wear

worn

Process + Findings

by

Jean Chisholm + Emanuel Ilagan

January-May

2013

worn-ness (adj.):

when a user alters an item of clothing through extended use, creating a bridge between the user’s physical and emotional self.

2

Wear/Worn is a multifaceted collaboration between Jean Chisholm and Emanuel Ilagan for the INDD 307: Patterning course taught by Hélène Day-Fraser at Emily Carr University of Art + Design. This project took four main forms: a narrative video, a sewn garment, a trial for a clothing library system, and this document, which houses our conclusions and questions regarding our explorations. The succeeding reflections repre-sent our current convictions — while some subjects are singled out and focused upon, other ideas that may have shaped the original intention of the project may go unmentioned. This site of conclusion where we extrapolate three months of work into a single thesis also exists as a place that can be revisited to inspire further iterations of our work.

3

With varying degrees of intention and serendipity, all of our investigations deal with our intimate relationship with clothing and how the physicality of that relationship affects the psycho-logical value given to these garments. We can choose clothing to represent or to protect, yet our own bodies can transversely transform and shape the same pieces. Two lives, our own and those of the garments, intersect and become wholly connected to one another, forming a reflexive bond that is too often forgotten when we think about what we wear. When clothing connects to and reveals all of the physical details of our body, when we sweat, warp, wrap, drape, and simply make use of a garment, we can choose to dispose of it (it has served its purpose) or, perhaps irra-tionally, cling to it—we have defined it and it has defined us.

In the interest of our research, this latter symbiosis can be identified as a state of being completely worn, or what we can call a state of worn-ness. Understanding and embracing this relationship can reveal deeper connections to our objects and the responsibilities we have to one another. How can we create clothing that celebrates its inevitable transformation? How can we, as wearers respect this worn-ness quality and consume clothing less as disposable objects? Is it possible to share these personal items with a group, and if so, how is a person’s intimate relationship with their clothing compromised or enhanced? It is with this notion of worn-ness that we began our investigation into our relationship with clothing.

wear

6

narrative video

The Wear/Worn narrative project told

the story of two different people and

their go-to work garments: a white oxford

shirt and a white knit henley — reason-

ably considered to be staple wardrobe

pieces, garments that many can relate to

and identify as their own. The neutrality

of these garments’ functionality helps

reveal our affect on the clothing, how

each piece is shaped and transformed by

the presence of our lived being — an inti-

mate relationship with the fabric that

literally covers our bodies.

7

The popular mindset that clothing is a passive reflection of the wearer’s chosen aesthetic is only one half of the full story. Warps, strains, rips, sweat, tugs and pulls are actions that continuously transform these textiles into objects that become completely defined by us, or more simply, get worn.

Above: Knit henley worn by Jean Chisholm, oxford dress shirt worn by Emanuel Ilagan.

8

Above and cont.: Emanuel and Jean are having a very stressful day. Stress exposes itself in physical actions, often unintentionally,

that can in turn transform the clothing they wear. Our emotions create our actions which then shape our clothing.

9

make

14

garment construction

Inspired by our narrative, we wanted to

create a garment that could embody the

quality of worn-ness — a garment that could

effortlessly transform itself for its user

and that the user could form a personal,

long lasting attachment with. We began

by first recreating the oxford and hen-

ley shirts, discovering what elements of

construction and form helped to make them

so appealing to the wearer despite being

so “worn out”, in a superficial sense. The

process of taking these garments apart

revealed complicated seam details that

were made to absorb wear rather than dis-

integrate under it. The garments were

built to be versatile, appropriate for

both work and play. These were garments

that adapted to its wearer and became

sources of comfort for them: key qualities

for clothing with worn-ness.

15

In addition, it was important to consider how this garment could exist and contribute to a post-growth economy. Today, our culture of consumption leads to an unsustainable amount of resource extraction and waste creation, especially prevalent in the fashion industry. Indeed, clothing has an innate sense of disposability— one day, with wear, the fibres of garment will cease to hold together . This fact coupled with the consumptive urge to buy more (even if replacement is not a factor) fosters a culture that ignores the physical impact that clothing can have on ourselves and our environment.

It is also important to note that by in creating a garment that became more desireable, in a sense, these qualities could fuel the need to have it, rather than helping to dismantle consump-tion. Our love and desire for objects can blind us to the tangible effects those objects can ultimately have on the environment.

Above: Sketching muumuu comfort dresses and transformable clothing options.

16

In order to give the desired worn-ness to the garment while simulta-neously avoiding a piece that was needed by all, we set out to create a piece that addressed the group instead of the individual — a garment to be shared. It is with this idea of group ownership that its larger potential and purpose was fully realized. It needed to be flexible enough to fit and transform itself to many different bodies, never to sit unused in a closet or prematurely tossed out by one fickle owner. Presenting a garment that belongs to all also forces the users to re-evaluate their own ideas of ownership and possession.

Above: Ideation through draping/making.

17

Made to be reversible and designed with multiple snap points, this garment is both a neutral staple piece and a place for personal expression and attachment. Made of black linen, the form drapes to work with different bodies. It can be worn as a vest, shirt or robe, hung down or pinned up. The six people that wore the garment did so in a way that reflected their personal style, while also embracing the styles of group they shared it with. In this group of user testing, the group consisted of individuals already very familiar with one another. Future iterations could include groups of strangers to see if similar bonds can form, or determine if trust and familiarity in shared ownership is integral in establishing a sense of group worn-ness.

Above: Technical specifications.

18

Above and cont.: The made garment worn by the clothing library participants (refer to section 3: Share).

19

20

21

share

24

the clothing library

Motivated by the process of creating our

garment, we began to explore this new idea

of shared worn-ness and the systems that

it could exist within. When thinking about

the shape the clothing industry might take

in a sustainable, post-growth economy, it

was imperative for us to address the issue

of unchecked consumerism that currently

plagues our culture, but also the recog-

nize the importance of objects and their

expressive qualities.

25

How could we create a new system around clothing that reduces our consumption, but also lets us participate in cul-tural trends and communicate our own changing personas? After brainstorming other spaces and contexts where objects were not only individually expressive but also shared, the library format emerged as realistic but innovative method to distribute clothing. By placing clothing in a similar framework as library books, it allows people to still indulge and experiment with clothing, while also re-evaluating our relationship with ownership and emphasizing the potential lifecycle of objects.

Appropriating much of the library’s current structure, a clothing library would also require membership, fees for late returns and damages, and an cleaning and repair sector that would help keep garments in circulation for as long as possible. This library could take on many shapes depending on the available infrastructure and public participation: a department store-style space that a large portion of a city’s population uses, a consignment-style boutique that caters to smaller demographics, or a designed collection of clothing that is accessed through a co-op membership are all potential forms of this idea could take, and they could possibly all work together in a culture where shared clothing is the norm.

26

Our original intention with the library was to develop a system of checking out and caring for shared clothing. This system presented many logistical and cultural obstacles and questions, including:

• How comfortable will people be with sharing clothing? • How can we facilitate hygienic concerns? How many of these concerns are rooted in our culture, rather than actual physical risk? How can we curb these fears? • How respectful will users be of a shared object? More or less than an object they own? • How can we make borrowing and returning clothing a conve-nient everyday activity? • How can we make a culture that values shared clothing and the people they share it with?

In addition to the garment we constructed, we asked the partici-pants to contribute two or three items of their own clothing to be used in the library trial. Because of this, we chose participants that already knew and trusted each other. We thought that by creating a scenario that the participants were already excited to be a part of, we would be able to examine logistical issues and determine how library clothing can integrate into a person’s own collection. Our intended outcome was to a more refined set of instructions and guidelines that we could use to expand the library to include a broader audience. However, many of the observations we made were intrinsically tied to existing friend-ship between the participants, and it is difficult to imagine the scenario without this necessary variable.

27

Above and cont.: Library user instructions.

28

29

30

31

The appeal of the library came from the fact that we were doing this amongst friends, which lead us to ask some closing questions:

• Can we create relationships with other people by to share clothing with them? Would you be willing share clothing with a stranger? Under what circumstances? • Because the garments were donated from your personal closet, do you still feel a sense of ownership to them? Do you want them back? Would you share them with more people? For how long? • If library clothing doesn’t have any ownership attached to them, is it still fun to borrow them?

Above: The Clothing Library, located at Emily Carr University of Art + Design, spring 2013.

32

Above and cont.: Library users journal their experience throughout the trial. The follow-ing scans are excerpts from those journals.

33

34

35

36

The library trial was a very enjoyable experience for those involved and there was an overall sentiment that this should continue to happen between this group of people. But in terms of insights regarding the logistics of future iterations of the clothing library, the conclusion is not so clear. Although we feel confident that a system can be designed to enable clothing sharing, how the user can build a sense of worn-ness to clothing with no sense of ownership is difficult to answer. Was part of the appeal of taking out a sweater based around the fact that it was a friend’s? Does that borrower grow to love that sweater so much that they feel the need to own a version for themselves, or can the group own it together?

Some garments were donated because they owner loved them and wanted to share this object with the group, but under the understanding that this was only a temporary arrangement. Others donated garments that they like but rarely wear, so they were excited to see a new life brought to them and were more willing to leave them with the group. Perhaps a wide-spread library can only exist with clothing that we like to wear, but can’t adopt the worn-ness quality we originally wanted to inte-grate. Or perhaps a library that does include this aspect can only happen between the right group of people, and even then, perhaps only for a short time. It might also be that shared worn-ness simply needs more time to be shared and worn, which this short trial did not address.

37

Above: clothing item 009 = sapphire tank, clothing item 019 = denim vest.

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

“Where did you get that sweater?”

“I wish this lasted longer, I only got to take a few things”

“You were always reserving things! I hated that.”

“I didn’t take out anything this week because this was my stress week. I didn’t

want to think about dressing differently.”

“It was like an extension of my wardrobe.”

“When I returned it I had no sweater to wear home.”

“I took out too many things.”

“I want to bring my sweater back home.”

“I miss it”

“I think for this work the clothing needs to be intended for shared use. That

can’t come after you own it.”

“I felt we grew closer together.”

“Would you use a clothing library?” “If no one owned anything, yes.”

Above and previous: Library users model their favorite pieces and reflect on the experience during our closing interview.

45

The library has been disassembled and the clothing, for now, has returned to its original owners. However, the garment constructed for this trial has no official home to return to. As of now, its ownership is unanswered. The future home and use of this piece may help us gain some new insight on how to move forward.

worn

PROCESS + FINDINGS created by

Jean Chisholm + Emanuel Ilagan, Spring 2013.