Posts

Posted on

Week 1: Response to Fletcher & Edelkoort – Samanta Shi

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

Fletcher brings up a fundamental issue with the economics of mass production that I unequivocally agree with: the greed for business growth impacts our treatment of the environment, workers, and quality.  In order to affect change, both consumers and producers have a responsibility to question the current status quo and adjust their behavior, goals, and mindsets. To embrace sustainability, fashion businesses should look to the farmers’ markets and artisanal ice cream shops of the world for how to embrace slowness, localness, quality, and even diversity.  Farmers markets sell different goods depending on the season, and almost always run out of the “good stuff” in the first hour — the type of goods may very well also vary from week to week. And, we know that consumers do not mind paying the premium for the organic, local quality. By reconsidering mass production and choosing slow fashion, fashion businesses can change the wasteful cycle that they are currently stuck in.

Additionally, fashion companies should utilize technology to more accurately predict demand to avoid unnecessary excess in production. Perhaps they could even re-think the entire shopping experience. What if – instead of instantly buying a garment that almost fits – a consumer walks into the store, browses the garments, then gets their measurements taken, and finally requests a custom-made piece that is produced locally and delivered within the month. This, of course, requires consumers to truly embrace slow fashion and change their expectation of taking the piece home right away, but if we can collectively change the nature of demand, then businesses will have to follow suit.

Response to  â€œAnti-Fashion: A Manifesto for the Next Decade” by Li Edelkoort

Edelkoort discusses various areas of the fashion industry that we need to re-think, from advertising, retailing, branding, to the interactivity of the shopping experience and claims that “we need to be more interactive in the way we display things” [Edelkoort], which I fully agree with.  The biggest challenge with changing the display boils down to how humans interact with brands offline. Where do they go? How do they expect to interact with a piece of clothing before and after they buy it? If we are to change the display and shopping experience, then we will have to change the mentality of instant gratification and the cost expectations that the consumer has.  Perhaps the piece is not cheaper than a sandwich, or perhaps you buy the piece today and receive it in 3-4 weeks.  Brands like Zara and H&M will eventually be challenged by smaller, local boutiques who can offer more unique and sustainable options. However, in order to compete with the larger brands, industry leaders will have to agree on a regulated price point, as Edelkoort points out.

Edelkoort really struck me when she said “sometimes when you buy a t-shirt you kill somebody … it’s better to buy fur”, which emphasizes the problematic state of current manufacturing. This also reminded me of a story my mother (who used to trade textiles based out of Hong Kong) once told me about factories and coloring: “one time, a factory got a turquoise blue wrong by the slightest shade, and they had to reproduce 1000s of t-shirts”. On top of that, the color of the shirts that were wasted, was particularly harmful to the environment.  So, by moving away from mass production, into smaller, local businesses, perhaps we can avoid these logistical nightmares and make better quality pieces that not only look good but also feel good physically and mentally.

I also particularly enjoyed Edelkoort’s comment on the new man and how fashion needs to give more attention to creating pieces that embrace the more sensitive, elegant, and less macho man.  In many ways, the fashion industry has lagged behind, with fin-tech, health-tech, and even ed-tech gaining traction to improve and innovate, where is the fashion-tech?

Posted on

Week 1: Response to “E.M. Forster” – Hanna Rinderknecht-Mahaffy

While first starting E.M Forster’s “The Machine Stops,” I found the narrative somewhat strange. The more I read however, the more fascinating the premise of the story became. In Forster’s imaginary world, civilization does not resemble humanity as we know it today. Instead, all in the world is all alike and is totally run and controlled by the Machine. Instead of human contact, emotion, and connection, the people of this world are entirely focused on ideas as the main point in life. The machine seems to take away all elements of humanity that we know today and leads people to worship the machine, treating The Book like a bible of sorts. Any deviation from the Machine’s goals was punished by “Homelessness,” which was banishment to the surface, where people couldn’t survive. This attitude is shown in the mother’s reaction to her son’s admission of his self-exploration to the surface. “There was not room for such a person in the world. And with her pity disgust mingled. She was ashamed at having borne such a son, she who had always been so respectable and so full of ideas. Was he really the little boy to whom
she had taught the use of his stops and buttons, and to whom she had given his first lessons in the Book? The very hair that disfigured his lip showed that he was reverting to some savage type. On atavism the Machine can have no mercy.” This quote clearly shows how society values unquestionable loyalty to the Machine, and how any exemplification of human uniqueness is in conflict with that loyalty. This attitude toward her son struck me in that she does not seem to care at all for her son on a personal, familial level, instead she can only feel proud of him when he is participating in the system of the Machine. 

In Section 3, “The Homeless”, there are two developments in the Machine. “The second great development was the re-establishment of religion.” In this section, the author describes how the Machine has now actually become a religion, further solidifying the control the Machine has on all the people in the world. Lecturers of the world discuss how the Machine is omnipotent, implying the God-like nature of the system, and the utter lack of control people have over their own lives and basic needs. I found this concept to be very ironic, as the Machine seemed to have been originally created to be useful for humans and was not indented to control them. In our real world today of increasing reliance on advancing technology, this narrative seems to be a cautionary tale that while technology can be put to good use by humans, there may be a point where it is taken too far and gets beyond our control, permanently altering who we are as a civilization. This story is, of course, and extreme hyperbole of such a scenario, however when I consider how much we, and our daily habits, have changed over the last fifty years due to technology, such a concept does not seem so far stretched. 

