Latest / Soft Ratios Research / Pleats arrive after the seams (on Issey Miyake)

Transcript

Pleats arrive after the seams (on Issey Miyake) · Soft Ratios Research

• 0:09
  Figure: Soft Ratios Research.
• 0:12
  Ground: The voices are synthetic [pause] no act, just the thinking.
• 0:19
  Figure: Hoyd Breton, a designer at Soft Ratios Studio, teaching himself in the open [pause] which is half a conversation. [pause] A review is the other half.
• 0:29
  Ground: One subject at a time, twice a week [pause] Tuesday and Thursday. [pause] Today, Issey Miyake.
• 0:37
  Ground: Picture a finished garment entering a pleating machine. Not a neat, flat length of cloth. A coat or dress that's already sewn, several times larger than it should be, folded between sheets of paper. [pause] It has seams, openings, overlapping layers. The thickness changes as it moves. The machine wasn't made for this. [pause] At Shiroishi Polytex, the first response was practical. Whole garments don't go through a machine built for flat fabric. [pause] Then the trials began. Heat, pressure, paper, alignment. An expensive machine broke. The people there kept going.
• 1:20
  Figure: That scene contains the problem. The finished clothes carry one famous name, but the process needed textile judgment, pattern calculation, production planning, altered machinery and the hands guiding each piece.
• 1:35
  Figure: So who designed the pleat?
• 1:37
  Ground: The easy answer is Issey Miyake. It isn't false. It's only too small.
• 1:43
  Figure: Miyake founded Miyake Design Studio in Tokyo in 1970. Its official history describes a way of working built around “we” rather than “I.” Different people pooled ingenuity and information to construct something held in common. [pause] But “we” can make responsibility hazy. It can honor a group, or turn distinct labor into atmosphere around a celebrated founder.
• 2:08
  Ground: Cloth doesn't care about the slogan. Someone chose the yarn. Someone knew the loom. Someone felt when the heat was wrong. [pause] A garment can look singular from across a room because all those decisions have settled into one surface.
• 2:25
  Figure: Miyake's part was real and unusually consequential. He posed the governing problem, chose collaborators, protected long experiments and decided what advanced. He wasn't a neutral host. [pause] Nor did he already have every answer. The answers changed as other people worked. [pause] That leaves a harder account of authorship: directed, unequal and genuinely collective.
• 2:50
  Ground: Start with Makiko Minagawa, then. The cloth had an author before it had a silhouette.
• 2:56
  Figure: Miyake recruited Minagawa in 1971 to develop original textiles. Clothing designers in Japan usually chose from materials that suppliers already offered. He created a dedicated role upstream of the garment. [pause] A prompt might be as compressed as “white in winter.” Minagawa then decided the fiber, yarn count, color, weave, dye and finish. Her team could produce roughly five hundred material proposals in a year. [pause] They didn't all survive. Miyake selected. If a material didn't catch his interest, it went unused.
• 3:29
  Ground: That doesn't sound horizontal.
• 3:31
  Figure: It wasn't. The studio's collective culture had a center of gravity.
• 3:36
  Ground: Then “we” needs testing, not admiring. Minagawa could have broad freedom inside a territory Miyake assigned, while he still controlled whether it entered a collection. [pause] The limits were there from the beginning. She had room to discover, and he had the power to refuse the discovery. [pause] That imbalance doesn't erase her authorship. It tells us its shape.
• 4:02
  Figure: The Tattoo dress from that same year makes the shape visible. Miyake supplied the bodily theme and connected Minagawa with tattooist Mitsuaki Owada. Minagawa had to discover how tattooing could become printed cloth. [pause] She went to Toei's Kyoto film studio, watched artists paint tattoos for period and yakuza films, learned their brushwork and color gradations, then translated Hendrix and Joplin imagery into a cotton print using dozens of colors. [pause] The Metropolitan Museum records Miyake as designer and Minagawa as artist. Two kinds of authorship, attached to one dress.
• 4:41
  Ground: The label leaves room for both. [pause] The dress needed the question and the printed answer. It also needed people who knew how that many colors could sit on cotton without becoming mud.
• 4:54
  Figure: Minagawa's work soon reached far beyond a partnership of two. She traveled through Japanese production regions looking for sashiko, kogin embroidery, kasuri, shibori, stencil printing, narrow kimono cloth and discarded prototypes. [pause] She didn't lift traditional surfaces and place them on modern clothes. She changed yarns, widths, structures and finishes. Small workshops had to be persuaded to accept strange commissions and short runs.
• 5:23
  Ground: Sometimes she brought sake.
• 5:25
  Figure: An experiment from a Tokyo studio could be inconvenient business for a small workshop. Interest didn't pay for resetting a loom.
