! !

Communicating Design Arguments:

Re-Utility
!

Dylan Chng Rong Jih [1202143B]!

! !
"1

! ! ! !
Abstract!

! !
The philosophy of utilitarianism as applied in fashion has much potential for development and reimagining, however, there is little in the way of revolutionary approach and groundbreaking design; the difculty of the matter dissuades many from approaching it. Inventiveness is largely stagnant, and many brands attempts at utilitarian design are mostly only repurposed and reappropriated from their competitors. This has resulted in the under-exploitation of the concept. Current attitudes and climates do not promote creativity and inventiveness in utilitarian fashion design, as designers and consumers stereotyped views on the philosophy have effected a vicious cycle of non-production and nonconsumption. To resolve this issue, we should fully consider the ideas behind utilitarianism and fashion, and stimulate a new design ethic that maximise both form and function in previously unimagined ways.#

"2

Contents
1 1a 1b 2 2a 3 3a 3b 3c 4 4a 4b 4c 4d 5 5a 5b 7

Introduction:
An Invitation to Think: A Thesis on Utilitarian Fashion An Overview of the Paper

4
4 4

Defining Utilitarianism:
The Design of Usefulness

5
5

Rationalising the Movement:

7
8 8 9

Current Issues:
Fashion and Use 90s Utilitarianism: Cargo Pants Case Studies: UNIQLO and MUJI The Fallacies and Homogeny of Fashion Innovation

10
10 12 13 16

Objectives:
A Raison dEtre Reinventing Fashion Utility and the Practical mindset

19
19 20

Conclusion Bibliography

25 26

"3

1. Introduction

!
1a. An Invitation to Think: A Thesis on Utilitarian Fashion

!
The philosophy of utilitarianism has much potential for further development in the fashion industry, with it currently being limited and stagnant in inventive implementation, resulting in a narrow selection in the market, and a stigma against the very concept as unimagined and mono-dimensional. Brands that do pursue the philosophy have only scratched its surface, and many others who claim to do likewise could be said to merely be adopting a fad. Reimagining utilitarianism has the potential to innovate the industrys perspectives on the philosophy and usher in a new era of functional clothing to grace the markets.!

!
1b. An Overview of Re-Utility

!
This paper calls for a shift in perspectives regarding the concept of utilitarianism when applied in the fashion industry, especially in terms of garment design. The embarkation on this crusade of philosophy stemmed from an observation about the concepts application in contemporary design, in particular with brands and retailers popular and highly accessible to the general public.!

!
The motive of this paper is to invoke thought and inspiration, for fashion designers, students and, to some extent, consumers, in terms of how they perceive and integrate utilitarianism into fashion in its truest and most creative sense.!

!
"4

2. Defining Utilitarianism in Design

!
2a. The Design of Usefulness

!
Utilitarianism in contemporary design tends to combine both dictionary and philosophical denitions of utility to create a rationalisation of utilitarianism applicable to the eld. This means that products designed with a utilitarian principle seek to be useful and practical, thereby maximising its users happiness (and by extension minimising their suffering). This can be substituted with the principle of user convenience.!

!
This naturally results in product design following a form follows function principle, an ethic associated with modern 20th century architecture, where the appearance of an object or product is secondary to its usefulness and practicality.!

The Gugenheim Museum, http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/03/23/does-form-follow-function/!

!
Above is a classic example of the principle, made famous by Frank Lloyd Wright, the Gugenheims architect, whose helical interior facilitates gallery viewing.# "5

This is rationalised as such because in purist utilitarian ethics, the aesthetic design of a particular product will only have value if it has a high degree of use and convenience to its user; if its appearance is a foremost consideration, or if its appearance, however aesthetically pleasing, obstructs its fullment of utilitarian criterion, it is bad (utilitarian) design.!

!
Below are two examples of products deigned with this principle in mind, utilising them in different ways.!

Box Chair/Childs Chair, http://www.theimagist.com/les/images/ar5.jpg

Wall-mounted Bike Rack http://www.fubiz.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Slit-Bike-Rack.jpg!

"6

3. Rationalising the Movement

!
As demonstrated in the previous section, designing with the philosophy of form follows function as forefront consideration does not necessarily mean that the products appearance is completely forsaken. It merely means that aesthetic is relegated to a secondary consideration. !

!
However, when equated with the concept of fashion as we understand it in modern society, the formula becomes muddled by contradictions, which can often mean that clothing designed with utilitarian intentions in mind often forgo the aesthetic part altogether.!

!
This is also why when we think about functional clothing, we think of articles like the following:!

http://www.kalenji-running.com/images_produits/821/8216172/PACKSHOOT/400x400/ I_comfort_LSJ_Evolutiv_L_PINK_8216172_1.jpgv, http://www.swiftsuniforms.co.uk/js/tinymce/plugins/imagemanager/les/Z_HiVisVest_Yellow.jpg, http://workingperson.com/media/catalog/product/i/m/image_55475.jpg

It can be said without a doubt that successfully integrating fashion and utility is and will continue to be a monumentally difcult task.! "7

3a. Defining Fashion

!
Fashion is dened in a sociological context as a manner or style of decorating ones appearance and status, particularly in terms of clothing, hair, attitudes and behaviour. In this context, fashion denes and is dened by the existence of trends and fads, which are both denitively temporary and impermanent social obsessions, (with the former being longer lasting than the latter). Historically, as observed by Donahue (2004), fashion is emphasised in classist societies, which observe a fascination and respect for (and often encompassing a desire to emulate) the aristocracy. In many eras, trends and fads were distillations and mimicries of aristocratic clothing, a phenomenon which would drive the eventual development of new aristo-styles. This cycle is essentially the fashion locomotive, and is observed in modern society, where aristocracy can be substituted with fashion houses, celebrities and various style icons.!

!
3b. Futile Fashion

!
The very transient nature of trends and fads cannot be purely dened as utilitarian in terms of design ethic. Firstly, trends, fads, and by extension fashion, are driven by form before function. Secondly, across the board, trends and fads themselves have no net utility discounting that they contribute to individual happiness. In these parameters of denition, fashion is not utilitarian. Fashion as a school of art, where pieces end up in display soon after their debut, likewise is not utilitarian because the design of these pieces do not full the core function of fashion: to be worn. !

!
According to Concern Infotech (2014), trends and fads are qualied from the dimension of an individuals desire to be distinct while grouped. It evidences the "8

dissonance of what people expect fashion to be, and the futility of expecting individuality while desiring to conform.!

!
3c. The Construction of a Quandary: The Useful Fashion Paradox

!
It is because of all these issues of is-but-is-not that intrinsically plague the fashion industry that the idea of utilitarianism is so difcult to reconcile with fashion design in a successful, creative and inventive manner. Very simply put, the philosophy of the former advocates usefulness over appearance, while the latter emphasises appearance over all else. Both philosophies are polar opposites of each other, and hence, the widespread exclusion of either from the other.#

"9

4. Current Issues

!
4a. Fashion and Use

!
When a utilitarian design ethic is attempted application in fashion design, a number of observable obstacles surface:!

!
1) fashionable, trendy garments, and garments that are interesting and revolutionary in terms of aesthetic and construction are often impractical and cumbersome.!

!
2) practical, convenient and comfortable clothing are invariably of the same style which can be monotonous, leading them to be generally considered uninteresting and done.!

!
3) attempts at incorporating the two at a consumer level have been made, but are either largely stagnant in variation or dismally similar.!

!
The rst two issues are woeful eventualities of each philosophy contradicting the other: clothes that look nice and please its wearer do not full utility to its maximum; clothes that are useful and practical often do not full fashion to its maximum.!

!
These two issues are arguably resultant of the third. The following, highly similar images represent a collage of results generated from entering utilitarian clothing into a Google image search.!

!
"10

Google Image Search, Utilitarian Clothing, https://www.google.com/search?q=practical +clothing&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Spn4UuLiOYOQrgfWhoDwAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1279&bih=655#q=utilitarian +clothing&spell=1&tbm=isch&imgdii=_

"11

4b. 90s Utilitarianism: Cargo Pants

!
A hallmark of successful utilitarian fashion was the cargo pant, observable in the previous collage, which was a trend that ourished in the 1990s. !

Google Image Search, Cargo Pants, https://www.google.com/search?q=practical +clothing&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Spn4UuLiOYOQrgfWhoDwAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1279&bih=655#q=cargo +pants&tbm=isch

However, in spite of it being a perfect marriage of trend and utility at the time, it did not prove to have longevity. Contemporarily, it and its ilk are viewed through a lens of disregard, one example being from a forum thread (Girlsaskguys, 2014):!

!
Honestly, I think cargo pants don't accentuate shape, sometimes baggy and is not a fashion statement. I see a lot of painters, construction workers, lift technicians and factory workers wearing them.!

!
They don't accentuate shape, it is unappealing to me.!

!
They look better on men than women, but neither on neither are hugely attering.! "12

!
Another example comes from a strongly worded blogpost entitled If You Wear Cargo Shorts/Pants Everyone Around You Thinks Youre A Tremendous Tool (Barstool Sports, 2012).!

!
4c. Case Studies: UNIQLO and MUJI

!
In modern fashion, brands and retailers that have experienced success in combining utilitarianism and fashion include UNIQLO and MUJI.!

!
UNIQLO is a Japanese brand that is almost ubiquitous in the international market for casual clothing. Generally branded as comfortable, practical clothing that is also trendy and stylish, UNIQLO has experienced immense success in its own style of utilitarianism clothing!

Google Image Search, Uniqlo, https://www.google.com/search? q=uniqlo&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Ip_4Ur7uEseNrQeDpIA4&ved=0CAwQ_AUoBA&biw=1279&bih=655

One of UNIQLOs most popular ranges in terms of functionality is HEATTECH.!

!
"13

HEATTECH, http://www.uniqlo.com/ht_w/us/img/h1_2.jpg

HEATTECH is essentially thermal clothing, but in a ourish and form and function, the range is designed to be appealing to the mass market for its appearance as well for its warmth.!

Uniqlo Heattech, http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NZu5pGjz8kE/ULtRCcjZjII/AAAAAAAAFCU/sGw9NIlakno/s1600/Rachel's.jpg,, http:// 3.bp.blogspot.com/-HNi0-KnVS4Q/UMnZ-FwJAKI/AAAAAAAAD0o/pb5lIeKT8Ck/s1600/Uniqlo%2BHeattech%2B3.jpg

"14

MUJI is also Japanese but is inversely ubiquitous for its lack of a brand. MUJIs cover-all design policy means that each store is very nearly a utilitarian paradise. One can get almost anything one needs, from childrens educational toys to food, and of course, clothing. !

MUJI Products, http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NtacdeyPCY0/Tdxh0a-2QHI/AAAAAAAAA3A/EBxSnhqQNgY/s1600/muji-1-1.jpeg.jpg

MUJIs neutral, blank-slate image is where their utilitarianism is strongest. The nonbrand eschews any concept of trend or catering to the whims of the present, designing their products to be evergreen. According to Sweterlitsch (2009), their success is not an anomaly of fashion, but instead a carefully deliberate effect, as shown by MUJIs website:!

!
MUJIs streamlining is the result of the careful elimination and subtraction of gratuitous features and design unrelated to function.!

!
The MUJI concept derives from us continuously asking, What is best from an individuals point of view?!

!
MUJI aspires to modesty and plainness, the better to shape itself to the styles, preferences and practices of as wide a group of people as possible.! "15

!
4b. The Fallacies and Homogeny of Fashion Innovation

!
Although laudable, and exactly in the spirit of what utilitarian fashion should be, we must remember that UNIQLO and MUJI are only two brands in an immense and stillgrowing industry. !

!
Their success however has seen the emergence of two major issues in the fashion utilitarian debate. These are only two forms of utilitarianism from two brands, and yet we already consider these methods to be the end of the issue, and in some cases, oversimplifying utility to equate merely to comfort. Furthermore, after their pioneering of contemporary utilitarian fashion, subsequent efforts began to appear increasingly less original. These proponents of utilitarian fashion were not inventing new products, but riding on the coattails of original success.!

!
We look to the term fashion innovation, and herein lies the problem. According to Grasty (2012), In its purest sense, invention can be dened as the creation of a product or introduction of a process for the rst time. Innovation, on the other hand, occurs if someone improves on or makes a signicant contribution to an existing product, process or service. Simply put, an innovation is an elevation of an existing product, which almost certainly includes the reiteration of some of the products original specications. !

!
One such example of innovation close to the fashion industry is what has come to be collectively, and erroneously, known as dri-t. Moisture wicking fabric has confused roots, argued to have been invented in either 1996 or 1998 by two separate parties.!

"16

Moisture Wicking Fibres, http://static.wixstatic.com/media/ 8ad7fd_67ec84eaa5dda7d74d44521c90450244.png_srz_380_310_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_png_srz!

! ! !

The fabric itself was an invention, but every subsequent product utilising it as its

selling point is an innovation.!

Dri-t Clothing, Adidas, Nike and New Balance, http://m.vcst.net/wines/adidas-lk-rebird-ts-608929-s50.jpg, http://i.imgur.com/f787o.jpg, http://s2.thcdn.com/productimg/0/600/600/29/10796129-1369242148-141214.jpg!

Denitively, although both have altruistic goals, innovation is different from invention. The issue thus resides hence: utilitarianism in fashion has been a series of innovations, and almost never inventions.# "17

The greatest pitfall of fashion innovation is of course the burgeoning of the oversimilarity of garment designs across brands. This is echoed equally in the application of utilitarian principles: the aforementioned moisture wicking fabric itself is a victim of overuse to imply functionality.!

!
The images below demonstrate the homogenous effect fashion innovation has on the market:!

Bird Print Shirts, Topman, Burton Menswear, Obey and Alexander McQueen, ! http://g.nordstromimage.com/imagegallery/store/product/Large/7/_7334807.jpg, ! http://menaroundhere.les.wordpress.com/2013/09/burton-menswear-london-7492-805811-5-product.jpg, ! http://cdnc.lystit.com/photos/2013/09/14/obey-navy-early-bird-annel-ls-shirt-with-bird-print-in-navyproduct-4-13498681-256662494_large_ex.jpeg, ! http://static.fashionbeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/birdprintmain.jpg! !

Military Hooded Parkas, H&M, American Eagle Outtters, Abercrombie & Fitch, ! http://item2.tradesy.com/r/782445070709a5512243d2fb81c79fb1/203/307/outerwear/h-and-m/8-m/h-and-m-jacket-faux-fur-parka-tanfur-coat-721086.jpg, ! https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.svpply.com/large/882251.jpg?1388712642, ! http://doryana.edublogs.org/les/2011/05/abercrombie-31-11rpfkt.jpg !

"18

5. Objectives and Solutions

!
5a. A Raison dEtre

!
Consequently, we come to the reason for this paper. Inventiveness and originality in their nest and fullest are required to address this challenging conundrum of the oxymoron utilitarian fashion.!

!
Make no mistake: this paper is not calling for a renewed consideration on the importance of garment practicality, nor is it arguing for the proliferation of functional clothing; instead, this paper is a call for a reimagined and revolution in the way utility is implemented in fashion design a challenge to fashion design ethics, even so that this aspect of the fashion industry can be given new life.!

!
The main goal of revolutionising the way utilitarianism is applied in fashion, and the secondary goal of promoting invention versus innovation, is especially salient in modern contexts, where a lot of what we know as fashion has a larger sway on various facets of society.! ! In design, we would mourn the decline of creativity if from hence utilitarianism in fashion design continues on its current track; as a matter of principle, what are we as designers if we cannot see the potential and value of looking past the simplest applications of the utilitarian principles and beyond dri-t fabrics and numerous pockets? #

"19

5b. Reinventing Fashion Utility and The Practical Mindset

!
Fashion is ready for a level of utilitarian clothing beyond what it has now. The overarching idea behind this paper therefore is such:!

!
To propose a new branch of utilitarian philosophy geared towards fashion invention; to change designers and consumers alike with a new perspective of how broad utility actually can be and redene utilitarian fashion as a solution beyond just practical clothing, but as a harmonious marriage between the two conicting principles of utilitarianism and fashion design, elevating both form and function to equal stature.!

!
For example, current styles incorporating utilitarianism tend on emphasising comfort, practicality, wearability and durability. Why not think of convertibility, multi-utility and enhanced adaptability as well?!

!
I propose thus that for designers, whether or not they foray into utilitarian fashion, to consider during the design that clothing can exist in more than one state, and can be more than just clothing. Consider convertibility and customisability.!

!
The solution to blandness in utilitarian fashion can only come from the drivers of the industry: the designers and the consumers, but the primary target of this seminal philosophy naturally has to be the designers. Of course, the intention is to generate a cycle of consumption and production, and the consumers have to be as convinced as the designers of this new era of clothing in the revitalisation of utilitarian philosophy, but short of providing a discourse of philosophical thought to every individual who partakes of the fashion industry, the brunt of the effort has to come primarily from the designers.! "20

The two major ways we can make clothing multi-functional are through the utilisation of pioneer technology, or through ingenious construction.!

!
Regarding the former, some examples include such things as spray-on fabric, patented by Fabrican Ltd. in 2000.!

Fabrican, Spray-on Fabric, http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2010/09/fabrican3.jpg, http://trendland.com/wp-content/ uploads/2010/09/instant-spray-clothing-6.jpg

! As well as fabric that reduce in opacity when stimulated by the wearers increased heartbeat, created by Dutch designer Daan Roosengaarde in 2012.!

