Let's Just Move it Along

Prada Fall/Winter 1998 Campaign
Source: http://styleregistry.livejournal.com/

I've struggled to write a post for some while now, but it's not because I'm out of ideas, it's simply because I can't keep up. The fashion schedule is as busy as it's ever been starting the year with menswear then couture and then fall collections and then before you know it there are the inter-seasonal collections followed by spring collections and the cycle the repeats itself. I took some time out from writing about fashion to really reflect on what I wanted to make this blog into as well as reflect on the fashion year which had just passed. Generally speaking, a year is a long time but, from what I discovered during this time is that a year in fashion is chaotic, exhausting and most of all, short-lived. There's no time for celebration anymore. Every season, after months and months of preparation, a 15 or so minute fashion takes place and then it's onto the next season. The experience of fashion has been cheapened as we are presented with 'yeah, that's ok' instead of 'the next truly great thing.'

Fashion is cherished because it's always reinventing itself. Sprawled across the glossy magazines you find at the checkouts of supermarkets is what fashion is stereotyped and summarised into; the 568 must-haves for summer. But really, who needs 568 new things for a season? This constant need of something new and reinvigorating has become a disease. A disease created by us. It's not viewed as a want but, a need, a sense of entitlement to something brand new and unexpected. Yet as fashion progresses forward with every season, what happens to last season?

We don't really think about last season anymore. I mean we really don't even have time to because of the immensely chaotic fashion schedule. We cherish those truly iconic moments in the past and that's about it. Because, really, who cares about what Miuccia did last season right?

It's quite saddening to see fashion lovers and enthusiasts forget what someone did last season because they've just presented a whole new collection. Even the term "last season" has become laced with negative notes of dismissal and denigration. Last season collections are simply disregarded with absolutely no respect because you must simply stay "in" fashion darling. This happens too often as countless brilliant "last season" collections fall victim to this disease of needing the new. Although we fashion connoisseurs aren't just to blame, the media refuses to report on designers past achievements, only the present.

Some may argue that this really shouldn't be a problem in fashion as fashion is obsessively moving forward but, what happens to the future if we don't acknowledge the past?

While a large part of this concerns collections, even sadder, great designers of the past and their work are short-lived. What remains are coffee-table fashion books published by Taschen or Phaidon praising their legacy and work through a few hundred photo-filled pages and a short essay on the subject. Even now, Christian Lacroix just seems like a forgotten memory.

There is no respect for true fashion or true genius but instead, the amount of collections produced and the amount of progression brought to the table by a designer. Fashion wants to constantly move forward - no matter the cost.

So, let's just move it along because the past is just a thing of the past, right?

MSFW Industry Day Part 2: The Plenary

As many of you will know, I had the absolute pleasure of attending MSFW Industry day on Tuesday.

The day started off with the Plenary which discussed the reasons behind Australia's stable market growth despite challenges in the retail sector hosted by the ever so entertaining Zara and Troy Swindells-Grose of Humour Australia.

The Plenary opened with one of the most inspirational speakers of the day, Gillian Franklin. She is a determined, passionate and persistent woman with a commitment to supporting women in business. Her own company, the Heat Group, turning over approximately $130 million in retail sales annually, proves her reputation as a successful business owner. Yet despite this, Franklin is a humble woman dedicating her time to empowering women in business.

One of the key points she spoke about was the issue of women in business, and as a member of many male-dominated boards such as the Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix, she recognised the importance of gender equality within the workplace. However instead of approaching this gender issue as an gender issue, she approached it from an economical standpoint, stating that women contribute more to the economy than men.

The second half of the Plenary focused on the topic, fashion today: the good, the bad, the .... featuring some of the most high-profile members of the retail industry in Melbourne today:

• Vicki Stirling of Sunrise Junction, a fashion industry brand and business development consultancy company
• Michael Wittner, co-CEO of Wittner shoes who I'm sure all of you living in Australia have heard of
• Helen O'Connor, designer of Thurley
• Elysha Sullivan, senior buyer at Levi's Menswear in Australia 

While they all came from different backgrounds of the retail industry, it was interesting to hear the different opinions and views on Australia's retail industry today.

