PhD

Remixing the fashion commons

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

This is a guest post that I wrote for the blog of Digital Transformations, a research network exploring digital transformations in the creative relationships between cultural and media organisations and their users. It outlines my thoughts after attending the second of a series of academic workshops on this subject.

At Friday’s workshop the discussion touched on fashion’s approach to intellectual property and how it is different to that of other cultural sectors. (For instance, it was mentioned that in a Guardian webchat the previous evening, Clay Shirky had mentioned that there is no copyright in fashion, but that this had not deterred fashion designers from producing creative designs).

This is an interest of mine: the theoretical part of my PhD on fashion, making and well-being hangs on the idea of fashion being a commons, or a shared cultural resource. I describe the fashion commons as consisting of the huge diversity of dress and garment styles, shapes, fabrics and details from different geographical areas and historical periods. Fashion depends on this broad, varied, vibrant resource, because new fashions involve existing styles revisited, recombined or recontextualised. In ‘Material Culture in the Social World’, Tim Dant describes how fashion ‘acts as a living museum’ and ‘plays promiscuously with the past’, reviving elements from the commons and layering them with new meanings.

The fashion industry is only able to use this commons because of the minimal legal protections that exist for its creative design. The industry actively protects its trademarks, such as brand names and logos, but the design of garments cannot be ‘owned’. In their paper on fashion and IP in the USA, Jenkins and Cox state that because garments are considered ‘useful articles’ by the courts, they are not protected by copyright. There is a similar situation in the UK; while designers have some protection through design right, in practice no-one can own elements like a sleeve shape or a striking silhouette.

Effectively, as Cox and Jenkins say, ‘designers are free to borrow, imitate, recombine, transform and share design elements’. New designs are built on archetypes and previous styles; appropriation and modification are inherent to the fashion design process and entirely legal. This is a striking contrast with the worlds of music, literature and film – at the workshop we heard many examples of how the sampling or remixing of existing content can breach copyright law.

The downside of this lack of protection is the copying which is common practice in high street fashion. I have had my own knitwear designs ripped off by a number of retailers, and found it to be a distressing experience. Although I was successful in gaining recompense in the most extreme case, as I had formally registered my design, most designers know that if you make a few tweaks to a copy then it is very difficult to argue legally. So, I’m a defender of the fashion commons, but complain about copying – isn’t that a contradiction?

I don’t think so – for me, there is a definite difference between remixing and copying. Copying is cynical, lazy and a waste of the talents of the designers our art colleges train every year. Remixing connects us with each other by reviving and recombining things that we recognise, in a new cultural context.

Cox and Jenkins suggest that fashion’s intellectual property regime could provide a model for other sectors. Although I’m no expert, I think I agree. The ‘big picture’ argument for copyright protection is that it enriches the commons, and ensures that creators are sufficiently rewarded to keep creating new content. However, the stories from film, music and literature suggest that the commons are being denied lots of new, remixed material. James Boyle argues that information products are made of fragments of other information, and the increase of protection reduces the supply of these fragments: a cultural ‘Tragedy of the Anticommons’.

Putting these weighty thoughts to one side, I’ll finish by thinking more specifically about the Digital Transformations project, which is (like me) interested in communities of amateur enthusiasts producing innovative material. My particular focus is on amateurs making, and re-making, their own clothing. Just like professional designers, amateur designer-makers can ‘remix’ the fashion commons. Even makers using patterns, which might seem to be prescriptive, can make their own combination of design elements. Patterns are often designed to allow users to choose from various options and features, and makers also branch out to create adaptations not suggested by the pattern, gathering inspiration from all over the place: films, high street shops, catwalks, vintage clothes, street style and so on.

In writing this post, I was reflecting on the other key aspect of the project: the traditional cultural organisations which are starting to engage with amateur producers. I realised that there are very few cultural organisations focusing on fashion and dress; off the top of my head, I can only think of the V&A and the Fashion and Textile Museum. These are isolated examples of institutions that have an interest in encouraging amateur communities to produce their own fashion; most of this activity is carried out by individual designer-makers, like me.

We are far outnumbered by the corporate entities which design, manufacture, sell and promote fashion – all of whom have a vested interest in keeping us as passive consumers. So, although fashion may have a relaxed approach to intellectual property, which could be rewardingly explored by amateur producers, there are few organisations around encouraging anyone to do so.

Category:

Online/offline knitting

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

This is a guest post that I wrote for the blog of Digital Transformations, a research network exploring digital transformations in the creative relationships between cultural and media organisations and their users. It outlines my thoughts after attending the first of a series of academic workshops on this subject - details here.

I came to the Production and Creativity workshop exercising a sort of double-think. Yes, this day is totally for me, I thought – the agenda seemed to address many issues I’ve been thinking about recently. I am a ‘professional’ knitwear designer-maker often producing projects and workshops with and for ‘amateur’ participants, sometimes on behalf of cultural organisations. My PhD research centres around my practice, exploring how a designer-maker can support knitting activity by others with the aim of encouraging more positive experiences of fashion. So, I was interested in the themes of the workshop, and in particular ‘the role of the professional producer as they find themselves in a community of enthusiast producers, fans, and other practitioners’.

Simultaneously, I felt like a bit of an imposter – I have no specific interest in digital creativity and online environments, beyond my own Twitter activity, website and blog. Would I have to imagine that all my offline projects take place online to take part in any meaningful discussion?

