The Guardian – AmeliasMagazine

Amelia’s Magazine | Real People do the Catwalk

(Photograph by Natasha Caruana)

Last night I was delighted to be invited to the ICA for an emphatic catwalk show with a difference. The event was organised by former designer Elaine Foster-Gandey; director of Designer Sales UK.

Elaine developed Real People do the Catwalk after hosting a fashion show which included both dancers and models on stage. “I asked my customers about it and they said they related to the dancers and not the models”.

Spurred by this Elaine set about putting together a pioneering show to further the arguement that replacing super-thin models with people who reflect society could lead to increased sales for the fashion industry.

The show opened in silence with the models resembling extras from Scream in their attire of long black robes and white masks. Each model first vocalised how they felt the fashion industry related to them, stomach cheap followed by revealing their beautifully styled outfits and their real identities.

(Photograph by Natasha Caruana)

The driving force behind the model casting to show the fashion industry that different body shapes can be celebrated in fashion shows and advertising campaigns.

“It is about not creating an elite world where no one else can join in,” Explained Elaine. “So many people want a chance, but know that because they are five foot tall, or a size 14-16, they never will have.” The models featured within the show ranged from a 6’1” Drag Artiste to a 5’4” male; dress sizes 8 to 20 and ages between 25 to 60+.

What I enjoyed most about the show was the diversity and celebration of the models differences. It was fresh and modern with all the models having poise, confidence and importantly a great sense of humour. Their
good spirits and sense of fun gave the show an electric atmosphere.

The models’ charismatic personalities brought out something unique in the clothes that might not have been projected if worn by a ‘normal’ model. Whether this is because they were real people displaying how the clothes would fit on our own bodies or down to their insurmountable energy and passion for highlighting an issue intricately linked to the size zero debate.

Afterwards there was a riveting post-show debate featuring: Elaine Foster-Gandey; Real People do the Catwalk organiser, writer Dariush Alavi; Eleni Renton, founder of Leni’s Model Management; Hilary Alexander, esteemed fashion director at The Daily Telegraph and was chaired by writer and broadcaster Bidisha.

The debate began by Dariush Alavi somewhat controversially enquiring as to why Real People do the Catwalk
was produced to “enact a traditional fashion show.” Suggesting that by keeping the traditional format, could anything change by replacing the models with real people as it is not the models who are at fault but the stage on which they stand. Alavi suggested doing away with the catwalk altogether.

This prompted both Hilary Alexander and a member of the audience to defend the catwalk as “fashion’s world stage” and looked back to a John Galliano show where the entire collection was presented on an overhead track of basic clothes hangers. Dariush’s response suggested making models obsolete and displaying clothes on a fashion conveyer belt went down like a lead balloon. The audience and the rest of the panel remained sceptical of high fashion designers considering a presentation that in a format is more commonly associated with The Generation Game.

(Photograph by Natasha Caruana)

Questions were raised about the morality of the fashion industry and the spotlight on the size zero debate intensified. Hilary spoke about the Telegraph not facing the same constraints from advertisers as glossy fashion titles and said that the newspaper’s “aim to strike a balance between real people and models and actively try to include both types of woman in spreads… the oldest woman we’ve ever featured was 94.”

Panellist Eleni Renton mentioned that the Editor of UK Vogue Alexandra Shulman spoke out against size zero in June accusing designers of making magazines hire models with “jutting bones and no breasts or hips” by supplying them with “minuscule” garments for their photo shoots. She claimed that Vogue frequently “retouched” photographs to make models look larger. In response Hilary questioned whether things had begun to change at UK Vogue as they still fail to represent body diversity within their pages, suggesting it would become apparent what their real stance on size zero is over the coming months.

(photograph by Natasha Caruana)

Elaine added that whilst magazine images are not healthy for women, they have a considerable impact on impressionable teenagers who start to believe they need to emulate perfect bodies in order to be considered beautiful and successful.

“Look around, everything we see is airbrushed… these aren’t real images.”

To emphasise her point Elaine spoke of teenagers being more body conscious than any generation before citing her own children as an example: “I have a six-year-old daughter and 11 and 15-year-old stepdaughters who are constantly looking in the mirror. My stepdaughters are so skinny and so conscious about what they eat and what they see in the media. They are constantly aware of body image issues. It is a big issue for adolescent girls and boys.”

