LONDON FASHION WEEK IN THESE TIMES

So LFW is upon us once again -- and this time celebrate its 25th anniversary! Last time it was 'that time of year', ie, the autumn 2008 there was a measure of uncertainty in the air. The economy wasn't looking great, mighty banks rumbled at their foundations and retail looked headed for slower times. Buyers dithered over order sheets in the tents at the Natural History Museum.

That was then. Now many mighty banks have simply crashed, the economy is into one of the worst recessions ever, retail has not just slowed, in pockets its simply stopped and buyers, well, many of them don't have jobs at all. What a difference 5 months can make.

But what difference is this context making to fashion? Well, lets see --
1) cavalier, 'i-need-a-new-trend-a-week' spending has declined. GOOD. Now those of us who have been banging on about buying seasonless, trend-neutral but high quality clothing, are likely to gain a more sympathetic audience. More important, the joy of shopping for, possession of and caring for one's wardrobe can be experienced (for some 20 year olds, this might be a first). In itself such a change will have a wonderfully healthy effect on one of ethically sound fashion's goals, ie, slowing things down (you just have to do some minimal googling on the disasterous effects of fast fashion, to understand why this is such a key goal...start here if you like).

2) high quality design and designers will get a more air-time. GOOD. As people become more concerned about spending intelligently they will seek out more than just what the latest glossy touts as a must-have. Part of the new wave, I predict, will be designers who have in some way, built in green/ethical/eco responsibility into their collections. Quality is likely to be associated more than ever with the entire product rather than just its media stickiness. And independant, responsible, talented designers, who would have otherwise been lost among those that had the financial muscle to flood the space with great PR, glamourous lookbooks and celebrity backing, will get a fair chance to shine.

3) the love of adorning oneself, the thrill of shopping for something beautiful and the general joys of fashion won't go away, rather, the focus will shift. GOOD. Accessories and staples (jeans, the perfect white shirt) with a creative twist, a special something, will get more attention. These are items with many lives and with great CPW - they will work hard for what they are worth and justify their presence in your closet.

Also styling will become more than just a buzzword among fashionable types and/or a way to describe some people's entire career (the 'stylist industry', btw, I predict will be a big area of lay-offs). Style will become about knowing what works on you, digging deep in your wardrobe for pieces that become you and putting your look together based on this knowledge. It will move away from looking like what fashion editors tell you you ought to look like.

All this makes me look forward, more than ever, to London Fashion Week. As has been pointed out in the mainstream and online press, it may not have the money or glitz of nyc or milan, but London has the talent and the edge. I would like to add that, as Estethica's growing success shows, London Fashion Week also has the conscience to suit these times than perhaps any other of its competitors.

There are some exciting new names at Estethica this year including Ada Zanditon, Butcher Couture Eyewear, M.I.A. (winner of 2008's Make Your Mark in Fashion, which DeviDoll was proud to sponsor) and Numanu plus those we know but whom never fail to surprise and delight, such as From Somewhere, Beyond Skin (launching a new logo and look this season) and Anatomy.

DeviDoll is proud to sponsor LFW on greenmystyle because we're proud to be part of the thinking and innovation behind what is truly, genuinely and rightly, fashionable.

PRIMARK AND HOW NOT TO DO THE RIGHT THING

So some news that is not very surprising: turns out Primark was working with suppliers in South India that used child labour. Also not surprising is Primark's outrage at having been deceived “We are appalled, we feel let down and we are taking all the action we can to prevent this happening again.”(Times Online). Hmmm...perhaps they should have investigated the 'suspicions' they already had about these same suppliers before the BBC's Panorama team (effectively) forced them to. Then maybe the outrage wouldn't seem so contrived.

What are we to make of this debacle? Well here are 2 ideas to start with:
1) Question Primark's assertion that its labour costs are unrelated to the low prices it offers its fashion at. Is it really believable that high volume, low mark-ups, absence of big ad budgets and low overheads have alone contributed to Primark being the fastest growing part of Associated British Foods and the 2nd biggest clothing retailer (in volume terms) in the UK?

2) Question the genuine ethical cred of a company that, having been 'outed', cuts and runs. What of those children and their families now? We'd rather not dwell on the fact that they probably prefer very little money to none at all and so, in a perverse sense, were probably better off slogging for Primark than not at all. Odds are they are devastated by the turn of events. If it wasn't for such dire circumstances, the complicity that Primark says its a victim of, between workers, middlemen, subcontractors and others wouldn't exist.

Rather than be appalled and get out, Primark needs to invest resources in engaging with issues on the ground in places it chooses to take its business to. This means pressuring the Indian government to do more, supporting the best NGO efforts in children's welfare in India itself and monitoring the entire supply chain rather than just factory conditions. It is simply not enough to take your business to places like India and be an ostrich about what you are walking into. We now know too much about labour conditions in these countries to accept just this much from any company doing work there.

So basically its not rocket science: all of the 'right' thing to do involves taking time off notching up the bottom line and putting it to responsibly engaging with the labour and labour conditions you locate yourself in; and further, to taking, on the chin, the effect this has on your budgets and overheads. Some might say this is just putting your money where your mouth is.

'THREAD' - THE BBC GETS INTO ETHICAL FASHION

The BBC has launched an online fashion magazine - Thread, Fashion without Victim, wholly dedicated to eco/ethical fashion. Its about style but also substance - various terms used in ethical fashion are explained, the true cost of cheap clothes is revealed, whats out there to purchase is well catalogued, and we're told which organisations are actively involved in ethical fashion.

And thats the tip of the iceberg -- there's a gorgeous style-file full of fabulous clothes (including Mociun's Judas tee!) and key trends for the season. Jewel in the crown has to be the associated programme, "Blood, Sweat and T-shirts", about a group of twenty-somethings -- very into fashion from different angles -- who experience life as factory workers in India, making clothes for the UK high street. Needless to say it deeply affects their views on fashion and the cost of fast fashion.

So this is a 'go-to' url to the say least. And happily its got many relevant issues woven through it, so that we can understand the dilemmas as well as victories of ethical fashion in an intelligent way. At DeviDoll its always been about how and why to curate your consumption -- the BBC Thread magazine is a welcome addition to this project.

Photograph courtesy Thread-BBC site

MORE THAN SAVE THE WORLD FROM HAMNETT

Friday's Evening Standard had a great article about doyenne of green fashion Katherine Hamnett. There is all the usual fieryness we've come to expect from KH, including a tidbit on the Tesco debacle last year and her history from Sloane Street purveyor of glamour to present day ethical fashion champion and critic of mainstream fashion glam and all that goes with it.

Particularly refreshing (and timely since now everyone has an opinion on ethical fashion), though, were her take on some very real issues for anyone in the ethical fashion space:

1) Journo (having noted that KH thinks fair fashion needn't cost the earth): " But your slogan T-shirts sell online at Pounds 40 a pop ...?
KH: "Well, we are a designer brand. That's our main line, and I'm afraid if you want the real thing, that's what you gotta pay for it."
(WELL SAID! Why should ethical designer-wear be less expensive than any other kind?? Ethical is about sustainability, production process and fair trade. Its not about charity.

2) Journo wonders if KH advocates 'a boycott of, say, Primark, which sells cheap-as-chips throw-away clothes?'
KH: "Yes, of course we should all boycott the shops that don't stock environmentally sustainable, ethically made clothes...."
(YAY! Anyone who knows DeviDoll and this blog knows we DETEST fast fashion).

3) Journo thinks that the idea that fashion can save the world (the title of a talk KH gave at the V&A last week) is 'preposterous'. Fashion is about consumption for consumptions sake and if we really wanted fashion to save the world it would simply get designers to close up shop and encourage us to go second hand/stick with what we have.
KH: "It's about covering our body. We need clothes. And fashion employs about a billion people around the world, it's probably the world's biggest industry."
(Why do people never seem to understand that fashion is a business - what it needs is cleaning up not annhilation. Fashion as simply consumption for consumptions sake can be changed to something more meaningful and that's the whole point! There is no inherent harm in the desire to adorn oneself - its the doing it conscientiously that is necessary. At least KH gets it.)

4) Journo (continuing the 'fashion can't save the world' theme: 'And what about size zero? Isn't that unethical in itself ? Isn't the super-skinny "ideal" damaging to young girls?'
KH (who has already earlier denounced modelling in no uncertain terms as 'vile', 'a stupid profession' and 'a meat market'): "Clothes look better on skinny people and crap clothes look OK on skinny people. It means you can get away with anything ... I'm much more concerned about people who are size zero and have no choice. When I was in Mali I met two women who had lost children at the breast because they couldn't feed them."
(Yep, thank you KH, for reminding us to keep our priorities straight. There is much more to be done for those who have no choice than those who do -- and lets face it, its not like the 'size zero' issue isn't getting proper attention, especially on catwalks.)

5) Journo: '...the fashion industry encourages women to buy handbags for Pounds 1,000; an obscene sum of money to spend on something we clearly don't need".
KH: "Oh, I don't really care about that. If someone wants to pay it, well, poor them. It shows a lack of imagination I suppose, do you really have so little that you can't think of something more fun to do with Pounds 1,000 than buy a handbag?"
(Exactly - if that is what people want to spend on then its their problem. The way I see it our aim is to get them to spend that 1000 on a bag that will actually help someone/not harm the planet/be animal cruelty free. The fact that people are seduced by fashion does not mean those who want to 'clean up' the fashion industry should have suspect or shallow aims).

....and she hardly wears make-up (she particularly dislikes"misogynist" women's magazines which "trade on fear"...Oh my God you can't have wrinkles! You'd better go and do something serious about wrinkles!")...and she still smokes.


Way to go Ms. Hamnett.