Stefan Beauvais Solo Exhibition opens May 9 6-9PM. The exhibition runs May 9 – 18.
at 3Squared Gallery
157 West 24th Street, Chelsea, New York 10016
Stefan Beauvais Solo Exhibition opens May 9 6-9PM. The exhibition runs May 9 – 18.
at 3Squared Gallery
157 West 24th Street, Chelsea, New York 10016
To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
And to run where
The brave dare not go
You recycle, you eat clean, and save electricity. So far, the average person can incorporate eco-friendly habits into their daily lives fairly easily. In a lot of areas this is true, except for how we dress. The fact is, we still need to concentrate heavily on changes in our closets if we are to make the next steps to sustainability. Here are some pro tips to step up your game in that department:
Check your label. Does you clothing have more than 50% synthetic content? Synthetics like polyester are derived from petrol, use up scarce natural resources and pollute the air and water in the process of fabrication. It could also contain microfibers which pollute our water each time the clothing is washed. When you’re finished with these toxic fabrics, cut them into dusting cloths. From now on, check the fiber content to avoid synthetics, and never purchase another 100% polyester item.
Repairs. Take a youtube video tutorial and teach yourself how to mend your clothing. You can even make alterations to your own clothes to improve and enliven your closet. The longer things last, the longer they stay out of the landfill.
Damage Control. Keep your silk clothing in excellent condition by caring for it properly, go to an organic cleaner, or hand wash in cold water and hang dry. A lasting garment of high quality silk that is cared for correctly is not only more respectable, it also is healthier to wear silk agains the skin than any other fabric.
eau des style biters
Feminists are impervious to advertising. I get it. Anyone who can differentiate the subject/object relationship of imagery knows better than to believe the fashion media’s drivel or to identify with the unattainable photoshopped emaciated or occasional left-field tokenism.
That doesn’t mean those of us who are well-heeled should trade our perks of feminine beauty for a walk in last summer’s birkenstocks or this year’s teva sandals in the name of peer-pressured shame. And those who wear cheap clothes out of rebellion, do you really understand whose pockets you are lining when you choose cheap? It’s the same people who are taking away your Planned Parenthood.
Lets take a step back and assess the big changes that were addressed in the industry recently: as response to fast fashion, we gave brands permission to show “Buy now, wear now” collections, in an effort to circumvent the style biters stealing our looks we paid to create. Speed to market, everyone agrees, is the key to the non-discerning consumer’s wallet. The result? Now Banana Republic has their bloody footprints on the CFDA runway, straight to NYC consumers from the mass grave of Bangladeshi women workers that nobody wants to talk about. Enter the next generation of designers and their ears perk up to follow the footsteps of what the dead dinosaurs tell them is how they should run their business.
Re-thinking The Fashion Calendar, is that really enough? What about the entire dysfunctional business model? As an industry, the business model we are expected to follow is Not Sustainable. I know that nobody wants to come out and address it, because anybody who experienced a small measure of success is probably hiding the bodies somewhere.
So, why does everybody do it this way? Mainly, I think it’s because a few sociopaths got a hold of the reins, and did whatever it took to make profits their number one objective. The biggest offenders of women’s rights are namely: Uniqlo, H&M, Forever 21, Banana Republic, and Urban Outfitters/Anthropologie. That would have been okay if we weren’t looking at forced slavery and a death toll in the tens of thousands. So as an act of public service, I would like to inform others, while it is Earth Month, what are erroneously called business practices which are actually huge mistakes if you are running a real business, and most importantly why they are not sustainable. If you call yourself a feminist, you should spot these malignant behaviors and whenever possible withdraw your consumer support.
Price Reductions: Not Sustainable. Everyone expects the price of an item of clothing to go down drastically within a short period of time. Why? If we are going to shop Sustainable fashion brands, we have to understand that the designers need to set their own standards, price based on sustainable fabric and labor costs (not market) and most importantly, the price must stay consistent. If an item of clothing is not worn or previously owned, if there is no damage to an item that cannot be repaired, the price should stay the same over any amount of time or it should even go up. Examples: a piece of artwork made by a visual artist goes up in value over time. Chanel handbag prices go up every year. Precious metals and gemstones have a consistent resale value. Until we protect the value of clothing, we are looking at business model for a global industry that is designed to self-destruct and disempower the women who make these pieces. Is a bargain that enslaves women worldwide really something you want to brag about?
