An Interview with HACKED by_
When it emerged in 2017 that many of the world’s most popular fashion brands were burning perfectly usable unsold stock as a matter of practice, many of us questioned our place within the system that keeps the wheels of fast fashion turning. It turns out that such decadent forms of disposal don’t make for such a good look. Enter HACKED by_, an innovative answer to the very First World problem of overconsumption. The brainchild of two concerned Dutch designers, Alexander van Slobbe and Francisco van Benthum, the concept works by making a resource of unused, overstock fabrics and fully-formed garments, upcycling an industry byproduct to save the needless consumption of new resources. A noble cause such as theirs might be something of a novelty in an industry known for its shaky social conduct, but this honorable pair put to ZOO why HACKED’s blueprint can prove the rule, rather than the exception.
REBEKKA AYRES: Can you start by outlining the concept of HACKED?
ALEXANDER VAN SLOBBE: HACKED is an overstock of production – there is too much production in the world. This is a problem the world over. We thought: Why don’t we do something with this product? Because otherwise these items are destroyed. We can at least do something different with them, give them a new life. We get old stock – sweaters, fabric, skirts, whatever – and we use these as a basis to make a new collection.
FRANCISCO VAN BENTHUM: It’s an upcycling concept. The starting point is sustainability – targeting this problem of waste: the surplus stock. The state of the fashion system today makes that the case. So, instead watching on as these products are destroyed, why not work with them as a resource? We add a second layer to these pieces, which is our “design signature”. We’re saving them from destruction while creating something new. As much as it’s about preserving our resources, it’s also about preserving the previous craftsmanship, since so much work has already gone into each garment. Our approach takes a different route to one that only works with ecological fabrics, since ours are already in circulation. That means the material composition isn’t necessarily ecological in itself, but rather, it’s the act of reclamation and using what is already at hand. This process also sparks a discussion with the consumer, to highlight how the fashion system operates.
AS: The reason we feel able to use these synthetic materials – despite the fact they’re not the healthiest materials for the planet – is because they already exist. What can you do? You can burn it, or use it again. Ideally, we would love to work with natural fabrics, but this is not what is currently being resigned to waste.
RA: You were both already working as designers, imagining something from scratch each time. How did you adapt to having these limitations imposed?
AS: When you’re set limitations, you gain a greater freedom, because you’re forced to be more focused. If you can pick from your wildest dreams, it’s almost more difficult to design. We’re dealing with what we have, and it pushes you in one direction. Our approach has changed entirely.
RA: What is your personal design signature? Does it change from season to season?
FB: In Holland, at least, they say we have this clean, modern, slightly abstract signature. We believe very much in the outline of a piece. We use detail, but not in a romantic way. It’s more of a graphic approach. In a sense it’s more to do with customizing things; we’ll take a sleeve out of a shirt and replace it with fabric instead. Our alterations have to be seen and felt within the product. That means we often have to make very bold decisions. If we want to make a dress out of a shirt, we have to add fabric to make it reach the knee, and it’s best to make that a big contrast so that at least people recognize that something’s been done to it.
AS: If you see our approach to design, it’s quite simple, which gives each piece a longer life. They’re detailed, but on a small scale, where the considerations are not that obvious. For me, this is what means our clothes are seen as long-lasting. But we are from a different generation!
FB: Sure, we are a little bit older, but maybe because of that we make more mature decisions. For instance, we would never make a belly top – something that is only good for five minutes.
RA: So if the notion of trend itself is toxic, promoting a cycle of desire and disposability, do you struggle to work with some of the materials you encounter when collaborating with these big brands? Particularly on the high street, brands champion a big trophy print which dominates one season, and by the next season it’s seen as gauche.
AS: No, it can be interesting because you make your own interpretation of it. And because our designs are more abstract, if there’s a huge design detail, we try to make it bigger, or discreet, or play with it by splicing it with a plain fabric. It’s actually lovely to do, because most of my working life I’ve been dealing with plain fabrics. Suddenly, I’m confronted by these strong designs like flowers and stripes, which make it even more interesting, mainly because it’s not my normal choice. It becomes even more interesting if you don’t like the fabrics, or you hate pattern altogether, because you have to take matters into your own hands to make it beautiful. it’s definitely difficult when you see a really beautiful dress and you have to change it in some way, because you really love it already. Give me something ugly and it’s easier! It’s easier to make something ugly beautiful, rather than the other way around.
