Post-Apocalyptic Fashion — Lazy_f4shion

One thing you ought to know before I start hating; is that your fav lazy fashion gurl is a huge sci-fi nerd. As far as I can remember, I’ve always been quite obsessed with post-apocalyptic worlds, collapsology and UFOs etc. So much that I’ve dedicated my master’s thesis to this very topic. More specifically, as I’m finishing this third master degree and finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, I felt the urge to study ecology and its philosophical pendant. Anyways, one of my core interests and the main question I’m tackling in my thesis is the following: I basically try to understand the impact of science fiction on our approach to the current climate crisis and the way it reshaped our behaviors (positively and negatively) towards that very specific crisis. To put it short, since science fiction has now turned into a whole new aesthetic, what can we learn from it? 

The thing is, I believe that Gen-Z and millennials are cyberpunk generations and that we’re quite all on the same page that the apocalypse is happening quite soon. COVID-19 was just a first glimpse into our future and we quickly appropriated the crisis in “Dressing for the Apocalypse” Tik Toks and fit checks, understandably so. Here, I’d like to question my very own attraction to those aesthetics. Consider this as a short summary of an expose I’ve been given the chance to present during one of my seminars. 
 
If I could choose, I would dress as a video game character from a post-apocalyptic world every single day. I love my baggie, distressed, wasteland vibes clothes, I’m obsessed with those recent Balenciaga shows and HAMCUS, early UNDERCOVER Jun Takahashi, NO/FAITH STUDIOS etc. One question I had to ask myself though was: Are you dressing this way to better prepare yourself for the apocalypse? Is it in any way a form of escapism? Do you get a sense of superiority in doing so? Do you feel like you understand something that the others don’t? And, the thing is, I don’t dress like this on a daily basis, but I would say that it would be my go to aesthetic. At some point I had a reality check and told myself  “babes you ain’t going anywhere with that €1.5k outfit and, drooling over an €1k oversized hoodie is not going to change anything when the actual collapse happens”. So, let’s dive deep into post-apocalyptic fashion and try to better understand the phenomenon. What I would like to focus on, in this article, is consumers behavior and our relationship to specific core-aesthetics. I would like to provide you with some theoretical cues and insights so we can, maybe, collectively start implementing real solutions within fashion.

Let’s all agree first that our generation, is in general way more aware. Yet, our consumption remains problematic on so many levels and still generates several inequalities I will not discuss in this article (but think of Depop and Vinted resell for instance and its connection to the increase of thrift shops prices during the past decade). It can be hard and overwhelming to be mindful when buying clothes, refraining ourselves from hoarding etc. I do think that we have a tendency to go for the aesthetic before going for the sustainable - which I understand, considering that most of the eco-fashion is fugly.

In this article, I will of course draw a line between art and inspiration and mass production/micro-trends. Also, bear in mind that the notions of innovation and technological progress do not  necessarily pair with sustainability. In Tech-Fashion, everything remains cool and innovative as the production is rarely scalable due to the need of fundings, patent processes, a very small consumer base and more generally speaking the lack of general interest. Tech-innovation and environmentally-conscious production are not self-induced and so is Eco-Fashion and low prices.

Think about it, nowadays it costs much more to a small brand to be sustainable than to mass produce and dropship. The production cost of a sustainable product is so high from the start that it requires you to sell it much more than you ever anticipated. Many young designers opt for greenhushing (when a brand/product is sustainable yet don’t base their marketing strategy on sustainability contrary to greenwashing firms) yet quickly question their choice considering the market. I believe that there are solutions to both problems, but both require full consumer commitment and awareness. And honestly, I’m not competent enough to discuss them right now.

