Free Pattern with Dress Tutorial The Littlest Studio Uncategorized Because It’s There

Because It’s There

So the other night I went to a designers + Geeks meetup because it was about “Fashion tech Design.” I always think that I will like the idea of fashion tech design but I normally come away minor less than whelmed.

The speakers were fairly interesting — my favorite was Meg Grant, you must check out her work here — but they left me with a lot more questions than answers, the greatest question being, “Why?”

Grant’s work was a very straightforward answer to the “Why?” question … much of her work is art-project-y, and and such raises art-project-y questions. There are dresses that emit poems when touched, and gloves you can whisper secrets into, and a blouse where lights shining behind you seem to shine ideal through you, thanks to a creative arrangement of light sensors and LEDs. They’re intelligent and thought-provoking, but not something you’d necessarily wear every day. (Her recent work is investigating wearable textile solar panels, which *does* seem to answer a functional “why?” question — it makes best sense that if your coat could charge your phone, a sunny day would be even better.)

The other two speakers’ answers to the “Why?” question were less satisfying to me — switch Embassy being able to animate light-up messages on a t-shirt or handbag is cool, but just because something is amazing is not really reason enough to do it. tech as decoration is really just battery-powered embroidery, or a new kind of sequin.

Sensoree’s answer to the “Why?” of tech + fashion was a lot more therapeutic: their GER “mood sweater” is essentially a mood ring. Only, you know, in sweater form. (It also comes with a new word, extimacy, ‘externalized intimacy’.) given how much trouble some people go to in buy to hide their moods, I’m not sure that the mood sweater is really ready for the office. (Boss: “Here’s your 3Q goals!” Employee’s mood Sweater: RAGE.) Sensoree also makes self-calming attire for people with sensory integration disorders, which seemed very functional and helpful.

The separation of “fashion” and “technology” just seems odd to me. I mean, clothing IS technology. We’ve been making clothing for tens of thousands of years. and we improve our clothing with “technology” all the time — what else would you call Scotchguard, Lycra, or laser-cut leather? and we apply technology to the fashion industry as well — what else would you call rapid prototyping, the rise of online shopping, and Pinterest? But when people talk about bringing technology to fashion, what we typically indicate is making it so a pair of jeans now needs batteries, and I’m not sure that’s really either a pressing need or an proper goal.

If you say that, no, what people indicate by technology + fashion is adding sensors to clothing — making your shoes part of the Internet of things — then again we must answer the question of “Why?” Do you want to put sensors in clothing so that you can track them as they pass through the economy? then you’d better be prepared to only license your designer handbag, and give up the ideal to resell it, like you make with ebooks. Do you want to use sensors to track your health? Okay, then who has access to that data, and what happens when your sister borrows your dress? who gets notified when your waistband figures out you’ve put on five pounds? Your spouse? Your doctor? Do you want to track your kids’ whereabouts through their sneakers? What happens when the signals are hacked and everyone knows where your kids are? Or griefers decide to make it seem as if every high-school freshman is now at the local dive bar in the middle of the day? (Which will happen …) must the sensors communicate something about you to the world around you, a new form of self-expression? then be prepared to listen to half a dozen PSAs at the motion pictures telling you to please switch off your scarf and take pleasure in the show (after checking out the concession stand, of course).

Just because you had to solder as well as sew doesn’t indicate that your dress is all of a sudden a lot more “techie” than it was when the highest-tech thing about it was the zipper. technology isn’t a seasoning — it’s a solution. and if you’re not solving an explicit problem, then you’re leaving your option open for other people to match their problems to. (And if there’s one thing nobody wants, it’s other people’s problems!)

But options wandering around in search of a problem to fix typically cause a lot more trouble than the problems they end up being applied to … and we haven’t even touched on the ecological and human-welfare problems involved in manufacturing clothes that integrate electronics.

That said, it’s perfectly fine if the problem you’re solving is “I’m bored and I want to make a dress that lights up!” I will absolutely admit that I’m a big fan of kerblinkety lights, and I do have half-a-dozen “LED Dress” tutorials bookmarked. They’re fun! (Watch this space!) But just because you can add a battery pack to something doesn’t indicate you should.

Share this:

Like this:
Like Loading…


Vague Questions, answered VaguelyJuly 1, 2008
A Rejoinder and statement of PrinciplesMay 15, 2008With 214 comments
questioning assumptionsJune 18, 2006

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *