I love the diversity that is SXSWi! In addition to promoting Storenvy like crazy, I’ve gotten to meet up on the side with some awesome fashion blogger friends, new and old. I just met the founder of the lovely new site Fashism.com, which I think you guys might really like.

At Fashism, users can upload pictures of outfits — either from home or from a dressing room — and let people vote “hot or not,” plus leave comments. It’s basically like shopping in the real world with the input of friends in the digital world — a pretty fabulous cross-over. When used correctly, it can definitely help answer ye olde “what to wear” question, and I can even imagine sending links to friends to help decide on outfits for upcoming events.

Fashism held an event yesterday afternoon at the local Dress Shop where we all tried on dresses and got our pictures taken. So fun! I wasn’t planning to buy anything, but Pamela from Market Publique picked out this super-sweet one-shoulder dress for me (and paired it perfectly with that taupe belt), and I couldn’t resist. It’s 100% silk, has a perfect above-the-knee tulip skirt and, awesomely, has pockets.

Check out the site and feel free to start voting!

Earlier in August, the UK’s Sunday Times published a long look at garment manufacturing in Lesotho… and it was pretty scary. The scariest part? That this is where Gap’s Product Red is manufactured, initiated by Bono with the best of intentions, and yet so many adverse effects have gone on outside the factories. It’s a must-read.

Gap’s decision to develop the production of jeans and T-shirts in Lesotho had heralded an era of opportunity for one of the world’s poorest nations, but a Sunday Times investigation has exposed an unforeseen consequence of that commitment — the dumping of tons of waste, much of it dangerous, at unsecured municipal sites.

Over the past 12 months the child rag pickers have been attracted to garment dumps by the denim and plastic thrown away by a Taiwanese supplier whose clients include both Gap and Levi Strauss.

Such is the ubiquity of denim and cotton waste in Lesotho that garment refuse has replaced charcoal as cooking fuel. Alarmingly, for the two San Francisco-based firms, the waste dumped by their suppliers Nien Hsing and Formosa Textile — both part of the Nien Hsing Fashion Group — includes harmful chemicals, needles and razors. …

It gets worse, like a blue-stained river and chronic breathing issues. Read the full article for a well-researched look behind the scenes.

Both Gap and Levi’s know about the situation and at the time of the article were looking into it, and Gap was doing so with an independent environmental organization. I trust that the cause of the problem will be appropriately cared for, but this once again makes me question the impacts of the “industrial supply chain” in any context, whether companies are being transparent about their practices or not.

Again, quoting Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma, but changing the word “eat” to “buy”: “To (buy) with a fuller consciousness of all that is at stake may sound like a burden, but in practice few things in life can afford quite as much satisfaction. By comparison, the pleasures of (buying) industrially, which is to say (buying) in ignorance, are fleeting.”

Commerce with a Conscience wrote a smart and hilarious review of Simple‘s similarly poorly designed “green shoes,” which can be directly applied to this line. I’ll cut straight to the serious part, where he wrote,

“One of the greatest obstacles facing the widespread acceptance of socially responsible spending is convincing others that buying according to their ethics doesn’t automatically mean dressing terribly. I ask you, please, help us overcome this hurdle. Use your principles for good.”

Amen.

Each pair of shoes in the zoe & zac line are under $30. If you must, at least go for the wedge!

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!

Top image via A History of Architecture via Le Bouton Studio.

Bottom image via ellybeth on Flickr.

]]> http://fashionlovespeople.com/2009/03/08/masking-tape/feed/ 1 http://fashionlovespeople.com/2009/02/19/lego-wear-everywhere/ http://fashionlovespeople.com/2009/02/19/lego-wear-everywhere/#comments Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:06:15 +0000 Janette http://fashionlovespeople.com/?p=680 Not to belabor the point, but. Coolhunter spotlighted Lego accents yesterday.

Iconic retro brands possess strong currency right now. The latest hails not from the annals of fashion or apparel but from the world of toys – we’re talking about LEGO, the multi-colored building bricks that we all grew up with. While LEGO is still one of the top children’s toy brands, it is spontaneously morphing into a credible street brand, adopted by Gen Y hipsters who still nurture happy memories of playing with the blocks as kids. It’s part of a bigger trend, which has seen other iconic mostly 80s brands such as Reebok enjoy unexpected revivals. …

We can only imagine what will be next. Lego for Louis Vuitton, perhaps? Marc Jacobs and Lego – a match made in heaven.

