Materialistic Tree Hugger

My husband and I are partial owners in two different environmental companies. I grow my own vegetables, recycle, refuse anything with pesticides and want to start having chickens and bees. But, I love fashion. I always have. I don't buy clothes out of necessity, I buy them to indulge my wants and desires. During my STEM 370 class I came up with a phrase to describe my two conflicting persona's: I am a materialistic tree hugger.

That phrase rang through my head throughout reading "Configuring sustainability at fashion week". Especially since one of the articles focuses on European fashion. When you go to Europe its amazing how eco-conscious they can be. In Munich, Germany last fall (when I was there) Oktoberfest and local stores had a deposit on buying a water bottle. You received two euros back if you returned it so it could be recycled. Nearby Berlin was one of the first trade fairs to showcase green fashion! Paris was shockingly clean during my trip there last year. Trashcans everywhere. But, as evidenced in the LFW article, fashion week is oftentimes the epitome of consumption - with more concern to the experience than to the earth.

We are doing good just to make you buy more. 

Picture from the Be Eco Chic campaign  at NYFW

The article's quote of Eva Kruse, which I will paraphrase as being about how it's better to wash at a lower temperature because it makes your clothes last longer - but don't forget to keep up with next fall's trends it's a great example of the oxymoron happening in the green fashion industry right now. It also came right back to the front of my mind as I read the second article. As it examines the influence of corporate social responsibility and SRB I wonder about the messages that come from the four main categories of stakeholders. Going green is a worldwide trend right now - and I'm guessing an easy decision since one would think all four stakeholder groups are calling for it. As the decisions are made where are the priorities going? How are they established? In the case of Reebok was their priority just to promote it? What wins? And, at what costs? Maybe they aren't using child labor but are the dyes from the textiles that say, cover a couch at IKEA hurting children in other ways? If its only a secondary factor how much good does it really do?

Furthermore, can fashion every truly be green with all this emphasis on consumption? Will this industry ever be able to be sustainable?

I am especially interested to see how "green fashion" is presented at HKFW. For STEM 220 I did a term paper on environmental justice in fashion and the different effects that were had on the fashion industry by textile production. China was by far one of the biggest offenders according to the research I preformed.  I wonder what the green profile will be of this show and the local manufacturer's and designers.

What governs me?What governs them?

The more I think of it, I kind of half to mock myself for the "materialistic tree hugger" phrase. As the "Configuring sustainability at fashion week" article states in the shows they examined "fashion governed each event".  Not to mention, those events certainly made headlines for being "early adopters" in taking green fashion to a trade show, didn't they?

I don't know if I am any better.

London Calling

London is a city that constantly alludes me. I've tried to get there. It's been at the very top of my bucket list for years.  I never thought I would get to Paris, Germany or Hong Kong before London but somehow I can't seem to make it there. I was supposed to go a mere six weeks before Hong Kong. We were all set. We were buying our plane tickets with our tax refund. It was a done deal. Until we didn't get a tax refund. And my dreams flew over the Atlantic instead. With the number of trips we have planned in the next two years and another baby planned for 2015/2016 I fear I will never get there.

Needless to say based on how badly I want to get to London I think if I ever had the opportunity to go to London Fashion Week my head might pop off.

Building the basis for a comparison...
The article "Between art and commerce: London Fashion Week as trade fair and fashion spectacle"was by far my favorite read so far. I could just see it all in my head. I could visualize the grandeur, I could feel the buzz in the air. The article covered everything from brief bits of history of the event to the logistics of staging and seating to the emphasis on visibility, press and presentation.

One of the parts of the article that most intrigued me was the discussion of boundaries and access. One think that I found remarkable was how it seemed like the hierarchy in the fashion world so directly mimics the hierarchy found in the London social scene regarding royalty, status, and title. Actually, its really an idea that applies across fashion week. From the press coverage to seating assignments the entirety of the week is based on the position that other people think of you as. In London, more than many cities I have read about you need to "belong" in order to get anywhere. It certainly makes sense that these two are intertwined.

From London to Hong Kong

Fashion is definitely the same sense of "belonging" but with different descriptive words. Fashion refers to what is "in" or "trending" or "hot". I'm curious to see what the levels of exclusivity are like at Hong Kong Fashion Week; to compare my understanding of London Fashion Week to what I observe in Hong Kong. Furthermore, I'm curious as to how the social scene of Hong Kong influences the experiences of Fashion Week and where the boundaries lie. With the language barrier and short duration of our stay I don't know if I will get to fully understand it during my short stay, but it certainly gives me some ideas of readings to search for if there is wi-fi on the plane.




Video of a British Designer Vivienne Westwood's show at a previous Hong Kong Fashion Week.