Friday the 22nd of April was earth day, I don’t know what was happening over in the UK, but I’m guessing that Easter Friday was bigger. In the US there seemed to be a lot going on for it, it filled the TIME OUT with ‘green advise’ and lots of events, but I’m questioning its sincerity, but maybe I’m just getting confused by a language barrier (there is a huge difference between English and American). When I spoke to Tara St James (see the STUDY NY interview on the website) she told me that there was a visible difference between London and NY in terms of its responsible designing, that the activity here is very positive and it is often about the materials themselves; this is all very important but I can’t help but think the terminology is just too positive and not serious enough and the term green wash comes to mind.
TIME OUT’S closet case this week looks at Bahar Shahpar ‘eco-stylist and designer’s environmentally conscious wardrobe’, after reading the first paragraph my first thought was is this serious? ‘earth loving brands’ and ‘nature-friendly methods’, what do these things even mean? A brand cannot be earth loving- it will always take from nature without replacing- but it can try to not take so much and be more responsible about its methods, but not friendly and not loving. I have met Bahar and I know that she probably had the same reaction reading the article and did not use any of those phrases! Love your wardrobe by the way- especially the vintage.
We do not work like this so we can hug more trees but so we can sustain our lifestyles and encourage others to take more personal responsibility of theirs. The textile industry is one of the most damaging there is and it can’t sustain itself. Most people working under the very broad umbrella of ‘sustainable’ (or whatever you want to call it) are not doing it to be part of a trend or to be attached to a specific ‘eco label’ but because they are seriously concerned about the way things are made, consumed and discarded of. Sustainable is not a friendly loving word and more importantly it should not be a trend, products that can sustain their existence should be the norm (or at the very least be made to last). We have to be more responsible.
TIME OUT’S closet case this week looks at Bahar Shahpar ‘eco-stylist and designer’s environmentally conscious wardrobe’, after reading the first paragraph my first thought was is this serious? ‘earth loving brands’ and ‘nature-friendly methods’, what do these things even mean? A brand cannot be earth loving- it will always take from nature without replacing- but it can try to not take so much and be more responsible about its methods, but not friendly and not loving. I have met Bahar and I know that she probably had the same reaction reading the article and did not use any of those phrases! Love your wardrobe by the way- especially the vintage.
We do not work like this so we can hug more trees but so we can sustain our lifestyles and encourage others to take more personal responsibility of theirs. The textile industry is one of the most damaging there is and it can’t sustain itself. Most people working under the very broad umbrella of ‘sustainable’ (or whatever you want to call it) are not doing it to be part of a trend or to be attached to a specific ‘eco label’ but because they are seriously concerned about the way things are made, consumed and discarded of. Sustainable is not a friendly loving word and more importantly it should not be a trend, products that can sustain their existence should be the norm (or at the very least be made to last). We have to be more responsible.
No comments:
Post a Comment