Reflexive Dwelling: The body as representation of wall

In a play-within-a-play, the Mechanicals' production within William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, the character Snout announces his transformation to play the character of Wall. Snout's portrayal of Wall is both comical and menacing as he represents the forces that separate the lovers Pyramus and Thisbe. Wall becomes a subject in a manner no different from the lovers that he separates; his influence on their situation is brought to life. The unbecoming nature of walls to demarcate, separate, intimidate, influence and control is a relationship most can relate to in their experiences with architecture. It is in these moments that architecture leaps from the sphere of object into the realm of subject; where we might be involved in some intense struggle with the placement of a wall, the wall that might separate us from a lover, justice, freedom, power or privacy. This study investigates how this struggle is portrayed through the human body as representation of walls in performance.

Writing fashion’s future: the gods and monsters of the Anthropocene

This paper identifies two narratives of the Anthropocene and explores how they play out in the realm of future-looking fashion production. Each narrative draws on mythic comparisons to gods and monsters to express humanity’s dilemmas, albeit from different perspectives. The first is a Malthusian narrative of collapse and scarcity, brought about by the monstrous, unstoppable nature of human technology set loose on the natural world. In this vein, philosopher Slavoj Zizek (2010) draws on Biblical analogies, likening ecological crisis to one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. To find a myth to suit the present times, novelist A.S Byatt (2011) proposes Ragnarök, a Norse myth in which the gods destroy themselves. In contrast, the second narrative is one of technological cornucopia. Stewart Brand (2009, 27), self-described ‘eco-pragmatist’ writes, ‘we are as gods and we have to get good at it’. In his view, human technologies offer the only hope to mitigating the problems caused by human technology – Brand suggests harnessing nuclear power, bioengineering of crops and the geoengineering of the planet as the way forward. Similarly, the French philosopher Bruno Latour (2012, 274), exhorts us to “love our monsters”, likening our technologies to Doctor Frankenstein’s monster – set loose upon the world, and then reviled by his creator. For both Brand and Latour, human technology may be monstrous, but it must also be turned toward solutions. Within this schema, hopeful visions of the future of fashion are similarly divided. In the techno-enabled cornucopian future, the fashion industry embraces wearable technology, speed and efficiency. Technologies such as waterless dyeing, 3D printing and self-cleaning garments shift fashion into a new era of cleaner production. Meanwhile, in the narrative of scarcity, a more cautious approach sees fashion return to a new localism and valuing of the hand-made in a time of shrinking resources. Through discussion of future-looking fashion designers, brands, and activists, this paper explores how they may align along a spectrum to one of these two grand narratives of the future. The paper will discuss how these narratives may unconsciously shape the perspective of both producers and users around the fashion of today and the fashion of tomorrow. This paper poses the question: what stories can be written for fashion’s future in the Anthropocene, and are they fated, or can they be re-written?