FB: When you go to a fabric fair, you just pick the things that you like or are comfortable with. This way, you get what you're given and you have to make it work. It’s an extra challenge. It always works out well because of this pressure to turn it around, make decisions on the spot. Saying that, it’s important that we’ve previously experienced this classic way of working, in order to appreciate the freedom, we have now. I wonder whether we would approach HACKED in the same way, or do the project at all, if this were not the case.
RA: Some say the concept of ‘sustainable fashion’ is contradictory in itself, because you’re still operating within the cycle of unnecessary consumption. What’s your take on that?
FB: Yeah, it’s actually true, because as consumers, we buy way too many things we don’t need. The thing is, the system still works like this, and to change that will take years and years. These brands work on profit-based business models, meaning they’re compelled to sell more and more. Until that changes, that will still be the system we’re up against. We can at least inform the consumer that this is the situation they are contributing to, and educate them about their role within it, in order to make different decisions. In that sense, change begins with the consumer. Unless we take an alternative, resourceful position within the cycle, all that will happen is that lots of unused stock gets destroyed, and that would be a real shame. It’s not an option to sit back and watch. It’s a system that we built ourselves, but now we have to rebuild it again.
RA: There’s already a big backlash against that in the food sector – we're returning to artisan butchers and local greengrocers, and this behavior is following suit in fashion. People will realize that our consumption has to be slower, and better, if we are able to. But what else can we do as consumers to push the industry in this direction?
AS: When you invest yourself in the origins of the project – see how the fabric is sourced, how socially ethical the production process is – the more you know about the product’s creation, from beginning to end – the more you are compelled to change your behavior. Take fur, for example; beautiful fur. But when you see how the animals are killed for it, you don’t want it anymore. It’s an extreme instance, of course, but it illustrates the point. It works the same in reverse; an ugly home-grown tomato is not as pretty or perfect as one from the supermarket, but it’s ethically produced and tastes good, so you’re more accepting of its non-standardized form.
FB: Knowledge nudges you towards better choices. If these things are more visible to consumers, the mentality will change. There will always be people who opt for price, like if they don’t have much money, but even in the low-cost arena, we can do better to be sustainable.
AS: Yes, it’s not necessary to pay a lot for an ethical product. The workmanship accounts for most of the cost; where it’s produced and how.
FB: Social conscience is another very important aspect of HACKED. Our method requires a special kind of production process, because we’re removing zippers and taking off sleeves and so on. We found a place in Holland that can deconstruct the clothing, and they employ mainly refugees, many of whom were skilled in the textiles industry before they came to the country, or maybe they’re in-between jobs and are acquiring a new set of skills. This really adds another dimension to our label; knowing where it’s made and that it’s made fairly. So, while we deal with garments which might not have been produced responsibly, we try to compensate at our end of the chain, making sure we know who’s working on the product, why, and in what circumstances.
RA: Do you think there’s an important discussion to be had about the way we continue to produce according to the seasonal fashion calendars? There are already so many designers producing so many clothes...it seems like the seasons only function to turnover a new trend, and push us to consume more and more. Perhaps we require a total rejection of this model in order to transform our habits?
FB: Yes. We work in between. We work by creating pieces on a daily basis, because we get our deadstock pieces and fabrics at all times of the year. That means our products can be designed and sold in the same week, which even allows us to respond to changes like weather conditions. When we decided to go international, that’s when we had to co-ordinate with buyers in Paris two or three times a year. This seasonality is unfortunately necessary for now, but we know that when we've grown our presence and stores have seen how fast our production process is, we hope that our model will prove how ineffective the seasonal schedule is in actuality. Lots of young, upcoming designers are already changing things in that way. Together with initiatives like ours, hopefully the stores and the buyers will soon be on board.
RA: The consumer’s heightened sense environmental awareness must be very good for your label right now! What’s next for the business?
FB: We’ll try to scale up in a way that reflects how we work. We essentially customize products in small limited-edition series. We want to grow the brand without compromising the sense that each item is special. Our biggest ideal is cleaning up. We’ve said from the beginning that with sustainable fashion, a lot of people still have this idea that it has to look “crusty” - you know, heavy and dusty and New Age. From the start, we said we weren’t going to do that. We need a product that can seduce. People pick pieces because they’re attracted to them and they feel sexy when they wear them. We’re targeting a group of people who don’t normally chose sustainable, but they’d love it even more if their clothes were. It’s inspiring that the consumer is demanding more of their brands and forcing them to rewrite the rulebook.
AS: I want us to grow very big. With a concept like this, it’s possible to expand it across multiple brands all over the world. And the more people stand with this mentality, the more successful they will be too. It will certainly be exciting to see how much things have changed in 10 years' time.
REBEKKA AYRES: Can you start by outlining the concept of HACKED?
ALEXANDER VAN SLOBBE: HACKED is an overstock of production – there is too much production in the world. This is a problem the world over. We thought: Why don’t we do something with this product? Because otherwise these items are destroyed. We can at least do something different with them, give them a new life. We get old stock – sweaters, fabric, skirts, whatever – and we use these as a basis to make a new collection.
FRANCISCO VAN BENTHUM: It’s an upcycling concept. The starting point is sustainability – targeting this problem of waste: the surplus stock. The state of the fashion system today makes that the case. So, instead watching on as these products are destroyed, why not work with them as a resource? We add a second layer to these pieces, which is our “design signature”. We’re saving them from destruction while creating something new. As much as it’s about preserving our resources, it’s also about preserving the previous craftsmanship, since so much work has already gone into each garment. Our approach takes a different route to one that only works with ecological fabrics, since ours are already in circulation. That means the material composition isn’t necessarily ecological in itself, but rather, it’s the act of reclamation and using what is already at hand. This process also sparks a discussion with the consumer, to highlight how the fashion system operates.
AS: The reason we feel able to use these synthetic materials – despite the fact they’re not the healthiest materials for the planet – is because they already exist. What can you do? You can burn it, or use it again. Ideally, we would love to work with natural fabrics, but this is not what is currently being resigned to waste.
RA: You were both already working as designers, imagining something from scratch each time. How did you adapt to having these limitations imposed?
AS: When you’re set limitations, you gain a greater freedom, because you’re forced to be more focused. If you can pick from your wildest dreams, it’s almost more difficult to design. We’re dealing with what we have, and it pushes you in one direction. Our approach has changed entirely.
RA: What is your personal design signature? Does it change from season to season?
FB: In Holland, at least, they say we have this clean, modern, slightly abstract signature. We believe very much in the outline of a piece. We use detail, but not in a romantic way. It’s more of a graphic approach. In a sense it’s more to do with customizing things; we’ll take a sleeve out of a shirt and replace it with fabric instead. Our alterations have to be seen and felt within the product. That means we often have to make very bold decisions. If we want to make a dress out of a shirt, we have to add fabric to make it reach the knee, and it’s best to make that a big contrast so that at least people recognize that something’s been done to it.
AS: If you see our approach to design, it’s quite simple, which gives each piece a longer life. They’re detailed, but on a small scale, where the considerations are not that obvious. For me, this is what means our clothes are seen as long-lasting. But we are from a different generation!
FB: Sure, we are a little bit older, but maybe because of that we make more mature decisions. For instance, we would never make a belly top – something that is only good for five minutes.
RA: So if the notion of trend itself is toxic, promoting a cycle of desire and disposability, do you struggle to work with some of the materials you encounter when collaborating with these big brands? Particularly on the high street, brands champion a big trophy print which dominates one season, and by the next season it’s seen as gauche.
AS: No, it can be interesting because you make your own interpretation of it. And because our designs are more abstract, if there’s a huge design detail, we try to make it bigger, or discreet, or play with it by splicing it with a plain fabric. It’s actually lovely to do, because most of my working life I’ve been dealing with plain fabrics. Suddenly, I’m confronted by these strong designs like flowers and stripes, which make it even more interesting, mainly because it’s not my normal choice. It becomes even more interesting if you don’t like the fabrics, or you hate pattern altogether, because you have to take matters into your own hands to make it beautiful. it’s definitely difficult when you see a really beautiful dress and you have to change it in some way, because you really love it already. Give me something ugly and it’s easier! It’s easier to make something ugly beautiful, rather than the other way around.