Studio Roosengaarde, Intimacy 2.0, http://www.studioroosegaarde.net/project/intimacy-2-0/!

!
These inventions can be used to inspire new ways of looking at the very textiles that form our clothing let alone to clothing themselves. ! "21

If aerosol fabrics and fabrics that turn clear can exist, why not also fabrics that become thinner or shorter in the heat, or fabrics that can change their colour when exposed to certain spectrums of light? Let new technologies be an inspiration behind renewing what we think of as utilitarian fashion, where the bres of the clothing we wear can serve more purpose than simply constituting them.!

!
As for the latter, basic examples include a 120-zipper dress by Sebastian Errazuriz, which allows the wearer the ability to customise the dress in many ways, from lengths to including slits and cut outs, limited only by the imagination. !

120-zipper Dress, Sebastian Errazuriz, http://www.hediyeler.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/fermuarl%C4%B1-elbise-2.jpg!

!
More complex are some of Issey Miyakes designs, where whole dresses are designed like pieces of origami, and collapse into compact, at constructs, as shown on the following page.! "22

Origami Garments, Issey Miyake, http://renanjaypacson.les.wordpress.com/2011/01/01.jpeg!

!
Even more inventive are clothing that turn into other things, like one that becomes a bedspread by Diane Steverlynck.!

Bedspread Dress, Diane Steverlynck, http://www.ecouterre.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/diane-steverlynck-self-couture-4.jpg!

!
"23

And nally to take the cake are Hussein Chalayans designs which double as furniture and upholstery.!

Afterwords, Hussein Chalayan, http://www.estampa.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/chalayan-1.jpg!

!
Obviously clothing can be more than adornment. We know they qualify as more than just coverage for esh psychologically and emotionally, so why not physically as well? We can have clothing that double as shelter or storage, even a source of light, sound and scent. The horizon is innite and we have yet to explore even a fraction of what utilitarianism in fashion could mean: design clothing with more than just clothing in mind.# "24

7. Conclusion

!
Perhaps the issue of utilitarianism and fashion is not a groundbreaking one that will wholly benet a large portion of the human population, and it certainly will not pioneer any dramatic advances in altruism or general well-being, but so rarely is fashion ever thought of philosophically.!

!
Its value in society as a signicant determinant, while itself being determined by its captives, is often overlooked because of the air and whimsy that comes with the industry.!

!
Fashion utilitarianism is but a facet of the many aspects of fashion philosophy, but it is one that witnesses great neglect. The proposition of revitalisation could perhaps bolster modern efforts to inject the industry with the inventiveness it so thoroughly deserves, from the technology it bears to the way it is perceived. And if through ushering a new paradigm from which fashion utility is observed can bring an inux of successful marriages between the contrary principles of function and fashion, then perhaps this movement can too serve the ulterior purpose of elevating fashion to be considered by those who study society as more than futile ights of fancy. !

!
If anything, this project will hopefully at the very least inspire a handful of individuals to take upon utilitarian clothing with fresh techniques and mindsets, and hence give the industry a new depth it has long desired but never knew it did.#

"25

8. Bibliography

!
Bentham, J., (1907), An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Oxford: Claredon Press !

!
Bradley, S., (2010), Does form follow function?, Retrieved from: http:// www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/03/23/does-form-follow-function/!

!
Fabrican LTD., (2000), What is fabrican? Retrieved from: http://www.fabricanltd.com/!

!
Geninet, H., Utilitarian Philosophy: Denitions and Origines, Retrieved from: http:// utilitarianphilosophy.com/denition.eng.html!

!
Grasty, T., (2012), The difference between invention and innovation, Public Broadcasting Service: Idealab, Retrieved from: http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2012/03/the-differencebetween-invention-and-innovation086/!

!
Hanks, T., (2010), Moisture wicking fabrics, The Hackers Paradise, Retrieved from: http:// www.thehackersparadise.com/?p=9156 !

!
Oxford Dictionaries, (2014), Utilitarianism, Retrieved from: http:// www.oxforddictionaries.com/denition/english/utilitarianism !

!
Roosengaarde, D., (2012), Intimacy 2.0, Retrieved from: http:// www.studioroosegaarde.net/project/intimacy-2-0/!

!
"26

Sweterlitsch, H., (2009), Dissolving when in use: Muji, brand and nothingness, [MUJI brand report], Washington, DC: RTC Relationship Marketing

"27