suite123milano

Call it common sense

Common sense is the non-trendy term for sustainability. In other words, what people call sustainability, we call it common sense.

It is interesting to analyse the notion of sustainability and when it came out, what kind of change it brought up, or what new necessity has awakened. The concept of sustainability was born around the end of the ’80s. Some individuals realised that intense exploitation endangered our planet and future generations’ lives.

Back to the past

If we dig deep into our traditions, we discover that what we call sustainability now was for our grandparents just their way of living. It was their intentional choice, determined by necessity and contingency. But also by being aware of the value of goods, an understanding that each object or garment had specific properties and purpose. Manufacturing offered durable products therefore, almost nothing was wasted. Moreover, for them, objects had a second life.
There was a shared sense of respect, and life didn’t revolve only around consumption.

That’s the education our parents received, but no slogan framed that simple way of life.

Then came the time when fascinated by the consumerist mindset, our parents gave up on their education. Neurotic habits replaced a thoughtful lifestyle. A new ego-centred vision in which we believe we can dispose of nature or people the same as we do with the things we buy. Everything is at our feet – consume and throw away.

We have lived as if nature’s resources were infinite, let’s be honest about it. A very few people questioned it in the past, not the CEOs of corporations for sure.

Sustainability or common sense?

Eventually, we realised that resources are finite, and the world in thirty years will be unlivable. So here comes the term sustainability, sold as the discovery of a new meaningful lifestyle (the one we forgot about).

Well, there’s nothing new. What you call sustainability is just common sense.

Call it common sense Read More »

Accessible all ages

Age and fashion: an erroneous belief

The representation of different ages in fashion eventually had its recognition. You don’t have to hide anymore, in case you ever thought about doing so. Or, perhaps you were waiting for permission to wear specific clothing.

But did we need permission? And, dear brands, do you believe young people could afford expensive clothes?

Take a look at this picture (zoom the bandana print)
We picked this dress from the Spring/ Summer 2015 MM6 – Maison Martin Margiela collection. Not new if we consider the date of its release. But still relevant in terms of the idea the brand promoted, which was fashion-forward.

Age and fashion
MM6 – Maison Martin Margiela Spring/ Summer 2015

Fashion accessible to all ages

The transversal cut of the collection was clear. We ordered it because we loved the concept and felt aligned with it. Also, we personally have that dress in our closet and still wear it. You may be familiar with the notion of timeless fashion, such a discovery. Yes, we’ve always believed that good design was forever.

Around 2022 the concept of fashion without borders such as age, gender, body shape started to be recognised and amplified by fashion brands. But in 2015, it was about being a trailblazer, innovative and creative, by proposing a countercultural message. Now, from pret-a-porter to haute couture, those words and images have flooded fashion communication. So it sounds like something you have to say just to conform.

Indeed, it is interesting to analyse how many labels we place on the boxes we think we belong to. Age – gender – body shape – race, etc. The need to fit in is evident, to belong to a specific category.

When brands highlight labels so often that they all send the same message, authenticity is lost. Eventually it is clear that these labels are a just marketing trend.

Rules are different. Back then, we had designers, and fashion was meaningful. Now marketers pull the strings. And, in a spasmodic search for identity, we need slogans to frame the emptiness.

Accessible all ages Read More »

The curve of understanding

How long does it take to open our eyes?

The case of plastic traces the curve of understanding by showing the conflict between convenience and value.
Plastic was invented in 1920. Around 1960 humans started using disposable plastic profusely. One of the greatest inventions ever. You could use cutlery, plates and cups and throw them away! Likewise, we could use plastic bags and toss them. Well, that’s what disposable means. It just got out of hand, or we didn’t realise that there’s a certain number of people inhabiting planet earth, and we aren’t so good at multiplication.

‘Buy – consume – toss’
The perfect innovation for everyday life, and no one considered any side effects. For about 50 years, at least. Till one day, we realised the oceans are full of disposable plastic. And that by 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans!

