"'Fashion,' on the other hand, implies change over time.... So we are going to use 'responsible fashion': a term that refers to a world in which all players, from the consumer to the C.E.O., the manufacturer and the farmer, take responsibility for their part in the supply chain and the creative process, and for the choices they make... [T]here is no simple answer to solving fashion’s role in climate change. Even the obvious one — don’t make, or buy, any new stuff, and don’t throw away any old stuff — has negative implications for employment, know-how and self-definition. (After all, people have been adorning themselves to express themselves for pretty much as long as they have understood themselves as 'selves.')... How big does a company really need to be? How do you scale upcycling when there are limited resources?... How do you decide whether leather counts as a byproduct or a bad product?"
From "Redefining 'Sustainable Fashion'/At its heart, the term, which can leave us feeling as if we’re chasing an impossible ideal, is a contradiction" by Vanessa Friedman (NYT).
I added the link on "upcycling." It just goes to Wikipedia. There, you'll see a photo of "Food cans upcycled into a stool." That's either a joke or begging for a joke.
Friedman is the NYT fashion writer. She's another person with an interest in preserving the onward flow of fashion. It would be very easy to make a moral issue out of buying as few clothes as possible and making them last. You could save a lot of time and money by not bothering to shop and by figuring out how to define yourself without the use of ever-changing swathes of fabric.
Speaking of "selves"...
A selvage (US English) or selvedge (British English) is a "self-finished" edge of a piece of fabric which keeps it from unraveling and fraying. The term "self-finished" means that the edge does not require additional finishing work, such as hem or bias tape, to prevent fraying.
Link. If fabric can be self-finished, your self can be self-finished without fabric. I'm not saying go nudist. Just have a nice little set of things to cover up and keep warm with and don't worry about it anymore. Have an edge that does not require additional finishing work. A self edge. Prevent fraying.
Posts
50 comments:
The article does not waste our time with a single sentence quantifying "fashion's role in climate change". Is this a major issue, or (seems more likely to me) a nothing at all?
Automobiles I get.
"Sustainable" is the buzz word of this decade.
Fashion's role in climate change. That would be very, very near zero.
The past two years of working from home, birthing another human and pretty much hanging out within a 100 mile radius from home has pretty much reduced my wardrobe to 10 pieces of clothing. I’m both amazed and horrified at myself, haha. I’m glad I was able to reduce my admittedly overstocked closet, but sometimes I do glimpse wistfully at my old fav websites offering sales. Really though, the ppl who advocate buying less are on to something. It’s a hard habit to break bc we’ve been primed to be consumers, but using what you already have and learning how to fix things when they break makes me feel more connected to my “stuff.” Makes me appreciate it more. At lot of awful has come out of this pandemic but one good thing was resetting priorities.
"Speaking of "selves... Have an edge that does not require additional finishing work. A self edge. Prevent fraying."
I like your advice and the creative path you took to present it. It implies an individualistic philosophy and contrasts with some of the earlier posts.
Find a style that is fairly timeless and fits your body type.
Buy quality clothes and maintain them regularly (quickly mend any tears, hang them up after wear, etc.)
Ignore everything else.
"[T]here is no simple answer to solving fashion’s role in climate change"
There is: as Althouse says, don't worry about it anymore.
With China building 100s of coal plants, nothing fashionistas do will make any difference, besides virtue signaling.
I would argue the opposite. Especially if you look at men's fashion. Fundamentally, men's formal wear - aka the suit - hasn't changed substantially in 200 years. Heck, if you want to really get into it there are aspects of men's formal that are even harkening back to older styles (tweed patterns, brighter colors, bowties, ascots, etc.).
Men's fashion is sustainable fashion. Nothing sensible goes out of fashion.
Thank god someone has finally honestly addressed "solving fashion’s role in climate change." That conundrum has been gnawing on my conscience for years now. Perhaps the powers that be will finally be convinced to take their minds off Ukraine, inflation, and baby formula and deal with real problems like this.
As a guy, I can get away with wearing a shirt for 10 years until it becomes a rag. This is NOT fashion.
Apparently with the teens here the style is now "where whatever you like that expresses the real you" and it is MORE embarrassing to look like someone else than to look eccentric, at least according to my own teen girls. So.... Fashion as a unified trend that one can comment on may be dying among the younger crowd.
If you know how to sew, then a serger works on otherwise unfinished edges to prevent fraying. Main thing is buy quality classic styles. None of the fast fashion H&M stuff that falls apart after the fourth wash. Better to drop your money on the street than to buy that crap. A good pricey garment will last a very long time. $100 jeans last longer than $24 jeans. Just saying.
Sustainable fashion through a Green... green deal of labor and environmental arbitrage.
Who defines 'Responsible'?
You can "self finish" your clothing, but there will always be someone complaining about how people dress. It's a control mechanism.
It is interesting that the spread of fashion through a broader swath of the population in the first half of the 20th century seems to be because with higher standard of living came the desire to emulate the more wealthy. It was just a long delayed reaction to the Medieval sumptuary laws.