The panel and audience agreed that the media are responsible for putting different demographics into the mainstream and popularising diversity, and that they have a moral responsibility to society to not glamorise super skinny body shapes. Elaine believes that there has “been a spike in our body consciousness” in recent years and we have turned into a society “afraid of flesh, hair and wrinkles”.

Eleni, director of Leni’s Model Management only works with girls “who are sizes 8 to 12… They are the type of girls you see in the street and think, ‘I would like a body like hers.”

As the debate drew to a close the supermodel era was discussed, with Hilary citing that the greats in the industry: Linda, Kate and Naomi all had personality, and that was what made them famous, rather than their figures. On the flip side other great supermodels such as Cindy Crawford, Christy Turlington and Sophie Dahl were celebrated for having curves.

Through the conversations it became apparent that the only modern day equivalent of a curvaceous celebrity pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in mainstream is Beth Ditto, who won LOVE magazine a prestigious industry award for her iconic nude cover

The overall outcome was for women to take responsibility for themselves and their bodies and actively promote positive body attitudes to their daughters, friends and grandchildren. Everyone agreed that while it is easy to blame the media for the size zero trend, consumers need to use our buying power to actively challenge the fashion industry into reconsidering their design practices and elitism.

I left the ICA feeling very empowered, wanting to help revolutionise the fashion industry from the outside in.

Written by Creative-Idle on Thursday October 22nd, 2009 3:10 pm

Categories ,Bidisha, ,Dariush Alavi, ,Designer Sales UK, ,Dove Real Beauty Campaign, ,Elaine Foster-Gandey, ,Eleni Renton, ,Hilary Alexander, ,ica, ,Kate Moss, ,Leni’s Model Management, ,London Fashion Week, ,Mark Fast, ,Naomi Cambell, ,Real People do the Catwalk ICA, ,Size Zero Debate, ,The Daily Telegraph, ,The Guardian

Amelia’s Magazine | Real People do the Catwalk

(Photograph by Natasha Caruana)

Last night I was delighted to be invited to the ICA for an emphatic catwalk show with a difference. The event was organised by former designer Elaine Foster-Gandey; director of Designer Sales UK.

The show opened in silence with the models resembling extras from Scream in their attire of long black robes and white masks. Each model first vocalised how they felt the fashion industry related to them, followed by revealing their beautifully styled outfits and their real identities.

(Photograph by Natasha Caruana)

The driving force behind the model casting to show the fashion industry that different body shapes can be celebrated in fashion shows and advertising campaigns.

(Photograph by Natasha Caruana)

(photograph by Natasha Caruana)

“Look around, everything we see is airbrushed… these aren’t real images.”

Eleni, director of Leni’s Model Management only works with girls “who are sizes 8 to 12… They are the type of girls you see in the street and think, ‘I would like a body like hers.”

I left the ICA feeling very empowered, wanting to help revolutionise the fashion industry from the outside in.

Written by Creative-Idle on Thursday October 22nd, 2009 3:10 pm

Amelia’s Magazine | Prosperity Without Growth

‘A good photograph is one that communicates a fact, order touches the heart, shop and leaves the viewer a changed person for having seen it. It is, adiposity in a word, effective.’

These famous words, uttered by Irving Penn himself, pretty much sum up the experience of the Irving Penn: Portraits major exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery. Running until 6 June, this landmark offering marks one of fashion’s greatest photographers’ passing in October of last year, and is the first exhibition of his work in the UK for 25 years.

Here are a few reasons why you should see this restrospective of one of the world’s greatest photographers:

Celebrate a master
In the 1940s when Penn began his career shooting for Vogue magazine, opulent interiors and lavish settings were de rigeur for these magazines. Penn shook things up with his minimal, austere settings (often in stark studios with floors covered in fag butts). It was this style that he is most famous for, and which has influenced countless artists and photographers since.

Marvel at unique composition
While many photographers employed narratives in their work, removing personal elements, Penn’s focus was on keeping settings neutral and resisting these storytelling fantasies. His were studies of the face; he rarely photographed his subjects at full length, often severely chopping off the tops of heads with his crop. This was extraordinary at the time, and looking at these timeless images now, it still is. Glancing at the iconic portrait of his wife Lisa Fonssagrives-Penn in her harlequin number and then looking at a contemporary portrait of Nicole Kidman from as little ago as 2003, it is only by recognition of the subjects that we can differentiate the era; the ageless elegance of these photographs is truly astonishing.