Anyways, back to my point, what’s fashion like during the pre-Apocalypse? The thing is we’ve entered a new era called the “Anthropocene”. The word in itself can trigger our deepest eco-anxiety and eco-anger. Yet, to think of the Anthropocene as a turning point of our existence (as humans and non-humans) and not only as ambient chaos, it appears that Sci-Fi is a useful methodological tool. Indeed, Sci-fi is not only a genre but a thought exercise. French researcher Yannick Rumpala wrote that science fiction be a useful tool when it comes to inhabiting the Anthropocene and building new ethics for the future[1]. According to him, it presents a double interest: Sci fi was largely able to anticipate on our current situation, it theorized it and provided us with several models and systems. But the genre also provided us with clear ideas of what post-collapse and post-apocalyptic groups of humans would act like, be like etc. In short, it is an impressive prospective tool.

Of course, sci-fi deals with several core-themes: time travel, interplanetary travels, space colonization or forced exile from planet Earth, AI takeover etc. but I would be more interested in Earth-based tropes such as the ones we encounter in the Cyberpunk, Biopunk and Post-Cyberpunk narratives. I think this is because they are the most relevant in terms of eco-emotions and regular emotions they make us feel. But also because their narratives seem closer to our reality and referential imagery. The late XXth and early XXIst century gave birth to a new generation: digital natives who grew up within the cyberspace and deeply influenced by the artistic and cultural productions trending in the new millennium. We grew up and are growing up with several mainstream cinematographic and literary science fiction cultural products. But there’s also video games, animes, mangas, music. Think of Matrix, Ghost in the Shell, Cyberpunk 2077, Psycho-Pass, Atari Teenage Riot etc.

What comes out of these sci-fi cultural products is the creation of a broad referential and notional scheme we collectively share; either consciously or unconsciously. In his essay Science fiction and Society, French author Alexandre Hougron exposed that younger generations are usually more prone to relate to science fiction - especially millennials and Gen Z now. This, specifically because the elements we traditionally associate to Sci-fi such as techno music, laptops, video games etc. what we would call cyberculture are just what we were born with.

That's why I love to call us a cyberpunk generation, I think it sounds cool. But I think that what triggers us the most would be “the end of times”. The end of our civilization, humanity, planet etc. not in a religious way but in a more man-made one, let’s say a self-made one. Yet our self-inflicted collapse and death as much as it is used by the alarmist rhetoric seems totally ineffective on our generation. We’ve been failed by our elders, and I totally get our nihilistic approach at some point. I do like to recall what Timothy Morton wrote in Hyperobjects, “A Quake in Being'' [2] : “Indeed, as I shall argue, the strongly held belief that the world is about to end “unless we act now” is paradoxically one of the most powerful factors that inhibit a full engagement with our ecological coexistence here on Earth.”. I’ll add that, while this argument is totally valid and factual, it does pave the way to a wide range of fantasies and weird desires we have of the actual collapse as a salvatory gateway. “Unless we act now” let us wonder “what if we don’t” and even if we’re pretty aware of the answer let’s say that this vague statement isn’t powerful enough to entice collective action and raise awareness on its own. I believe that part of the reason is that the notions and ideas of the “end of the world”, the “global collapse” or the “Apocalypse” not only are part of a discursive scheme but inherently refer to visual and imaginary schemes and aesthetics. To put it short, whatever reaches an aesthetic level most of the time loses its first meaning and fades into passive contemplation.

I know you feel like I’m not talking about fashion right now, but it’s essential to contextualize my statement. The cyber-revolution has already happened, and technological innovations are now going faster than our cognitive abilities to adapt and learn allow us to process. Science fiction has thus reached a new level, it is now a visual and imaginary referential scheme we all (or mostly) relate to. That is to say, it has direct consequences on our artistic and cultural productions as well as on our emotions, phobias, desires, fantasies etc. What we mostly see in science fiction, as a collective, is its ability to anticipate on the future whether it’s close or remote, its ability to create new spaces, universes, horizons we can project ourselves onto as an individual or as a society. In that way, it has become a methodological tool to think the Anthropocene, a real aesthetic with its derivates and subgenres, a trend, a phobia etc. The way we use the terms “post-apocalyptic”, “collapse”, “dystopian” has become banal. This partially happened because even if science fiction relates the stories of fictional characters, those are always “in-situ” in a very specific and detailed environment, acting and feeling as humans do. My main concern is that the coincidence between science fiction narratives and reality, as well as its ability to anticipate on the future can be problematic when turned into and appropriated as core-aesthetics. It does have real consequences on our social behaviors, individuality, willpower and crisis-awareness and reflects onto our consumption habits. Of course, science-fiction has, from the start, split into multiple subgenres which later became aesthetics and then turned into core-aesthetics as you can see below. But whether you dress accordingly to one of these aesthetics or your favorite brands and designers sell garments directly inspired from them, they are not immune to the trend cycle and, you’re not immune to influence. Bear in mind that the fashion industry and trends always reflect a certain state of society, which makes it necessarily in-situ - actively part of the present - for better or for worse as you can see on the indicative chronology I put up for you.

Back to science fiction, as it is a visual and referential scheme it then becomes all-the-more relevant when we understand the correlation between fashion and its contemporary environment. I would say that several brands capitalize on the state of the world right now while some other built their whole DNA on science fiction and its subgenres which make them more relevant and interesting to study like HAMCUS for instance.  Their approach to garments is in general much more conscious but also coherent. I’ll bitch a bit later, but first I wanted to give a proper example of sci-fi/reality induced fashion. I’ll refer to Timothy Morton in Hyperobjects, as he explained that the end of the world has already happened and has been officialized by the Manhattan Project (1942) and the tragic atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th and 9th 1945. This statement can help us to better understand what’s behind Rei Kawakubo’s “Hiroshima Chic”.

If you take CDG’s FW1981 collection “Destroy” it is not only avant-garde, genderless, precursor or whatever you wanna call it but inherently post-human and neo-apocalyptic. Kawakubo and what we call Karasu-Zoku redefined our biased approach to clothing. Going against the gender norms and desirability within fashion and especially in womenswear she reshaped our vision and understanding of garments. This collection, widely inspired by a man-made apocalypse, offers impersonal and anonymous silhouettes. The fits are loose, asymmetric, and obscure. What I personally love about this collection is that it widens the gap between the order of things (I hope you get the reference). In doing so, it renders visible what’s abstract, commonly inexpressible, the very principle of disembodiment. I’ll now connect that to what Maud Grange-Remy exposes in her article “Post-human fictions” published in Chimères[3] as she goes on to explain that posthumanism characterizes what’s become marginally human – a state in which humanity itself is annexed to our existence. The “post” isn’t necessarily induced by the apocalypse, it translates a breakdown, a downfall, something of the “end”. “Destroy” can be perceived as such. But it also prefigured a whole countermovement in fashion and new aesthetics: Anti-Fashion and Neo-futuristic fashion for instance. I’d say that now, it’s quite easy to spot these aesthetics in fashion and the leading brands in that area, yet we have to acknowledge the impact of these type collections on today's fashion. They walked so we could run.

To give proper examples of in-situ/sci-fi inspired collections, I’d like to dwell a bit on Alexander MacQueen and the ecological/technological counterpart of his shows. Let’s take SS1993 “No. 13” where Shalom Harlow’s dress was spray painted by robots, FW2003 “A glass wind-tunnel corridor bridging a snow-covered wasteland: that was the bleak techno-meets-nature setting (Vogue Runway), FW2006 and its Kate Moss illusion, SS2009 and “a runway that was backed by a video projection of a revolving Earth, and flanked by a zoo of stuffed animals: an elephant, giraffe, polar bear, lion, and assorted other endangered species (Vogue Runway), SS2010 “Plato’s Atlantis” questioning the interconnexion between nature and technology through hybrid and reptilian silhouettes. I wouldn’t say that McQueen’s collections were about “post-apocalyptic” fashion, yet he used sci-fi tropes and concepts and recontextualized them within the present. For that reason, he made such a brilliant use of technology in fashion while also questioning, within his shows the impact of the industry and more globally our impact, as a species, on the environment.

