Fast-Fashion or Fast Destrution?

Fast Fashion or Fast Destruction?

            Over several decades, there has been a controversial debate about the true cost of fast-fashion pieces versus investment pieces. Consumers have longed to dress in designer garments that they have seen modelled on celebrities, athletes and royalty. However, the issue has always been the high-cost of these unique pieces and the ability to actually purchase them. With this consumer base, fast-fashion retailers then thrive on the opportunity to copy these original designer garments, have them on the shelves within 1-2 weeks and sell them for a fraction of the price. Unfortunately, this has its pros and cons to the industry and effects it in many ways in which we will look at both consumer sides of this debatable topic.   

            In the late 1990’s, the idea of fast-fashion came into the market as promoted by brands such as the Gap, Nike and Adidas. Today, our fast-fashion market is dominated by 3 retailers: H&M, Zara and Forever 21. According to Investopedia, “Fast-Fashion” is defined as, inexpensive designs that move quickly from the catwalk to stores in order to meet new trends. These designs are usually known as, fads and have a short lifespan in the fashion industry. This includes certain colours, patters, graphic designs and clothing with sayings on them. This benefits many consumers to purchase these pieces at a lower cost while still being able to re-create these celebrity looks instantly. Who wouldn’t want to look like Kendall Jenner in a big, bright, red puffy coat? For those who want to update their wardrobe or keep up with these rapid trends, fast-fashion retailers are the absolute goldmine for this demand. Fads come off as intriguing, unique and daring and it allows for that quick craving to be bold and trendy while it’s in the market and on the streets. From a marketer’s stand point, fast-fashion lets for a broader market to support the industry and designer’s pieces with wearing similar or mimicked styles from the original collection. This is seen greatly H&M and Zara, as they have been controversially known for copying pieces from Gucci, Alexander Wang and Celine.

           

On the other hand, fast-fashion has been under fire for copyright infringement of these original designer pieces. With consumers buying these widely available pieces, original designers lose recognition at times for the work that they have spent months on. In addition, it devalues the original pieces when consumers know that they can purchase a replica or “copied” piece for a fraction of the price.

            Back in the 1990’s when mass-produced styles were becoming the successes and mainstream for retailers, Nike and Gap were widely criticised for using sweatshop labour to keep up with the demand of their products. Fast-fashion retailers are able to offer these low-prices by using cheaper materials that are manufactured overseas, typically around Asia, India and South America. In order to duplicate a current trend at a rapid pace, these retailers subcontract with the lowest bidder overseas. According to an article on Lifehack by Kate Wood, companies, such as Forever 21, would rather have a short-term relationship with these manufacturers in case they need something produced more rapid and so they do not have to sign any long-term contracts. These manufacturers may convert certain materials or designs from original pieces into less expensive fabrics or print designs instead of embroidery to lower the cost. Moreover, these pieces are designed to be made easily, quickly and mass produced to keep up with retailer and consumer demand. Not only do these pieces have a short life-span in the industry, but they also do not last long quality-wise. By providing business overseas, it contributes to the decline in Canadian and U.S manufacturing and rather, promotes sweatshop labour in third-world countries.

            Fast-fashion has also received criticism for its disastrous measures towards the environment. The issue is a result of people constantly disposing used, and unused, clothing. According to a Huffington Post article on May 3^rd, 2014, the average American throws out approximately 68 pounds of clothes per year, rather than donating it to a second-hand shop. Because most fast-fashion garments are made with inexpensive, petroleum-based fibers that don’t easily breakdown, they will take many years to disintegrate and will add to the pollutants that are currently in the earth. Unfortunately, even if you donate used clothes to charity, nearly half of the donations directly go to textile recyclers, which contributes to coal pollutants and water waste during the manufacturing process. Moreover, the fast-fashion business has put a strain on the recycling business of clothing due to the lower quality of clothing and second-hand stores throwing it away because it is not in re-sellable condition.

            The prices of fast-fashion may intrigue you to buy a $50.00 coat from Zara, over a designer one, such as Canada Goose, that looks similar for $800.00; however, there is a cost to everything. Although the cheaper price of a garment seems much more inclining to buy, the risk of purchasing it is the poor quality and therefore, the frequency of having to replace it for every time it breaks down. In contrast, when you buy that winter jacket that’s $800.00 instead, you increase the worth of the purchase you made, which results in better quality and longevity, rather than having to purchase that $50.00 jacket over several seasons to come. In the end, the cost may be lower, but time and money being wasted outweighs the designer jacket by a long shot.  