See REAL celebrities
Penn was one of the few photographers who documented the stars of the 1940s and 1950s, and in an age where getting your tits out on TV makes you a celebrity, be delighted amongst the faces of those with endurable star quality and immeasurable talent – Rudolph Nureyev, Edith Piaf, Elsa Schiaparelli, Marlene Dietrich and Cecil Beaton to name a few.

Revel at the beauty of gelatin prints
All of Penn’s prints use the vintage silver gelatin process, which gives uncompromising quality and incredible contrast. Looking at the photographs makes a recent batch of DSLR prints I paid a fortune for look like a bad job by Snappy Snaps.

For more information or to book tickets, click here.

‘A good photograph is one that communicates a fact, cost touches the heart, visit this and leaves the viewer a changed person for having seen it. It is, this in a word, effective.’

Here are a few reasons why you should see this restrospective of one of the world’s greatest photographers:

For more information or to book tickets, click here.

Are you an artist? Or is your creativity in fact destructive? Illustration: Ana Botezatu

I am in danger of becoming one of Tim Jackson’s biggest fans. I saw him at a talk at the LSE last week, cialis 40mg and have read his articles everywhere in the Ecologist, generic The Guardian, hospital The Times and Adbusters. Tim Jackson is a lecturer in Sustainable Development in the University of Surrey, on the Economics Steering Group of the Government’s Sustainable Development Commission, associate of the New Economics Foundation, and author of new book Prosperity Without Growth, which he was discussing at this talk. Before I start though, I’ll just let you in on the fact that you can listen to the entire talk as a podcast, so I won’t just regurgitate what he said.

Until recently it has been blasphemy, no less, to challenge the view that the economy growing and growing and growing may in fact not actually make us better off and solve all our problems. Please note that all our governments and financial systems, no matter how left or right wing, are founded on the idea that GDP (Gross Domestic Product) must grow every year. Or else. If GDP does not grow, countries are in trouble and politicians panic. If another country’s GDP grows by a percentage more than the UK’s, the UK Treasury cries. But what does this actually mean for us? What does this sacred, beloved GDP growth actually give us?

Are we chasing the consumerist illusion of an ideal life, while the landfill builds up under our feet? Illustration: Ana Botezatu

Tim Jackson is one of the people finding a language to question the assumption that GDP must continue to grow forever. Refreshingly, it is a language suitable for use by a recession-hit population and an environmentally confused government, which does not necessarily resort to proclamations of anti-capitalism that a lot of people would find scary. Indeed, it focuses purely on the growth aspect of the economy, which has been common to both capitalist and communist economies regardless of how they claim to distribute the subsequent wealth. Moreover, despite what the lecture’s chair, Dr. Richard Perkins, described as ‘provocative’ views, Tim Jackson is speaking at the LSE, wearing a suit, and advises the government….not someone sitting on the floor in an autonomous social centre, preaching to the converted then (no offence by the way, I am definitely a fan of these situations!). So perhaps there’s a chance policy makers might actually listen to him…the rammed enormous lecture hall of LSE frequenters certainly seemed to.

Back during my Erasmus days in France, I used to go to meetings of a group called Decroissance (de-growth), in Montpellier. They believed that the assumption that we need never-ending economic growth to be happy and prosper is socially and politically sanctioned borderline madness, basically. That the strange, and severely unquestioned worship of growth in GDP was actually preventing us from seeing what we might really need as a society, such as better basic services, physical and psychological health, environmental protection and greater civil participation (and hence truer democracy). All of which the economy is currently destroying rather than creating, and which can be achieved with what we already have. I’ve just checked their website, and they seem to have gone a long way since the slightly garish monthly newspaper they used to publish back in my Erasmus days.

“How can a continually expanding sub-system exist within the finite limits of the planet?” It was a simple, standard question that Tim Jackson started with. While political focus lately has been uniquely on carbon emissions (as if this was isolated from all other environmental issues), one of our biggest environmental and therefore social problems is in fact our over-use of natural resources. A tiny percentage of us on this planet are biting massive irreplaceable chunks out of the only hand that feeds the entire planet, i.e. the planet itself (Tim showed us a diagram which demonstrates how we have already gone beyond the safe operating space for humanity). While some people choose to point the finger at population growth, the issue at stake is in fact our rate of unsustainable over-consumption. Cutting population growth so that we can carry on producing more and more stuff that only some of us will be able to consume, instead of questioning how much crap we produce and consume in the first place, is missing the point, surely.