On the contrary, brands such as Balenciaga by Demna Gvasalia would explore a more pessimistic vision of the future and science fiction tropes in their aesthetic. I'd think of SS2020 and its fake broadcast with headlines such as “Where is the water going?” or “Pedestrians are back” accompanied by a walking plastic bag; or even SS2022’s blizzard echoing the meteorological distress we’re facing and about to face. It's giving an appropriate depiction of post-apocalyptic fashion.  Rick Owens would be the same for me even though the brand didn't build its marketing strategy on the same rhetoric.  To name other brands, Boris Bildjan Saberi, Hamcus, Ottolinger, Didu, Argue Culture, Heliot Emil  all partake in these sci-fi-subgenres inspired fashion and core-aesthetics.

So I’ll ask, has the social, political and economic collapse become mainstream? Do we tend to dress up for the apocalypse? When does it stop becoming relevant and prevents us from implementing real and effective solutions though? Here again let’s remind ourselves that if we have to draw the line between the arts/inspiration and the rest of things, that line is not a highway, it's a fine one. Our clothes and consumption habits directly contribute to the mass destruction of ecosystems let alone the human cost of such industries. When did we stop thinking of garments as fabric and savoir-faire? Buying into an aesthetic doesn’t prevent us from thinking, especially if that aesthetic is heavily connoted and claims to be backed by a political message.

There’s one concept or idea that I consider central in our contradictory way of being and acting: “enclothed cognition”. I do believe that it should play a much bigger part in our consumption habits clothing-wise as it explains a lot. If the spread of science fiction and its constitution into core-aesthetics isn’t bad in itself, it still has negative consequences when it comes to refusing critical thinking. Buying into such aesthetics relies both on aspiring behaviors and pure pleasure. Yet, we shouldn’t omit the symbolic scope of fashion. I could be nihilistic and claiming there’s no future, no need to act etc. and still trying to anticipate the future destruction of all symbols, structures and normative systems prefigured by the current global context. Of course, clothing is iconic, but there’s more to the simple iconicity of a garment, we cannot elude that it is part of a broader symbolic spectrum. What I mostly see in post-apocalyptic fashion and its subgenres is that, if the individual acknowledges the situation and might adhere to the global rhetoric, most of the time the individual positions themselves as antagonistic to the rest of the world. This unconscious phenomenon sheds light on an inner paradox. And, when observing real climate activists, which I’m not, well I cannot but see that they do not care about fashion in that way, and they couldn’t care less which is cool. So, I’m not saying that we should stop being our fashion-cool and stop dressing that way but there are other ways of being cool and coherent. Direct and efficient action, in the present moment, doesn’t require to anticipate physiologically/physically/clothing-wise on a 50+ years future. I do believe this comes from the common misunderstanding that we can anticipate, because massive disasters don’t knock on our door before happening. A disaster becomes a major event simultaneously to the moment it happens. So it’s not about “unless we act now” but more about “we should act better” I guess.

Back to “enclothed cognition”, well in 2012, researchers Adam and Galinsky led an experiment and introduced the concept to express the systematic influence of clothing on our behaviors and psychology. Here’s an abstract of the experiment they led:

“As a first test of our enclothed cognition perspective, the current research explored the effects of wearing a lab coat. A pretest found that a lab coat is generally associated with attentiveness and carefulness. We therefore predicted that wearing a lab coat would increase performance on attention-related tasks. In Experiment 1, physically wearing a lab coat increased selective attention compared to not wearing a lab coat. In Experiments 2 and 3, wearing a lab coat described as a doctor's coat increased sustained attention compared to wearing a lab coat described as a painter's coat, and compared to simply seeing or even identifying with a lab coat described as a doctor's coat. Thus, the current research suggests a basic principle of enclothed cognition—it depends on both the symbolic meaning and the physical experience of wearing the clothes.”[4]

