NEXT

[MJRH]

i'm happy to see this discussion is still going. this is why sz is great.

Companies like H&M only exist because they are supplying whatever the market is demanding - which is cheap, fast, and fashionable clothing (disposable at that). If the change for high quality and long-lasting goods was to be the new demand of the market, H&M would be forced to change its business model to stay viable. So realistically, hating the H&M of now is only hating the manifestation of our market's demands. Should the market change it's demands to higher quality/longer lasting/lower consumption, maybe the H&M of the future will be something entirely different.

'Affordability' in the recent discussion's context is only a means for easier adoption. Spending a month's worth of salary on a coat can be considered affordable, it really depends on how you look at it. I.e. how many coats do you expect/want to buy?

thanks for the response, kuugaia. i've been mulling this issue over in the past week. and i have another question for y'all. this one's a bit touchy, but it's sort of an elephant in the thread right now, i think.

supposing my closet burns down overnight. we are dreaming here, so i have $25 000 with which to restock it (don't i wish). coming completely from the perspective of environmental sustainability, which of the following is preferable:

a) spending the whole sum of money on clothing that has been designed with a minimum of environmental impact and supporting skilled craftsmen working in my community.

b) spending $500 on H&M clothes that have most definitely not been developed with any community or environment-related concerns in mind, but donating or investing the remainder in environmental sustainability programs. remember that is $24 500 we're talking about here, and anybody who says these numbers are unrealistic i will refer to the closet/shoes thread over in shopping...

c) some kind of middle option. spend half on environmentally friendly clothes and the rest on charity. would the spare $10 000 really be better put towards clothes?

this isn't a rhetorical question. i really don't know what its answer is. of course there isn't even a yes/no answer. but until someone responds, i am going to find any invective abusing H&M and extolling green design suspect.

hope nobody takes this argument amiss.

[sshum88]

I recognize that the Internet can play a role but it's not as simple as throwing up a FB/Twitter/Blog/Pinterest site and hope that you would gain the attention of someone who matters. There's still a lot of hard work to reach the right audience, and then to keep the content relevant & current.

Disruption of the current business model is interesting to watch like how that one guy recently attempted to secure wholesale accounts with a few brands discussed here and sell directly to the consumer. All of it was done online and i think there was a fair bit of skepticism. The response seemed less than positive even though the consumer would pay less than what they would find in a physical store.

I have a few friends who graduated with a textiles/fashion design degree but they struggle to make ends meet if they want to work in their field. They are very good 'craftsperson' and want to maintain some creative freedom, so they try to create what resembles a line. But even materials can be expensive so it becomes really hard to come up with much. At some point, they just become disenchanted and resign themselves to the fact that what they do is just a hobby.

It's not an option for them to go work in one of the factories overseas - I saw a documentary recently where the take home pay for one of these workers in China is less than $100 US per month. That's a lot of money if you came from one of the villages but not enough if you don't want to be sleeping 10-12 to a room.

What I wonder is if we will ever again see financial backers/benefactors who love a collection so much that they will buy the entire collection - I know it's not the norm but it's tough to be a promising designer when you can't even afford the roll of materials.

You typed these words in the very medium of the change you are wondering about. The Internet can and does derail the traditional model.

After this generation of craftsmen goes, we might be seriously fucked. We need to make making things cool again, like the hipsters have done on the cottage industry level.

[Faust]

We still have Daphne Guinness!

[cremaster]

The article "WHATEVER" by Rex Butler in SZ vol2 frames fashion's current exigency through contemporary art's own dilemmas -highlighting that madman Jason Rhoads!!
Coming from an art critic/ philosophy background it is a refreshing point of view to the inevitable "what's happened, what's next" conundrum.

SZ magazine - leading the way!!

[cowsareforeating]

supposing my closet burns down overnight....

Right.
But it has never been about "what if i gave it away to charity" -- are the rich guilty by not donating excess to charity?

while generosity and altruism is perhaps the most ideal answer, given that clothing is both art and a consummable object in our discourse, it is not "whether to give some or all away" but your theoretical question would imply that you MUST replace your complete wardrobe since a majority (70%+) is a necessity in terms of function.

I would theorize most members here wanting a wardrobe that is at least half essential and the other half "excessive" only if recreational hobbies more common and accepted such as painting, fishing, or basketball are also "excessive" (if those seem so cheap, replace that with motorcycle building, art collection, and wine consumption)

_________


While not wanting to "suppose" away the more difficult problem of transitioning to a more ideal global economy, the problem you highlight is dramatic because it functions in our current flawed economy where for the most part business is business first and not community oriented.