It wasn’t really until my journey home to Hereford that I was able to reconcile these thoughts. On reflection, I realised that the first talks by David Gauntlett and John Naughton had demonstrated that changes in media (broadcasting to mass participation, towers to platforms, scarcity to abundance) are changing the whole cultural landscape. I would argue that this new landscape affects the context within which we act, even if our actions are entirely offline. It engenders a growing expectation of, and desire for, individual creativity. Knitting has been practised as a creative pastime for centuries, always subject to cycles of popularity. This new environment may be one factor in the recent resurgence of hand knitting as a leisure activity.

Furthermore, if a community of interest finds its home online, as the knitting community has rather convincingly done through Ravelry, that affects the experience of knitting. Lots of knitters now connect with others via Ravelry and knitting blogs and discuss their own niche interests. Even if you do all your knitting independently and offline, or use online knitting resources as a lurker, rather than an active contributor, you are connected, by association, with digital transformations.

This realisation, plus several conversations during the day, made me realise how the fluid the boundary is between online and offline life. So, happily, no pretence was required on my part; both offline and online experiences were considered ripe for discussion. Offline activity can be framed and inspired by online conversations and information; online connections can continue offline experiences. It seems to me that the issues around participation, cooperation and expert/amateur relationships are pretty universal, and depend more on the context and type of platform than a binary online/offline distinction.

David Gauntlett spoke about platforms not just being digital platforms – such as Twitter, YouTube etc – but also ‘real-life’ platforms for creativity; for example, guerrilla gardeners use the street as a platform for their grassroots activity. He outlined 8 principles for platforms (which he promised to blog soon!), which place an emphasis on open participation, storytelling, recognition and a sense of community. While I could see that the principles would apply to digital platforms, I realised that they equally describe the qualities of the offline knitting projects I run.

For example, at my Keep & Share Knitting Tent which visits music festivals each summer, I aim to involve everyone, of any skill level; to let people take part for any length of time; to teach skills, as desired; to create a convivial environment and a sense of community, however transitory; to gather participants’ stories of knitting; and to celebrate the output of the project. Neil Cummings spoke inspiringly about transferring online principles to offline experiences. I hadn’t thought of my projects as ‘platforms’ before; seeing them in this way enables a new perspective and generates new ideas, as I consider how to transfer successful digital experiences to my offline projects.

Seeing the knitting community as a spectrum of online/offline/hybrid activity, rather than a binary, has also helped me to think about how I could connect with this rich community to further my PhD research and share my ideas. Because I have chosen to run workshops in my studio with a small group of knitters as my main method of data collection, I have – so far – tended to ignore the online community, or simply use existing online resources as a source of information. However, I’m sure that there are many rich conversations to be had: gathering anecdotes, gaining feedback, understanding how members of the community connect and support each other online.

I’m going into Ravelry – I may be some time…

Category:

Fashion Diggers at Making Futures

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Leaving our open studios in the capable hands of Marissa, I’m off tonight to the Making Futures conference at Dartington Hall in Devon. In the words of the organisers, the purpose of the Making Futures project is to improve understanding of the ways in which the contemporary crafts are practiced in relation to significant and new developing agendas relating to global environmental and sustainability issues.

I’ll be presenting a paper based on my PhD research so far, entitled ‘Fashion Diggers: transgressive making for personal benefit’. Here’s a link to the abstract - and above is a word cloud of the paper, giving you a taste of its contents (I’ll post a link to the full paper when it’s online).

There are lots of other presentations that I’m looking forward to (particularly the keynote by Kate Soper) and I’m hoping to meet craft friends old and new….

Category:

Research summary

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Having successfully negotiated the first hurdles of my PhD by passing the PgCert in Research Practice, my next challenge is a meeting on Monday where a faculty panel takes a look at my proposal. Here’s the summary of what I’m aiming to do:

Enabling fashion ownership through material intervention in knitted garments

This research will explore the potential of material intervention to address the personal wellbeing issues of contemporary mass-produced fashion. It employs a central metaphor which treats fashion as a commons, comparing a shared fashion culture with a shared land resource, and draws on the activist repertoire of groups seeking fair access to land along with emergent strategies of design activism.

The motivations for and barriers to individual action will be investigated and tools to support wearers in making knitting-based garment interventions will be developed. While the main focus is an increase in personal ‘fashion wellbeing’, it can be argued that individual making activity would also bring collective sustainability benefits.

Update – the panel approved my proposal with some minor changes to the wording. Hurrah!

COMMENTS FROM ORIGINAL BLOG POSTING:

Suzanne Margaret Harris

  1. Wow, well done you!

  2. Gail Goldstone

    It sounds like a very fascinating piece of research Amy, I will be very interested to hear how it develops for you. I don’t want to sound like a panel member – but would you like to expand a bit on ‘material intervention’ – do you mean ‘material’ as in fabric or as in substantial/practical?

    • Amy 

      Hi Gail, thanks for commenting! I’ll be posting updates on my research here, in and amongst all my other knitting projects.
      Good question – I think I had used ‘material intervention’ to mean substantial/practical, but given that I’m talking about textiles, it has a nice double meaning as fabric, which I hadn’t specifically noticed! I’m interested in people physically tinkering with existed knitted garments, and have tried to use material intervention to cover the ground in between making (which usually implies making something from scratch) and repairing (which implies rectifying a fault).

Category:

Tags: