Ruth Tillman's blog post "All Clothing is Handmade (2022)" argues that the distinction between "handmade" and "machine-made" clothing is a false dichotomy. All clothing, whether crafted by an individual artisan or produced in a factory, involves extensive human labor throughout its lifecycle, from design and material sourcing to manufacturing, shipping, and retail. The post uses the example of a seemingly simple t-shirt to illustrate the complex network of human effort required, emphasizing the skills, knowledge, and labor embedded within each stage of production. Therefore, "handmade" shouldn't be understood as a category separate from industrial production but rather a recognition of the inherent human element present in all clothing creation.
VibeWall.shop offers a visual fashion search engine. Upload an image of a clothing item you like, and the site uses a nearest-neighbors algorithm to find visually similar items available for purchase from various online retailers. This allows users to easily discover alternatives to a specific piece or find items that match a particular aesthetic, streamlining the online shopping experience.
HN users were largely skeptical of the "nearest neighbors" claim made by Vibewall, pointing out that visually similar recommendations are a standard feature in fashion e-commerce, not necessarily indicative of a unique nearest-neighbors algorithm. Several commenters suggested that the site's functionality seemed more like basic collaborative filtering or even simpler rule-based systems. Others questioned the practical value of visual similarity in clothing recommendations, arguing that factors like fit, occasion, and personal style are more important. There was also discussion about the challenges of accurately identifying visual similarity in clothing due to variations in lighting, posing, and image quality. Overall, the consensus was that while the site itself might be useful, its core premise and technological claims lacked substance.
This study examines the prohibition of purple clothing for non-imperial family members in ancient China, arguing it wasn't a consistent, empire-wide ban but rather a series of evolving regulations with varying degrees of enforcement. The authors analyze historical texts, including legal codes and anecdotal evidence, to demonstrate that while purple dye was indeed associated with imperial authority, the restrictions on its use fluctuated across different dynasties and were often targeted at specific ranks or social groups. Factors influencing these prohibitions included the availability and cost of purple dye, the desire to maintain social hierarchy, and the evolving symbolic significance of purple itself. The study concludes that understanding the “purple prohibition” requires a nuanced approach that considers the specific historical context rather than assuming a blanket ban across all of ancient Chinese history.
Hacker News users discussed the historical and cultural context of the prohibition of purple dyes in ancient China. Some highlighted the sumptuary laws' role in maintaining social hierarchies by restricting access to luxury goods like purple dye, often reserved for the emperor. Others questioned the paper's assertions, pointing to potential mistranslations and a lack of clarity around which specific "purple" dyes were prohibited. Several commenters noted the difficulty of determining the exact shades of historical colors and suggested that the forbidden dye might have been a specific, expensive shade, rather than all purple hues. The practicality of enforcing such a ban and the potential for black markets were also debated. Finally, a few users shared anecdotes and additional resources regarding historical dye production and the symbolic significance of colors in different cultures.
Summary of Comments ( 129 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43450515
Hacker News users generally agreed with the premise of the article—that all clothing involves human labor somewhere along the line, even if highly automated—and discussed the implications. Some highlighted the devaluing of human labor, particularly in the fashion industry, with "fast fashion" obscuring the effort involved. Others pointed out the historical context of clothing production, noting how technologies like the sewing machine shifted, rather than eliminated, human involvement. A compelling comment thread explored the distinction between "handmade" and "hand-crafted", suggesting that the latter implies artistry and design beyond basic construction, and questioned whether "machine-made" is truly a separate category. Some users argued the author's point was obvious, while others appreciated the reminder about the human cost of clothing. A few comments also touched on the environmental impact of clothing production and the need for more sustainable practices.
The Hacker News post titled "All clothing is handmade (2022)" generated several comments discussing the nuances of the author's argument that all clothing is handmade, even when machines are involved.
Some commenters debated the definition of "handmade." One commenter argued that the term implies a lack of machine involvement, while others pointed out that even machine-made clothing requires human intervention at various stages, from designing and programming the machines to maintaining and operating them. This led to a discussion about the degree of human involvement required for something to be considered "handmade," with some suggesting a spectrum rather than a binary categorization. The example of a 3D-printed garment was brought up, prompting discussion on where it falls on this spectrum.
Several commenters focused on the economic implications of the author's argument. They discussed how acknowledging the human labor involved in all clothing production could lead to a greater appreciation for garment workers and potentially influence consumers' purchasing decisions. One commenter suggested that the term "handmade" carries a certain cachet and higher price tag, and questioned whether this should apply to all clothing.
The discussion also touched upon the historical context of clothing production. One commenter mentioned the Luddite movement and its resistance to automation, connecting it to the modern debate about the role of machines in manufacturing. Another commenter pointed out that even before the Industrial Revolution, tools were used in clothing production, blurring the lines between handmade and machine-made.
A few commenters expressed skepticism about the author's central thesis, finding it overly simplistic or even misleading. They argued that the distinction between handmade and machine-made is important and that conflating the two diminishes the significance of truly handcrafted garments.
Finally, some commenters appreciated the author's perspective for raising awareness about the labor involved in clothing production, even if they didn't fully agree with the "all clothing is handmade" statement. They saw it as a valuable thought experiment that encourages consumers to think more critically about the origins of their clothes.