The consolidation of fashion and technology is becoming one of the most modern trends in the creative industry that need detailed research and identification of prospects. The issue is of particular interest in the context of its novelty and little study. Even though the combination of digital practicality and the aesthetic component appeared in garments quite recently, the theoretical perspective of the trend is potentially stagnant. Now technologies in fashion do not go beyond the podiums (Smelik 256), which indicates a possible decrease in the dissemination rate of the trend. Despite the apparent relevance of the topic, the idea of integrating fashion and technology is failing due to such clothing’s impracticality and the difficulty of introducing an aesthetic component.
The digital field in fashion is quite multifaceted and, to some extent, experimental, which makes it difficult even to define a single terminology to denote trends. The most common option seems to be “fashionable technology”, introduced by Sabine Seymour in 2009 (Smelik 254). It appears to be the most reflective aspect of the combination of two contrasting elements. The term “cybercouture”, proposed by Smelik in 2012, also concentrates on the futuristic component of new trends in style (Smelik 254). Both of these terms denote the fact of wearable technologies, bringing the field of advanced gadgets closer to the area of fashion. The appearance of specific designations indicates the increasing integration of digital elements into clothing, shoes, and accessories, affecting cultural value and setting new directions in the work of fashion designers. Despite this, the trend has not been able to get enough distribution over a fairly wide period, which questions its further success and the importance of its role in the history of fashion.
Nanotechnology in clothing is most widespread today in security, including the police, firefighters, and the military (Smelik 255). In this case, technological elements in clothing are not considered a fashion trend but a necessity that creates comfort for civil servants. An example is the Prospie project, which makes clothes for measuring body temperature as an effective method of monitoring heat stress among workers in hot conditions (Smelik 256). Experiments with fabric and textiles are also finding popularity among healthcare workers. For example, as part of a project by Heinz Daunen, professor of Fashion and Technology at the Amsterdam Fashion Institute, a “smart” shirt was developed to correct posture (Smelik 256). However, such clothes are due solely for practical purposes, which generally removes the aesthetic aspect. In other words, success in certain areas is not enough to ensure the introduction of technology among the general population.
Among the potential markets for cybercouture, communications are common. Their manifestations can potentially have the greatest impact on the broad strata of society. The area is greatly influenced by upper-class representatives, such as the singer Imogen Heap, who wore the ‘Twitdress’ to the Grammy Awards (Smelik 256). The dress had a digital collar displaying her fans’ tweets in real-time, which was an excellent example of the integration of digital devices into clothing. Since the fashion industry has traditionally been from the top down (Entwistle et al. 315), the singer, as a representative of the highest socio-cultural class, can set a new trend. However, the distribution of the item is also hampered by wearability. It means that the clothes may be interesting as a one-time way to draw attention to the figure on the carpet, but their comfort and practicality for the general public are very doubtful.
From all of the above, the main aspect hindering the development of the technology element in fashion is the lack of convenience and little need for wearing. The trend focuses only on functionality, ignoring the social or cultural value of the new technology (Smelik 256). In other words, no matter how interesting and modernized a new idea is, if it does not find practical application, it will not be popular among the ordinary population.
The point of fashion technologies is to combine fashion with technology so that it becomes wearable and fashionable at the same time (Smelik 256). In the context of already existing elements on the market, fashion will lack either one aspect or another. One of the definitions of fashion suggests that for its full implementation, the element of acceptance by many people must be taken into account (Tortora 159). The general population, not seeing the need for clothes that regulate posture or broadcast messages on the collar screen, is unlikely to be interested in such experiments. This leads to the conclusion that fashion and technology cannot merge into a single component and harmoniously complement each other (Smelik 256), which stagnates the development of the trend. Since technology in clothing is still viewed as something new and incomprehensible, this problem is unlikely to find a solution in the foreseeable future. Thus, it will significantly slow down the development of the trend and, with a high probability, will lead to its attenuation.
In addition to misunderstanding the purpose of such clothing items, the trend for wearable technologies also faces difficulties in application. If the trend is spreading from below, it should be primarily convenient for the middle and lower classes. The use of smart fabrics and textiles in developing individual elements can create difficulties with washing, ironing, and other everyday processes (Smelik 256). Each aspect of fashion culture, having its unique purpose, is connected with other parts and functions as a single whole (Jansen and Craik 8). In this case, the aspects of practical convenience and technological novelty counteract. Using digital technologies directly will also hinder the desire to purchase such an item of clothing, reducing its role to a single experiment. Thus, at the moment, the practicality aspect is undergoing significant difficulties, limiting the further development of the trend.
The unreliability of the technological direction is also explained by a small aesthetic component, which remains the main element in the development of fashion. Since the aesthetics of the design are still not integrated into technology (Smelik 256), the population continues to perceive such clothing items as technologies and not as wearable things. Accordingly, such a perception blurs the entire concept of fashion. It potentially reduces people’s interest who will continue to prefer a separate dress and a separate smartphone to a combination of a dress and a smartphone in one element. Designers see the difficulty of merging fashion and technology (Smelik 256), which does not allow digital clothing elements to become a real option in stores for the middle class. Numerous prophecies that the future of the streets remains with fashionable technologies do not justify themselves (Smelik 256). From year to year, they remain only a strange and eccentric whim of fashion designers. In the context of the modern world, the need to introduce new technologies into clothing also seems unprofitable and unreasonable, creating a pile-up effect in fashion and shifting the emphasis from the development to other directions.
Moreover, the introduction of innovative technologies requires a special critical analysis of the relationship between the device and the body. With everyday wear, the body becomes a form of interface, blurring the boundaries between technology and the body (Smelik 257). This understanding gives rise to a natural fear in a person of the close connection of devices and identity (Smelik 256), which can potentially ruin the spread of the trend. In this case, the cultural value of fashion and technological innovation are considered two opposite aspects. Thus, the general public not only does not promote but also hinders the introduction of technologies, uncritically considering them as something alien and aggressive for the body and identity.
It is worth paying attention to the fact that the latter aspect is generated by an uncritical perception of the trend and can be overcome shortly. Clothing functions primarily as decoration, modesty, and protection (Flugel 17), while technologies are perceived largely as an extension of the human body (Smelik 257). In this regard, the fear of integration is growing since the alienness of innovation is seen by a person as a threat. Now humanity is entering an era where technology can serve as a physical improvement and self-expression (Smelik 257). In the latter aspect, there is also a connection with fashion, through which designers must work to spread the trend of cybercouture. Since clothing is a part of the self-expression of human identity, digital innovations can bring a lot from a person’s ability to express themselves. Following the theory that a person “represents” and not “is” his identity (Smelik 257), it can be concluded that overcoming such uncritical thinking can ultimately contribute to a broader integration of technology into clothing.
Thus, cybercuture, despite numerous positive forecasts about the potential spread, is still at the stage of stagnation. The development of trends is limited to the catwalk, fashion houses, and experimental laboratories without going beyond the established practices. With many difficulties to overcome, designers have not yet found solutions to them, and some do not even see ways to overcome them in the near future. Nevertheless, fashionable technologies continue to fight for a place in the market and find more and more new applications in various fields. While the widespread integration of fashion and technology does not seem real, any trend can undergo global changes and surprise even the most convinced skeptics.
Works Cited
Entwistle, Joanne, et al. “Fashion Diversity.” Fashion Theory vol. 23, no. 2, 2019, pp. 309-323.
Flugel, John Carl. “The psychology of clothes.” The Sociological Review, vol. 25, no. 3, 1933, pp. 301-304.
Jansen, Maria Angela, and Jennifer Craik, editors. Modern Fashion Traditions: Negotiating Tradition and Modernity through Fashion. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016, pp. 1-10.
Smelik, Anneke. “Cybercouture: The fashionable technology of Pauline van Dongen, Iris van Herpen and Bart Hess.” Contemporary Dutch Fashion, 2017, pp. 252-269.
Tortora, Phyllis, editor. Berg Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion: The United States and Canada. Berg, 2010, pp. 159-170.