Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Where design and technology intersect
August 19, 2007 1:40 PM   Subscribe

Fashion for the 21st century
posted by bijou (13 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
These don't really qualify as "fashion" so much as they do innovation or development. Fashion is usually constrained to superficial things that really aren't dependent on technology.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:47 PM on August 19, 2007


Concept art is dead since 1972.
posted by homodigitalis at 2:06 PM on August 19, 2007


Also, call me a Luddite, but I'm not wearin' it. If I can't put it in my pocket and forget about it when I don't want to use it then screw it.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:07 PM on August 19, 2007


I used that tagline because it's how they describe their site.

However, they have highlighted certain pieces which use technology in a playful way to further that 'superficiality,' such as this Hussein Chalayan / Swarovski LED dress; or even this somewhat incomprehensible Viktor and Rolf dress (which was just part of a whole collection).

Also, a number of the designs showcased are meant to combine functionality or wearability with innovation (inasmuch as the Chalayan and Viktor & Rolf dresses aren't wearable for the average consumer). For example, the Piaget jewelry. Or even for some people, the Tattoo-Me boots.
posted by bijou at 2:12 PM on August 19, 2007


Dissolvable dress, hmm, don't get caught without your umbrella. Unfortunately, it isn't really new, but then is fashion ever new? (see Paper Dress circa 1968 and even better, the Warhol Soup Paper Dress)
posted by caddis at 2:56 PM on August 19, 2007


Looks like the Special Olympics of fashion to me.
posted by redteam at 3:09 PM on August 19, 2007


I'm sorry but fashion is very dependent on technology. For example the vast majority of fashionable eye-glasses would be impossible without improvements in technology within the last 30 years. See also, elastic, bras, non-natural fibers, printing processes, etc. .
posted by oddman at 3:45 PM on August 19, 2007


I like the idea of mixing clothes and technology but the results shown here, don't really seem to work. The LED dress needs to be plugged in? That's only wearable art in the sense that you'd only wear it as a museum display. The Piaget jewelry is only semi-custom made jewelry, with a more limited appeal than most one off pieces. The Victor Rolf dress is neither attractive nor practical, as a statement it's merely boring.
For technology to integrated in an interesting way it needs to achieve something that wasn't possible previously or in a more econimical or novel way. If it becomes the novelty itself, it's just bad design.
posted by doctor_negative at 4:58 PM on August 19, 2007


I love the Victor Rolf dress. No one would wear it, but that's not the point, is it?

Think of high fashion like a concept car. Just exploring limits, not necessarily ever intended to go into production.
posted by empath at 5:17 PM on August 19, 2007


I'm not sure, really, if I would understand 'concept art' as fashion ... the blood scarf requires explanation, and is beyond even the normal impracticalities of what is highly 'fashionable' per say.
posted by derami at 6:06 PM on August 19, 2007


The very first words I read on the page: Electrolux Dustmate Shoes.

Wow.
posted by mdonley at 6:22 PM on August 19, 2007


Yikes. (from your clothes out of animal innards link).

Designer Diana Dew developed a line of Electric Clothing in the late 1960's.
posted by nickyskye at 12:00 AM on August 21, 2007


High technology fashion: Grado Zero Espace
posted by redteam at 7:54 PM on August 23, 2007


« Older Computers get cheap....  |  A little bit of personal pierc... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments