On Starting Somewhere : E-book excerpt

May 2014 will be the release date of my first E-book: On Starting Somewhere.

The book addresses the phase of entrepreneurship or a creative endeavor before success. This usually means in the midst of failure, or a few failures, that we build ourselves back from. 

This first excerpt is from the introduction, which recounts some of my personal experiences leading to the concept of this book.

Once, in one of my first seasons as a correspondent for a New York based fashion website, I was outside of the Ecole de Medecin near Odéon in Paris, waiting for the Martin Margiela Mens’s Fashion Show to begin. Actually, waiting to even get inside to take a place where I would then wait some more for the show to begin. I was surrounded by fashion heavies and fashion up and comers  and fashion wannabes . I don’t know where I fit in in all of that because in my mind I just didn’t belong there at all. As privileged as I felt to be in attendance, I felt terribly uncomfortable as part of the scene. I wished to be invisible. I wished so much to be invisible. Just to take my place and watch the beautiful show and write my article and store it away in my mind bank of experiences. But I was not invisible. (I am still not). So I stood there, out of place and awkward and unsmiling and tense and trying not to make eye contact with people or stare too long at people who were too obviously dressed with the hope of being stared at. 

From WeAreTheCoolKids (which makes my point for me)

When through the crowd I see the Fed Ex delivery-man. He walks purposefully through the mob of people in between his truck and the door he’s heading towards and I thought to myself: “Why can’t I just be a Fed Ex delivery person?” 

He has a sense of purpose, and at the same time can blend into any setting without self-awareness. His workday consists of a list of tasks just like the day before. An unadulterated comfort zone.

From IBT

I truly believe sometimes that this would make life so much simpler. I am so tormented (it sounds dramatic, but it does feel terribly dramatic a lot of the time). If I could just have a simple job that was the same every day, where nothing will be asked of me tomorrow that I don’t already know how to do today. My God, what a life that would be. 

Would I be bored? Would I wonder: “There must be something else?” Is ignorance bliss? And once tasted, does a life of building and problem solving become your curse? Futile questions. The Boss knows it, too. A Jersey boy looking for more: “There's something happening somewhere, baby I just know that there is.”

And it’s not as if, after gaining a certain amount of experience, the questions stop. With every new day comes a new set of unknowns. There is an evident propensity for tackling these daily impediments within the entrepreneurial class. Otherwise we would not get past day one. But this is also that pivotal moment of no return. We can always take the easy way. And so we ask ourselves: “What am I after?”

...

Copy and Paste Culture: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Well, companies are looking at new ways to capitalize on that flattery: Create or take part in desirable narratives, and make them shoppable. I like to believe that as individuals we make choices reflecting our own desires rather than those of others. But advertisers will be there every step along the way to tell us that our sense of self will be more complete if we buy whatever it is they are selling. And today advertising is so integrated into our sensory experiences that the line between creative content and paid content is practically indistinguishable. Media, which basically runs on advertising dollars, is one of the most vulnerable industries and it has been forced to evolve.

We opted out of commercial breaks only to get our regular programing saturated with product placement. We opted for free access to the news, only to find advertisements and sponsored links scattered like land mines across the page. We have traded transparency for convenience. 

In Hollywood, costume design has always been a great source of inspiration for designers and shoppers alike. And now with the rising legitimization of television alongside film, certain prime time characters are becoming popular sartorial references. With this rise of TV icons, the concept of Shazam-ing (yes, it's ubiquitous enough to be verbified) is being applied to fashion as well. But rather than wait for monthly magazines to tell us where to find the real-people-priced version of Gwenyth's latest red carpet dress, we want the information now. This trend began via shoppable runways, videos (Barneys and Nowness), and online editorials, and is now coming to a TV near you.

