Comments on: RAQ: rarely asked questions

By: Jo

Jo — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 07:48:58 +0000

Kathleen I am one of those 10 people….unfortunately I don’t yet have the professional opportunity to use my obsession for the greater good. In my small world, there is a link between obesity and education or wealth. The people who could afford to create a market in custom fitted clothing don’t need to as they fit into the mass market stuff. The people who could benefit from custom fitting can’t afford it. So as mass production follows the mass market and plus sizes become the norm will it then turn on its head so that the perfect size 10 will have to have her clothes specially made?

By: kwame

kwame — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:12:08 +0000

i recently learned how to sew a blazer and judging my performance i think i still need to know more. i will appreciate it alot if you could enligthen on how to go about the cutting and the stitching.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:43:54 +0000

Marie-Christine,

My son has Aspergers Syndrome/is autistic and he was born with a huge appetite. Even now he eats a lot, though he is thin as a rail. Most autistic people limit food because they are sensitive to certain tastes and textures and also may have food allergies either known or unknown driving them to either eat things they shouldn’t or keep them away from other things they shouldn’t eat. I would say your no appetite theory is false, at least in the general population. Now it is true that many on the spectrum have different reactions to strong sensory input, and for Kathleen that may be grease.

Also, I think anyone who has been obese and lost a lot of weight can be considered “obsessed” by the general public. I say tis better to be obsessed and fit than unaware and fat.

By: Marie-Christine

Marie-Christine — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 09:06:34 +0000

Kathleen, a small bit about why you may be more obsessed about weight than other people? In my family, we can spot the ones who’ll be truly autistic right at birth, because they’re born without an appetite. Breast? Eeck. From what I’ve read, it’s not that unusual an association. So you might consider that you’re more willing to limit food for yourself because of built-in leanings, with a rationalization built in by the current scientific/social climate. And that would be also why you don’t understand why the rest of the world can’t resist say a greasy pizza smell? Which doesn’t mean you’re entirely wrong, rationally, just that your point of view might be a bit skewed .

By: kathleen

kathleen — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 03:01:09 +0000

Susan, boy, you punched some of my buttons. I can’t even start talking about lean or I’ll never stop. I have so many ideas to make it work, much of them are old ones that were taught to me but refined, redefined and recontentextualized -is that a word? When I wrote my book, I didn’t even know what “lean” was although I recognized the business model and knew it was the best. I called it ‘the traditional’ model (because it had been the tradition in our business until recently) and Push manufacturing I described as ‘the new model’. I even qualified my names with caveat lector: “these models probably have names but I’d be lying if I said I knew the proper names”.

And I’m very interested in the math-shaping thing. I’ve been doing some experimental pattern drafting, it’s all math, I really don’t understand it myself. This sort of stuff just sets me off in a tizzy because I can stim all day on shapes alone.

By: susan McElroy

susan McElroy — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:30:07 +0000

More on the future of garment construction:
What really turned me on to this site as I found it today (looking for links to the book, which I and my aspiring DE sister own) was the fact that the concept of “lean” manufacturing is understood and respected here. Something that has always bothered me about garment construction, though I love style and fashion as much as the next guy/gal, is the way that modern Western (as in non-Asian or African) sewing is so based on cutting out pieces from flat rectangular lengths, which wastes so much of the textile. Traditional garments were draped and folded and joined in a way as to not throw away weaving that had taken endless hours of handwork to spin and produce. What if our modern ability to weave non-squared fabric (we do lace by machine, right?) could be used to make pieces that are more mathmatically sophistocated, such as I see Kathleen working on…it’s late, and I’ll get back to more practical things tomorrow, but this site is just too cool!

By: susan McElroy

susan McElroy — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:00:05 +0000

This is a comment on Josh’s suggestion/concept, though we might be getting away from Kathleen’s interesting RAQ on weight, which I want to get back to later. And I like your slightly different use of this term–the questions we ought to be asking but aren’t.
But on the future of garment production: If you read between the lines when you surf the web about nanotechnology and new textiles, you get the idea that eventually textiles will be “grown” not woven; I don’t know where or how I ran across this idea; maybe in the area of artificial tissue (skin) production at the nano level. At any rate, when I ponder the far future of garment construction, I wonder if we won’t grow garments the way we grow our skin or a plant grows bark or leaves…fun to think about.

By: kathleen

kathleen — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 04:21:14 +0000

This is from the chapter entitled “The Big Dirty Secret” pg 206, under the subheading Inappropriate technology:
The most fundamental fact is this: The sewing trades are labor intensive and they always will be. This will never change. Sewing will always be labor intensive because cut fabric pieces cannot be smelted out like metal rods. Garments cannot be cut like sheetmetal and welded by machines. Fabric is flimsy; it must be handled by hands. No amount of technology will ever change this. Denial of reality creates more problems.

By: MW

MW — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 03:21:28 +0000

They are making great innovations in seamless knitwear in Japan and Europe (forgot which country). The issue is that the machines are so incredibly expensive, and timely (costly) to program a style, that the economies of scale have not kicked in yet as seamless knitwear is still expensive and mostly confined to high end marketst. Google wholegarment if you need more info. The items they produce are breathtaking.

But many items still need some finishing on the sewing machine, things like closures, buttonholes, straps and reinforced areas still need to be sewn. Also, when pieces require darts or contoured shapes (like a 2 pc bra cup), these complexities still require sewing.

By: Josh Latham

Josh Latham — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 17:47:40 +0000

Here is omething that you said in your book that has continued to creep up in my mind. I’d have to reread the book to find your exact qoute but it was something about apparel always needing human hands. There is currently no automated system that could sew peices together. Unless you want to include how T shirts have become somewhat automated but still they need human hands to aid them. And that there has been little advancement in apparel and there will continue to be little advancement. So I’m thinking about this and trying to picture the year 3,000. And the idea that we will be sewing apparel together or constructing it the same way in 1,000 years sends a shiver up my spine. So my thoughts turn to the rarely asked question “How are we not looking at how garments can be constructed in a revolutionary way?” “How can we eliminate the need for cutting out and sewing?” Then my thoughts turn to how that would be possible. Fabric itself is the problem. The revolution will begin with how fabric is made. If we could create molds (for instance a pair of pants) that fabric is poured onto or woven directly onto the mold with the aid of precise lasers or something. Then I’m stumped at how the pockets are created without sewing and cutting peices. Also a zipper? If some how it could be included in the mold.