They know Marc used them on his S/S 2008 runway, right? Just making sure. (MJ does LV, hence they way they put it.)

And while I’m already at it… here’s a gratuitous look at my Lego heart pins at Bon Bon!

As an ethical fashion advocate, I don’t ask for everything. I ask for TRANSPARENCY. I don’t want us to become paranoid shoppers, I want us to become informed and conscientious shoppers. I know that the reason overtime hours are an issue in factories is that many workers WANT to work every waking hour they’re able, to send just *that much* more money home. I know that this is a complex issue, and no solution will solve everyone’s problems.

But I’m still thinking.

Please have a read and let me know your thoughts.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats who favor labor standards in trade agreements mean well, for they intend to fight back at oppressive sweatshops abroad. But while it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough.

Talk to these families in the dump, and a job in a sweatshop is a cherished dream, an escalator out of poverty, the kind of gauzy if probably unrealistic ambition that parents everywhere often have for their children.

“I’d love to get a job in a factory,” said Pim Srey Rath, a 19-year-old woman scavenging for plastic. “At least that work is in the shade. Here is where it’s hot.”

Another woman, Vath Sam Oeun, hopes her 10-year-old boy, scavenging beside her, grows up to get a factory job, partly because she has seen other children run over by garbage trucks. Her boy has never been to a doctor or a dentist, and last bathed when he was 2, so a sweatshop job by comparison would be far more pleasant and less dangerous.

I’m glad that many Americans are repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid, barely legal workers in dangerous factories. Yet sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty. At a time of tremendous economic distress and protectionist pressures, there’s a special danger that tighter labor standards will be used as an excuse to curb trade.

When I defend sweatshops, people always ask me: But would you want to work in a sweatshop? No, of course not. But I would want even less to pull a rickshaw. In the hierarchy of jobs in poor countries, sweltering at a sewing machine isn’t the bottom.
My views on sweatshops are shaped by years living in East Asia, watching as living standards soared — including those in my wife’s ancestral village in southern China — because of sweatshop jobs.

…

The best way to help people in the poorest countries isn’t to campaign against sweatshops but to promote manufacturing there. One of the best things America could do for Africa would be to strengthen our program to encourage African imports, called AGOA, and nudge Europe to match it.

Among people who work in development, many strongly believe (but few dare say very loudly) that one of the best hopes for the poorest countries would be to build their manufacturing industries. But global campaigns against sweatshops make that less likely.

Look, I know that Americans have a hard time accepting that sweatshops can help people. But take it from 13-year-old Neuo Chanthou, who earns a bit less than $1 a day scavenging in the dump. She’s wearing a “Playboy” shirt and hat that she found amid the filth, and she worries about her sister, who lost part of her hand when a garbage truck ran over her.

“It’s dirty, hot and smelly here,” she said wistfully. “A factory is better.”

In the full article, Kristof mentions Cambodia, which completed an interesting labor experiment with financing and support from the Clinton administration. This American Life: David and Goliath tells the story of one Cambodian factory owner who made it sound very successful, though Kristof suggests otherwise. (It’s only 95 cents, and it’s Ira! Buy it…)

This report from NPR, Made in a Sweatshop? Clues for Consumers, left a lot of questions unanswered but was a decent listen. (And this one’s free, enjoy.)

Thoughts?

Apparently it’s pure science, friends. A “perception expert” in the UK reports findings that horizontal stripes are more slimming than vertical. “Horizontal stripes don’t make you look fat. The one wearing the vertical stripes (as compared in the study) looks wider than the one wearing the horizontal stripes. Horizontal stripes, if anything, make you look thinner,” the expert said.

Striped tees from Alternative.

Polyvore is beautiful and magical. Choose from separates and accessories to create perfect outfits. Even text and textures to make art! (I may or may not be working on a mumu haiku.) You’ll LOVE it. (Almost as much as I would love to receive these Minnetonka fringe boots for my birthday. Size 8.)

The name “ecollection” sound familiar? Esprit introduced a line of the same name back in the 1990s. The story of it is a fascinating read — check out McLaren’s wonderful overview of Esprit’s history at Treehugger. He even scanned in some images from the old catalog!