Posted on

Week 1: Response to “The Machine Stops” By E.M. Forster – Allie Dunnaville

The Machine Stops by E.M. Forster depicts the costs and benefits of a society where the population is much dependent on technology. Vashti and her son Kuno are two characters described in the story which help depict a central theme of the piece that suggests how the heavy usage of technology can negatively influence the relationship between others. Something I found astonishing was how the article was published only in 1909, and the predictions Forster makes about technology such as “Air-ships” and “Machines” are incredibly accurate to those of which exist in our society today. Not only are the technological predictions accurate, but also the hypothesized impact of technology on human relationships.

The corrupt machine-controlled world which Forster describes makes me think about the consequences of our human race being so heavily influenced and impacted by the usage and innovation of technology. As a result of being born into a generation so heavily reliant on smartphones, I personally cannot imagine a world where I am not able to rely on my smartphone for directions, communication, entertainment, and unlimited knowledge (google). As a result of my dependence on technology; articles, and stories such as this often prompt me to think about how technology influences the relationships I have with the people around me. But, in another sense, I also appreciate the benefits which come along such entities. Such as being able to have constant communication with my family via Skype, texting, etc., despite living in another country thousands of miles away from home.

The Machine Stops predicts the loss of emotion which exists with the introduction of technology. As our society continues to innovate and become more and more reliant on technology, I hope that the world can find a balance where human interaction does not deteriorate. Although, by the looks of it this is just where we’re headed.

Posted on

Week 1: “The Machine Stops” reflective response – Adam Chou

Unabashedly, I must compare this piece to the same points repeated in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Although taken from a view of ‘successful technology’ the aphorisms of inhuman qualities within society are borrowed heavily in this piece. However the piece, by showcasing such dystopic aspects, helps to distinguish the unequivocal struggle of man versus machine. Due to the nature of progress, and its heavy reliance on processing and machinery, it is hard to embrace what had once been us. To clarify this point, humans have forgot what we once were. This is mainly due to the fact that technology has separated a sense of space between what we are now, and who we were before.

Ironically, we see this analogy presented in the opposite manner. The present day, which is generally considered young and hip, is portrayed in the perspective of the elder mother. Whereas the son is given the more adventurous role of describing his journey to the outside. The fear of the piece, I suppose, is that people have lost sense of their natural selves. This is comparable to Frankenstein and his monster – his ‘daemon” – to which he is haunted by for the entirety of the novel. That which was once considered normal – the animal that was man – is now frowned upon. And yet it is something that we use as a baseline to experience that which we no longer can. I think of this in the manner in which the son plays the role of mediator to the mother. In some sense, the story that is told to the mom can be categorized as entertainment. We can find similar aspects to this as the  comes into personal lives. As the voice of reason seeks to persuade us of the safety of conformity, our own intuition begs us to be curious of our past. Such is the relationship, in my eyes, of the relationship of Vashti and her son Kuno.

I will comment, however, that the bias shown of the machine turning on mankind is one that seems to be a bit pessimistic. We have no idea if this accurately represents future conditions, although they are terrifying to picture. But I suppose it is easier to do the latter than the former.

Posted on

“The Machine Stops”by E.M.Forster – Jialu Li

    “Man is the measure.” I think this is the key point of this story. In this story, people gradually lose themselves living in the comfort and convenience provided by the Machine. They lost their creativity and their own thoughts because of the existence of the Book. Every question they meet, there is a standard answer in the Book. No idea in their head is original—they are encouraged to generate ideas from other people’s ideas instead of facts. In a world like that, there is no such concept as “society” where people each have their own job, own responsibilities and they cooperate with each other to build the world they live in. Instead, they are isolated and are heavily dependent on the Machine. They don’t really have a life. Every single day is the same. They seem to have thousands of friends, but the truth is that they are isolated, living in their own little cell all their life. There is communication, even though is it through electrical signals, but all the message they were exchanging was hollow “ideas” and there were no human emotions involved. They have long forgotten how to make a living by themselves—the Machine can do everything for them and they can hardly think of any new things to do due to the lack of imagination and creativity. Man is no longer the measure of their own life, the Machine is. They worship the Machine and are grateful for everything that the Machine gives them. However, they no longer remember that it was human who built the Machine and, as human, they still can create machines that are more powerful than the Machine, they can still make a difference to their life, to the world. Under the convenience of the Machine, people are becoming too lazy to think, too timid to imagine and create something new.
    I think E.M.Forster created a huge world view in this story. There are so many aspects that are worth thinking about, like the interactions between people, the fear for the nature, the reliance on the technology, the assimilation of culture and so on. However, there are still some points that I don’t think Forster had made clear enough. Like who is controlling the Machine? If the Machine is intelligent enough to make decisions by itself then what’s the point of the existence of the Central Committee? If the Machine is operated by the Central Committee, does this mean that it is actually the Central Committee that is limiting people’s imagination and blinding people’s visions? What’s their purpose of maintaining a peace world like this? Where do the fuel of the Machine and the food of the people come from if they never go out to the natural world? Do they grow crops underground? It seems that there is no concept of money or society in this world, why is that?……I know some of these questions are not helpful in showing the theme of this story, but I still find it interesting to think about these questions.