Fashion’s Front and Back: ‘Rag trade’ Cultures and Cultures of Consumption in Post-war London c. 1945–1970

Fashion’s Front and Back: ‘Rag trade’ Cultures and Cultures of Consumption in Post-war London c. 1945–1970

Look at the photograph of the C&A factory in Islington. How does this production space compare to modern factories?

The photo of the sewing room in the C&A shows older, more experienced women working in workstations. The room is well lit, and there are multiple spaces for various parts of the production process.  Also the factory was close to the shops that they were being sold in. This meant that the shops and ‘courtiers’  had an integrated supply chain, and that the lead time was less, which is similar to today, however there are notable differences.
In an Indian sweetshop there is a mix of young men and older men. They don’t have protective uniforms as well. Its also dark and dingy There’s only one small space space for production. Also as they are situated overseas it means shipping times take longer and that the designs have to be sent months in advance.

“Two of Britain’s high street giants have found Syrian refugee children working in their clothing factories in Turkey, leading to calls for other retailers to investigate their own supply chains.H&M and Next were the only retailers that admitted to identifying child labour in supplier factories in Turkey, but there are fears that the phenomenon could be far more widespread after several other companies failed to answer questions on the use of Syrian workers in their factories.” Independent Laura Pitel Istanbul Monday 1 February 2016 00:01 GMT.
This shows a major disparity in how factories have changed due to the consumerist society that we live in 2017. The clothes are made cheap and in shocking conditions. Further abuse of refugees and young people in the line of work.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-children-found-working-for-uk-clothing-suppliers-including-next-and-hm-a6845431.html

Breward explains how factories and workrooms in the West End produced goods for fashionable shops in the nearby area, such as Carnaby Street. How did this proximity (or closeness) between the spaces where fashion was made and sold benefit London shops and makers?

It created an open market for people to trade in. The proximity meant that quality goods and services such as seem stresses where sourced. Often trading in materials it meant that it was a low cost and that when retailing it it would cause higher profit margins to be achieved. It allowed people like  “ local Greek tailor” too “sold one, he took the money down to the market to buy material for more. If a girl liked his style, but could find nothing suitable, he would pretend to  a larger stock and ask her to come back in an hour, to give him time to sort out something from his ‘other stockroom’. Eyeing her closely, he would run up something … before her return. By such means he saved £1000 and opened Blooshop and Aristos” This quick turnover and use of the local environment would allow him to expand and open new shops. 

Upon further research in to the Caranby street scene I cam across Paul Gorman. He has singled put two key players  in the 1996 Caranby Scene of popular printed t-shirts. Such as Roger Lunn, a Hornsea Art Student, and Dave Humby, a Nottingham Art School grad. Lunn would source his t-shirts from Woolworths, where they were sold as underwear, and then dye them at home. He then printed statements on them, and these where sold at Tommy Roberts (Mr.Freedom owner) first shop Kelptomania. Humby did this in a similar way as well, printing statements on t-shirts such “DO NOT BEND”, “FRAGILE”, “NO, YES, KISS ME” and “JESUS SAVES”. (1967 Catalogue of work). He attracted the attention of Paul Smith who hung out in the area and had him model the t-shirts. There was a deal set up between Humby and Roberts for the funds raised by the t-shirt sales to go MR.FREEDOM, which was Roberts’ boutique.