Co-operative textiles

Ayrshire Weaver's recognised as world's first co-op- "250 years ago, 16 Fenwick weavers signed a document, promising to support one another, work honestly, and charge fair prices."

The Model Agency, Channel 4

It's been a while since the fashion industry has been represented in a thoroughly cold, calculating light on the TV but The Model Agency on Channel 4 tonight reflected the saddest aspects of it.

It was never going to be easy to portray modelling sympathetically because it's the most enraging element of fashion for most of us. Female models are usually very young and the women and girls who are chosen to be models are picked purely for their appearance. That in itself is quite shocking when taken in terms of everyday western existence because appearance may be prevalent but it's rarely the only criteria that has a bearing on our opportunities. The decisions made by the fashion industry (editors, agency bookers, designers etc) keep the perpetual cycle of young, tall, white, rake thin going and individuals usually maintain a denial of their complicity in that perpetuation of norms. That denial is possible because so many different people with different jobs are involved in giving models work that no one can claim to be responsible. Designers need specific (types of) models because they're fashionable, agents need to provide the models designers want, editors need to reflect the catwalk, sell magazines and put models into magazines that readers want to see or emulate or aspire to be.

When it comes down to bare facts a programme on a modelling agency was going to be controversial for many reasons but surprisingly my usual criticisms, the flaws that I already perceive to be verging on unforgivable, weren't the aspect of the show that grated the most. The worst thing about The Model Agency was how very childish the staff at Premier seemed to be. I suppose it's possible that a trick of editing misrepresented the bookers at the agency. It was clear that the remit of the documentary was sensational rather than mundane but quite why it was necessary for so many of the staff to reflect the behaviour of the 16 year olds that they work with was the main question left in my mind. Why was a grown adult who claimed responsibility for the well being of a teenager crying down the phone when the model had clearly had a difficult time alone abroad? Is it regarded as normal in that sector? That she was left to approach the problem in that way when she was obviously as distraught as the model and that the other staff felt it was appropriate did not reflect well on the agency or fashion in general.

I went to Borders on Charing Cross Road today to look at the fashion magazines. I really wanted to look at something Russian but my only option was Vogue and it had most of the same adverts as the October edition of British Vogue. This made me sad because I feel like there's an international homogenisation of fashion going on, like the cultural influence that should be evident in clothing from different places is dissipating and flowing away. I really would like to get a tangible sense of Russian design. In my head there's a small but clear working knowledge of Asian design and Middle Eastern design but I don't have that type of compass for Russian design that came before modernism and Soviet imagery. I suppose that's what is striking about political dominance from the perspective of cultural image, when I think Middle Eastern that essentially means Byzantine Empire. There are obvious differences between designed silhouettes in Italy and Sweden and Japanese designers all have something in common even if it's just that they're surprising to my english eyes but could I make the same statement about Russia? Not right now but hopefully that reference will make itself apparent later.

It's International Blog Against Racism Week and while the google links I have found seem to focus heavily on fandom icons I'm not going to go there. Racism is so apparent in the fashion industry, not only are there far more white models, a view that is widely recognised but it's apparent that the entire business of fashion rests on the disparity between the wealthy white, western countries and other generally non-white nations where the body of the manufacturing of clothing takes place.

There should be more black and Asian models in our magazines and on our catwalks but the fashion industry is weird about physical appearance. It's biases run far beyond the ethnicity of models, it's a thoughtless industry and this is demonstrated in all kinds of ways. Here is a link to a blog post from Threadbared about racist language online and the way it ties into height.

I don't really know what else to say about this, I want to nod my head to IBARW and the importance of the message, particularly when we're talking about international industry, particularly where clothing is concerned because it functions on a foundation of racism, of presenting people in incredibly negative ways and treating them badly. This isn't a surprise, it's bad that it just keeps happening, it's bad that it can't be stopped and it's bad that it's propped up by the various media that cover fashion. Why continue in this vein? Sort it out fashion industry.

I recently had a brief conversation about a Russian interior design magazine that has led me to think about the advantages and disadvantages of international fashion. Someone had brought the magazine into the workplace of an acquaintance and she was struck by the colourful, foreign opulence of the photographs she encountered. The style was entirely unexpected in western kitchens but aspirational for those of a different culture. The sudden culture shock of an aspiration that is at odds with an underlying expectation is rarely discovered in fashion. Although clothes shock they usually do so in the moral sense rather than in a structural or aesthetic way, it is expected that contemporary clothing will push boundaries. Reference to culture is appropriated with such regularity that often features created in one society cannot be traced to an individual nation with any ease. We are used to photographs of men in large hats wandering through Red Square and that is our vision of Russian clothing in the west.

It is initially surprising that clothes created by Russian designers can be read with such easy familiarity. The designs are similar to those we see in ready to wear fashion and the more expensive high street shops. At present the most readily available and most heavily publicised brand is Kova&T, stocked by Harvey Nichols and gaining a lot of press attention at the moment. The clothes are co-designed by Dasha Zhukova who is of Russian ethnicity but went to school in Los Angeles and her work has clearly been influenced by international fashion rather than her home culture. In a sense that is what makes Sunday's Observer article so odd. Nationality in 2007's fashion industry is an extremely ineffective way to group and explore the designs that are being produced. Designers are generally influenced by their own industry, the trends of a specific season, the success of a fashion house, the designer or house they have worked for, only in rare cases do specific cultural norms come into the frame, that is why Olowu is so exciting. In that sense it is to be expected that there is very little to link the clothes of Kira Plastinina with those of Dasha Zhukova. That their fathers made a lot of money is their common ground and as The Observer points out Plastinina - dubbed the leading light of the new 'spoilt bratski' generation - opened a chain of shops last year with a gift of £50 million from her father.

Kira Plastinina's website is written in Russian rather than English. Her clothes are reminiscent of Harajuku or Topshop rather than the muted tones and stylings of Kova&T, this makes them no better or worse but it does suggest that even in simply looking at the clothes the suggestion of national background is useless.




Viv Groskop’s article basically tells us that people in a geographical area are emulating and aspiring to be designers and the fashion industries darlings. Igor Chapurin is apparently Moscow’s Tom Ford and his clothes are built by people in the media, lawyers, bankers, the same type of people who buy this price range in the UK, so shoppers in Moscow spend money in the same way as people in London. Alla Verber was a buyer and now she’s apparently bringing luxury to Moscow but I’m not sure how because it’s never clearly stated. Groskop has penned three articles and slapped them together, one about designers of Russian ethnicity, one about consumerism in Moscow and one about fashion culture and the way it’s changing in Russia’s cities. I would like to know what Verber does, more about the clothes that Zhukova and Plastinina design, anything concrete about Chapurin but this is an article that doesn’t work because it is about the Russian fashion industry. There is no Russian fashion industry, at this kind of level there is only an international fashion industry with Russian designers, buyers and journalists and the way that this is effecting the consumerism in some parts of the country.

Incidentally a cleaner article, lacking a lot of the assumption inherent in the Observer's and bringing across similar points was published in The Times and apparently written by Donatella Versace today.

Yulia Tymoshenko is possibly best known for her highly fashionable wardrobe. It is unusual for her type of clothes to be worn in a political environment and this has given her an international notoriety that most Eastern Europeans certainly never achieve. I think this has afforded us the space to reconsider the approach that is taken towards dress by most female politicians. The accepted baseline is always conservative clothing, nothing too risky, kept as close to menswear as possible in order to accentuate the more masculine elements of personality. People who reveal themselves as too feminine, Theresa May, Jacqui Smith, are more likely to be criticised than regarded as fashionable. It often feels like female politicians are opening themselves up for a world of sexist pain if they dare to wear half of the clothes available in Marks and Spencer, never mind any other shops. However the perception that they have pushed it too far in order to look good is wildly inaccurate, if they really were wearing tremendously fashionable clothes, the type that can be recognised by the most incompetent among us then they would clearly come in for less criticism.

Tymoshenko's clothes are better, more exciting and beautiful than any British female politician's. Even the younger women who go into politics don't bear any comparison and that's not because they have less money. They just don't seem particularly interested in the way that they look. Political hair among the women of this country is dire, even those with good haircuts like Sarah Teather lean towards the thoroughly conservative. Tymoshenko takes great care of her appearance generally, she would never allow her hair to be styled like Theresa May's, she clearly has her fingernails manicured. Originally I wanted to write a comparison, unfortunately the only viable and consistent comparison on the level of dress seemed to be with Laura Bush (who does not have a career as a politician), who also has an ability to choose clothes cut to a very high standard.



Hilary Clinton is perhaps the next best comparison to make. Again she has hair problems, women appear to get to a certain point in their lives and western hairdressers start giving them very specific haircuts with matching colour jobs. Clinton has always had atrocious hair, in no way does it stand up to the record set by Tymoshenko whose hair has never been objectionable, even if it sometimes comes across as boring. Clinton does know how to choose her jackets though, they fit well and they often have good collars, which is true of Yulia Tymoshenko's jackets as well.



There aren't any competitors in English politics, tidying up Theresa May is the best option available and although she will never be as glamorous, as well kept she will choose interesting clothes. The press should stop criticising female politicians for wearing what they enjoy, it's difficult to choose items that are formal, interesting and suit bodies that are not as petite as Tymoshenko's and some of our politician's have been doing an okay job of it, even if their garments aren't as enthralling as I would like.

Men's fashion writing is quite simply excrutiatingly humiliating. While women's fashion writing isn't exactly the height of intelligence it doesn't quite manage to be as derogatory, doesn't force as many unoriginal novelty pieces into a space that can't hold them effectively. If I begin with examples than perhaps my position will be clarified easily. 8 Men's Fashion Mistakes to Avoid is the most obvious of these. Mistakes include socks and sandals, novelty ties and underwear and 'blaring' designer labels. The author Daniel Billett, who I would guess is a career writer rather than a person interested in clothing, then goes on to start insulting practical measures that a man might adopt. Apparently carrying a backpack to the office is a fashion mistake and wearing loose clothes is wrong. Now I would say that any man who actually thinks about the clothes that he wears avoids at least 6 of the "mistakes" that Daniel Billett took the time to think up, possibly while watching television, eating his dinner and typing with one hand. It seems fundamentally insulting that this could be published as advice anywhere. If "he understands what wearing clothes for real life situations is all about" than why is he focusing partly on the foolish and partly on perfectly acceptable but clearly personal dislikes? His work is embarassing because it's so simplistic, despite being a man he treats other men like incompetents by putting this kind of thing together and god alone knows who else thought this was an ingenious article.

Men's Flair is a little better. It treats men as if they are people who are interested in the clothes they put on rather than incompetents who need to be told not to wear Homer Simpson ties. I think it can be taken as read that if you're wearing a novelty tie you know it looks silly and feel good and confident about that. Men's Flair does occasionally churn out nonsense, here is a piece on male fashion icons. The chosen two are JFK and George Clooney, both are well dressed and will always be perceived in that way but the site fails to indicate why these men are style icons rather than two interesting celebrities. Men's Flair needs to go into more detail, the writers need to sit down and think about the exact reasons why they would choose brown boots over black boots, George Clooney over Denzel Washington and really highlight what it is about certain subjects that make them special. This is almost the opposite of Daniel Billett's problem, he treated his audience like they understood nothing, the writers at Men's Flair seem to think their audience understand their motivations without explaining them. The writing is certainly of better quality, this isn't a gimmick, the people who write here are motivated to write about clothes even if it's not fleshed out properly. I wouldn't pick this site out as a good example of online fashion writing but it's not appalling and doesn't assume that men know nothing about items they encounter everyday.

Of all the sites I've looked at in the last few days I would probably pick Stylezilla by Chris, which unfortunately is updated rarely. It's American, most menswear sites appear to be and it's purely about clothes. The run down and commentary is pretty good, it's clearly aimed at men who work in smartly dressed environments but what it does it does well. The entire site isn't an advert, it isn't trying for masculine irony, generally you could read it and feel like you were engaging with someone who has an honest enthusiasm for fashion.

I am not obsessed with eyebrows but they are quite clearly extremely important if you are interested in fashion and appearance. The shape of the eyebrow restructures the face, this is never more clear than when you look at photos of Liz Hurley. Even if she's had work done (which is neither here nor there) her eyebrows make her face look different.



This is not about Liz Hurley though, this is again about political fashion and I specifically want to talk about the eyebrows of the Chancellor, Alastair Darling.



I wouldn't want Darling to dye his hair and eyebrows to match, they make him recognisable when so many polticians are forgettable, but in a world where women are constantly criticised for their appearance it seems rather unfair that he escapes with so little comment on his decision. Indeed many male politicians are given a get out of jail free card where their appearance is concerned while their female counterparts are roundly objected to. Jacqui Smith apparently shows too much cleavage, this is reported by The Times, The Sun and The Daily Mail. Alastair Darling's eyebrows don't match his hair but this only comes up (affectionately) on the Labour website and Yahoo Answers. Google gives me one national media reference and it is in a column that Darling wrote himself. I really think that if we're going to comment on the physical appearance and attributes of politicians, actually comment on their bodies and the choices they make about dressing and adapting them then it shouldn't be restricted to female politicians but broadened. In fact I would appreciate it if there was a little more commentary on just how boring and disenchanting the clothing of male politicians is, they may spend on suits but have you seen their casual wear?