Last week the New York Times covered the publication of Cambridge’s “Well Dressed?,” a report on the clothing and textiles industry in the UK.  Clothing’s recent shift to disposability -- with stores like H&M and Old Navy pumping out cheap new stuff every week or so – spells trouble for landfills, the atmosphere, human rights, etc. etc.  While generally I love H&M (basically everything in my wardrobe that I didn’t get for free is from there), I’ve been thinking a lot about this problem myself of late, and was happy to spend a little time on the subject.  

The Times article lingered on the idea of leasing clothing -- probably because they hypothesized that readers would find this an icky and unrealistic idea -- and got some choice bits from a head honcho at Marks & Spencer, who thinks that the “green-ness” of clothing will soon influence consumer choice like it does for food (in some countries).    I appreciated the additional voices, and was disappointed that the article couldn’t draw any comparisons between the US and UK industries.  (Probably because most of the data doesn’t exist.)  Most alarmingly, the NYT article glosses over the report’s decisive view of the US cotton industry, burying mention of “so-called organic cotton” at the end of the second page.  

The primary ideas I took away from the “Well Dressed?” report were: 1. US cotton is catastrophic for the industry and the environment, and 2. a shift in consumer behavior is the most important way to alleviate the environmental impact of the clothing and textile industry.  Perhaps I’m the last to know, but I had only a very vague notion of the energy, water, and pesticides required to produce cotton by conventional means; I also didn’t understand the extent to which US subsidies impact cotton production in other countries. [Admittedly, the report is written from a decidedly EU point of view -- I’m very curious to see what kind of conclusions an American think tank would come up with.]  Of course I’d like to think greater awareness of the issue combined with better choices could enable me to make a difference.  A quick inquiry revealed that American Apparel has 6 or 7 organic t-shirt and underwear options (out of hundreds of conventional options); additional organic choices come from companies that appear to make mostly yoga clothes.  By the end of the Cambridge report, my choices as a consumer, to buy the right things – durable, organic – and to do the right things with them – repair them, wash them in cooler water, and hang them dry – are the “simplest action that would reduce the environmental impact of the sector.”

Which leads me to a big question: how can consumers successfully transit between the current way of thinking about clothes to an opposite one (and then possibly back again)?  With the utopian ideology espoused by folks like those in Cradle to Cradle, the “fast fashion” impulse could be supported by the right design – if clothes were at once fashionable, produced with little impact on the environment, and easily disposable, we could buy as much as we want and throw away without worry.  In the interim, as “Well Dressed?” suggests, we have to resist fast fashion, make do, and mend.  Is this shift possible to achieve on a massive scale? Unlike the authors of the report, I think changing attitudes about clothes requires a wholesale rethinking of what we view as prosperous, safe, clean, and beautiful.  In the meantime, we just feel bad and do little.

New York Times: "Can Polyester Change the World?"

University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing: "Well Dressed?"

Marketplace Money Report's story about the "fashion" part of eco-fashion

I have the best hairdresser in NYC.  But she charges what a woman making three times what I make could comfortably afford and is taking maternity leave right now.  So I signed up for a free cut at a high-end studio.  It's not too bad.  Perhaps next time I'll try cutting it myself?

Sushi is something I've been thinking I'll really miss in 2007 - except for days like today, when my boss ordered $300 worth of sushi and handed over plenty of leftovers.  I certainly couldn't buy stuff this good!

I'm about to start painting my office (/living room/guest room), a project I've been looking forward to.  When I bought the paint -- see Transgressions -- I flashed to a conversation I had with a friend, who noticed the mess I made of my ceiling in the kitchen (photo).  She recommended a flat brush-thing with wheels that roll along the ceiling, giving you a straight line.  Home Depot indeed had the thing, which costs about $2.50.  It's reusable, probably not forever...but I couldn't decide whether it's a tool or a thing.  Perhaps I ought to take the time to tape and paint carefully - but when I think about how long that will take, the little thing is damn attractive.  Thoughts?

Already? The first night out?

Tonight was my friend's birthday dinner...I ate at home and headed out with some catchphrases about Fix, looking forward to drinking some sake. When I showed up in the East Village, I gave a lame explanation that my eating schedule was off and therefore I wouldn't be ordering anything. Jesus! These are good friends, friends that have experienced - and participated in - other crazy ideas! I felt somehow because the site's not posted yet, the postcards aren't made, and I haven't sent out the requisite emails, that it's not legit enough to talk about. Which is what this project is about - conversation!

At least I didn't order anything...but I also couldn't let my friend pay for her birthday meal! Gotta find a better way for next time...

Disgusted and alarmed by the proximity of unlimited shopping and unlimited garbage in Manhattan, as well as the disposable mentality I live and work in – “just throw it out and get a new one” – I’ve decided to make a little experiment in non-consumption. Now, I already live a pretty marginal existence as far as materiality is concerned: I’d like to see what happens if I make the commitment to reducing my participation in the buying cycle to zero this year. 

Of course I’ll fail.  I want to see by how much, and in what terms, while challenging my own notions of “need” and demanding more creativity of myself.  I want to learn how to fix clothes, proper meals, broken things – and learn from some master practitioners like my grandparents, other artists, and complete strangers.  I’ll be documenting my efforts on this website, and I hope you’ll contribute your ideas, suggestions, and skills to the effort.   I realize this investigation is nothing new, in either artistic or political terms – it's an experiment designed to start conversations and illustrate how one choice impacts one life.   

The Rules 

1. I’m not buying new manufactured consumer goods in 2007.
2. I’m not buying food from restaurants in 2007.
3. I will allow myself to buy coffee and drinks, which I could easily make at home.
4. I’d like to take better advantage of the free and community-based resources available in New York City.

Read more in The Rules and Background