On Paper.

It may be argued that the Developed World’s progressive engagement with environmental concerns – a return to locally hand-made, bespoke economics, re-cycling, upcyling, circular economies, or anti-consumerist campaigning and behaviour for example, comes from a privileged Western stance of ‘enlightenment.’ The decision and ability to ‘opt out’ of things may often be an issue of education, or empowerment, or even ‘entitled’ morals and ethics.

Conversely, in some parts of the developing world, there is more of a need to make do with the resources, materials and skills locally available. And, of course, as we are discovering (again), this tells us something about how we might need to exist.

But to take things to extremes, what if there suddenly wasn’t available all the things that fashion has habitually required to ‘exist?’ What if there was no more aesthetic sensibility, no more fabric, no prints or patterns, no design colleges, no pattern-cutters or garment-construction technicians, no photoshop or visualising software, no trend-forecasters, no photography studios, no stylists, no PR, journalists, or influencers, no magazines or online platforms, no catwalks shows, no shops, and crucially no consumer?

However, what is suddenly ‘not there’ will not lead to emptiness or nothing. Neo-liberalism tells us that any ‘vacated’ space is quickly filled up with new opportunity, stuff, enterprise, markets, relevance and culture.

So, precipitous states of nothingness can, in fact, lead to unique states of complexity, whereby new forms of categorization can expeditiously arise, including different types of association, juxtaposition or connection, different types of language, and different types of personnel.  

So, what new perception or experience would fashion propose or expect from us? How would we move forward from a place where fashion might unexpectedly appraise, admonish, quip, yearn, embezzle, agitate, offend, or venerate us differently?

Thoughts down on paper please.