Race and Manufacturing (reading response)

In Handmaidens of the Glamour Culture: Costumers in the Hollywood Studio System, Elizabeth Nielsen traces the work of costumers from the “Golden Studio Era” of the 1920s to the present, and the role organized labor played in excluding certain female laborers (particularly African American) during the studio era to the current state of a female driven and influential Hollywood labor union. Neilsen contends that women were restricted from most Hollywood unions until the 1970s to keep men’s salaries high, and most women during this era were clustered in two local unions—the film lab workers and costumers union. Neilson points out that many of the women employed in as costumers where immigrant laborers from such countries as Mexico, Italy, Japan or Russia inter alia. They often specialized in the manufacture of clothing in their native lands and English was a second language in the shops. Interestingly, Neilsen points out that African American were not among these workers, and to illuminate Inna’s point about the “obliteration of labor from the final fantasy,” –the issue of why African American women were excluded while Latino or Asian immigrants were allowed (albeit limited) access to costumer positions and the union should to be addressed. Neilsen does not engage the issue further—whether Black female bodies associated with “agitation” more so than recent immigrant laborers. I am reminded about a similar issue involving Latino and Black professional athletes, where some Black players have public raised the issue that professional sports organizations prefer Latino players over Black players due to the perception that Latinos are easier to ‘control.’ Is this the same rationale adopted by the union leader and studio heads, or as Inna suggest, a deliberate mechanism used to disrupt a collective and unified female union? If, as the author suggests, costume labor was not a respected profession, and the conditions and wages for costumers were among the worst in the industry, why were studio and union heads reluctant to hire a skilled Black seamstress or relegate her to “dirty work” while employing other ethnic minority costume laborers?

Creativity in the Political Economy (Reading Response)

Nielsen’s piece “Handmaidens of the Glamour Culture” and Andrew Ross’s collection of essays on garment workers and sweatshops generate the sort of productive anger that I think is essential to academic work that aims at social change. Somehow, despite our progressive awareness of the economies of slavery and exploitative labor practices, the types of examinations Nielsen and Ross engage in never fail to infuriate (and hopefully politicize). It seems clear that analyzing the division of labor in these practices is conducive to the Marxist project – the obliteration of labor from the final fantasy, the alienation of the worker from the finished product, validation of exploitation via myths of personal work ethic and integrity of labor, etc. Ross asserts that the tradition of sweatshops in the garment industry has always paid allegiance to “a three-tier system of small producers.” Meanwhile, Nielsen goes to great lengths to delineate the hierarchy of labor (in Hollywood movie studios), only to ultimately suggest that while the segmentation of workers into specific tiers of expertise complicates simplistic binaries, the Marxist logic of proletariat-owners still holds. Crystallized bureaucracies, as evident in contract agreements that cement roles of laborers, are deliberately rigid, ultimately prohibiting growth and innovation. Assumingly, what this segmentation also accomplishes is the fracturing of potential labor coalition. Nielsen talks about African Americans being employed in predominantly specialty shops as a result of discriminatory hiring practices. Solidarity among workers then works only to the extent that racial exclusion is possible. Furthermore, Steve Nutter, in his essay (in “No Sweat”) on the LA garment industry breaks down expertise by racial identification. But these fragmentations are also layered with class, gender, and age (post-feminist disassociation) politics. True to the Marxist method, both Nielsen and Ross’s contributors look to the political economy to explore how domestic deregulation and rapid globalization (usually, as a result of even the slightest hint of potential regulation, as was the case for Guess) undermine the labor movement.
My point in unpacking the Marxist project with regard to labor in the fashion industry is to suggest that this methodological lens is simply not enough to facilitate the kind of social change that these authors are (admirably) shooting for. It occurred to me that perhaps considering the life of the creative cycle (rather than only the manufacturing) would be another productive point of intervention. In other words, where is the site of creativity? And – because I’m convinced that it is neither stable nor residing only at the top of the food chain – how is aesthetic innovation harnessed through the division of labor? What critical lens is necessary to interrogate the flow and temporary hubs of creativity in fashion manufacture?
To be fair, Nielsen tries her hand at “creativity,” but her version is “synonymous with resourcefulness.” While this is a completely valid component of creative production, I’m proposing to look at aesthetic innovation. Robin Givhan’s essay on “ugly chic” (in “No Sweat”) is more in line with the notion of interrogating aesthetic innovation. She looks specifically at designers’ (violent) appropriation of poverty, homelessness and perhaps even drug use to create a sort of “ugly” aesthetic (poor-boy and poor-girl chic). What is rendered as “exotic poverty,” deliberately paired for obvious incongruence, on the runway is an inescapable material reality for most of the world’s population. She concludes that this branding of poverty (much like the branding of race, girl power, and class consciousness) not only de-politicizes the actual struggles of these constructs but also works to reveal that fashionable edge often relies on “the poor, resourceful masses.” While this abstraction is certainly important, it seems clear that not only is Marc Jacobs pilfering from the poverty-stricken and globalized masses, but from the exact same workers employed in his sweatshops (figuratively speaking – I don’t know for sure that he has sweatshops). Yes, designers are “mocking global poverty,” but more pointedly, they are appropriating the creativity of their very own workers. These practices, coupled with Howard Becker’s examination of the collectivity of artistic innovation (I’m thinking of his book “Art Worlds”) are, I think, instructive in beginning to examine the life of creativity in the processes of the fashion industry.