Counterfeit Enablers: Not Sustainable. Whether you know it or not, if you’ve purchased an item of clothing or an accessory that does not have a designer’s name associated with it, you have most likely purchased an item of counterfeit goods. When you do that, you are enabling thieves who have such a low level of discernment, you can go ahead and assume that they have stolen wages from their workers, and lives from innocent families overseas. We need very visible designers who create their own point of view to oversee the process, because they are in the unique position to take responsibility for the work. When the work is stolen from a legitimate designer, that accountability goes out the window along with it.
The Legal System in America: Not Sustainable. Fashion designers’ work is not legally protected in the United States, which subsequently turns the creative process of American designers into a free public service. As a result, designers in the US cannot show their work in public or on social media without a feeding frenzy on their intellectual property by counterfeiters worldwide. Until this changes, we need privacy for our work, to show in intimate gatherings of people who are trustworthy and support the work financially, and we need to ask our friends, consumers, to boycott the frauds who cannibalize our work because we know right from wrong.
Overproduction: Not Sustainable. We get it, high volume sales are what drives profits. But for designers who go through the process and spend the money to make things one by one, the assumption that success or growth means big orders and meeting factory minimums simply does not add up. There’s an ongoing pressure to come up with more silhouettes, and provide an overabundance of size runs in every style, then turn out another new collection at lightning speed, but what does that actually accomplish? The pressure to make those manufacturers’ payments along with the misguided mass retailers’ endless price slashing is an automatic recipe for disaster. Sometimes one of something is enough.
Fast Fashion: Not Sustainable. Duh. We all know this by now, so why are we still doing this? Designers are so hurt by the aggressive market shares having taken over by fast fashion, that they are acting defenseless, and even trying to compete still. The problem with that is we can’t compete. We instead should take more time. The design process is creative, and deserves to be respected. There should be more time to develop the work, to create the work, and to allow others to take it in. Give us that time. Pre-order and wait for something specially created just for you. Then, you can proudly call yourself a feminist and brag about something you did to bring women workers more dignity worldwide.
Curator, Department of Drawings and Prints The Museum of Modern Art
Sarah Hermanson Meister
Curator, Department of Photography The Museum of Modern Art
Lee Krasner (American, 1908–1984). Gaea. 1966. Oil on canvas, 69″ x 10′ 5 1/2″ (175.3 x 318.8 cm). The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Kay Sage Tanguy Fund, 1977 © 2017 Pollock-Krasner Foundation / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York.
Making Space spotlights the stunning but still under-recognized achievements of women artists between the end of World War II and the onset of the Feminist movement in the late 1960s. Drawn entirely from the Museum’s collection and featuring a diversity of media, this exhibition explores the remarkable range of abstract styles that took hold internationally during these decades, a time when women artists attempted to make space for themselves in a largely male-dominated art world.
Eva Hesse (American, born Germany. 1936–1970). Untitled. 1966. Enamel paint and string over papier-mâché with elastic cord, Overall approximately 33 1/2 x 26 x 2 1/2″ (85 x 65.9 x 6.4 cm). The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Ruth Vollmer Bequest, 1983. © 2017 Estate of Eva Hesse. Galerie Hauser & Wirth, Zurich
In the 1960s, women artists were among the key pioneers of a new direction for abstraction that emphasized unusual materials and processes. This new tendency was first identified by the critic and art historian Lucy Lippard, who organized the 1966 exhibition Eccentric Abstraction for New York’s Fischbach Gallery. Two of the artists in this section, Louise Bourgeois and Eva Hesse (American, born Germany. 1936–1970), were included in that exhibition.
