We’re going to have a clothing line for this piece at some point. Probably just t-shirts — at least to start.

But really that’s up to you. What do you guys want? I’m looking at fair-trade organic shirts printed with soy dyes (seriously), and due to my recent strategy change I’m outsourcing all the art/design to game and tattoo artists I know. Here’s a very rough sketch I just picked at random from Missy’s online portfolio:

What do you want in clothes though? Are tees played? Would you rather have a collar? Women’s sizing? Do you give no fucks about organic soy tees and would prefer gold and lead? Are crazy mushroom psychedelics a turn on or off? How interactive should they be?

As a for instance, what if the above was reduced to a single pink shroom centered on a navy tee, and you tap to make it glow.

The first run probably won’t be interactive because of technical lack of know-how on my part coupled with a lack of outsourcability (but a 555 and some elpanels are teh cheapness). I’m going to try having weekly contests or something and use the shirts as prizes:

q: “I love that shirt, where did you buy it?”
a: “Oh, they’re not for sale.”

Discuss?

Kyla pointed me to this somewhat simplistic discussion of ironic fashion. Let’s recall the definition of irony: “to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning”.

Note that the literal meaning is not the same as the original meaning. Bowler hats originated as sportwear. Heels were developed to accentuate men’s calves, and red lipstick and nip-waisted skirts accentuate natural sex characteristics. I have no idea what Rainbow Brite stood for (colour worship?).

Once things get introduced into society, they immediately start to pick up cultural significance and their meaning changes. Over time bowlers have meant hunter, cowboy, South American woman, droog, Victorian gentleman, steampunker, etc, etc. When someone wears a piece of clothing, they usually intend to reference a specific meaning and are likely only aware of some of the meanings.*

Sally at Already Pretty argues that the wearer of the clothes gets to decide what they mean. But in a postmodern reading of an outfit (a text) the author is dead. If you’re wearing ironic clothes, each and every person who looks at your outfit reads their own meaning into it. You can try to push a particular reading, but it doesn’t really matter what you think.

If you try to create an ironic juxtaposition, some people just won’t get it. Some people will see irony where you don’t (your miner’s dungarees are a craving for authenticity). In particular, retro clothing is always open for an ironic reading, because we are not actually living in that period. But the historical reference that retro clothing makes can be glorifying or subverting or both.

* To a Victorian gentleman, a bowler means “I am out hunting and my head is cold”. A bowler is much more likely to mean “cowboy” to someone in the 1870s than the 2010s.

I’d like a Cowichan Sweater. But the ones available in thrift and tourist stores have, for historical or practical reasons, very unflattering cuts.

There’s a Richmond (Coast Salish land) company called Granted that is producing what they call “Cowichan-inspired” sweaters with local (read: Asian immigrant) knitters. Both CBC 3 and The Straight have featured them without questioning their bona fides.

Four Horsemen menswear store in Victoria contracted Granted to produce custom sweaters which are being sold as “Cowichans”. The owner of Four Horsemen said something about Granted being a subsidiary of a traditional Cowichan company, but I can’t find any information about that online.

The question is whether Granted sweaters count as cultural appropriation? If not, buying one of those sweaters is stealing the Cowichan people’s intellectual property and depriving them of one of their few economic niches (see also: HBC’s Olympic sweaters).