"Every class in England was then required by law to have exactly so many coats, to spend so much money on their dress, so much on their wives' dress, and certain men could have fine cloth and others coarse cloth; everything was graded, even to the number of buttons on clothes, and they went so far even as to try in some early legislation to say what men should have to eat; the number of courses a man should have for his dinner were prescribed by law at one time in England, varying according to the man's rank."
When you see the admonitions on manner of dress or what people eat, just remember, those doing this are, consciously or not, hoping for a return to the Dark Age socialism of feudalism.
Apparently the NYT and the Left will not be satisfied until they have removed every trace of interest, pleasure, and personal distinction from daily life. People dress, and dress up, for a variety of reasons which are their own business. Of course it is possible to go off the deep end; fops and popinjays and the female equivalents have long been ridiculed (unless they are spouting currently fashionable slogans from the stage on Oscar Night.) But people also dress to show respect and seriousness of purpose. And to attack this under the rubric of climate change is beyond silly, although no doubt at the Times "everyone's gotta get into the act."
Fashion is women's way of looking smart.
Isn’t the “great reset” supposed to bring about a lot of these changes? I would imagine the Zhongshan suit coming back. Same look for everyone. Gender/trans/whatever neutral. No need for fashion magazines or stylists. Wear it until it is worn out. You will get what we provide you with and be happy.
Isn’t the “great reset” supposed to bring about a lot of these changes? I would imagine the Zhongshan suit coming back. Same look for everyone. Gender/trans/whatever neutral. No need for fashion magazines or stylists. Wear it until it is worn out. You will get what we provide you with and be happy.
There are sustainability ETFs. ESG is also aimed to satisfy the Greens.
It is all a fad. A giant Keynesian money spending scheme to help China and special interests.
I bet that underwear is made in China.
There are a lot of great clothes at second-hand stores.
Buying more clothing than you need sequesters carbon in your closet.
"Apparently the NYT and the Left will not be satisfied until they have removed every trace of interest, pleasure, and personal distinction from daily life."
The new Puritans.
Sensible shoes?
First, raise concerns over an issue nobody thinks of as a problem.
Second, insist that we all share that concern, or be condemned.
Third, address the concerns via mandated, ideologically one-sided calls to action.
Fourth, demand punishments for those not concerned, and for not following the mandated actions, and especially for pointing out this isn't a real problem.
Fifth, wonder why the issue and concerns over it are no longer considered valid by any but your ideological comrades. Be butthurt.
Sixth, find a new issue to raise concerns over.
Rinse, repeat, until the shampoo bottle is empty, then buy more because that is what one does.
First, raise concerns over an issue nobody thinks of as a problem.
Second, insist that we all share that concern, or be condemned.
Third, address the concerns via mandated, ideologically one-sided calls to action.
Fourth, demand punishments for those not concerned, and for not following the mandated actions, and especially for pointing out this isn't a real problem.
Fifth, wonder why the issue and concerns over it are no longer considered valid by any but your ideological comrades. Be butthurt.
Sixth, find a new issue to raise concerns over.
Rinse, repeat, until the shampoo bottle is empty, then buy more because that is what one does.
Sustainable fashion??
Ya' mean like Levi's 501 jeans?? Button fly!!
Despite my revulsion at spreading the gospel of climate change to yet another heathen community, a part of me finds the brush with honesty refreshing. That is, these “green” poseurs have always struggled with a contradiction—it’s easy to have a light environmental foot print:
Don’t fly when you can drive
Don’t drive when you can walk
Don’t buy what you don’t need
Don’t throw away what’s still usable
Don’t over-eat
Basically, live simply, frugally, and don’t worry to much about the rest
The problem is, that doesn’t leave much room for the useless yet stylish envriotech BS they’re constantly trying to stuff down our throats. It doesn’t require you to buy distinctive (and expensive) energy-saving doodads that don’t work right, which is what the green movement is really all about—it’s simply another brand of consumerism.
But sustainable fashion sounds like it’s focussing on something that makes sense and, not for nuthun, is generally conservative.
"How big does a company really need to be? How do you scale upcycling when there are limited resources?... How do you decide whether leather counts as a byproduct or a bad product?"
All of those questions are answered by product utility, value and the market; so there's no reason whatsoever for twits who write for the NYT to worry their pretty little heads about it. Just get out of the way while the invisible hand works its magic.
Perhaps "climate change" is itself a fashion, and relates to clothing fashion the same way it relates to political fashion, or scientific fashion.
I was just thinking about this topic- sustainability in fashion- yesterday when I received a pair of On Cloud shoes. I've worn them before, but this was a new version of the old classic. And I do not like it as much. It's simply not as comfortable. So I went online to find out just how they changed it up. And among their top new features is that this new version is much more sustainable.
