Posts

Posted on

Week 1: Response to Edelkoort & Fletcher – Tiger (Syed)

Date: 02-12-2019

Response to Li Edelkoort’s “Anti-Fashion” Manifesto

After watching Edelkoort’s brief yet passionate speech, I did a little research on her and found on Wikipedia that “The British design magazine i-D listed her among the world’s 40 most important designers and Time magazine named her one of the 25 most influential fashion experts of our day”. If someone this big in the fashion industry is calling it “unfashionable”, it gets me thinking that maybe rather than just bluffing, she has a point.

As a college student who seldom spends time thinking about what to wear, I don’t know much about fashion, which, however, makes me strongly agree with Edelkoort that fashion design schools should shed more light on designing everyday clothes, and try to change their students’ mindset that only if they design catwalk clothes can they make it in the industry. If students are all obsessed with fashion shows and focus solely on runway model clothes, who is going to design the type of clothes people actually wear every day? The more unbalanced it is, the wider the gap will be – a gap that already exists between fashion and the style of everyday clothing. This could also connect to the first point that Edelkoort makes in her speech, that in the fashion industry, top designers are worshiped as individuals, but not as representatives who should be grateful to the huge amount of people behind them that make their design possible.

This has got me thinking: is fashion a business, or is it a form of art? Should it be available for everyone, or is it never supposed to be affordable and easily reachable? I believe that fashion must be somewhere in between a business and an art form, just like how Edelkoort herself uses the film to illustrate that credits should be given to all participants in fashion industry – the film is exactly something that combines both art and business. If fashion is an art form, then designers are artists, which makes it more than reasonable for them to be recognized as individuals: we all know the one famous Steven Spielberg, who film school students look to as a role model, but nobody ever complains about the way he is worshiped. Then why is it “unfashionable” for top designers to be appreciated individually? On the other hand, if students are supposed to view fashion more as a business, then they may be able to see the significance of designing everyday clothing, but what are the consequences? Is it a good thing if it makes fashion less exclusive? Will it blur the line between what we see on TV and what we wear every day? This could be some food for thought.

Response to Kate Fletcher’s “Slow Fashion: An Invitation for Systems Change”

Just like Fletcher states in the abstract: “In some circles, ‘fast’ has become a proxy for a type of fashion that epitomizes ideas of unsustainability”. Fast food for instance, is frequently heard to be criticized by the media for its mass-production and unhealthy amount of fat. Similarly, the concept of “fast fashion” is used to describe the way that brands put out new products in a huge amount at a ridiculous pace. Moreover, Fletcher blames “fast fashion” for doing damage to the environment and causing workers to be treated badly. Consequently, she is trying to advocate this kind of “slow fashion” where the entire process of clothes making is slowed down, and thus resources will be saved; sustainability is maintained.

On all of the above, I would say I agree with her. Her opinion reminds me of a traditional Chinese saying: “新三年，旧三年，缝缝补补又三年”. Literally it means that a piece of clothing is new for the first three years, after which it gets old but is still wearable for another three years; if you fix its holes and give it patches, it can even last three more years. So in total, you can keep a piece of clothing for at least nine years! Well, the saying is basically just promoting a sense of frugality, but it reflects what fashion used to be like. Clothes lasted longer in the past than they do now – and by “last”, I don’t mean clothes remaining wearable, but clothes remaining liked by their owner. People want to look new every day with fresh clothes on, and brands want to sell more, resulting in resources going to waste – all the energy that was spent in the process of one piece of clothing being manufactured.

However, people may not need such a full wardrobe, but it is highly impossible to stop them from having one. Now that society has evolved, changes in the industry and business models are inevitable. How is it practical to promote “slow fashion”? I would say, we can’t really slow it down. Nonetheless, it is possible to revolutionize the fashion industry with more environmentally friendly approaches. Technology involved could be one feasible way, as Fletcher suggests, if brands utilize it to decrease production to the level actually demanded. Clothes could be made more flexible: if there is more than just one way to wear a T-shirt, would its owner be more willing to wear it? Besides, customers should be encouraged to try on different matches within a limited amount of clothing, because there are lots of possibilities if clothes are matched differently. Rather than purchasing new clothes, try to make the old ones new. This is something that designers and manufacturers should work on: how to make clothes more recyclable, and maybe even more flexible (provide novelty), so that consumers will voluntarily pursue a new kind of “slow fashion”.