A range of topics were discussed such as whether a traditional in-store shopping experience was more valuable than e-commerce retailing and integrating the use of social media into retail which all fell under the umbrella term of retail consumer habits.

Everyday I'm bombarded by advertisements whether it be emails from websites or shops which are having sales or have just stocked new pieces for the season ahead, the consumerist nature of our society is engraved in our sense of entitlement to have more - whether this concept of 'more' is quantitative or qualitative, we feel a sense of need and necessity to have it. Companies and marketing teams recognise our need for more and prey upon that, however it's not all bad for us consumers out there, we are becoming more educated about retail consumer habits too!

Thurley's Helen O'Connor pointed out that David Jones used to do one big sale season annually which lasted for around 6 weeks however have completely restructured this program. The reason behind this? Consumers are becoming more educated and as a result, David Jones found that consumers would shop more during this season and because things are discounted to the lowest of lows, it would continue to eat into their profit margin. She also spoke about the dangers of educating the consumer. 

The relationship between a consumer and supplier therefore can best be described as a game of deceit. 

We, consumers, know when the sales are going to come, it's predictable because they're based upon seasons. At the end of a season a sale will occur in order for the store to clear their stock and make room for new stock and while retailers are of course still making a profit, it is much less than what they would've made if the items were priced at full price and not sale prices.

However, many of the high-end stores such as Prada recognise this issue. I've been told by the manager at the Prada store in Chadstone that Prada sale seasons are extremely unpredictable and that the store only finds out a day before the sale starts. Whether this is true or not, this marketing tactic ensures that they are able to minimise the loss in their profit margin.

Michael Wittner of Wittner shoes also highlighted the importance of wording when it comes to marketing. On the Tuesday, Wittner ran a one-day only promotion as an homage to MSFW Industry day, declaring that customers would recieve a $20 bonus on full priced items. The key word being, bonus. As the use of the word bonus carries a much positive connotation than discount, the consumer feels as though they are being granted $20 for free and let's be real, who doesn't love a freebie? It's cheeky but it works.

Vicki Stirling of Sunrise Junction also spoke about the importance of the retail experience for a consumer. That retail is not simply about the product anymore however encompasses a whole range of factors. Through the use of social media for example, customers can be made to feel a part of the retail experience and brand. For example, Wittner and many other stores' use of Instagram in which users are encouraged to post photos of their shoes from Wittner and hash-tag them with #Wittner, it's now about building a community and building an intimate relationship between the consumer and retailer.

Also, Pop Up shops. Why are they a thing all of a sudden? Pop Up shops in the same way build an much more credible relationship between the consumer and retailer, while also feed our mentality of needing more and needing it now. Pop Up shops are non-permanent retail locations and for brands, this works extremely well for both consumer and retailer. Pop Up shops are often placed in locations which are easily reachable by consumers and often do not contain full-priced items but sale items. For the retailers this method works extremely well because for Pop Up shops they do not need to design any extra pieces or introduce new stock, it is simply utilising old stock in a new location. Yet because Pop Up stores are non-permanent, it creates a sense of urgency for the consumer - that you'll miss out if you don't go and visit straight away. Promotional and collaborative events as well as the all too popular "limited edition" label work in more or less the same way.

At the end they very quickly touched on the issue of sustainability and environmental factors which have either resulted from or are effecting the Australian fashion industry, Vicki Stirling condemned the fast-fashion industry and it's impacts on manufacturing in Bangladesh. I then heard a woman behind me complain that people choose to buy commercial fashion because they'll only wear it for a season and it'll be out of fashion. And so to all of you who may be on the same train of thought as her, please read my post entitled "fashion is a waste of money".