Yayoi Kusama (Japanese, born 1929). No. F. 1959. Oil on canvas, 41 1/2 x 52″ (105.4 x 132.1 cm). The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Sid R. Bass Fund, 1997. © 2017 Yayoi Kusama
Lee Bontecou (American, born 1931). Untitled. 1961. Welded steel, canvas, black fabric, rawhide, copper wire, and soot, 6′ 8 1/4″ x 7′ 5″ x 34 3/4″ (203.6 x 226 x 88 cm).The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Kay Sage Tanguy Fund, 1963. © 2017 Lee Bontecou
The Museum of Modern Art, 11 West 53 Street, New York, NY 10019
April 15–August 13, 2017
Floor three, Exhibition Galleries
Happy April and happy Earth Month. Let’s talk about Uniqlo … while we have a veritable pig engaging in pissing contests with the wealthiest men all over the world, scheming to build walls in the urinals so he can change the rules of said pissing contest, the new feud between fast fashion earth-destroyer Tadashi Yanai and our own embarrassing guy here raises an important topic. The problem? They’re worried about the wrong things.
If you recall, a couple years ago, I wrote a letter to Obama asking him to even the playing field in the US market by taxing imports from human-rights violating countries which manufacture clothing at a price point below $50. He wrote me back, but did nothing to fix the problem. The current face-off has overseas manufacturers whose violations of human rights have left over ten thousand people dead without consequence at Rana Plaza and bumped textiles to the number two source of pollution worldwide, and Trump wants to stop them. Why? Because they took our jobs. Yes, they did in fact take our jobs, and that is a very important point, but examining the side effects of sociopathic driven brands Uniqlo, Zara, H & M and Urban Outfitters / Anthropologie, you would understand that this issue is just important to liberals as it is for conservatives.
As a response to taxing imports, Uniqlo’s owner was quoted saying “We would not be able to make really good products [in the U.S.] at costs that are beneficial to customers … It would become meaningless to do business in the U.S.” But what he fails to explain is the reasons why he would not be able to manufacture in the US. Could it be that our labor force is unskilled? No, that’s not it. Maybe it’s because we don’t allow CHILD LABOR in our country. Probably. Now let’s get back to the part about “really good products.” What’s a really good product that Uniqlo makes … the cheap cashmere that if you’re lucky lasts 1/10th as long as authentic Italian cashmere? Not good in my book, I’d rather pay full price for quality cashmere that lasts years. Or what about the Heat Tech ™ microfiber, tech means it’s really good, better than anything else, right? Think again: the first time you wash it, those micro fibers dissolve irreversibly into our drinking water and cannot be filtered out. Each subsequent wash releases more and more tiny synthetic particles that glob together in the ocean and destroy marine life. The synthetic-heavy textiles created overseas spew toxic gases into the air and use excessive amounts of water in the process. Wow if you didn’t know already, you may begin to see we don’t need these inferior products and their planet-devastating side effects.
Internationally speaking, I worked a lot with professionals from Japan, and learned about the market from the Japanese consumer’s point of view when I was establishing my business. When Uniqlo first brought their brand to the US, the Japanese people in my industry all agreed it was a desperate attempt for validation. It turns out the mediocre brand was doing “meh” in its home country and sought to take on specifically the New York market to add prestige to its brand. Fast forward to now, their aggressive takeover of the US market has undercut quality goods which have a better cost per wear by bamboozling customers, is well on its way to ruining our water supply just from normal wash and wear, and let’s not forget they left a body count that is comparable if not higher than the number of deaths here on that awful day Sept 11. WE DON’T WANT YOU UNIQLO. Please stop messing with us, your aggressive takeover is over, please pack up and go while we can still clean up the mess and do better without you.
Now the brand name, (ironically a portmanteau for Unique Clothing … there’s nothing unique about their basic garbage) is a lie. So, why are they a fashion brand with no designers? You always know that a brand is shady when no designer will show their face or put their name on something. Designers are in a unique point of view because their eyes can potentially see the suffering and damage caused by the work, which consumers often do not see. Most often when it’s a noname brand (Zara, H&M, UO/Anthro and celebrities who aren’t professional designers,) the silhouettes are stolen from legit designers, a symptom indicative of shady practices from the top all the way down every step of the supply chain. Only sometimes to fool us, they pick up graphic designers to endorse tee shirts simply as a marketing ploy. If we are to begin to establish a sustainable future, and move textiles off the list of the top violators of our one and only planet earth, we need to take down these sociopaths and put designers back in charge.
If you care about the planet and want to help end the suffering, or you just want your job in the fashion industry, join me in using the hashtag – #HELLNOUNIQLO in conjunction with earth month related tweets and social media posts. Stay tuned for next week when we go over the current qualifiers for what makes sustainable fashion brands.