The Stitchery collective : fashion in an expanded field

This practice-based presentation explores the role of fashion as an agent for social inclusion and ethical design practice in communities. The Stitchery Collective is an artist-run initiative based in Brisbane, Australia. Operating at the intersection of craft and design, the fashion-based initiative challenges the assumption that fashion is designed, produced and consumed exclusively in the commercial sector. As a not-for-profit cooperative, the stitchery collective is the first and only fashion organisation in Australia to attract funding under the national and state artist-run-initiative scheme. The collective approach extends to the stitchery design practice, facilitated by individual practitioners working within the organisation who devise programs in the context of collaborative and socially engaged design. Working under the banner of a question, Can fashion be more than pretty clothes for pretty people? the stitchery works to extend the cultural field of fashion practice in the 21st century. The premise of dress as a ‘significant creative or cultural expression’ has informed the expanded definition of fashion practice, as adopted by the stitchery. This alternative classification has fostered partnerships with numerous community groups, including those marginalised in the contemporary fashion context such as recent migrants and refugees. Community engagement programs span design, sewing and up-cycling workshops, sustainability lectures, clothing swaps and public education seminars, supported by partnerships with various cultural, government and educational institutions. In 2011, the stitchery travelled to the Venice Biennale’s 3rd International Children’s Carnival, hosting a workshop series and installation to promote design for sustainability. The proven potential for design to connect community members has motivated the stitchery to question the opportunity for fashion practice to, perhaps uncharacteristically, operate under the banner of ‘design for social good’. Acknowledging craft and design as relational fields, this presentation expands fashion as a tool for social innovation and sustainable practice. The stitchery dislocates the consumer status of fashion with small-scale, localised projects; moving beyond fashion as a dictum of social class to an alternative model that is accessible, conscious, flexible, connected and sustainable. As an undefined post-industrial future approaches, the non-commercial status of the stitchery practice might work to present an image of the active post-consumer. How can the stitchery propose a resilient model of design for the future?

Worldly feelings made material : cosmopolitan aesthetics, affect and recent relational art

The openness and compassion implicit in the social transaction of recent philosophies of cosmopolitanism is reflected in the aims of the body of interpersonal, process-driven artworks commonly referred to as relational art. In attempting to bring art into life, specifically as a point of intervention in the lives of its spectators, the affective power required to realize the communal and participatory aims of many of these artworks is central. Relational art practices invite the individualising distinctiveness of the spectator yet ultimately seek the collective affect of the artwork’s formulated community. Like cosmopolitanism, this is a felt community where the obligatory affective investment is imagined as open and empathic built on mutual exchange and generosity. They suggest that it doesn’t matter so much what we feel about art but what and how we feel through art. The artworld’s public spheres have become increasingly affective worlds, where the artwork’s coerced and managed human relations are conceived as interstices for a more open exchange with art and each other. With reference to Sydney Biennale’s recent All My Relations exhibition, this paper will interrogate how worldly feelings are made material by the requisite emotional and aesthetic labour of feeling for and with others in relational art.

In pursuit of an architecture realism

The noble idea of studying seminal works to ‘see what we can learn’ has turned in the 1990s into ‘let’s see what we can take’ and in the last decade a more toxic derivative ‘what else can’t we take’. That is my observation as a student of architecture in the 1990s, and as a practitioner in the 2000s. In 2010, the sense that something is ending is clear. The next generation is rising and their gaze has shifted. The idea of classification (as a means of separation) was previously rejected by a generation of Postmodernists; the usefulness of difference declined. It’s there in the presence of plurality in the resulting architecture, a decision to mine history and seize in a willful manner. This is a process of looking back but never forward. It has been a mono-culture of absorption. The mono-culture rejected the pursuit of the realistic. It is a blanket suffocating all practice of architecture in this country from the mercantile to the intellectual. Independent reviews of Australia’s recent contributions to the Venice Architecture Biennales confirm the malaise. The next generation is beginning to reconsider classification as a means of unification. By acknowledging the characteristics of competing forces it is possible to bring them into a state of tension. Seeking a beautiful contrast is a means to a new end. In the political setting, this is described by Noel Pearson as the radical centre[1]. The concept transcends the political and in its most essential form is a cultural phenomenon. It resists the compromised position and suggests that we can look back while looking forward. The radical centre is the only demonstrated opportunity where it is possible to pursue a realistic architecture. A realistic architecture in Australia may be partially resolved by addressing our anxiety of permanence. Farrelly’s built desires[2] and Markham’s ritual demonstrations[3] are two ways into understanding the broader spectrum of permanence. But I think they are downstream of our core problem. Our problem, as architects, is that we are yet to come to terms with this place. Some call it landscape others call it country. Australian cities were laid out on what was mistaken for a blank canvas. On some occasions there was the consideration of the landscape when it presented insurmountable physical obstacles. The architecture since has continued to work on its piece of a constantly blank canvas. Even more ironic is the commercial awards programs that represent a claim within this framework but at best can only establish a dialogue within itself. This is a closed system unable to look forward. It is said that Melbourne is the most European city in the southern hemisphere but what is really being described there is the limitation of a senseless grid. After all, if Dutch landscape informs Dutch architecture why can’t the Australian landscape inform Australian architecture? To do that, we would have to acknowledge our moribund grasp of the meaning of the Australian landscape. Or more precisely what Indigenes call Country[4]. This is a complex notion and there are different ways into it. Country is experienced and understood through the senses and seared into memory. If one begins design at that starting point it is not unreasonable to think we can arrive at an end point that is a counter trajectory to where we have taken ourselves. A recent studio with Masters students confirmed this. Start by finding Country and it would be impossible to end up with a building looking like an Aboriginal man’s face. To date architecture in Australia has overwhelmingly ignored Country on the back of terra nullius. It can’t seem to get past the picturesque. Why is it so hard? The art world came to terms with this challenge, so too did the legal establishment, even the political scene headed into new waters. It would be easy to blame the budgets of commerce or the constraints of program or even the pressure of success. But that is too easy. Those factors are in fact the kind of limitations that opportunities grow out of. The past decade of economic plenty has, for the most part, smothered the idea that our capitals might enable civic settings or an architecture that is able to looks past lot line boundaries in a dignified manner. The denied opportunities of these settings to be prompted by the Country they occupy is criminal. The public realm is arrested in its development because we refuse to accept Country as a spatial condition. What we seem to be able to embrace is literal and symbolic gestures usually taking the form of a trumped up art installations. All talk – no action. To continue to leave the public realm to the stewardship of mercantile interests is like embracing derivative lending after the global financial crisis.Herein rests an argument for why we need a resourced Government Architect’s office operating not as an isolated lobbyist for business but as a steward of the public realm for both the past and the future. New South Wales is the leading model with Queensland close behind. That is not to say both do not have flaws but current calls for their cessation on the grounds of design parity poorly mask commercial self interest. In Queensland, lobbyists are heavily regulated now with an aim to ensure integrity and accountability. In essence, what I am speaking of will not be found in Reconciliation Action Plans that double as business plans, or the mining of Aboriginal culture for the next marketing gimmick, or even discussions around how to make buildings more ‘Aboriginal’. It will come from the next generation who reject the noxious mono-culture of absorption and embrace a counter trajectory to pursue an architecture of realism.