Finally, for your own sake as a consumer, be smart about your consumption.

This will unfortunately be my last post as a part of MSFW! I have had the most amazing time during this week but there's still one day left to go! Don't forget to head over to the Hub in Melbourne City Square where there are a lot of exciting and free things! 

 Images courtesy of Hobo photography.

Made in China

Images of H&M's contractor in Beijing taken from Modes China by Erik Bernhardsson

Over the course of the last few years, there has been an increasing amount of focus on the nation of China. Why? China has the largest luxury market. I've stressed this before in my posts and while sales may fall occasionally in China, the reality is that there are no luxury consumers in the world compared to the luxury consumers in China.

Recently I had the pleasure of reading a publication called Modes China, sent to me by it's author Erik Bernhardsson. Modes China promotes and highlights the social context surrounding the fashion industry within China through its interviews with internationally recognised designers such as ffiXXed as well as  students who are studying fashion design at the Central Academy of Fine Arts (CAFA) located in Beijing. It also gives a fascinating insight into H&M's contractor for their DIVIDED label.

While reading the book it became increasingly obvious that the politics in China do have an influence over the  fashion industry. If you didn't know, China is a communist country and from my understanding, they are a big believer in censorship and control - Facebook is blocked in China, only accessible by using proxy servers. When I attended an exchange program in 2011, upon meeting the principle of the school, one of the first things that we were told was that we were not allowed to speak about was politics - I felt as though this was extremely strange as it directly threatened the freedom of speech. Another example, is controversial Chinese artist who is notoriously critical of the Chinese government Ai Wei Wei, who was arrested in 2011 for no apparent reason. This censorship and conservative attitude displayed by the government would naturally extend to the education that aspiring designers would receive from schools such as CAFA.

The fashion industry as it exists in China today is branded by a white label with 3 words imprinted in black; Made in China. This is, perhaps, a metaphor for the industry itself. After all, the majority of China's infrastructure is built upon its ability to manufacture goods both within and outside of the fashion industry. It is an extremely clinical, precise, regulated and uniform environment and most of all, it's what western society and culture has made China out to be - one big factory. Think about it, many western companies outsource their production to China because it is far cheaper for their products to be produced there and an added bonus is that they have no direct liability for the workers welfare. So, if this is true, is there really room for designers in China to break this western mentality and become successful not only domestically but also internationally?

I am certainly not denying the fact that China has luxury designers who have attracted a niche of consumers, however the fact remains that these labels are simply nowhere near as popular as the western luxury labels. These western luxury labels will only stunt the growth of the fashion industry in China as shoppers choose to buy into the western luxury. Brands such as Christian Dior (who regularly now holds haute couture shows in China) hold a sense of tailored individuality brought about by the liberal and democratic values of traditional western society and that is something that the Chinese fashion industry cannot offer right now.




Also, thanks to Erik for sending me a copy of Modes China! I really did enjoy reading it!

Fashions' Borrowing Culture

Punk: Chaos to Couture exhibition at the MET Museum
Source: rubiamala.com

Cultural influence in the fashion industry is all too well known these days and the debate over cultural appreciation vs cultural appropriation is something which has always been at the forefront of the fashion industry. In many ways, this borrowing of inspiration is much the same.

Over the years the fashion industry and many creative directors and designers have drawn influences and inspirations from many cultures, subcultures, genres, movements and ideas from all over the world. All the great designers have done it, without inspiration a collection by any great designer would be as flat and as dull as a plain white piece of paper (although that itself can be quite avant garde and conceptual in the case of Maison Martin Margiela). Although designers list anything from countries to paintings to muses as inspiration for collections. Collections can be inspired by a subculture i.e. late 90's to early 00's Raf Simons collections that were inspired by youth subculture and military uniformity, or even a country and it's culture as Chanel's Pre-Fall 2012 collection which was inspired by India.

Of course it's not wrong to borrow ideas and then interpret them in an original way however it is a somewhat degrading when these ideas are borrowed and then it's origins are not acknowledged or challenged.

A quote that has stuck to me since I originally saw it was when Grace Coddington famously remarked at the MET ball this year: "I'd like to see some real punks in here, some real street punks. But I doubt they were invited." This is really a perfect example of the fashion industry's borrowing of inspiration from a subculture but really never acknowledging the true origins of the inspiration.

It is not uncommon for designers to borrow ideas or draw inspiration from subcultures such as punk however fashion always maintains a frou-frou reputation of being perfected and proper even when drawing inspiration from something as raw and anti-materalistic punk fashion. When an idea is borrowed, i.e. the punk subculture, and then popularised by an industry known for commercialisation the question becomes is the fashion industry effectively selling out this subculture? While the commercialisation of fashion carries negative connotations, insinuating things such as mass-marketed fashion or Bangladesh sweatshops - the commercialisation of fashion is one that has both advantages and disadvantages.  On one hand, the commercialisation of fashion allows fashion for all and perhaps even people to buy into these subcultures or ideas, however it also carries the burden of resulting in sweatshops.

In all honesty, the fashion industry really can be segregated into two types of designers, the designers who churn out pretty clothes season after season and those who attempt to break down social biases, promote movements and ideas and do so much more than just design clothes.

When designers such as Vivienne Westwood known for her punk influenced collections or Rick Owens expresses an interest in monochromatic aesthetics which are uncomfortable and out of the norm, it forces the viewer to question culture and especially, popular culture. Through their designs, designers like these, are able to break down our biases towards those subcultures or ideas which we devalue and ask the question of why. Why it is that we have those particular biases towards such things, and the influential factors behind such biases.

Inspiration is subjective however, our interpretation of the subject is objective. What I mean is this, when a garment is shown on the runway, however once our opinion forms of the garment, whether it be good or bad, our interpretation of the subject then becomes objective to us.

It's important to be inspired and influenced by culture and ideas however, more than that, its important to be able to voice an opinion, especially in the face of fashion where judgement governs all.

Fashion is a "Waste of Money"

Illustration by Ella Gibson

On the way to school a few weeks ago they were discussing the reasons as to why fashion is a waste of money on the radio and obviously being me, I was offended by this statement. I don't believe fashion is a waste of money and here's why - 

The obvious is that fashion is ultimately an industry which provides jobs for people and is a million if not billion dollar industry which is part of the economy of many countries. But, the fashion industry as a whole is much more than simply clothing or accessories, it extends far beyond that.

I don't think people understand that fashion is so much more than simply a piece of clothing, it’s a medium in which a creative force can be expressed, it's a platform with endless boundaries which are meant to be broken, it serves to shock, surprise and evoke so many different emotions.

 People often put down the idea of fashion or those who have any interest in the fashion industry and label them as being "superficial" simply because fashion is represented by pieces of material which are worn on the exterior of someone and it is true that fashion serves as a world in which judgement is so highly valued. The sense of superficiality is one which is more than often used to ridicule or tarnish the namesake of the industry. Yes, high fashion is extremely highly priced and may even sometimes be unfairly priced but the justification for these prices is one which is far from the notion of superficiality. Some may argue that the justification behind these lavish prices is because of the design or production process, or perhaps even to entertain the affluent. So yes, fashion is an extremely materialistic world but is society not just as materialistic or even worse?

The whole notion of valuing the interior and not exterior after all is used to combat the idea that judgment of the exterior can often lead to misconceptions. While this is all well and good, is there not a link between the exterior and interior, so much so that they may be mirrors of one another? Humans market themselves in a way to the public just as companies market products to the consumers. I use the term 'market' because the principles applied to the jargon used on television for an advertisement are the same as the principles applied when representing our external selves; it is the way in which we objectify ourselves through our clothing and accessories which defines not only our exterior but our interior as well. In the end it's about creating a sense of 'identity' for ourselves and this identity is meant to guide our exterior and interior selves and the way in which we portray ourselves. I'm not saying here that we surrender ourselves completely to objectify ourselves for the gratification of society and our peers, as realistically it is much of a libertarian approach, however, the way in which we portray ourselves is often to market ourselves to our target demographic.