The connection between the physical experience and its symbolic aspect is mediatized. Indeed, clothing intervenes as the medium of this experience as it is the “symbol” carrier. The direct conclusion we can draw out of it is that associating fashion style and clothing preferences solely to aesthetic aspirations is pure nonsense. Purely because there’s something special happening when wearing a given piece of clothing. If you’re familiar with color theory, you know what I mean. The individual connects and identifies to a given symbolic scheme when wearing clothes. So, the key aspect of this theory is not about what we think of a certain piece but more how we think and process our very own self according to that piece. Adam and Galinsky also remind us that most of the studies on the topic tackle notions such as “deindividuation” within clothing – when purchasing certain types of brands and items based on their aspirational aspect and their overlaying social archetypes. But enclothed cognition helps us understanding our relation to fashion through a new prism. I’ll then like to address the following hypothesis:

The spread of sci-fi tropes such as the “apocalypse”, “post-apocalypticism”, “cyberpunk” etc. and their conversion into core-aesthetics and merchandise tends to prevent us from being solution-oriented individuals when it comes to the climate crisis. My preliminary answer will be that, as the relationship and the connection we have to those garments are mediatized without our direct acknowledgment, we act as if we knew something that the others didn’t. We relate to the sentiments, sensations and feelings carried by the garment and its aesthetic so we can project a panel of eco-emotions and emotions onto it. Yet, most of the time it only feeds autofictions and internal monologue. Just as those who performed better because they were wearing a lab coat, we are given the feeling that we understand something better than the others, that the end has already happened, that there’s no future blablabla. As much as I agree on that and feel that we’re doomed I don’t really like being imposed ideas and buying into self-induced brain damage.

As I said before, I believe in critical thinking. The issue in this is not about liking a certain aesthetic and dressing the way we want, it’s more about lacking understanding in terms of trends, garment production, influence etc. Also, as I said, I’m not against brands whose DNA was built on Sci-fi and referencing science fiction in their collection. I just think that capitalizing on subcultures and alternative lifestyles has a downside and it’s called instigating cognitive dissonance into your consumers life, appropriating marginalized lifestyle etc. One thing I didn’t mention because it’s a bit out of topic would be that this phenomenon also pairs with the most problematic trend we’ve ever been given to see: Berlin-core. I mean I can't deal with those Tik Toks and Berlin/Rave lifestyle or whatever that is. Let’s face it, the SHEIN-ification of rave culture is one of the worst things that could have happened to fashion. Never in my entire life would I have thought I’d see SHEIN hauls coming from “””“ravers””””. I may sound a bit harsh, but I believe that this is part of the problem as most of the techwear, baggy and comfy clothes, loads of pockets, platforms and trainers etc. are part of this culture for a reason but then again, it has lost its meaning. I’d say that any brand capitalizing on these core-aesthetics and following a certain counter-hegemonic trend tend to fake their environmental consciousness. And I mean I fell into that trap more than once, the issue is that we purchase those items so we can appease some eco-anxiety/eco-anger, to fulfill some needs and aspirations, to be considered and validated by our peers.

Fashion reviews and criticism used to be spicier and more incisive, less polished and “everybody’s so creative” and let’s bring it back, at least a tiny bit. Because that’s how we know if we’re buying quality products. It’s one thing to materialize and address a global concern, another to refrain yourself from critical thinking. One thing to create incredible and striking pieces of clothing, another to sell crappy fabrics and capitalize on “happenings” and spectacular settings to sell those (hello Coperni). Thinking and anticipating the future collapse is not enough if it sometimes feels like you want it to happen so bad. This kinda saddens me about fashion nowadays.