Is materialism getting in the way of the meaningful relationships that have enabled our survival? Illustration: Ana Botezatu

Using many simple graphs and pie charts, Tim showed how income per capita raises standard of living and life expectancy only up to a certain point. Therefore, in the countries with the lowest GDP and income per capita, rising levels of income and GDP do make a big difference to life expectancy and quality of life, as they improve infrastructure and health. Beyond these levels, however, life expectancy does not correlate with income per capita at all. So, right from the start, Tim stressed that he was not promoting some kind of blanket-revolution which was suddenly universally applicable to everyone. His focus was on countries that already have a high GDP. The UK and US, for example, overproduce massively. And while our income per capita is much much higher than that of Cuba, Costa Rica or Chile, our life expectancy is lower.

Challenges to the notion of economic growth typically elicit proclamations of humanity either going back to Soviet Communism or reverting to cave-dwelling. Indeed, when questioned at the end by the audience on how policy makers can possibly find intellectual arguments to disagree with his in-depth and logical conclusions, Tim lamented that intellectual responses were, for the moment, severely lacking. Government responses to his prosperity without growth report (he is a government adviser remember), have so far included protests of the kind: “How can we make this report go away?” and, “Ah, now I understand all this Sustainable Development, it means going back to the Stone Age!”

Are we filling our lives with useless objects that don’t actually make us happy? Illustration: Ana Botezatu

So Tim highlighted three very important parts of his work. One, we have to recognise the benefits that growth has brought, as well as the drawbacks and limitations. Two, some countries may indeed continue to require economic growth for some time. Three, both capitalist and communist economies have, in the last decades, focused on economic growth. Four, we should start allowing ourselves to at least consider that growth may not be the answer to everything. Current recession and unemployment is a consequence of this economic system, not a result of not enough GDP growth (it has been growing rather exponentially for ages and doesn’t seem to have done the trick). So whether you agree with Tim or not, I think he’s right in saying “fix the economics, they’re already broken.”

Consider also most governments’ responses to climate change and environmental problems. We need more technology. More technology will, supposedly, make us more efficient. But the rate at which we produce more technology, in order to keep up economic growth, actually cancels out any improvements in efficiency. We are still using more coal, gas and oil, polluting more and emitting more CO2 because we are producing way too much of this supposedly ever more efficient technology. That is because the goal has not really been greater efficiency; it has been greater growth, coated with a brand spanking new varnish of eco/sustainability/green wash.

Macro-economics aside, Tim Jackson also talked about consumer habits. He mentioned something called ‘Destructive Creativity’, which is potentially what I was trying to get at in my post-LFW piece. Basically, we keep producing more and more crap, more novelty, brighter, shinier, better objects that will improve our lives. But the fact is, they don’t! Advertising is based on playing to our dreams and aspirations and suggesting they will be fulfilled by material objects. Some of them might, but after a certain point these material objects become both a personal and planetary burden. They fill our lives with junk, plunge us further into overdraft and debt, and make us increasingly depressed as we just can’t continue to live up to the ideals promised by the consumer dream machine.

Does advertising of endless new gadgets and beauty products make us strive towards a perfection that doesn’t even exist? Illustration: Ana Botezatu

Most of those ideals, a fulfilled and happy life, are provided by what we know they have always been associated with: better, deeper, more meaningful relationships, a greater feeling of social participation, health, and a beautiful environment, however that may vary according to taste. At the moment we are increasingly consumers rather than citizens (again, that’s what I tried to get across in my sustainable fashion piece), so our social participation is becoming increasingly mediated by materialism. But such a level of materialism is actually physically impossible for the entire world. There simply isn’t enough planet for it to be possible. We therefore have to start finding new ways to participate in society in less materialistic ways, for the sake of our own survival and happiness.