In regards to this, fashion has helped to shape identities and create self expression. By buying pieces of clothing from design houses we are effectively using fashion to create our exterior identity and also identity as a whole, in this way fashion is not a waste of money and especially not superficial.

Another notion which is hugely popularised outside of the fashion industry and in the mainstream public is this idea of fashion creating “trends” or that fashion is defined by “trends”. While the Peplum may be popular in commercial fashion these days, it is not an accurate representation of the trickle-down system, Peplum is not a trend as it has been marketed to the general public, rather, it's a part of an aesthetic and it’s important to understand that fashion does not dictate these “trends” of the season but rather the aesthetics. It’s more accurate to represent these as aesthetics rather than trends because trends often disappear after a year or so, however aesthetics generally live on and while may be changed slightly, they are still true to its origin. I mean remember last year or was it the year before that “colour blocking” was the “new” trend? Colour-blocking has always been around as an aesthetic and it was only that year that the fashion media decided to pull this particular aesthetic out as a “trend”. To take a quote from Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada, “Florals? For Spring? Groundbreaking.” I think this quote accurately sums up my attitude towards the so called “trends” in fashion.

Illustration by Ella Gibson, Screencap taken from The Devil Wears Prada

You don’t have to follow these “trends” and spend lavishly on the latest design phenomenon. Trends were created to be used as a marketing tool, to be able to commercially market fashion to the masses and following these trends is a waste of money. Don’t follow trends, trends are authoritarian and contradicts the ideology that fashion is liberal.

Aesthetics on the other hand, are vastly more liberal in the same way which fashion is.

Aesthetics work better for one reason, aesthetics are defined by yourself, and you are able to pick and choose them depending on your personal preferences. One’s aesthetics are compounded by a vast number of social influences - it’s extremely true that you are a product of the environment in which you live. In the words of Rei Kawakubo, "fashion design is not about revealing or accentuating the shape of a woman's body; its purpose is to allow a person to be who they are. Fashion is interesting because it's always moving. It relates to social movement, politics and the current financial situation."*

Unfortunately aesthetics and the action of using aesthetics to compile an identity of the exterior aren’t pushed to the masses as much as trends are and this is one of the reasons why people may push against fashion or claim that is a waste of money.


*  Rei Kawakubo, i-D Magazine 1992

Fast Fashion

Fashion is Fast by Anna-Sophie Berger
Source: TouristMagazine.co.uk

The problem with fast fashion, lies in it's name. The supply and demand of the industry is unbalanced and because of that there are vast consequences. Yesterday I watched Vice's Podcast which featured the founder of American Apparel, Dov Charney discuss his take on the fast-fashion industry or to be blunt, sweatshops. We talk about multinational companies like H&M and Zara who market their products as being "affordable luxury" but the reality is that even companies such as Target, K-mart, Big W and Cotton On are outsourcing their production to countries such as Bangladesh because of their low wage production costs.

The demand in the fast fashion industry is unbelievably quick and it needs to stay that way to ensure it's profitability. But we also need to acknowledge that fact that fast-fashion is here to stay because of the differing socio-economic classes in our society today. The fast-fashion industry prefers quantity over quality simply because quantity is easier and less time-consuming to fulfill than the notion of quality. The luxury market is based on the idea that quality is better than quantity.