• 5:33
  Ground: That detail cools the romance. Collaboration can be sincere and still arrive carrying risk for one side. [pause] The studio gained inherited recipes, old machinery and knowledge shaped by climate. The workshop gained an unusual order and entry to an international market, if the order continued. [pause] But visibility isn't the same as survival.
• 5:58
  Figure: The record is mixed. Some relationships lasted for decades. Others didn't secure the wider production region around them. [pause] Yamagata's knit communities contributed to Raw Silk Knit, Animal Knit and Wave Knit. KENLAND later appeared among the named regional specialists, though the surviving records don't safely assign every garment to a particular factory. [pause] For the 1982 Kamiko garments, the Miyake archive identified Tadao and Mashiko Endō's family as the sole Shiroishi supplier. They turned kōzo paper into flexible cloth through coatings, crumpling and repeated rubbing. [pause] The family mill eventually closed. A celebrated collection had preserved evidence of the knowledge, not the business that held it.
• 6:45
  Ground: So all that work met in the cloth, but the finished object didn't distribute security as neatly as an exhibition catalogue distributed credit.
• 6:54
  Figure: Even the credit was uneven. Exhibitions about the process named workshops and individual speakers. Portable museum objects more often carried Miyake's name and a broad design-house credit.
• 7:06
  Ground: A famous name helps the object travel. It also travels more easily than a list of everyone who made it possible.
• 7:13
  Figure: PLEATS PLEASE lets us follow that list into the factory. Miyake's 1988 brief reversed the usual order. Instead of pleating flat cloth and then cutting it, the studio wanted to cut and sew an oversized garment first, then give it permanent folds. [pause] The aim was everyday clothing: light, washable, durable, easy to move in and repeatable at industrial scale.
• 7:37
  Ground: The first materials couldn't carry that promise.
• 7:41
  Figure: Ordinary fashion textiles were too thick, heavy and expensive. A pleated garment consumed several times its finished amount of cloth. Minagawa turned toward lightweight polyester tricot usually used for linings. [pause] She selected Toray yarn, arranged specialist knitting and helped develop an antistatic fiber. The apparent compromise gave the clothes their resilience, rapid drying and low weight.
• 8:07
  Ground: Then the oversized garment reached Polytex and refused to behave like flat cloth.
• 8:12
  Figure: Sachiko Yamamoto, working in planning and development, had found a factory willing to treat impossibility as a practical problem. Polytex engineers adjusted the equipment to accept seams and several layers at once. [pause] The garment was folded, ironed and basted into alignment, placed between paper, then passed through heat far above ordinary pleating temperatures. Some pieces went through a long steam-vacuum setting stage afterward. [pause] The sequence became repeatable, but it didn't become automatic. Operators still positioned the cloth, watched each run and relied on judgment learned through failure.
• 8:52
  Ground: The machine contributed resistance. It told the studio what couldn't pass through unchanged. [pause] The operators translated that refusal. A drawing couldn't predict what several hot layers would do around a seam. [pause] The factory wasn't where an idea was copied. It was where the idea gained enough truth to become clothing.
• 9:13
  Figure: The first reliable answer still wasn't the final one. [pause] In 1991, William Forsythe's Ballet Frankfurt put the developing garments onto dancers with different bodies. [pause] They moved hard, exchanged pieces and showed whether the fabric stretched, recovered, endured contact and allowed a full range of movement. That use helped carry the method toward the 1993 launch.
• 9:44
  Ground: A dancer answers with weight and speed. Not with approval.
• 9:49
  Figure: That sharpens the original puzzle. The pleat belonged to Miyake's question, Minagawa's textile program, Yamamoto's production development, Toray's fiber work, Polytex's engineering and hand judgment, and the dancers' bodily test.
• 10:06
  Ground: Still, a list of contributors isn't an explanation. What held their different answers together?
• 10:13
  Figure: Miyake did. More specifically, his continuing idea that clothing should begin with cloth and human need, then leave room for transformation. He set standards severe enough to turn scattered experiments into a body of work.
• 10:28
  Ground: That comes close to restoring the lone genius under a softer title.
• 10:33
  Figure: It can become that if every contribution is treated as an instance of his foresight. [pause] But the evidence resists it. Penn showed Miyake ways of seeing his clothes that he hadn't imagined. The factory found forms a sketch couldn't contain. Dancers revealed properties a static fitting couldn't show. [pause] His authority included being changed by what came back. [pause] So the more exact claim is narrower. He designed the conditions of inquiry and kept final judgment, while other people produced knowledge that wasn't already his.
• 11:08
  Ground: A central figure, then, but not a source from which everything flowed. [pause] He kept the question open long enough for cloth, machinery and other minds to disagree with it.
• 11:19
  Figure: A-POC made that distribution harder to overlook. Miyake and Dai Fujiwara developed continuous knitted or woven tubes with garments already encoded inside them. [pause] Digital patterns and unfamiliar yarns traveled to manufacturers including Makita Shoten. Test swatches came back. Each result altered the next request.