As for the old adage that competition is part of human nature, and that we intrinsically will always want more and more and more, more than other people, Tim suggested that these are just the aspects of human nature which have been incentivised in today’s economy. Many psychological studies show that we have a balance between self and social interest. Indeed, as Tim said, our survival and evolution would have been impossible had we been driven purely by self-interest. What should now be done, for the sake of us all, is to make sure we incentivise the non-selfish aspects of human nature. But, quite frankly, we don’t need studies to tell us that!

There was one question from the audience which I think I’ll finish with: How do you stay positive?
Tim Jackson’s answer: “Optimism is an act of will…It’s a better psychological strategy for achieving things.”

Food for thought and action indeed, have a listen to the podcast if you can. I’m off to get the book and I’ll let you know what I think when I’ve read it!

Written by Zofia Walczak on Thursday March 4th, 2010 7:48 pm

Categories ,Adbusters, ,Ana Botezatu, ,chile, ,Costa Rica, ,Cuba, ,GDP, ,government, ,Gross Domestic Product, ,growth, ,happiness, ,Income per Capita, ,life expectancy, ,New Economics Foundation, ,socialism, ,sustainable development, ,Sustainable Development Commission, ,the ecologist, ,The Guardian, ,The Times, ,Tim Jackson, ,Treasury, ,UK

Amelia’s Magazine | Sustainable Fashion – an oxymoron?

J Maskrey shone through at London Fashion Week as one of the most individual shows I saw during my time there; no doubt a favourite. Producing a collection of ‘body jewellery’ is no doubt an original idea, treatment but the works of art presented were so much more than that.

Stunning creations combining leopard print, more about names, symbols and glitter swept down the catwalk in an array of twinkling designs and pumping music. Clothing-wise black dominated the colour palette, whilst the sparkling jewels added a playful, brightening edge. Statement shoulders popped up once again, as did pleating, incorporated into waist tied and bandeau mini dresses. Menswear combined huge fur headdresses with little else except J Maskrey’s stunning compositions of crosses, hearts, stars and more; all made up of the same shimmering body art. One item that caught my eye was a cute ‘love’ and ‘hate’ set that had been carefully presented across one of the female models’ hands.

As J Maskrey’s inspiration was primarily a 1932 film called, ‘The Mask of Fu Man Chu’, it came as no surprise to see aspects of the geisha tradition. Extravagant head pieces in the nature of fans dominated the second part of the women’s wear pieces, alongside major aspects of the sheer trend and a mini skirt with an incredibly manipulated hem. Where menswear consisted of a little more coverage there were black, cosy jumpers combined with elegant golden chains and clasps holding the front together. As the show progressed out came small 1920s style sequin caps, and what appeared to be strips of plastic around dresses that accentuated the female form. This was juxtaposed strongly against softer pieces, with heavy knitwear influences and aspects of crochet.

J Maskrey shone through at London Fashion Week as one of the most individual shows I saw during my time there; no doubt a favourite. Producing a collection of ‘body jewellery’ is no doubt an original idea, abortion but the works of art presented were so much more than that.

Photography throughout courtesy of Camilla Sampson

Stunning creations combining leopard print, view names, buy symbols and glitter swept down the catwalk in an array of twinkling designs and pumping music. Clothing-wise black dominated the colour palette, whilst the sparkling jewels added a playful, brightening edge. Statement shoulders popped up once again, as did pleating, incorporated into waist tied and bandeau mini dresses. Menswear combined huge fur headdresses with little else except J Maskrey’s stunning compositions of crosses, hearts, stars and more; all made up of the same shimmering body art. One item that caught my eye was a cute ‘love’ and ‘hate’ set that had been carefully presented across one of the female models’ hands.

A female torso decorated with body jewellery that looked like splatters of dripping paint, and a rather revealing leopard print strip mini dress that glistened away throughout the finale were definitely outstanding pieces. J Maskrey’s originality is definitely something that many designers lust after, after all nobody wants to be the same. It was one show that definitely caught people’s attention, and as the show came to an end it was clear many had seen nothing like it before.
We’re telling you, treatment this Pam Hogg review nearly didn’t happen. The tickets were hierarchically graded in insidiously gradual decline from two gold stars, information pills one gold star, silver, bronze, green, red and right down to a paltry black dot, and then nothing at all. And THEN there were even those without the very tickets themselves– a sort of complex modern-day feudal system testament to the patience of the On/Off staff dealing with a practically feral audience desperate to catch a glimpse of Peaches Geldof, or at least what you could see of her beneath those Rapunzel hair extensions of hers.