Well, hell. They went from the most comfortable walking shoe anywhere to something much more akin to everything else on the market, but I'm to accept it because it's 'saving the planet'? I think not. I see this corporate attaching to the global cause of saving the planet as an arrogant overindulgence of nonsense. And it's everywhere. As if attaching to this cause will allow them to produce a lesser actual product while we sit in the ether, feeling gloriously good about ourselves for our wise choice in saving the planet. Or shoes. I forget what I was buying.
Anyway...
As an aside. I was listening to 'A History of Rock Music in 500 Songs' today. Episode 136 is "My Generation, The Who". It delves into their early days when the Mods and Rockers were hanging out and beating up each other in England. It gets into the fashion of those times, including where the haircuts came from. Pretty interesting stuff. I remember those days and the 'Mod' thing. And it's much more interesting than redefining sustainable fashion.
“Sustainable” will go out of fashion soon enough. Like “Limits to Growth”.
I’m surprised the ecotards didn’t label it fashion justice…
A good pricey garment will last a very long time. $100 jeans last longer than $24 jeans. Just saying.
Unless you're me. I have $24 jeans and they last a long time. I have hung my laundry out to dry since I've done laundry. As did my mother, grandmother, etc.
It was my son who noticed that his clothes did not last as long as when he lived at home. Apparently dryers are tough on clothes.
My contribution to "saving" the environment.
A digression: it must have been in the mid-80s or a little later that 501s began to make a serious fashion comeback. I mean, I know they've been made continuously since they came out, but they started to be a fashion item.
And their salient feature, the button fly? Back then, they were briefly called "button front" jeans, I think; I think this because of a very clear memory of my sister's misunderstanding what was being said in an ad: she looked absolutely befuddled. I asked what the problem was and she said she was just trying to understand the point of "butt in front jeans." The fact that they're universally called "button fly" jeans now makes me wonder if she wasn't alone.
The question about fashion is always whether fashion is pushing the culture or if fashion is chasing the culture. This very much screams "chasing."
tim mcguire already demonstrated the inherent contradictions in the Narrative. The NYT decries global cooling ... global warming ... climate change ... climate damage (the new buzzword I believe).
At the same time, it encourages air travel, tourism travel, and conspicuous consumption.
To sooth the modern soul, they recommend by indulgences in the form of carbon credits.
I'm always amused at how much a woman is willing to spend on a special occasion dress, especially a wedding gown, but then balks at the price of a well made classic winter coat.
it must have been in the mid-80s or a little later that 501s began to make a serious fashion comeback.
Didn't James Dean wear 501's?? Dean died in 1955.
A good pricey garment will last a very long time. $100 jeans last longer than $24 jeans. Just saying.
The Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
Fashion sustainability used to be having three groups of ties that you shift by one every 2 years. To my lovely wife's chagrin, my work at home attire is a Robin Williams/Cuban Pete friendly Latliur French fisherman's shirt in red and white stripe (sans beret) and very oversized Orvis Chinos that I could do splits in. I am just a "Dog hair and threadbare" kind of person.
The old rule was that it should cost an ounce(troy) of gold for a quality suit of clothes for a man. I think this has held well.
Denim ... made from cotton, organic cotton if you like. Wear those jeans 'til they are so threadbare that you are barred from the organic grocery store. Don't throw them away, just add them to the composter in the back yard.
Might be a good idea to cut the zipper and rivets out for recycling with the cans and bottles.
I'm far from being fashion conscious but all the same I know that clothes that last a long time start to look "wrong" - and feel "wrong." There's just no way to buy "classic" clothes which last 10 or twenty years and which make you feel good. I have some everlasting clothes - shirts I won as prizes in my Big Corporation life. They are well made of beautiful cloth and they button down. Good vacation wear. I have some great Levis - which flare. Well, they're good for garden work. There are slight differences which make clothes unsustainable after awhile and no morality campaign will alter that. Especially when I see people righteously buying new clothes this year because they are sustainable, unlike last year's righteously new clothes which they bought which were woke or the clothes of some years back which were "earth colored" or those of many years ago which were chemical outfits of an everlasting nature and matching colors which needed no-ironing due to the presence of formaldehyde. Embalmed by your clothes - now there's sustainable.
Synthetic man-made materials and fibers are ending up in our rivers and oceans.
If this bothers you, try to wear natural materials like cotton and wool. Some dye techniques are also bad for the environment. Again- it this bothers you, try to buy environmentally sound products.
It's near impossible.
Technical gear, made for outdoor enthusiasts, is often a culprit.
Clothing fibers - they be bad.
Rightwing ecotard here.
hi
Florida Man has this figured out. The standard garb is cargo shorts, and embellished T and footware that does not require socks. Sustainable timeless fashion.
FYI From an economic standpoint, leather is a byproduct of meat consumption.
I've retired to the Philippines, where my daily 'self edge' (and that of almost all us male expats) is a tshirt and shorts.
Men in shorts. Get used to it.
Women have already taken this to heart. I see many of them wearing jeans that are ripped to shreds, with their knees, thighs, and asses peaking through the tears in the fabric.
They must be getting 20 or 30 years out of those things. ;)
Post a Comment