• 11:41
  Ground: The finished product looked unfinished: a length of cloth waiting for a cut.
• 11:47
  Figure: The customer could separate a dress, shirt or skirt, then change a sleeve, neckline or proportion without the knit unraveling. Conventional cutting and sewing had moved into the machine, while the last irreversible decisions moved toward the purchaser.
• 12:02
  Ground: Calling that person a co-designer still feels too generous. [pause] The tube already contains its grammar. Its width, yarn, seams and viable forms are fixed. The safe cuts are suggested. A bad cut can't be recalled. [pause] Choice is real, but the field of choice was composed elsewhere.
• 12:23
  Figure: Then “limited authorship” is more accurate. Cutting changes the garment, which is more than styling. But Miyake, Fujiwara, the programmers and the factory determined what kinds of change the cloth could survive. [pause] PLEATS PLEASE leaves construction fixed and lets a moving body vary volume. A-POC delegates part of construction. The two invitations aren't the same.
• 12:47
  Ground: And neither is open to everyone. A pull-over garment can still exclude a body with limited reach. Cutting requires sight, grip and confidence with scissors. Generosity in one dimension can meet a closed door in another.
• 13:04
  Figure: Luxury pricing narrows access further. The language of democratic clothing describes use, maintenance and bodily freedom more convincingly than ownership.
• 13:14
  Ground: “The wearer completes it” sounds limitless until the shop door and the body both enter the sentence.
• 13:22
  Figure: A later project shifted the unfinished state again. [pause] For 132 5., Miyake assembled Reality Lab with textile engineer Manabu Kikuchi, pattern engineer Sachiko Yamamoto and other members, then brought in computer scientist Jun Mitani. [pause] Mitani's software could develop a three-dimensional form and its flat pattern together. Algorithms produced possible geometries. Paper models exposed them to the hand. Yamamoto added the folds and cuts that made them wearable. [pause] Teijin Fibers converted discarded PET into recycled polyester. Japanese production partners helped turn crease maps into cloth that could hold its memory.
• 14:07
  Ground: The calculation didn't know where a shoulder should go.
• 14:11
  Figure: Nor did it know which geometric possibility deserved to become a garment. Human selection reduced a large field to a small group of basic flat patterns.
• 14:21
  Ground: Then each piece waited twice. First as mathematics waiting for judgment. Later as a folded plane waiting for a body to lift it into volume.
• 14:33
  Figure: The factory made the transformation repeatable rather than fixing a single shape. That principle joins the three projects without pretending they use one technology. [pause] PLEATS PLEASE stores movement in narrow folds. A-POC stores garment choices in a continuous tube. 132 5. stores volume in a calculated crease map.
• 14:55
  Ground: What they share is delayed completion. The industrial work is exact so the later freedom doesn't collapse into accident.
• 15:03
  Figure: That gives the central question another form: where, in this practice, does design end?
• 15:10
  Ground: Not at the sketch. That much is gone. [pause] Not at the factory either, because movement, cutting or unfolding can still determine what appears. [pause] But not simply at the wearer. The available freedom has already been built, priced and limited. [pause] Design ends nowhere cleanly. Responsibility still needs names at every threshold.
• 15:34
  Figure: The photographs show that even representation could return as an active stage of design. Miyake's exchange with Irving Penn began after Penn photographed the clothes for American Vogue in 1983. [pause] Miyake saw an interpretation of his work that surprised him. From the Spring/Summer 1987 collection through Autumn/Winter 1999, the exchange produced more than two hundred and fifty images.
• 15:59
  Ground: And Miyake stayed away from the sittings.
• 16:02
  Figure: He feared his presence would limit Penn. Penn, in turn, didn't attend Miyake's runway shows. The separation protected an encounter neither man had fully prepared.
• 16:11
  Ground: The empty chair gave each of them room.
• 16:14
  Figure: Midori Kitamura made that distance possible. She and Miyake chose roughly forty ensembles in Tokyo, looking for representative clothes and for pieces loose enough to stir Penn's imagination. [pause] In New York, she explained, dressed, layered and rebuilt silhouettes as Penn responded. If he wanted more volume at a model's side, she might wrap another garment there. [pause] Penn selected the clothes, poses and expressions. Tyen created makeup, John Sahag handled hair, Sadie Hall prepared garments, and Jun Kanai coordinated the sessions.
• 16:49
  Ground: That room contains another kind of garment. Not the one that left Tokyo, and not merely a picture of it. [pause] Kitamura's hands answer Penn's eye. The model's posture changes the cloth. Light separates one volume from another. [pause] The shutter closes on a temporary agreement.