Illustration courtesy of Jenny Robins

We got in eventually, though, and squeezed in at the back next to a cosy concrete pillar and spotted Nick Cave, Pearl Lowe and Nick Knight hidden amongst the throng of transvestites and somebody dressed as a giant inflatable woman in a Union Jack dress, presumably sweaty as hell. Featuring a front row resembling the entire cast of a Terry Gilliam movie gone to Ascot, the venue was rammed to maximum capacity by a crowd in such close quarters that it wouldn’t have been surprising if we’d all begun absorbing into one another via osmosis.

With a typically spirited collection, Hogg proved that romance in fact was not dead, even if it looked like it had been hacked at with a pair of scissors by Catwoman: here was a vision of sumptuous naughtiness with furry collared tulle capes, girly sequins and white bows combined with platform heels, bondage straps, sheer panels plunging right below the midriff – and neat little fluffy merkins (yep). Catsuits came in gold and silver metallics paired with mean-looking hooker boots, which evolved into chic cocktail dresses that you could comfortably man a spaceship in, a dual purpose of course characteristic of Hogg’s designs that has made her the favourite of wacky dressers across the land. We particularly liked the iridescent black trenchcoats, and goggled at the pants constructed entirely from ribbon.

The raucous applause that followed might have been led by celebrities letting the rest of us know what jolly good mates they are with Hogg, but purely as a brand, Hogg’s energetic vision – in an industry increasingly bereft of leaders – is pretty valuable to fashion lovers everywhere. Even if we could only see half the catwalk.

Illustrations by Zoe Barker

Sustainable Fashion, viagra 60mg what does that mean? This was the question posed by Vanessa Friedman at the beginning of London Fashion Week’s Estethica guide. I approached LFW with a fair amount of scepticism. Despite wearing my UK Press Pass with the secret pride reserved for a total LFW novice like moi, more about bien sûr, and being in total awe of how much work our fashion ed Rachael, all the writers, photographers and illustrators had put into it all, I was hesitant.

Handle_with_care

Is fashion that great? One part of me thinks it’s essential to be constantly re-inventing and changing things, challenging what we take as a given and celebrating new creativity. And that fashion is another form of individual and social expression and even a tool for rebellion against restrictive archaic norms. But another part thinks that the fashion industry is responsible for an attitude that waste is OK as long as it provides a fleeting moment of self-centred happiness, and that we need to be constantly re-inventing the way we look. That fashion stands for endless buying, and the sanctioning of a kind of mass egomania. Alternatively, it means the production of things that are so well made they will last forever, but which are destined for an elite few whose monthly wages allow for it. So should this kind of thinking now be greened and made sustainable? Hmm…it doesn’t really appeal. And, while it admittedly takes a very narrow view of fashion, I loved Tanya Gold’s blunt, honest piece on ‘Why I Hate Fashion’ in The Guardian a few weeks ago. It does raise the question though: what does fashion, let alone sustainable fashion, even mean?

The concept of eco-fashion has always grated a bit, probably because my purse-strings don’t stretch so far (and of course never will do if I try to pursue writing as a career), but also because, at the upmarket end, it smacks of elitism and the opportunity to not only redeem yourself, but to then preach to others about how fantastic it makes you feel. Oh great, we can still carry on buying loads of expensive crap, because now it’s ‘organic’. Dear 90% of the planet, don’t worry! We will save you with our brand new ethical consumer habits! One fabulous certified organic fair-trade handbag at a time. It’s a typical voting with our credit cards kind of scenario, and it leaves those that can’t or don’t want to buy into the consumer ‘revolution’ (i.e. the vast majority of human beings on the planet) somewhat disenfranchised.

Make_do

Once upon a time I used to make and wear almost all my own clothes. Charity shops on the high street near my school were my Topshop. My thinking was, I can spend a fiver and get lots of unexpected random things from the clearance rail of a charity shop, have some fun cutting it up and sewing it back together, and wear it with pride even if it’s falling apart, or spend £30 (which represented a whole day’s work in my Saturday job) in Topshop on something made in a sweatshop and that there are 20 identical versions of on the rail. A battered old Singer sewing machine helped me to produce most of my 6^th form wardrobe, and, admittedly, a trail of fashion disasters whose only purpose became household rags.

