The title on my column might sound a bit more pretentious than it really is. It is based on the fact that every time I see some fashion that I find rather grotesque (currently ballerina shoes and leggings) I always get the phrase “but is is soo practical” thrown in my face.

For some unfathomable reason the attitude towards fashion in Sweden is entirely based on it being practical. The basic principle seems to be that fashion = clothes = a practical and cheap consumption item. It is my view that this view impedes further development of fashion. Lack of self critique within the industry towards public companies that produces a steady flow of  identical clothes will not help the situation.

Of course everyone wants to make a living out of their production but when turnover, profit and market value becomes more important than creativity and development we do ourselves a disservice making us all slaves under conformity.

I don´t really know where this practical attitude comes from. When interviewing I often get the statement that Swedish fashion is designed to be practical and therefore becomes conservative (read BORING – most people I interview are way too polite to actually state this). Getting an explanation to WHY Swedes have such a fascination for the practical has shown harder.

One explanation that I get is that the Swedish climate is so harsh but I think the argument falls since there are a lot of other very fashionable cities where the climate is as tough. A more possible explanation is the very strong Swedish jealousy that is still thriving and that dictates that one should not differ too much. When there are not enough people that dare to be unique we are stuck in conformity.

Even worse than just being different is to say that one is in some way superior to other people and this can obviously be done with wearing exclusive clothes and accessories. A cosmic beautifully but exclusive garment will forever stamp someone as a snob and conservative (worst thing you can do in Sweden that is not used to luxury consumption).

That this can be an investment in the form of art that one appreciates the most is not on the agenda. That an exclusive garment from a small creative designer can help develop fashion in a way that a mass produced item from a retailer could never do is not something that most people want to consider. Even so – it is important that it is done – in fashion as any other form of art.

In rare cases, like the classic Chanel suit, it has happened that something that can be seen as art as well as a political statement has been combined with something that is also practical. The Chanel suit is very far from the “trendy” avant-garde looks and outfits that are now overflowing the streets of Stockholm. Funnily these outfits, in a combination with low self awareness, have made it possible for Swedes to start talking about themselves as the trendiest people on earth.

With this I don’t want to say that a Chanel suit would be something new and creative today but at the time for its birth when it managed to combine the past and present it most definitely was. That is has managed to survive as a symbol for classic elegance is also a sign of the far-sightedness that Coco Chanel had.

To my joy I now see a number of young Swedish designers that are up and coming and that shows something different and breaks with the (boring) trends. It is courageous of them to think less about money and more to the satisfaction of creating what they really want and in many cases create garments that can definitely be considered art. I just hope that we as a nation has not been so brain washed into seeing fashion as a cheap consumption item that we will manage to see, understand and appreciate these new geniuses that I believe have a much better chance of putting Sweden on the international fashion map than these large conformity monsters that has been so celebrated here.