So, it took about 60 years to notice that single-use plastic was polluting oceans. Finally, the EU banned plastic in 2021, but the damage is done.
Sixty years to open our eyes. And even now that is known, people do not worry much about that.

Learning the lesson
Will it take us that long for technology too? Since we are kindly invited to change a device every year. Or for furniture? Which, of course, is cheap but made to self-destruct within the shortest time possible.
Or for clothing, because ‘the industry of cheap’ is flourishing! People want more! ‘And who cares if I wear it for less than a season? I’ll throw it away!’

How can a different approach resonate in a world made of beautiful facades or people who don’t care?

It will resonate with a tiny niche of active thinkers who want to make the change. Because they care, they can make a difference.

#formodernhumans

The curve of understanding Read More »

The freedom of buying

Is that real freedom?

“If we don’t become active thinkers, the only freedom we have is the freedom of buying – the freedom to consume.”

We cannot cite the lawyer’s name who said this on a tv programme, but her insight sticks in our minds. She touched on a point that controls every layer of our life.

Take time to reflect
For our society, we have value as consumers. That is the logic behind her statement. We are consumers, and we believe consuming is a gained freedom. And as consumers, we are targeted by credit cards, hospitals, hotels, retailers and so on. Plus, web companies and social media.

This mechanism has been highlighted by the pandemic too.
‘Please, get well and go back consuming.’ Otherwise, the world stops, because modern life revolves 90% around consumption.

Consumption, per se, is not wrong. What is wrong is the blind direction it has taken, the voracious capability of eating up everything. That ignorant way of devouring each product or service without any evaluation. Just because it’s advertised, the brand is popular. Because it’s new, it will work (so throw away the old one).

Overconsumption and the freedom of buying

We over-consume blindly, to the point of harming our planet. Which means that we, humans, aren’t really smart.
Brands, we believe we use them, but the opposite is true. They use us. Our freedom is limited to our consumption.

Active thinkers and thoughtful consuming
Active thinkers consider the long haul, so they consider their actions within a long-term vision. It’s fundamental to become conscious about what we consume and how. Unless we want to discover the consequences of our actions once the damage is a reality.

Now more than ever, we need active thinkers. People who think before consuming. Yes, think. That’s the greatest freedom we have.

The freedom of buying Read More »

Paris Couture Week

Sadness takes it all

Boring was the fil rouge of the Paris Couture Week, to the point of taking a nap. With very few exceptions.

The negative sentiment prevailed.
Paris for couture has always meant creativity at its peak. Maybe clothes you wouldn’t wear every day. Or not even once in a lifetime. But couture was the dream, the beauty of creativity skillfully made.
This time, brands told a flat story of bland uniformity. In order to sell in a difficult moment, they’d rather lose idiosyncrasy. What made them special. The reason we recognize them.

Infused with the fear of losing share, or determined to transform themselves into economic giants, they trampled on their own heritage.

Paris Couture Week
The tedious

Dior: perhaps wearable, but now it looks like many others. In fact, we still see Red Valentino in there more than Dior’s heritage.

Chanel: the DNA seemed watered down.

Gaultier: we understand the collaborations, but where’s the Gaultier spirit?

A partial exception
Schiapparelli: designs weren’t all his ideas, but, at least, the collection was impactful.

The exception

Valentino: this is Couture. Italian creativity.
Suzy Menkes wrote that Piccioli had a strong statement to make: women are not all the same. Yes, definitely. But even more, whatever the body shape he represented, women were dressed with elegance. And now that elegance is not in fashion anymore, that stood out most.

However, the idea of showing diverse body shapes in couture is good. But you may wonder if all those women who bought couture so far had the same silhouette of the models. Of course not! But they bought it anyway! You don’t buy couture if you feel represented, you buy it if you can afford it.

Because that’s what couture is: made to measure – made to order for very few lucky ones.

In the end, we understand this is not a good time for creativity, and lowering the bar is a way to reach the masses. But transforming brands into a blob deprived of any identity makes no sense.

Paris Couture Week Read More »