all the horrible conditions that entails. There are other ways for developing nations to pull themselves out of poverty, but the rag trade is one path a community can take to develop the infrastructure and skills to support themselves. The question is then how do retailers at the top of the chain conduct themselves to support this process in a humanitarian way?

H&M's record in this area is, I would say, fair to middling. It's not flawless, given the problems of controlling the supply chain, but they are at least making an effort to clean up their act. I do wonder in fact whether their record of exposure is precisely because they are transparent enough in their operations to make themselves accountable, which is more than can be said for say, Uniqlo.

I'd agree that the standard of 90% of H&M's product is a disgrace, and I very rarely shop there. But they can step up to the plate when they want to, as can be seen from COS, Weekday at the higher end and yes, this very collaboration. These examples show us what they can do when they turn away from the fast fashion ethos and deliver a product that is built to last.

The pieces I bought were made in Romania, a relatively prosperous country with a high human development index, demonstrably by people who care about turning out a nice product. While I have no information about the exact nature of the operation, my guess from the standard of their output is that they are running a pretty clean shop. And if my Romanian friends are any indication, the country has a thriving fashion culture all of its own.

So I would argue that objecting to this collaboration on these grounds is not a particularly strong position, because it's a bit of a stretch to describe a small run with high production values and prices to match as exploitative fast fashion, just because it appears in a ubiquitous retailer you don't happen to approve of.

[Shucks]

foxtrot you are talking out of your ass. by buying from H&M (any garment) you are supporting their business - and they are not in business to improve the conditions of workers in their countries of production. they are exploiting the situations in those countries in order to pay as low salaries as possible. otherwise they would voluntarily pay living wages, not minimum wages.

And H&M's FAST fashion business model in itself is dependent upon exploitation of workers:

"In the apparel sector workers often receive the sector minimum wage or a mixture of hourly and piece-rate payment. Given the tight targets, doing overtime is sometimes the only way to meet quotas. In interviews with managers and employees in more than 30 garment companies, short lead times is mentioned as a major cause of overtime." Fairwear.org 2010 report on Romania


BANGLADESH


H&M use 'Fair Wage Network' as excuse to refuse to work for a 'living wage' in Bangladesh

ROMANIA


"Especially in the north-eastern part the level of poverty is higher and the alternatives to find another kind of job are very poor, consequently the wages in the garment industry are among the lowest and the working conditions quite precarious" - Fairwear.org (Read the 2010 report here)

[525252]

Thanks for the above post foxtrot, much needed clarity in this thread.

People saying "Martin this.. Martin that.. oh poor Martin!", its actually grotesque to me. It kinda reminds me of "xoxo rip lee mqueen my fav designer". Actually this eulogising of fashion is grotesque, its as bad as obsessing over novelty. They're the same, and its gross that people get so attached to some empty shell, nostalgia is sure, fine, can't help that, but when it gets to sentimentally defending some corpse of a passion = time to move on.

ps. shucks you too are talking out of your butthole (somewhat). If you are a mass fashion conglomerate, you have no choice but to produce in those countries. H&M have made efforts, but essentially you are asking them to stop business altogether. Even if you were to make that happen, there would be far reaching implications which would make it pointless.

[Shucks]

ps. shucks you too are talking out of your butthole (somewhat). If you are a mass fashion conglomerate, you have no choice but to produce in those countries. H&M have made efforts, but essentially you are asking them to stop business altogether. Even if you were to make that happen, there would be far reaching implications which would make it pointless.

STFU

With a net profit of $ 549.000.000 in the latest FINANCIAL QUARTER (that's 3 months...) of 2012 they can afford to pay living wages to their workers. a living wage is one that means you can survive on it. too much to ask?

and even IF H&M couldn't afford this, then maybe ít's YOUR fucking duty as a human being to pay a higher price for the shit you buy in their stores, so that hundreds of workers don't need to faint simultaneously in their factories because they are being sprayed with anti-cockroach pesticide, or killed in fires because they are locked in the factories at night.

i'm out.

[525252]

STFU

ahh all this talk about democracy and I gotta shut up..

I am not at all saying its pointless so we should all give up.

News stories about burning factories and over working and sweat and blood and tears and children omg what about the children- so the best way to get some feel-good news is to share it on facebook, encourage boycotting and feel like you made a difference?