Fashion is Fast by Anna-Sophie Berger
Source: TouristMagazine.co.uk

Another problem with fast fashion is that it is the solution to the problem of the democratisation of fashion. I've  argued on my blog before that, the democratisation of fashion is an ideology which right now does not exist although many companies have made millions of dollars of profits upon the idea of the "democratic" fashion. The idea that fashion (more notably, high fashion) is for all, is something which people can only dream about both now and in the distant future. Fast fashion can never supplement the luxury and more importantly quality of high fashion. After all, high fashion is founded on the notion that quality is better than quantity, for this reason many of the top fashion labels in the world often manufacture in their respective domestic origins rather than outsourcing their production to cheap labour overseas. The reason behind this decision is that when buying high fashion you are inevitably buying a ticket into the exuberant grandeur of the fashion industry. It's the same as how design houses often market their perfumes or beauty lines, the consumer is inevitably buying into affluence which is most often associated with fashion.

In reality, the fast-fashion industry is rather unsustainable in the future. The rate of consumption by the fast fashion consumer is one which occurs at a rate far greater than the high fashion consumers. This is because fast-fashion does not have seasons or presents collections in the same way that the high fashion does. Fast fashion is extremely trend-obsessed, it's the reason behind the success of the industry. Garments do not take a lot of time or money to produce because usually they are copied from other stores or high fashion collections and are simply adjusted to suit the production means of the company. 

A few years ago, I was on the Topshop website browsing through their tops and I remember I had found this black top with parrot's printed on it, it was in the sale section of their store. A week later I found the exact same top on Sportsgirl's website in the new arrivals section. 

Not only are these companies competing to keep up with the latest "trends" but also each other. For this reason, the fast fashion industry is one which is now notorious for exploitation through it's production process. 

I'm not encouraging all of you to start to save up and spend hundreds of dollars on a simple cotton T-Shirt, but I think we should all think about the consequences of the methods of production implemented by the fashion industry and in particular the fast fashion industry. 

The (so called) Democratisation of Fashion

Venus of the Rags by Michaelangelo Pistoletto 1967,1974 
Source: tate.org.uk

Anyone who is knowledgeable about the fashion industry knows that the industry in itself is not at all 'democratic.' It's more of a feudal society in some ways. The shape of the feudal system (a triangle) corresponds to the production rate and exclusivity of each class or collection in the fashion industry.

There is no doubt that the industry possess a certain hierarchical nature about it. At the top there are the Haute Couture designers, designs and buyers at the top of the food chain and then the order progresses from ready-to-wear to fast fashion to sweatshop manufactured pieces of mass production.

Is the disease of democratisation in the fashion industry just that though?

Realistically, there is no way of producing couture for the masses. You can probably buy a cheap copy of a couture gown from a website such as The Celebrity Dresses.com. They have hundreds upon hundreds of different styles to choose from. However how do copies of Givenchy Couture compare to the real thing. The end results will of course be different in both material and make. Couture gowns will have almost always have a toile dress (sample dress made from a cheaper fabric, usually cotton) made before the actual gown is produced while the copies will made straight off. I read somewhere once that the difference between a ready-to-wear piece and couture piece is that once a couture dress is taken off a model, it will still retain it's shape as if it were still on the model and the ready-to-wear dress won't.

"Affordable luxury" comes at a price - you really do get what you pay for.

Multinational chain stores such as Zara or H&M who are best known for their fast fashion approach to production often claim that their stores bring affordable luxury to the masses. In perspective however, are they really democratising the fashion industry? Not really. They're just legitimising their marketing strategies as couture for the masses.

When the designs have trickled all the way from the runways in Paris down to a hanger on Zara's sales rack in many ways it is much of the same as buying a cheap knockoff of a Chanel 2.55 handbag. So why aren't we shunning those who buy "fast-fashion" or "affordable luxury" pieces from Zara in the same way that we do those who buy cheap knockoffs of designer bags?

Just because they are sold in a legitimised store instead of some dodgy street corner or marketplace in China means that we overlook the obvious, it really is superficial of us. Yet the few who are able to buy ready-to-wear pieces from the luxury fashion houses are labelled as materialistic or superficial for spending hundreds of dollars for a t-shirt by ACNE.

There is no winning with the democratisation of fashion.