Clothing has historically played an important role in protecting our privacy, namely by covering up our “private parts.” But it can do even more to protect us. At hacker conference Hope X, designer Becky Stern of Adafruit gave a whirlwind tour of “disruptive wearable technology” — “disruptive” not in the Silicon Valley “oh-my-god-the-iWatch-is-coming” sense but in that it interferes with people’s attempts to invade your physical and virtual space. Instead of defending against lances and swords, this modern armor promises to thwart surveillance cameras, TSA agents, drone strikes, subway crowding, and cellular connectivity.
Images: “The CHBL Jammer Coat is a piece of clothing that enables its user to disappear… The piece is made of metallized fabrics, which are blocking radio waves and shielding the wearer against tracking devices. You are no longer reachable on your mobile phone and no information from your credit card can be captured. The Wave Circle pattern of the fabric gives an illusion of strange multiple body parts, which hides and frees the individual physicality.” Via COOP HIMMELB(L)AU.
Fashion designers are using 3D printing to create garments, shoes, and accessories for their clothing lines.
3D printers follow instructions of computer generated blueprints to create one layer of material at a time until a piece of clothing is fully formed. According to Weburbanist, soles and fasteners aren’t necessary in 3D printed garments because of the architectural specificity of the blue prints; the apparel is designed to fit an individual’s exact measurements.
The materials for 3D printed clothing and accessories are lightweight, flexible, and easy to produce, and Continnuum Fashion, a fashion start-up company, has already recognized the benefits of 3D printing their garments. Continnuum offers customers the option to design their own clothes to be printed in-house. The clothes are printed when the order is placed, so time and materials aren’t wasted.
In the past, when designers go to the trouble of manufacturing a dress, they have to be confident of selling hundreds to make the cost of production worthwhile.
But 3-D printing flips that idea on its head. The technology cuts a designer’s manufacturing costs to zero until a customer has ordered a garment. As a result, designers can now afford to experiment in small batches and sell apparel in limited editions.
FJP: Careful hand-stitching can now be replaced by code. And with Staples now offering mini-3D printers for your own home, does this mean that we’ll be ordering and printing clothes right in our offices? Ehhh. Probably not for awhile.
$1,300 for a hobbyist’s toy isn’t cheap. And that’s not counting the $50 per plastic cartridge holding 320 grams of material (0.7 pounds). Printing is expensive, whether it’s 2D or 3D.
Also, it can take HOURS to print a garment. And according to Mashable, the larger 3D printers necessary to print a full size pair of pants can cost upwards of $14,000. (And I thought ink cartridges for 2D printers were overpriced.) — Krissy
The story of T-post began back in 2004 and the idea of creating an innovative news magazine. Usually when you read the newspaper you do it by yourself, like in the bathroom or at the breakfast table. We thought it would be exciting to try to make the magazine more public in some way.
So we thought; what would happen if we crossed a magazine with a T-shirt? One could print a news article on the inside and use the front to graphically interpret that news story. Just like a traditional magazine but with the cover story on a T-shirt instead. Suddenly the wearer would become a walking and talking headline triggering curiosity and engage in conversations where they themselves could tell people about the story on their chest from their own perspective. Perhaps even start a discussion.
We say: Clever. And if you like who you’re talking with you can invite them inside for a read.
I post this from the coast of Rhode Island where I’ve spent a lot of time (too much time?) this summer. But as the season winds down, a brief history of swimwear.
Until the 1670s women swam in the buff at spas in England. From there, they were literally canvased in attire. Wikipedia quotes Humphrey Clinker’s 1771 description of women’s beachwear:
The ladies wear jackets and petticoats of brown linen, with chip hats, in which they fix their handkerchiefs to wipe the sweat from their faces; but, truly, whether it is owing to the steam that surrounds them, or the heat of the water, or the nature of the dress, or to all these causes together, they look so flushed, and so frightful, that I always turn my eyes another way.
English men did the naked thing until the early 1700s at which point in time the Bath Corporation released an official dress code:
It is Ordered Established and Decreed by this Corporation that no Male person above the age of ten years shall at any time hereafter go into any Bath or Baths within this City by day or by night without a Pair of Drawers and a Waistcoat on their bodies.
In Rhode Island I’ve seen all sorts of suits. For better or worse though, no Borat-style mankinis. — Michael
THE HEALTH INITIATIVE, a pact between the 19 international editors of Vogue to encourage a healthier approach to body image within the industry, is unveiled today in the June issue of Vogue.
"As one of the fashion industry’s most powerful voices, Vogue has a unique opportunity to engage with relevant issues where we feel we can make a difference," editor Alexandra Shulman explains in her editor’s letter, adding that the Initiative will "build on the successful work that the Council of Fashion Designers of America with the support of American Vogue in the US and the British Fashion Council in the UK have already begun to encourage a healthier approach to body image within the industry".
In line with the Health Initiative, the international issues of Vogue jointly pledge - among other things - to “work with models who, in our view, are healthy and help to promote a healthy body image” and to “be ambassadors for the message of healthy body image”.
Among the points that form the pact are that the editors will not knowingly work with models under 16 or who appear to have an eating disorder; that they will ask casting directors not to knowingly send underage models to their magazines; they will help structure mentoring programs so that more mature models can advise their younger counterparts; they will encourage designers to “consider the consequences of unrealistically small sample sizes,” and that they will encourage show producers to create healthy backstage working environments for models.
The new initiative builds on the steps that the Council of Fashion Designers of America and U.S. Vogue have taken, such as the launch of a mentor program for models in 2011, and those of the British Fashion Council and British Vogue, such as the launch of the BFC’s Model Health Inquiry in 2007 and the establishment of a model advisory panel, a meeting of casting directors, stylists and booking editors to discuss model welfare.
Long train commutes make New York one of the most literary cities in the U.S. And because New York as one of the fashion capitals of the world, you have all the ingredients you need for one very stylish documentary project.
For its upcoming issue, Glamour surveyed readers on their thoughts about the digital manipulation of models (and celebrities) that appear in fashion magazine.
Cindi Leive, Glamour Editor-in-Chief, notes that with 70 iPhone apps on the market that let us “retouch” ourselves, more and more of us are more and more comfortable with a bit of digital nip and tuck.
But, she writes, there are limits and Glamour plans “to take a stronger role in setting ours.”
Retouching is like tequila. Sure, a little makes everybody look better. But go too far and you feel like puking. For years now, the media has struggled with how best to strike that pleasantly Cuervo-goggled balance, swinging wildly between science fiction-level Photoshopping and the self-congratulatorily unaltered. But as excessively sweetened-up images have come under increasing scrutiny – and been flat-out banned in extreme cases — the industry is beginning to take its cue from the unlikeliest of sources: its audience. This week, Glamour magazine revealed what happened when it asked its readers “How much is too much?” retouching. And the over 1,000 reader responses paint an intriguing picture of how deep we’re willing to go into the land of altered images.