Posted on

Week 1 : The Machine Stops (E.M Foster) – Abdullah Zameek

“The Machine Stops” by E.M Foster narrates a tale of a dystopian future where the will of all of mankind is ruled and determined  by an ominous, technological entity that simply goes by the name “The Machine”. As reported by the narrator, the responsibilities of parents are completed at birth,their children are split from them, and they are brought up elsewhere, perhaps in another corner of the world. In this world, every human being lives in their own self-contained bubble where they are provided with their daily essentials. Therefore, there is no need or wish or incentive for humans to interact with each other, and such “social interactions” are thought to be unnecessary.
The attitude of (most) people towards “The Machine” could be thought of to be almost that of religious reverence. This was clearly seen in
the scene where people on the air-ship chanted praises of “How we have advanced, thanks to the Machine!”

The dependence on “The Machine” has resulted in two noticeable changes in humanity – people seem to have lost the will to “live” and explore
the Earth which has resulted in them not knowing basic facts about our planet. For instance, when the air-ship was flying over snow, the
protagonist of the story engages in the following dialogue, “And that white stuff in the cracks? — what is it? “I have forgotten its name.”
Moreover, people do not question the decisions of “The Machine”. Instead, people go along with whatever judgement that it passes. And, any
sort of deviation from this judgement is considered treason and could be punished with “Homelessness”.  The fundamental tenets of what constitutes a society seem to have completely crumbled, resulting in self-sustained, disconnected units. Thus, there seems to be no sense of human connection or unified spirit in this world, which means that this world is inhabited by humans, but ones who lack part of their “humanity”.

The social norms and standards are the ones dictated by “The Machine”, and to go against them means to challenge the very foundations of present society. The role of Kuno in this story is that of the social anomaly – the one who dared to question the status quo. In doing so, he displeased his mother, but at the same time, he seemed to have sparked the tiniest of interest in her since she kept pressing Kuno to continue with his story whenever he stopped.  In the end, the current social structure is brought down, and the era of “The Machine” comes to an end, but so does Kuno’s life. 

The story is a great analogy to the current relationship between people and technology, in particular, the dependencies and addictions that people have on their devices. It is not uncommon to see children, some as young as the age of three or so, operating “smart devices” and ultimately becoming addicted to them. The current generation could be described as one of “technological zombies”- people being completely dependent on technology for daily activities.  For example, in the city of Shanghai, several mobile applications provide essential daily services that are becoming increasingly mainstream. Whether it is ordering food, groceries or a taxi, or even paying your bills, all of it can be done from a single smartphone. But, what would happen if the few companies providing these services cease to exist? What would its impact be on society then? It must be understood that men, and his machines are both not infallible. In fact, since man is inherently flawed, so will be his creations. As Kuno put it, “Men made it, do not forget that. Great men, but men. The
Machine is much, but it is not everything.” 

However, the most frightening factor is that of privacy. In the story, Kuno refuses to tell his story to his mother saying that he would not talk to her unless she comes to him in person. This may have been because he did not want “The Machine” to eavesdrop in on their conversation which would have led to immediate, catastrophic results for Kuno. Now, consider the case with current technologies, especially social media channels and messaging applications. We share very personal and intimate details of our lives on these platforms, but we have no guarantee that it is only shared to our intended parties. In the case of Foster’s world, the Machine is the omniscient being that governs everything, so in our world, who exactly is playing the role of God? 
This is a question that is becoming more prevalent in the current context, an age where information is everything and people’s lives are becoming increasingly digitized.

Posted on

Week 1: Response to “The Machine Stops” by E.M. Forster – Daisy Chen

Communication, connection, sensibility, free will, these are the keywords that popped up in my mind after reading Forster’s sci-fi. Setting the background in an imagined, highly developed society, Forster conveys his idea of anti-utopia and inquiry into the human-machine relationship through two different ways — the fierce struggle of rebels like Kuno and the compliance of the mass like Vashti. On one hand, the advanced technology does free people from the pain of disease and bring convenience, but on the other hand, it also deprives people’s sense of the space and the capability of communication. In other words, although the living conditions on the material level seem to be better, the development of one’s free will is reversed. The mind is supposed to generate more meaningful and original thoughts, but the result is the opposite. The word “idea” is frequently mentioned in the story, but the valuation and definition of this word are manipulated by the big machine. In this case, although people are still communicating with each other, it doesn’t count as the real “communication” but just the transfer of information. The irony in this fiction is to see how human beings chase the development of technology for freedom and well being but end up imprison themselves in small cells physically and mentally.