But, on a more positive note, even though I hated those puppy robots at Coperni, I did like what Heliot Emil proposed during their FW23 show, the puppy robots made sense in the setting and that final burning man was actually cool. It kinda reminded us that garments are made of fabric and that fabric can be useful. Because when the world’s gonna burn at least some of us will be ready, I guess. Another spectacular and yet innovative and interesting thing we’ve been given to see was during Anrealage debuts at Paris Fashion Week. I loved those white canvas, color-changing clothes activated by UV lights. This gives me a glimpse of the future – will we ever have to camouflage? How could our clothes be useful during global warming? There’s something really interesting to it. Even if I’m not a huge fan of the design, that Italian fashion-tech startup called Cap_able managed to produced neo-functionable clothes creating a blind-spot and impeaching facial recognition. I want to believe that this is a first step in refusing the dark and gloomy future we are given right now. On the more institutional side, French maison Chloe remains a leading brand in terms of environmental action and has a truly tangible model, it’s the only French couture house part of the B-Corp label. So some efforts and progress are being made. Yet, the question shouldn’t be: should we greenhush or be afraid to greenwash but more about what we can do, effectively, to reinvent our models and make them functional. At least, let’s be coherent with our aesthetic.

Finally, I’d like to talk about two opposite attitudes we can encounter within the fashion sphere: biophilia and biophobia. Biophobia would consist in – actively or passively – refusing to implement innovative and ecologically-driven systems and investing in R&D or finding a way out of the system. I’d say that part of the Web.3 fashion is about escapism as it, most of the time, relies on the fake utopia of non-distinctive clothing in real life and self-expression within the metaverse. It’s just a brand-new parallel industry. Some creators are actually doing cool stuff but that’s not enough. Biophobia can also translate into accepting the apocalypse and blatantly capitalizing on it or behaving as if nothing was really happening and we could just keep on consuming based on aspirational ideologies conveyed within clothing – here you are “old money aesthetic” xx-.

Anyways, there’s so much to biophilia and innovative systems within fashion as well, I firmly believe that we should be more drawn to biomimetics and biotextiles. I can’t wait for the spread of higher education programs based on biomimicry and biodesign in fashion. Central Saint Martin’s already offers a Master in Biodesign, and it doesn’t mean that the future is all Iris Van Herpen in terms of fits and shapes, but it can give us a bit of hope. Designers such as Jun Kamei are also interesting to follow. As I said before, this side of the industry remains too niche and expensive as for now. Biomimicry still appears as the most relevant option to achieve true sustainability within fashion. Consider that 35% of the harmful microplastics found the oceans come from synthetics materials (to give at least one number) there goes your Issey Miyake dupe from Zara. And RPET is still an underserved industry when it comes to fashion – it consists in using recycled polyester as the primary fabric ingredient, “RPET redirects discarded plastic that often ends up ocean-bound and repurposes it into textile products as one solution to address the bigger issue of sustainability in fashion. However, continual innovation is still needed to develop additional and more long-term solutions.” [5] . One thing also mentioned in the quoted article would be the use of all-natural and/or biodegradable fibers to avoid clothing ending in landfills. Anyways, it’s important to know that these things exist and to use them the best we can.

As we increasingly feel estrange to ourselves and drawn to the bizarre, hybrid and teratologic, closer to the end, doomed and blablabla, can we at least demand clothing that would help us to actually survive during the global collapse? Man “I’m just trying to have a nice time despite knowing facts and information”.

xoxo, go piss girl

-        Cyana-Djoher

USEFUL LINKS AND ARTICLES:

[1] https://www.cairn.info/penser-l-anthropocene--9782724622102.htm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Morton 
[3] https://www.cairn.info/revue-chimeres-2011-1.htm 
[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103112000200 
[5] https://www.just-style.com/features/biomimicry-a-key-solution-for-fashion-sustainability/

How the post-apocalyptic fashion trend is contributing to the actual apocalypse.

Contact

How the post-apocalyptic fashion trend is contributing to the actual apocalypse.

Sur les héros de science-fiction post-apocalyptique (Copy) (Copy)

About core-aesthetics

Contact