fashion loves people

Jump to Comments

Today in the Star, Jenee Osterheldt wrote a column about fashion as a sign of the times — that spring styles are increasingly comfortable and increasingly “classic.” She called me last week for my thoughts…

Janette Crawford, the blogger behind www.fashionlovespeople.com, says people are repurposing the clothes they already have, and when they buy, they get what they need.

“Creativity and design are even more important, and what we’re getting is more practical and down-to-earth. We’re designing classics again — the necessities.”

I love that Jenee brought this topic up, and I’d love to elaborate on it a bit more. Her questions immediately had me thinking of two great articles I read in January about design in general but never shared here — one by NYTimes writer Michael Cannell, and one by a blogger who goes simply by “Editor,” riffing off of Cannell’s piece. (The latter is here, on a now-abandoned blog.) It’s great stuff, so I’ll just quote some highlights. (Emphasis added by me.)

From Cannell:

In the lean years ahead, “there will be less design, but much better design,” predicted (Paola Antonelli, senior curator of architecture and design at the Museum of Modern Art).

…

Modernism’s great ambition was to democratize design. Ikea and Target have shown that the battle for cheap design can be won. The emphasis will most likely shift to greater quality at affordable prices. This time around it will be the designer’s job to discourage consumers from regarding that $30 Ikea side table as a throwaway item.

From Editor, in response to that last bit:

I think that is a critical point. He is attributing the change to the designers, making it their challenge, but I think in fact every consumer is responsible for how they regard their objects. It’s interesting that so many are panicking about the money they have lost in their 401ks and other places, but up until recently, disposable clothing and furniture was perfectly acceptable. Where was the concern for the lost money then? Simply because there was money in reserve, it had no value? Or what it bought did not have to have any value — that seems to be the message, since consumers had an appetite for very cheap and very ephemeral (in both quality and appeal) material goods. This seems to be more about our values than the items themselves (not exclusively, mind you, just more).

A city charity here has had to extend its annual coat drive because “donations are down due to economic conditions.” This winter, unlike past winters, people are thinking that their coat can go one or two more years. People are reassessing their coats, how they value them, what they really need.

“Design tends to thrive in hard times,” Cannell writes. “In the scarcity of the 1940s, Charles and Ray Eames produced furniture and other products of enduring appeal from cheap materials like plastic, resin and plywood.”

I think we’ve all appreciated the “let’s take a step back and look at what’s important” posture that this downturn has afforded us. To name a spare few of those considerations, we’re finally getting down to business serious about green-collar jobs, “journalism 2.0″ and even exorbitant CEO salaries — amen.

Out of necessity, the economic slump has accelerated changes that needed to happen anyway.

Thanks, Jenee, for the quote!