Conceptually, shoppable TV is a cool idea. But mostly it raises many concerns. Some of these are brought up in this Fashionista article, like preserving the creative license of the costume designer, a logistically reasonable way to provide the information, and the fact that people aren’t watching shows in real time. Transparency is a real issue in regards to which the format and messaging is key. While it seems like a great tool to know exactly where to go buy that great office wardrobe from the Good Wife, for example, the format of the medium leaves too much ambiguity between the creative prerogative and the sales pitch.

Beyond the ethical issues that would need to be addressed, this idea of prefabricated wardrobes from a celebrity or television character removes the allure of fashion and commoditizes it. It would be one thing if these movies and shows were introducing viewers to designers and products that are hard to find or unknown and ripe for discovery. But the job of costume designers is not to tell you where to shop, it is to develop characters through clothing. And the reality is that most of the sponsored content we see in media comes from big brands and distributors that are accessible to a vast audience because they are the most actionable, and they are backed with the most advertising dollars. 

It begs the question that so often comes to mind as technology tackles new frontiers: Just because we can do it, should we? 

Isn’t it better to take inspiration from what we see, rather than try to replicate exactly? In literature when we copy and paste it is called plagiarism, in art, forgery. In fashion, to copy and paste is not a crime but it does feed a biassed branch of consumerism. Fashion is one of the greatest means of self expression. To curate one’s identity by emulating someone else is to be deprived of that privilege. There will always be a distinction between leaders and followers. The danger here is not in being a follower, but in choosing your leader, and making sure its a person or a cause you truly believe in, not just the one that is convenient.

Three Sectors of Fashion Tech: Distinguishing gimmick from game changer

When we talk about Fashion Technology, what do we mean? There are three distinct sectors that make up the varied initiatives of Fashion & Tech mergence. Each is at a different phase of integration and development, each is pioneered with different intentions and by innovators with different backgrounds, and each affects different groups of people. Technology will eventually be universally employed within the fashion industry to streamline our businesses, our consumption, and our daily lives. For the time being, we are still working through the pain points and residual effects of the early arrivers. We can confidently assume that the most exciting inventions are yet to come, especially in wearables, but also in platforms for B2B and  Listed below, from most to least developed, are the three sectors of Fashion Tech:

From Verve

Online platforms: In both B2B and B2C, online platforms are altering and streamlining the exchange of goods. Net a Porter is a great example of Fashion Technology that was a game changer for the luxury fashion industry. NaP has since spurred the development of flash sale luxury sites (Gilt), luxury garment rental sites (Rent the Runway), and many more online business models. The great feat was to prove that consumers are willing to spend big $$ online, sight unseen. LeNewBlack and Joor are two B2B examples of accessibility between buyers and brands with an integrated ordering system. RewardStyle is a platform that revolutionized the monetization of fashion blogs.

There are also community based fashion platforms such as Polyvore whose success shows that fashion's aspirational culture was craving a creative outlet. It's the idea that you don't need to own all of the items you covet in order to display your fashion sense. The foundation is laid, and more and more commerce will move online. As that happens, the commerce and curation models will blend to create a more engaging experience for the consumer, and a place for the aspirational consumer on what would, in some cases, be an otherwise prohibitive platform.

Experience Creation: This can be anything from how the brand uses Instagram and Facebook to build their following (think Burberry's famously successful use of online), to how they use tablets to enhance the in-store experience. One of the most recent examples of laudable fashion tech mergence is the drone camera live stream from the Fall 2014 Fendi runway. Of the three categories, this is perhaps the most transparently marketing based. Incorporating a high tech element in brick and mortar settings creates a kind of cache because it is still not totally main stream. Many of these efforts remain overtly gimmicky, however these practices will eventually become ubiquitous across all markets form luxury to mass market.

Burberry Shop the Runway shows the video clip of the look on the runway with all of the items, from the outerwear to the nail polish, available for purchase or to 'like' for when it's in stores.

Wearables: This is basically any kind of technology that you attach to your person. The biggest market now is in fitness and health, but there are many other directions being explored. For the time being, wearables seem limited to the categories of eyewear and jewelry items, i.e. wrist watch, bracelet, or ring, 3D printing, and wired clothing, with color changing or LED capabilities, although we are also starting to see some patches, mostly in the medical field. Because we are really in the early stages of wearables, there is a huge amount of work left to do in this category.

From Verve

Wearables are the final frontier because of the incongruent demands of aesthetics and engineering in product design that are more easily overcome with the separation of front and back end design, and the flexibility of experience creation that simply uses technology as a vehicle. That is not to say that all the work as been done in the other sectors, as expressed above. 

Surveys have shown evidence that a great number of people abandon their wearables within three months of purchase. The current momentum will do little to advance the wearable industry if we don't begin to see some truly indispensable products on the market. the hype might actually be detrimental to the growth of the sector if the offering remains so limited.

While it is exciting that designers are starting to team up with engineers on product development, this will mean very little until the functions of the device segue into a seamless lifestyle change, possibly from smart phone to wearable.

Where do your priorities lie? Online platforms? Customer engagement on and offline? Or wearables? Do you see another frontier? We are in a period where questions outnumber certainties. It is a time when big ideas have the room to come into their own. This is the space to think outside of existing parameters, because technology is a tool where anything can be realized and fashion a state of mind where the imagination knows no limits.

Can Fashion Tech Surpass Novelty?

CuteCircuit Jacket

The more buzz that disseminates about the mergence of fashion and technology, the more evidently we see the current priorities of this shift. While we should all be grateful for the brave few who take risks to experiment with the possible directions, most efforts to date feel more like novel ideas than timeless design breakthroughs. It seems that all futuristic designs that come down the runway are either interpreting costumes from Sci-Fi movies, or superfluously incorporating wearable technologies. By treating technology as a novelty, designers are skewing the expectations of what future fashion can be.

So often, directional aesthetics recall too literally the stereotypes of an imagined future. This has been evident over time, as aesthetics of the future evolve with industrial advancements. When new materials are introduced into the market, imaginations take off. Costume design in films is an excellent example of this phenomenon. When lycra was invented in 1958, it became a ubiquitous choice for all superheroes, space travelers, and citizens of the future. Plastic, whose versatility was greatly explored over the course of the 20th century was another protagonist in the aesthetics of the imagined future. Suddenly industrial designers were able to achieve forms and develop constriction methods impossible with natural materials and manual construction methods.

Fashion reflected these changes with the outrageous aesthetic of the space age that I discuss here, but also, in some cases, with subtle acknowledgment in refined, timeless design. This will be design made possible by new fabrics, new finishing techniques, and new closure technology (think about the revolutionary invention of the button! the zipper!) In timeless design, the innovation is in service of the design. In novel design, the design is in service of the innovation. For the most successful, the innovation will be invisible. It will only be recognized through the quality of the experience.

On Aura Tout Vu Runway Spring 2014

Most of the technology we see in fashion today is anything but invisible: It is overtly tech-y. Of the novel things we see today are wearable light shows on the runway: Dresses with pixilated images glowing from the surface and jackets with color changing shoulders (see On Aura Tour Vu Spring 2014 Haute Couture and Cutecircuit RTW). There are mood-sensing garments, changing color when you’re angry, happy or embarrassed. Even within the realm of novelty the effects of literally displaying your emotions seems like a questionable concept. These capabilities could be valuable for specific purposes, including R&D, but will have a hard time becoming mainstream. Even Google glass is too tech-y for it’s own good.

If anything, designing for the future will be about editing, minimizing and streamlining. If we’ve learned anything from the sleek appeal of modern glass architecture, the pleasure of engaging with well-designed user interfaces, and even the aesthetic success of apple products, it is that less is more. The impetus is not for designers to run out and plug in all of their dresses, then film them with drones. The idea is for designers to employ technology to improve the customer experience from discovery to purchasing through to use of the product. We should be thinking of the future needs of the consumer and incorporating that into better practices so that technology is applied with purpose, not superfluity. Put simply: technology should simplify our lives. For the time being, fashion tech is just ‘stuff,’ but if we shift our priorities and think long term, we can tackle greater mysteries and reap greater rewards. 