I loved sitting at my sewing machine, attacking things with scissors, making bags out of skirts, skirts out of dresses, dresses out of huge shirts, going to the bargain haberdashery stalls at markets and hunting out what I needed that week. None of my creations were planned or measured, so it was hardly difficult! My sister and I put on a crazy fashion show at school which consisted of t-shirts with massive holes, paint splodges, mini skirts made of tracksuit bottoms, dresses made of old saris, ripped tights, and asked our friends, our catwalk models, to just dance to The Hives album we decided would be the full volume soundtrack to our show.

Our music teacher loved it, but I think the rest of the Senior Management Team would have preferred something a little more conservative. Only recently have I discovered that what I was doing could technically have been called upcycling, and that an increasing amount of designers are turning to it, with much greater skill and expertise than I had when I was 16, clearly. There were a few designers using upcycling that I really liked in the Estethica rooms. Notably Goodone who collaborate with Heba Women’s Project, and Lu Flux. Kudos also to Izzy Lane with their beautiful wares and their strong animal welfare message (they use wool from sheep that have been saved from slaughter), extending our concept of equality beyond the human realm.

Britain generates 1 million tonnes of textile landfill every year. Textile recycling companies like LMB in London and I and J Cohen in Manchester collect between 170 and 200 tonnes of unwanted clothes and materials each week! Humans have been ‘upcycling’ since the beginning of time, making do with what’s there and improving it if need be. But it’s only recently that we have the opportunity and need to deal with quite such vast mountains of junk. So having it officially adopted as a fashion movement is a no-brainer, really. Companies will soon be jumping on the bandwagon left right and centre trying to prove that they have included a scrap of reclaimed materials in their collections.

This is why it is important, in my opinion, to remember that this should be an opportunity to move away from normal fashion consumption. One of the reasons I like upcycling is that it means we can be involved in the evolution and life cycle of an object rather than just being consumers of it. The designer also gains a much broader significance. This should definitely be an opportunity to get more people interested and able to partake in the production of clothes, rather than purely their ‘consumption.’

Upcycling, on a small scale, isn’t an expensive venture. Hopefully more people will be inspired to stop looking at products as a finished thing that can be bought, used, then thrown away, whether by DIYing and attending workshops, or supporting designers for whom upcycling and recycling is a central issue. Upcycled fashion is ecologically and socially conscious without being righteous or moralistic. It challenges our perception of waste and shows how it can be transformed into something beautiful and useful. It is a way to reclaim ‘fashion’, rethink our notion of eco-fashion, and bring ecology into yet more creative hands, rather than leaving it as an issue to debate over while scientists, politicians and lobbyists bicker it out to infinity. We don’t have to go far to find these ecological textiles, they are in recycling centres, charity shops, and our wardrobes and cost next to nothing. And second hand sewing machines aren’t hard to find either. For now though, I leave fashion writing well and truly to the pros.

Written by Zofia Walczak on Thursday February 25th, 2010 1:27 pm

Categories ,diy, ,Eco fashion, ,estethica, ,goodone, ,Goodone Clothing, ,Izzy Lane, ,Junky Styling, ,London Fashion Week, ,Lu Flux, ,organic, ,Sewing machine, ,singer, ,Somerset House, ,Sustainable Fashion, ,Tanya Gold, ,The Guardian, ,Upcycling, ,Vanessa Friedman, ,Zöe Barker

Amelia’s Magazine | Sustainable Fashion – an oxymoron?

J Maskrey shone through at London Fashion Week as one of the most individual shows I saw during my time there; no doubt a favourite. Producing a collection of ‘body jewellery’ is no doubt an original idea, abortion but the works of art presented were so much more than that.

Photography throughout courtesy of Camilla Sampson

Illustration courtesy of Jenny Robins

Illustrations by Zoe Barker

Handle_with_care

Make_do

Written by Zofia Walczak on Thursday February 25th, 2010 1:27 pm

Amelia’s Magazine | BP – Beyond Petroleum and head-first into Tar Sands

I have spent the last 12 years of my life, ask with the exception of 4 years at university, price travelling Europe alongside some of the world’s best freestyle rollerbladers with the sole purpose of meeting new people, helping our sport progress and hurting ourselves.