• 17:10
  Figure: Then Ikko Tanaka gave the photographs public form through layout and typography. His posters were another act of authorship, not incidental lettering. [pause] The images returned to Tokyo, where Miyake used Penn's unforeseen readings as prompts for later work. He credited them with exposing his limitations and opening new directions, including permanent pleats.
• 17:34
  Ground: So the publicity came back through the studio door and altered the product. What looked like the end of the process became another beginning.
• 17:44
  Figure: So “collaboration” is too mild. The studio built returns into the work. Material proposals changed silhouettes. Machinery changed construction. Dance changed the account of use. Photography changed the designer's sight.
• 17:59
  Ground: And each exchange had a different balance of power. Penn received unusual freedom. A factory took financial and mechanical risk. A customer received a limited cut. These aren't interchangeable versions of togetherness.
• 18:16
  Figure: Nor were the credits interchangeable. MoMA and M+ list Miyake and Fujiwara together for A-POC. LACMA distinguishes Miyake as designer and Fujiwara as artist or contributor. The Met's record for a related project lists only Miyake as designer beside the studio. [pause] PLEATS PLEASE offers another surprise. A pleating patent names Naoki Takizawa as inventor and Miyake Design Studio as proprietor. Public memory, legal authorship and practical invention don't always align.
• 18:49
  Ground: A label isn't just a shortened history. It can produce the history people later believe. [pause] If one name sits nearest the object for long enough, the workshop begins to look like assistance, even when the object couldn't have been conceived without it. [pause] But putting every name on one line wouldn't solve the problem either. Equal typography can disguise unequal decisions.
• 19:15
  Figure: A fair account has to name both contribution and authority. Minagawa authored textiles and production relationships. Fujiwara co-developed computational manufacture. Mitani supplied mathematical geometry. Polytex engineers made post-sewing pleating viable. [pause] Penn, Kitamura and Tanaka transformed how the clothes were seen. Dancers and wearers completed particular kinds of knowledge or form. [pause] Miyake founded the institution, formed its persistent questions, selected people and results, and kept the ideas continuous across those fields.
• 19:52
  Ground: The arrangement has a center. It also has edges that push back.
• 19:57
  Figure: Its strongest test came when the center withdrew from the main collection. Miyake transferred that responsibility to Naoki Takizawa in 1999, effective with the Spring/Summer 2000 season. [pause] Takizawa first imitated Miyake's viewpoint, then found independence by returning to his own experience. That difference showed that the teaching had produced another author, not a copy.
• 20:20
  Ground: A method survives only if its next result can look unfamiliar.
• 20:24
  Figure: The main line later passed to Dai Fujiwara, Yoshiyuki Miyamae and Satoshi Kondo. Each had grown within the organization. People carried knowledge between Pleats Please, A-POC, Homme Plissé and the main collection. [pause] Miyamae reopened pleating through Steam Stretch and Baked Stretch rather than treating the famous fold as a finished answer. He later led A-POC ABLE, where a small engineering team could move from material development through preparation for manufacture.
• 20:56
  Ground: That movement of people may matter more than a house look. A technique stays alive inside someone who knows where it resisted, where it failed and which assumption can be disturbed. [pause] A mood board preserves resemblance. A person at work preserves doubt.
• 21:17
  Figure: Success can harden an experiment into a badge. Parallel pleats, transformable planes and triangular modules became commercially recognizable. [pause] A method can keep producing useful variation. It can also become a dependable surface that no longer reopens the question beneath it.
• 21:36
  Ground: Then inheritance isn't proved by making another pleated garment. [pause] It's proved when a team begins with something unresolved, goes where the missing knowledge lives, gives other people enough room to alter the result and accepts that some trials won't become products.
• 21:54
  Figure: That measure preserves Miyake's leadership without turning his forms into commandments. His durable contribution was an organized way of learning through other people's expertise.
• 22:06
  Ground: There's still an uneasiness in it. The founder's name gathered prestige more reliably than the regional workshop did. The companies retained ownership, retail control and legal rights. The wearer entered only after purchase.
• 22:21
  Figure: The uneasiness should remain. A collective method doesn't dissolve power. It makes power traceable: who framed the brief, who could reject a proposal, who risked machinery, who was named, who was paid and who could afford to participate.
• 22:37
  Ground: That trace is more useful than either myth. The solitary genius erases the working world. The perfectly equal collective erases the decisions that directed it.
• 22:47
  Figure: Miyake's authorship sits between those accounts. He set the structure and made the final choices, but he also let the answers change him. He built rooms where textile workers, engineers, artists, factories and bodies could return knowledge he didn't own in advance.
• 23:05
  Ground: A pleat makes that arrangement visible. It looks like one repeated decision, yet it opens differently wherever pressure enters. [pause] The garment keeps its memory without insisting on one final volume.
• 23:20
  Figure: Cloth gathers a working world, then carries only part of that world on its label.
• 23:25
  Ground: When one name holds a work together, how many other names should remain visible inside it?