*As a fashion pragmatist, my main prerogative is to understand and interpret fashion as it is intended for every day use. And so while I use examples of runway fashion, it is with the understanding that these garments are intended for commercial use and to communicate on brand identity. I purport simply that this superficially futuristic aesthetic is misleading and ultimately wasteful. And while I am a believer in the purity of a design vision, I believe that the validity of any design is achieved once it finds it’s audience (paying customers), and not before. (In this, I distinguish fashion from art for art’s sake).

Fashion Journalism : The Departure of Cathy Horyn from the New York Times

Yesterday's announcement of Cathy Horyn's departure, a figurehead of fashion journalism for the New York Times, recalls the news of departing head designers from Europe's leading fashion houses.  In most cases, the designers play a game of musical chairs, a small pool of Creative Directors who move from one house to the next leaving little surprise when the announcements are officially made. 

Suzy Menkes, Cathy Horyn, Sarah Burton and Phillip Treacey | Source: Bacca da Silva via BofF

Names in journalism like Cathy Horyn, Suzy Menkes of INYT (previously IHT), Bridget Foley of WWD, and Vanessa Friedman of the FT, and Eric Wilson now at InStyle to name a few, represent that same enclave but within an industry that has not seen an empty throne in many years. I was too young and unaware to follow the transition into Horyn's reign after the death of Amy Spindler in 2004. Known for her insightful and valued criticism, Spindler laid the path for Horyn's famously sharp words. Now that designers are shutting out any negative criticism, will the paper, much like design houses select Creative Directors with dollar signs in mind, select an even keeled voice to regain and maintain access? Or will they seek to keep an opinionated and potentially controversial critic at the helm? This article in the Star on 'the beleaguered art of fashion criticism is worth a read.

Recent hires John Kolbin from Deadspin, and Matthew Schneier from Style.com are speculatively suggested as successors, but, according the Capital, interviews are being lined up which suggests that these hires in the wake of Eric Wilson's departure were not premonitory of Horyn's decision. For now Suzy Mekes will be the predominant eyes and ears for both INTY and NYT.

In any case this announcement did cause me to realize that I am not familiar enough with today's fashion writers aside from the 'Front Row' set. The current generation of Notables, will soon give way those rising in age and experience. In fact, it's already happening. (Think Hilary Alexander's retirement in 2011 from the Telegraph). It is an evolution worth paying closer attention to, and one that I, for one, am late for. 

I would like to draw a distinction between fashion writers and fashion critics.

While I am familiar with many curent fashion writers, I don't know who the next generation of critics are. In order to critique fashion in a valuable and constructive way, one must understand not only present context and direction of the future, but the history of fashion and of each design house and each designer. Relevance and poignancy are musts for a successful collection, within which the critic can address aesthetic to varying degrees- but it's more than a dance of hemline rhetoric. It's about understanding whether or not the designer was in tune with the climate of the times, which designers are leading us into the future, and which once had, but no longer, their finger on the proverbial pulse. 

These are the critics who bring designers up the ranks and put others sleep. The critics who ask the most of designers in their creative output, and the most of the consumer to apply their own critical eye. Without such critics, fashion looses it's grandeur and its power for social impact because there is no longer a distinction between the good and the bad. It's al lukewarm. Writers are doing more harm than good being agreeable in spite of themselves. 

Good critics are necessary in every industry. They need to be free to express their opinions without fear of repercussion from their employers, despite the potential fallout from the subject of critique. I hope the fact of this dialogue will play a part in the NYT decision. And I hope they will encourage this approach in their new hire, and set an example for future critics taking up the pen.