The "new" economy we fantasize about will have drastically less disposable income, and hopefully less disparity in between countries

To be honest the profit in manufacturing lies in the abuse of economic disparity across national borders where the corporation reaps the benefit and creates a status quo that expects a certain unsustainable low cost (eg: 5 $ t shirt) provided by labor development that creates an unfair "industrial revolution"

So a return to a pure local economy is also unreasonable where the ideal economy would probably have local goods providing the majority of merchandise and imports being imported due to demand and necessity at a cost compensating for shipping and environmental damage and fair wages unhindered by exchange rates and nationality as opposed to padding a large corporation's pocket.

tl:dr
eat local food, pay premium for imports, fuck subsidies, fair trade, less "disposable income", more social capital



EDIT: also people need to stop having kids "just cause". having kids is genetic, sure, but our problems would be lot more manageable with 1 billion people as opposed to 8

[Jin]

EDIT: also people need to stop having kids "just cause". having kids is genetic, sure, but our problems would be lot more manageable with 1 billion people as opposed to 8

I fully support it, but you realize that only total minimum of people can take a responsible approach to the understanding of this issue. the vast majority will find justification in their religion, poverty, and hopeless stupidity just to go against any attempt to convey to them this opinion.

[cowsareforeating]

or you get called hitler right one or the other

[SHYE_POSER]

Look at the worlds top 10 populated countries. 90% are 3rd world(economically speaking) or developing countries. Some are key manufacturing countries for fast fashion and other cheap consumables, as well as being some of the biggest consumers today!
We give humanity to much credit. For centuries people have exploited others for money, and as long as there is demand for any type of product the exploitation shall continue.
My father has worked in manufacturing for years and I myself have seen the shift frm Europe to the far east/India myself first hand. These guys are ruthless and couldn't give a toss about the greater good of the world. All they care for is putting money in their pocket and keeping up with the Jones's.

[curiouscharles]

i'm a personal supporter of the buy less, spend more movement [an individual evolution in economic ethos that I believe is as innate & natural a response to the current global crisis as my complete lack of interest in bringing a child into this world] - and I'd be blatantly fooling myself to deny its connection to the world's current [and forecast] economic & ecological climate.

what concerns me [at least] as much, and maybe even more than whether the property I'm considering on Vancouver Island will be under water in 40 years; is whether a return to slow market goods would even be possible in a post-depression, growth-based economy.

[curiouscharles]

double post

[Burlingame]

Funny, the conversation in here didn't exactly go as I'd expected after seeing the thread title.

There's been a lot of discussion about materials and construction, but what about the silhouette? I for one am very bored of the shrink-wrapped look. Maybe that's why I have such high hopes for Damir, even though I haven't liked a lot of what he's put out. I like the shape of many of his pants and hope he can refine and simplify his whole aesthetic into something a bit more pure than what we've seen, if that makes any sense. And oddly enough, I find myself stealing more ideas from Yohji than any other designer. His last few collections have been great and, I think, really forward-thinking, even though he's just doing what he's always done.

[mizzar]

Oh, come on.
Silhouette? Really?
It's changed like every season or two for the last 4 years
High waist, low waist, drop crotch, loose all, loose top, loose bottom,
loose short bottom with leggins etc.
I just don't see shrinkwrapped anywhere so popular like in DH golden era.

Funny, the conversation in here didn't exactly go as I'd expected after seeing the thread title.

There's been a lot of discussion about materials and construction, but what about the silhouette? I for one am very bored of the shrink-wrapped look. Maybe that's why I have such high hopes for Damir, even though I haven't liked a lot of what he's put out. I like the shape of many of his pants and hope he can refine and simplify his whole aesthetic into something a bit more pure than what we've seen, if that makes any sense. And oddly enough, I find myself stealing more ideas from Yohji than any other designer. His last few collections have been great and, I think, really forward-thinking, even though he's just doing what he's always done.

[Faust]

There is only so much you can do with the silhouette. It's all recycling.

[Burlingame]

Yes, it's all been done before, but I don't think that means it's not worth paying attention to. Skinny had been done before but Hedi still seemed to make it new. If you're talking about what's genuinely, truly new, most clothing, even among SZ idols like Cdiem, isn't new. Just the opposite really. The only people doing stuff that is really new in that case are Aitor Throup and Issey Miyake, or anyone innovating the way clothes are actually made. The garments themselves are not new (pants, shirts, jackets). I guess there are new techno fabrics coming out, as was mentioned, but doesn't seem particularly exciting. But even with Aitor and Issey, it's not like their methods are going to become widespread anytime soon and introduce a new way of dressing. It's pretty easy to argue that nothing is actually new, it's ALL recycled in some form or another. As much as people may not like to admit it, what's new is largely a matter of perception and mass adoption (***cough trends cough***).

[Faust]

Well, yeah, if you speak broadly enough it's all recycled. But we don't have to be all broad. For me a new aesthetic is possible and is big enough to bring about change. But if we just talk about the silhouette, I don't think that's broad enough. In a way you are right about Hedi (putting aside the contention that he simply swiped from Raf and made it pop with the Dior marketing muscle behind him), but it was more than just the silhouette that he brought. It was a new aesthetic which encompassed that silhouette.