It’s intriguing to find the inquiry into the relationship between human and machine in a sci-fi written one hundred years ago that echoes some of the relevant critics today. The prediction of the powerful control of the big machine parallels the fear and despair in a high-tech society depicted in Black Mirror. And the homogenization of objects and human beings, the lack of communication and the isolated individuals remind me of the world in 1984. What is in common in these works are the worries of human being controlled and not “being human” anymore. It’s the ability to think independently and exchange ideas through communication that differentiates us from other species. And the anxiety is there may be a decline in this ability due to the rapid development of technology. I think we don’t have to be as pessimistic as Forster does in this fiction, but it is a warning for us on the overdependence of the technology and the communication channels. Instead of focusing on the tool itself, we should pay more attention to the original thoughts conveyed through the tool. Is not the tool but people’s self-abandonment that brings human beings to the bad ending. We should keep that in mind — not before “the machine stops” but before the machine takes control of us.

Posted on

Responses to Kate Fletcher and Li Edelkoort — Alessandra Hallman

Response to Kate Fletcher’s “Slow Fashion: An Invitation for Systems Change”:

Kate Fletcher’s written voice could not be more similar to Li Edelkoort’s own spoken voice. Both women have a strained, anger-filled plea aimed at all those who engage in fashion products in any capacity. In this incredibly passionate paper, Fletcher illustrates just how insidious the fast fashion industry’s effect on humanity and society has been. She equates it to the fast food movement: both traded familial values and tradition for newness and short-term convenience. She clarifies that “fast” is not necessarily bad; the speed alone of how fashion products are made is not to blame for fast fashion’s pernicious consequences. Instead, the business culture of “growth by any means necessary” that lies within “fast” for any industry is what ultimately leads to long term ethical, environmental, and societal damage.

Fletcher’s paper is the only position I have read that focuses enough, if any, attention on the impact fast fashion has on our society. She emphasizes that having more things does not add to one’s life in any meaningful way. The way she juxtaposes previous values standards for fashion products versus current ones is intense to read. Once the durability, memory, and lifespan of a garment were its most important qualities. Now, however, the flexibility, adaptability, and disposability of a fashion product are its main selling points. Fletcher suggests looking to the food indusry’s fight against fast food chains for suggestions on how to manage fashion’s “fast” problem. 

Response to Li Edelkoort’s “Anti-Fashion: A Manifestó for the Next Decade”:

Li Edelkoort’s talk on sustainability at the Business of Fashion’s Voices conference was refreshing for one reason: where most sustainability activists only present problems, Edelkoort only provided her audience with solutions. The audience was full of fashion professionals, from educators to ad men, and they were all hooked on her every word. Edelkoort doesn’t mince words; she identified problems at every phase a fashion product goes through and immediately suggested several solutions to these quandaries. She started with the education issue. Fashion design students, Edelkoort argues, are not being taught worksmanship and creation of garments, simply the conjuring of them. She claims that in order to create sustainable designers, they must be accurately taught just how much work goes into a fashion product, how working with certain textiles affects the end product, and how to ensure that product quality is controlled. Edelkoort also tackles the underrepresented textile industry. Because fast fashion retailers so often opt for cheaper synthetic fabrics, the textile industry is barely treading water. She is a world-reknown trend forecaster, so to hear Edelkoort explain just how in peril the textile and fabric market is was jarring to me. She explains that fashion houses must buy textile mills in order to ensure quality fabrics, made sustainably and with care, will not become a thing of the past.

“Sometimes, when you buy a t-shirt, you kill somebody; it’s better to buy fur.” This quote from the video stuck with me. On Monday, I mentioned in class that it is not sustainable enough to just focus on fixing fashion’s environmental consequences and ignore the ethical ramifications, and vice versa. Although she said it with a hint of sarcasm, the hidden meaning is not so difficult to find. What lives are we prioritizing? The consumer with more than enough options to meet their daily needs? The disadvantaged worker in an outsourced Nike factory with no other job prospect? The fashion designer struggling to keep up with ever increasing fashion seasons? The animals in cages poached for their fur? Once we are honest about which of these is our collective priority and then choose to improve on that, our collective society will move towards a more sustainable fashion route. 