Otaku: The Japanese Nerds Stand Tall and Proud

In my continued research on nerd / geek culture, costuming, the immasculated male, my head keeps turning to Japan, and my fascination for the Otaku, the Japanese nerd, is starting to verge on obsession! They "live out their fantasies at 'maid cafes' " and the funny thing is, I hear there is one here in our very own city of Lost Angels! 

Garment Worker's Center-- Shop with a Heart 2008

From a friend over in the ASE department, in anticipation of our last class:


Shop with a Heart 2008

Fair Trade Fundraiser Dec 4th, Thursday 6pm
The Garment Worker Center is gearing up for our annual fair trade sale. We have a new site to sign up to support our event. Please check it out and share with your friends:

www.garmentworkercenter.org


Our fair trade sale, which will be on December 4th thru December 11th will give you an opportunity to buy fair trade gifts - meaning that the workers who made those items were paid properly and worked in safe environments. Part of the proceeds then help to support local garment workers in their effort to organize and stop sweatshops in LA.

There is no fair trade store in Los Angeles right now - so come to our event and buy your gifts and feel good about your purchases. We will also have our fair trade store open for a week after the reception date to give people more chances to shop.

Please join us for an evening of fair trade shopping and a very special reception honoring exiting Executive Director Kimi Lee and the Bet Tzedek Employment Rights Project.

With Kimi's departure, we enter an exciting new chapter in the future of the Garment Worker Center. We cannot continue our work without community support and we hope that you consider sponsorship to help make our fundraiser a success!

GWC: 1250 So. Los Angeles Street, Suite 213, Los Angeles, CA 90015

www.garmentworkercenter.org

Happy holiday shopping!

Ode to Jeans

In light of our Friday conversation about jeans (skinny jeans, specifically) and Kate’s brave post on the matter, I wanted to add my two cents in.

On skinny jeans: it seems everyone is in agreement that skinny jeans are manifestation of a masochist mechanism that attempts eroticize and infantilize grown women (they do, after all, look an awful lot like little girls’ leggings… all we’re missing is the matching scrunchie). I totally agree. They don’t fit anyone how they’re supposed to, they’re way too expensive for a fad, the colors make me think of ice cream, and the ankle opening might as well be a joke. Plus, the really popular ones like J Brand (I think I might have railed against the brand in class already), are pretty much made for pre-pubescent boys – the inseam zipper is like 2 inches.

That said, I have a pair of skinny jeans. Black ones. And I love them. And here’s why: utility. (Stay with me) For those of us who go back-and-forth between wearing high heels, higher heels, and flats, the same problem emerges: length of jeans. I’m convinced that it’s the industry’s way of making us purchase a million pairs of jeans (seriously, can’t they make a secretly unfolding bottom hem? Seems so simple) I know, I know, it’s a major life dilemma. But here’s the thing, the skinny jeans completely solve that problem because they can go with any heel height. Plus, you can wear old dresses that are way too short to wear as originally intended, as tops.
So, if you’re publicly shaming wearers but secretly pining for a pair, I think the trick might be in the fabric – they have to be real denim (I had to go up 2 sizes, but they fit). Not the 90% stretch kind, but the hard denim variety, with maybe only 1-2% stretch. Levi’s, Gap, Apple Bottom, and AG make good ones. Levi’s and Apple Bottoms are especially good for curves. If you’re unconvinced by the skinny, Joe’s “Muse” jeans are cut like regular pants – slightly higher rise, wider leg, and longer – and fit many different body types. And, the best part is that they go on huge sales, pretty often at Nordstrom Rack and sometimes Marshall’s.

xoxo,
Shallow

Denim advice

It's Friday night, so I am going to bring down the level of discussion on the blog...sorry guys! So here are my denim suggestions to get the ball rolling...

Deener denim - They have a bit of give (but they aren't stretch denim), so they are a bit forgiving in the hip region (although the calves are a bit tight). They are an LA company, but I have only seen them in NY, so here is the website...

http://www.deenerdenim.com/

I also recently discovered Martin + Osa's jeans...they are very forgiving, they come in different lengths and they do free alterations if needed...they might not have the cool cache of some brands, but they did have the best white denim that I could find.

Star Doll: The Ultimate Fashion Power

In researching for my last post I came across Stardoll. A site where you can dress up your favorite celebrities paper doll style in infinite wardrobes of your choosing. I created an Avril Lavigne doll using outfits from her new clothing line, Abbey Dawn. Talk about genius marketing.

Dress up Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson and many more, but with the power to make them fashion disasters at your whim. I think I am enjoying this way too much...