Reading those stories, sure they make me feel horrible, but how about I take it upon my HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY to not feel satisfied with myself with just being an internet warrior, fighting the good fight far far away in front of a computer where its nice and safe.

YOU can go ahead and keep on all this shit about spreading the word and educating people about how awful H&M is, and go on watch yourself recreate kony2012.

Honestly, fucking hell. Fine, make H&M the enemy if that feels like it makes things easier.

[525252]

Another thing, I've refrained from posting it here cause its less relevant to H&MxMMM, but I'm not being a misanthropic heralder of the apocalypse, may get around to posting in the NEXT thread later but for now let me say: solutions to fast fashion will take decades to develop and possibly a century to be practiced healthily. Boycotting is a nice gesture but it is not nearly a dent in the scale of things.

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

solutions to fast fashion will take decades to develop and possibly a century to be practiced healthily. Boycotting is a nice gesture but it is not nearly a dent in the scale of things.

This.

To be honest, the only argument worth having is whether or not a product of H&M has any place in a well-curated, ethically sourced wardrobe. I cannot claim to be happy with what I already know about H&M's conduct, (thanks Shucks) but neither am I comfortable with the environmental record of the cotton or silk industries, and I have no intention of eliminating those materials from my closet.

Let me say that I have been around the block with no-name ethical fashion, and I have been disappointed over and over again. Having tossed far too many sub-standard items and pieces that just didn't work and seen numerous ethical brands go out of business, I've reached the conclusion that the only sane choice for somebody who wants to dress nicely with a reduced footprint is to buy only those things of quality that work perfectly for their style, and to buy fewer of them.

Yes, I had that choice to walk past H&MxMMM last week. But so rarely do I find things that speak that strongly to my idiosyncratic personal style that I decided it was worth it. And maybe I do feel a bit guilty about it, but I'm quite certain that once these pieces find their way into regular rotation, they'll earn their keep.

And please don't tell me that I should spend my whole life in an avant-garde hair shirt by CCP, because there simply aren't enough of them to go round and besides, womenswear just doesn't work like that.

[Faust]

Thanks for the above post foxtrot, much needed clarity in this thread.

People saying "Martin this.. Martin that.. oh poor Martin!", its actually grotesque to me. It kinda reminds me of "xoxo rip lee mqueen my fav designer". Actually this eulogising of fashion is grotesque, its as bad as obsessing over novelty. They're the same, and its gross that people get so attached to some empty shell, nostalgia is sure, fine, can't help that, but when it gets to sentimentally defending some corpse of a passion = time to move on.

ps. shucks you too are talking out of your butthole (somewhat). If you are a mass fashion conglomerate, you have no choice but to produce in those countries. H&M have made efforts, but essentially you are asking them to stop business altogether. Even if you were to make that happen, there would be far reaching implications which would make it pointless.

There is nothing wrong with missing a designer who has contributed to the history of fashion. I don't get your gripe. If you are talking about some bandwagoneering, that's another story.

And, THE WHOLE POINT IS THERE IS A CHOICE!!! What happened to you 52? Aren't you the girl who takes action?! There is no need for H&M to do business the way they do. Systemic change can and must happen. That is one of the underpinnings of my article - call for a systemic change in consumption that will cause a systemic change in manufacturing. I completely disagree that boycotting does nothing. The entire point of capitalism is that it hinges on consumers. And when consumers opt out of a certain company, it takes notice. Trust me.

What we sorely need is the press picking up that fight, like it did with the tobacco industry.

One paragraph that B of F edited out because it was a bit off topic was that the richest man in Sweden is the owner of H&M, the richest man in Japan is the owner of Uniqlo, and the richest man in Spain (and the third richest man in the world's third-richest (above Warren Buffet)) is the owner of Zara. Hello and welcome to Marxism. Don't tell me the story that they NEED to continue manufacturing at the current standards.

Foxtrot, my point about the collaborations was that these collabs drive people to H&M by giving clothes a veneer of "fashion," when it's nothing of the sort. As I point out, there is nothing of Margiela in that collaboration but the brand name and millions of dollars saved in advertising for H&M. The vast majority of consumers don't go there to buy quality garments or fashion, they go to by hype. The simple question to ask is, what did you buy? What does the pantsuit represent? Is it a MMM item in your eyes? Does it have the proper fashion context? Provenance? What does it signify? Because you definitely did not go to H&M to buy a quality anonymous pantsuit. It's a very specific pantsuit with semiotic value.

And, yes, I completely understand your point that our entire way of life is manufactured in Asia. I am not arguing for abolition of those practices - that would indeed approach on utopia - but for minimization of them. Electronics industry is an offender. But, after all, I don't buy 20 iPhones a year.

[525252]

There is nothing wrong with missing a designer who has contributed to the history of fashion. I don't get your gripe.

note the bolded text, I hope you get what I meant

Actually this eulogising of fashion is grotesque, its as bad as obsessing over novelty. They're the same, and its gross that people get so attached to some empty shell, nostalgia is sure, fine, can't help that, but when it gets to sentimentally defending some corpse of a passion = time to move on.

aaaaaand now:

then maybe ít's YOUR fucking duty as a human being to pay a higher price for the shit you buy in their stores, so that hundreds of workers don't need to faint simultaneously

it's more related to one's approach to what they wanna participate or not in, while solving the problem in general is an entirely different question

What happened to you 52? Aren't you the girl who takes action?!

haha let me clarify: I have never ever bought anything from H&M, never set foot in a store etc. Personally it makes me feel so physically ill (along with ikea, department stores blah so on) that I wouldn't couldn't never ever. I do what I can, only most of it is not on the internet, and its effect is not at all very visible. Boycotting?? I don't even call it that, its just me doing what makes sense to me. The whole point is that there is a choice? Are you telling me I have the choice to not boycott H&M?? Seriously. No, that would be the most incorrect WRONG thing to do here. Democracy up my butt.

what did you buy? What does the pantsuit represent? Is it a MMM item in your eyes? Does it have the proper fashion context? Provenance? What does it signify? Because you definitely did not go to H&M to buy a quality anonymous pantsuit.

This. Is. A joke.

This is what I've been trying to point out the entire time. Margiela was not anonymous EVER. Maybe the eariler completely white label was an attempt, but it would never work that way. There's a reason why the 4 stitches became iconic, even when that was completely not its intention.

You can differentiate yourself from the plebs as much as you like, but really to me, you don't all seem TOO different. I'm not calling anyone stupid. It is you who is saying there's a pleb-ular lack of education among the plebs. But no, on the scale of infinite stupidity, everyone is stupid. Maybe this is my interpretation of "democracy". And its not at all a bad thing for me, because it helps me get over my stupid fucking superiority complex (and maybe all yours too?)

Anyway what has happened with Margiela has just shown us the nature of fashion and consumption. It is not BAD. Its very easy to say something is "BAD" or "GOOD", and it makes problems seem simpler to fix. You are essentially labelling the culture of consumption Satan and H&M its worshipper. You are preaching. Do I need to go on with this metaphor?

[525252]

There is nothing wrong with missing a designer who has contributed to the history of fashion. I don't get your gripe.

actually I do have more to say on this: I have witnessed it on these boards, the phenomena of the Raf Simons.

I am not so cynical to say that one's attachment to old raf would be superficial, I don't think that at all. However, some seem to take his turn of direction very personally, as a betrayal. And in turn they become cynical and bitter.

With nostalgia, one can look back and miss it, recognise that now is different to before, and there is no way to make it the same again.

There is something different to that. Where one denies the above, feels there is a possibility that things could be the same, or that they should be the same.

This is what I meant by "sentimentally defending some corpse of a passion", it is not nostalgia, it is the denial of change.

[525252]

sorry, one last thing:

Don't tell me the story that they NEED to continue manufacturing at the current standards.

well if they want to survive, thats what they gotta do. It was always a story of survival, and the part about greed kinda came with it. The thing is, people are starting to learn that that kind of greed is now a threat to their own survival. Waterways are damaged, unsustainable blah blah etc. Its still pretty selfish, cause I'm quite sure less people would give a shit if it didn't present a direct threat. And since a lot of the concerns are far away in some other country, it doesn't confront or threaten anyone directly and that's why hardly anyone gives a shit.

I'm not AT ALL saying H&M has the best possible business model given the circumstances. However its own circumstances are inevitable and uncontrollable and it operates in that way because it has to. We as responsible, sensible, individual human beings, can respond to that however we'd like. And I refuse say H&M sucks just cause someone told me to, I will do as I like.