Posted on

Week1: Response to E.M. Forster’s “The Machine Stops” – Cecilia Cai

This reading strikes me with its strong contrast between people’s peaceful and regular routine under the service of the Machine at the beginning, and the scene of total chaos and violence at the end when the Machine stops. I’m especially impressed by the struggle between humanity and the religion of the Machine that the reading depicts.

In this reading, people live under the surface of the earth and depend their lives on the Machine. It reminds me of the recent Chinese sci-fi movie “The Wandering Earth”, in which people also live undergrounds and are banned from visiting the earth’s surface unless having special working licenses, and the earth is powered by multiple huge engines around the globe. This common setting reflects the concern that human activities will exhaust the earth’s resources someday in the future, and that people will be both benefitting and suffering from their high-tech creations.

Different from the movie, where the underground world is built up and operate by humans, the one in the reading is under the charge of a humming Machine. There is a contrast between Vashti’s and Kuno’s attitude towards the Machine. The former, representing the majority, worships the Machine as a almighty “God” and is too fear to leave its control or violate its rules, while the latter, tired of the mechanic routine and driven by his strong curiosity about the outside world, is looking forward to a life without the Machine. It’s ironic that the Machine, enabling people to call and see each other whenever and wherever with the Virtual Reality technology, is at the same time distancing the relationships between them, and isolating individuals’ lives. Vashti often emphasizes the preciousness of her time, but all she do after getting up is connecting friends and attending or giving lectures through the Machine, even without leaving her armchair. It seems that the machine brings people closer, as they can see the virtual images of each other when making calls and talk to them as if face to face. But such technology at the same time deprive people’s desire to actually come out and communicate with each other in the fresh. Vashti seldom sees her son since he left, not even knowing the detail reasons and process of his moving to the other side of the earth. Moreover, the Book of the Machine forbids direct body contact undergrounds, and as Vashti expresses, there is not much different in seeing somebody virtually or in reality, which also accounts for her reluctance to travel to visit her son initially. I stopped and pondered as I read this part. Virtual reality breaks the time and space limits, and enriches our experiences, but it can never replace reality. We should be alerted when the majority of us are indulged in the virtual world created by technology and become unwilling to get out of our own safe-zones, because that is the time when the reality starts to fade.

There is another interesting idea expressed in the reading. The Book of the Machine serves as a Bible in that world, and the Machine is the God. Although Vashti denies trusting the Machine as a religion, she and many other people have already become its most pious followers. On the other hand, as Kuno mentions, the Machine is created by man, so are the rules. And thus, men are trapped by their creation. In the world of the Machine, people not only become more selfish and complacent, but also lose the passion to explore and improve, which inevitably leads to the stop of the Machine in the end. But the Machine should never be to blame, since it did nothing wrong other than regulates and serves people well. It is men who ruined their life with their own hands and minds. Extending to the popular topic of the threats of the AIs, it is also man rather than AI brains that we should worry about. Many Science Fictions today describe the future to be under the deployment of AIs, and humans are only tools of these super minds. But will the AIs evolve and develop their own minds that planning on turning against human? No one knows the answer, since no human can catch up with the speed of machine learning. However, I believe that AIs are just magnified human minds, which intensify the power of both the strengths and weaknesses of humanity. After all, AIs are lack of emotions. When AIs kill a man, it is not because they want to, but usually that removing him or her is the easiest way achieve certain goals, and they are programmed by man to pursue the highest efficiency. In many cases where men are troubled with their emotions and hesitate to balance the pros and cons of certain decision, AIs won’t, which leads to their so-called evilness. The world of Machine in the reading is lack of humanity, in that it eliminates the physically strong body at birth to maintain the order of that society. Is it that the Machine is plotting some scheme against humans and that it is preparing for it by removing those strong bodies? No, the Machine is created and programmed by people. When we are overwhelmed by greediness and desires, we want the most of everything, and tend to choose the easiest and quickest way. The Machine stands for an easy way of governance, in which athletics and explorers are not needed, and their existence are likely to bring disturbances. Kuno is a representation of such exception, who dares to break the rules. His role in the reading reminds me that troubles and hardness are necessary in our life, and can sometimes save us from blindness. Efficiency and easiness are not always the best, and thus we need to consider more comprehensively instead of making easy conclusions.

The stop of the Machine, which seems like a total disaster, is in fact the beginning of the fortune of the society.