This is not fast-fashion, but it’s investing in fashion by buying pieces that will remain in your closet for any occasion at any time. It’s the relief that the price tag represents its stretch in the value of what you are tapping into. Literally. Yes, fast-fashion distorts your sense of value. Nowadays, people easily drop $10.00 or more on gluten-free and low-calorie lunches, but hesitate to buy a garment that’s truly worth the price its selling for. We get so lost in the dollar signs and sale signs, that we are unaware of the value of what we are buying and with so many options to compare to. So, yes, it’s okay to spend a few extra dollars on that designer coat you’ve been dying for, because it’s going to last you a lifetime. It’s okay to indulge. It’s okay to see the value. And it’s okay to hesitate and be doubtful. But, yes, it’s okay to tap in and make that Goose jacket all yours.

To Fur or not To Fur

To Fur or not To Fur

What exactly is the question we should be asking?

            “Fur!” What feelings and emotions come to mind when you think of this word? Do you imagine yourself wearing the latest luxury piece that just came off the runway from Chloe, does it fill you with excitement and elation to picture yourself walking down the street wearing such a piece? Or does the word fill you with dread and disgust to envision yourself wearing something that was once on the backs of an innocent animal.

              Fur has played a dominant role in the fashion industry, it is a fabric that helps designers express original and ground-breaking designs, and it is seen as a major essential down the runway for many designers. However, history also shows how fur has been shunned and rejected by many people, those in the fashion industry and even those who are not are opening their eyes and seeing the price they are paying for a new coat, or a designer handbag, and I can assure you it is not the price tag that takes a heavy toll.

            In the past, fur was traditionally seen as a source of warmness and security for many people. For centuries, animals were killed for their meat as a means of survival, they would then use the pelts as a realistic and robust material to protect them from the harsh environment, nothing else provided them with such a degree of warmth that it was seen as invaluable. But, then the 20^th century rolled around and people started using the same fabrics that were once used as their only source of survival, are now using the same fur as a luxury item in the fashion industry. It turned into a fabric that envisions wealth, it had a heavy price tag but was also very desirable, and because of this the fur industry started to grow until it had its own major empire to command.

             Animal rights and anti-fur activists remain unbending, which is a cruel and unethical practice that violently slaughters millions of animals per year, and such an act should be banned and considered illegal to commit such a treasury. I have a friend who works for PETA (People for the ethical treatment of animals), I asked her opinion on this issue and she told me she understands why some people may choose to wear fur for its warmth and protection if you live in cold climates, but in this day and age, it is not necessary to invest in something that requires an innocent life to be killed, there are so many faux furs out there that offer the same degree of warmth as a real fur coat. I dove into the vast web and found a lot of information pertaining around the topic of “fur” and “fashion.”

Electrocution

             It doesn’t make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside when you discover that it is a normal practice for slaughter houses to use electrocution as a method of massacring animals, this painful and agonizing process became popular due to its limit of damage to the fur.

Fur Factory Farms

            85 per cent of the fur industries skins come from fur factory farms, disgusting and filthy places where thousands of animals are usually kept in tiny, wired cages for the duration of their entire lives. To cut costs, animals are shunned into unbearably tight and rigid quarters.

It’s raining cats and dogs

            China is widely known as a thriving cat and dog industry, these animals that are seen as everyday pets to us, are seen as just fur to others. These poor creatures are bludgeoned, beaten, hung and even skinned alive for their fur. Individuals may not be aware that it is a common practice to mislabel fur and mislead consumers into believing that what they are buying is not what they are in fact receiving.

Harming the environment

            After the animal has been killed, the skin is treated with toxic chemicals meant to keep the fur from rotting in the buyer’s wardrobe. This hazardous process is such an issue that the fur industry is now ranked as one of the world’s worst industries for toxic-metal pollution.

           

            However, when there is an issue like this there is always another side to the problem. Some people have taken to saying that using fur is a better option then investing in “Faux Fur,” people argue that animals are an important part of a lot of societies' lives, they are linked to essential products such as medication, food, and clothing, you can even find animal products in some of your beauty products. Animals are used for medical testing to find cures for life threatening illnesses, they are also used for testing for the beauty products you wear every day. A large percentage of the population still eats meat, so exactly how is this different from people investing in furs and leather? I found some reasons why people may decide to choose fur over faux.

Sustainable

            Synthetic furs are not bio-degradable, they are made from petroleum by-products, which is not renewable. But animals are renewable and sustainable.

Long-lasting

            Faux furs may spend decades sitting in a land fill, but will not be sitting in your closet for anywhere near that amount of time. Real furs on the other hand are known to last decades, and have been passed down through generations, that just shows how long a real fur coat can survive before it finds its way to the trash.

Environmentally friendly

Real fur does require chemicals for processing, but so does synthetic furs. At least with real furs you can be sure that it is a staple in your closet for decades, it is a better option in the long run where the environment is concerned.

Source of warmth

Fur has been a source of protection from the elements for hundreds of years, people have turned to it because of its ability to protect against the frigid cold, it is even known to be waterproof. People argued that nowadays, there are alternatives that do not involve slaughtering animals, but can synthetic fur truly keep you as warm and dry as real fur?

    Take a moment and go back to the beginning of this article, how does the word “fur” make you feel now?

Does the concept of ugly-beauty progress the fashion industry?

Ugly-beauty; an oxymoron if you will. The official definition of ugly, is unpleasant or repulsive, especially in appearance.  Whereas beauty is a combination of qualities that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight.  Quite funny how this concept can be intertwined with fashion, where beauty is traditionally the main goal.  Throughout history, fashion has always been a form of self-expression.  It allows people to portray themselves visually; to express their likes, hobbies, and personality just by the way they dress – usually trying to obtain a sense of beauty.  Nowadays, fashion has evolved into more than just the traditional sense of beauty, it can be anything that expresses one’s own personal style, aesthetic, and as a form of self-expression.  There are brands like Rick Owens and Idle Hands, who take concepts that wouldn’t be considered as conventional beauty, and create designs that has produced success for the brand from their unique and interesting styles.  Although, are these unconventional styles pushing the boundaries of the fashion industry or simply making a mark as a fad?  There are large fashion houses like Saint Laurent and Chanel that take on a more traditional sense of beauty in fashion with more classier aesthetics, that enabled the brand to be integrated in fashion for decades.  The concept of ugly-beauty ultimately comes down to an individual’s own preference when it comes to clothing.  So even if a brand’s image and unique product offering may offer something different, how long will these unconventional styles stay relevant and make an impact in the industry? Taking a look at different fashion brands and how they incorporate ugly-beauty within their aesthetic, as well as traditional brands that have been in the fashion industry for decades, will establish a sense of how the concept of ugly-beauty has changed fashion and how it has become a dominant force in the modern fashion industry.

Ugly-beauty can be interpreted in many different ways.  Looking at Rick Owens, a high-end avant-garde brand, doesn’t cater towards the traditional sense of beauty but appeals to many individuals due to the interesting silhouettes and fabrics.  Rick Owens takes unique, experimental shapes and design when constructing clothing to garner a new-found aesthetic, which arguable may not be beautiful to some.  When speaking to Josh Emmanuel, the owner of grunge accessories brand, Idle Hands, who is also the designer and art director for Kollar Clothing, about his thoughts on the concept of ugly-beauty in modern fashion, he mentioned how it’s been refreshing for him as he carves his own place in the fashion industry, as this acceptance of the beautifully broken mind allowed him to embrace the source of his creativity; his inspiration as a designer and brand owner has come from his own struggles of mental health issues, suicide, and substance abuse. He also notes that there was a noticeable shift towards more unconventional standards of beauty, as it moves away from the idea that the fashion industry needs to show perfection. By straying away from this unsustainable notion of perfection, has allowed the industry to be more creative, and more importantly, it has allowed the fashion industry to be more accessible. Additionally, he mentioned his take on if the ugly-beauty concept is now integrated in fashion or is just a fad.  He predicts that fashion’s acceptance of this concept is irreversible due to the politically correct environment we live in, and how this movement brings some realness to the fashion industry that it lacked before; it’s about time that the airbrushed “beauty” associated with old fashion industry is ditched in favour of a more realistic approach to fashion.  This helps shows how the concept of ugly-beauty has not only created more interesting take on fashion styles and aesthetic, but also pushes the boundary of the industry changing any notion of what true beauty is.

In contrary, large fashion houses like Saint Laurent and Chanel, have been in the fashion scene for decades and continues to dominate luxury fashion.  Due to their classic silhouettes and well-known names, it garnered them a solid consumer base that continues their success.  Saint Laurent and Chanel experimental designs in their product line haven’t been targeted towards an ugly-beauty approach compared to Rick Owens and Idle Hands, which may be a factor in their success for all these many years. This classic approach to fashion, with flattering silhouettes and quality fabrics, is a main attributer to their success.  Saint Laurent’s approach to ready-to-wear focuses on the idea that the clothing made for the catwalk is less about sales and more about image, “It’s luxury but super basic items such as tailored jackets, bikers, bombers, denims, which are quite rare in the current market.  We attribute its success to this” in the words of creative director of Restir Inc. Maiko Shibata, reported by Business of Fashion’s Robin Mellery-Pratt (March 5, 2015).  Additionally, according to the same March 5 article by Business of Fashion’s Mellery-Pratt, Hedi Slimane’s Saint Laurent shows consist of over 50 looks of desirable, on-trend pieces – all exceptionally wearable, saleable, and aesthetically consistent.  This shows that a brand pushing a classic and simple aesthetic, can ultimately drive sales and build a loyal consumer base due to its wearable, timeless products – although not necessarily pushing the boundaries of the fashion industry in terms of accessibility and acceptance.

Whether taking the ugly-beauty approach that some fashion companies are pursuing as their own personal aesthetic, or the timeless, simple look that these large fashion houses have been using, both methods have established these brands to make an impact in the industry and build success on different levels.  The uniqueness of a brand’s product that is aesthetically exclusive and unconventional to the traditional sense of beauty, has pushed the boundaries of fashion and beauty to create something bigger and original.  This undeniable not only garners sales for the company, but helps progress the fashion industry as a whole. 

Fighting the Good Fight: How Uncle Otis Brings Sustainable Practices to its Menswear Buying

It’s no secret that the fashion industry is a destructive force on our planet. While there aren’t any quantifiable statistics publicly available to back the following claim up, the fashion industry is widely cited as the second largest polluter in the world, behind the oil industry. Regardless of its exact place on that undoubtedly dubious podium, most of us are aware of the general impact of the fashion industry. Still though, some facts bear repeating, as they are eye-opening. 

In a 2017 panel discussion in New York, Nate Alden (senior fellow at the World Resources Institute) shared that the best estimate for the amount of Greenhouse Gases generated by the apparel sector is around 5%. While that number isn’t initially shocking, what brings it into clearer focus is that 5% figure is roughly equal to the entire greenhouse gas output of Russia, or the entire aviation industry. Another troubling statistic is regarding synthetic fibres used in our clothing, and how they end up in our environment. According to a study performed by the University of California at Santa Barbara in 2017, synthetic fleece garments release approximately 1.7 grams of microfibres every wash. These fibres end up in our streams, lakes and oceans, where they are easily consumed by fish and fowl. Compounding this issue is the fact that we are trending toward even more consumption of fashion. According to a report commissioned by the Global Fashion Agenda in 2017, we are expected to consume a shocking one hundred million tonnes of fashion in 2030, up 63% from 2017. 

How then do we curb this astonishing impact on our planet? One way, according to Vincent Lai, General Manager and Head Buyer at Uncle Otis, a contemporary menswear store in Toronto, is to purchase clothing that is made to last instead of following the current trend of disposable fashion. “It’s something that I definitely try to be aware of,” he said, when asked if a garment’s durability impacts his decision to purchase it for the store, “not only in terms of the construction and fabrication, but the styling as well.” 

Indeed, when you look around Uncle Otis’s new Chinatown location, there are many pieces that look as if they could have been produced 50 years ago. Even Maharishi, a British streetwear brand with very adventurous styling, has had a cult following for over twenty years. “While our price point is higher than any of those fast fashion brands,” Lai said, “we’re confident that these pieces are worth the investment.” 

Many of the brands that Uncle Otis carries practice environmentally conscious methods. These are present in the materials that are used for construction, and most of the lines that the shop carries are composed of natural fibres like cotton and wool. Monitaly, another line that the store carries, opts to use Vancloth on many of their outerwear pieces. Vancloth, is an extremely tightly woven cotton sateen that was once a staple of military technical gear. The idea is that the weave is so tight that water droplets cannot get in, but because it’s a cotton fabric, it’s still highly breathable. This fabric was good enough for the majority of the world’s armed services for decades, yet the majority of garment producers abandoned it in favour of synthetic fibres. 

In addition to using organic cottons and hemps, the aforementioned Maharishi also repurposes military surplus garments and fabrics for their own pieces, using the repurposed fabric for pockets, linings, and other notions. Because the founder of the brand, Harvey Blechmann is a pacifist, all former military materials are blessed in a traditional Hindu fashion, stripping them of any residual evils associated with their time in the military. 

In addition to buying from brands dedicated to durability and lessening their environmental impact, Vince tells me that Uncle Otis also buys from brands that are socially responsible as well. “We strive to buy from brands that are committed to ethical manufacturing,” he tells me. “Wings and Horns is all made in their facility in Vancouver; all of Oliver Spencer & Universal Works’ stuff is made ethically in Portugal; Eastlogue is all done in California; …we have brands made all around the world, but the common denominator is that they all have ethical and transparent manufacturing practices.”

So how can we curb humanity’s destructive path that we wreak upon our world? The first step is awareness. We must be conscious about the potential impact of our purchases. We must ask the tough questions so we may understand what goes into the garments we purchase. As much as possible, we must try to buck the trends of fast fashion and buy goods that are made to last, and aren’t styled with inherent planned obsolescence. As consumers, we could do much worse than follow the example that Uncle Otis has set.