FB: When you go to a fabric fair, you just pick the things that you like or are comfortable with. This way, you get what you're given and you have to make it work. It’s an extra challenge. It always works out well because of this pressure to turn it around, make decisions on the spot. Saying that, it’s important that we’ve previously experienced this classic way of working, in order to appreciate the freedom, we have now. I wonder whether we would approach HACKED in the same way, or do the project at all, if this were not the case.
RA: Some say the concept of ‘sustainable fashion’ is contradictory in itself, because you’re still operating within the cycle of unnecessary consumption. What’s your take on that?
FB: Yeah, it’s actually true, because as consumers, we buy way too many things we don’t need. The thing is, the system still works like this, and to change that will take years and years. These brands work on profit-based business models, meaning they’re compelled to sell more and more. Until that changes, that will still be the system we’re up against. We can at least inform the consumer that this is the situation they are contributing to, and educate them about their role within it, in order to make different decisions. In that sense, change begins with the consumer. Unless we take an alternative, resourceful position within the cycle, all that will happen is that lots of unused stock gets destroyed, and that would be a real shame. It’s not an option to sit back and watch. It’s a system that we built ourselves, but now we have to rebuild it again.
RA: There’s already a big backlash against that in the food sector – we're returning to artisan butchers and local greengrocers, and this behavior is following suit in fashion. People will realize that our consumption has to be slower, and better, if we are able to. But what else can we do as consumers to push the industry in this direction?
AS: When you invest yourself in the origins of the project – see how the fabric is sourced, how socially ethical the production process is – the more you know about the product’s creation, from beginning to end – the more you are compelled to change your behavior. Take fur, for example; beautiful fur. But when you see how the animals are killed for it, you don’t want it anymore. It’s an extreme instance, of course, but it illustrates the point. It works the same in reverse; an ugly home-grown tomato is not as pretty or perfect as one from the supermarket, but it’s ethically produced and tastes good, so you’re more accepting of its non-standardized form.
FB: Knowledge nudges you towards better choices. If these things are more visible to consumers, the mentality will change. There will always be people who opt for price, like if they don’t have much money, but even in the low-cost arena, we can do better to be sustainable.
AS: Yes, it’s not necessary to pay a lot for an ethical product. The workmanship accounts for most of the cost; where it’s produced and how.
FB: Social conscience is another very important aspect of HACKED. Our method requires a special kind of production process, because we’re removing zippers and taking off sleeves and so on. We found a place in Holland that can deconstruct the clothing, and they employ mainly refugees, many of whom were skilled in the textiles industry before they came to the country, or maybe they’re in-between jobs and are acquiring a new set of skills. This really adds another dimension to our label; knowing where it’s made and that it’s made fairly. So, while we deal with garments which might not have been produced responsibly, we try to compensate at our end of the chain, making sure we know who’s working on the product, why, and in what circumstances.
RA: Do you think there’s an important discussion to be had about the way we continue to produce according to the seasonal fashion calendars? There are already so many designers producing so many clothes...it seems like the seasons only function to turnover a new trend, and push us to consume more and more. Perhaps we require a total rejection of this model in order to transform our habits?
FB: Yes. We work in between. We work by creating pieces on a daily basis, because we get our deadstock pieces and fabrics at all times of the year. That means our products can be designed and sold in the same week, which even allows us to respond to changes like weather conditions. When we decided to go international, that’s when we had to co-ordinate with buyers in Paris two or three times a year. This seasonality is unfortunately necessary for now, but we know that when we've grown our presence and stores have seen how fast our production process is, we hope that our model will prove how ineffective the seasonal schedule is in actuality. Lots of young, upcoming designers are already changing things in that way. Together with initiatives like ours, hopefully the stores and the buyers will soon be on board.
RA: The consumer’s heightened sense environmental awareness must be very good for your label right now! What’s next for the business?
FB: We’ll try to scale up in a way that reflects how we work. We essentially customize products in small limited-edition series. We want to grow the brand without compromising the sense that each item is special. Our biggest ideal is cleaning up. We’ve said from the beginning that with sustainable fashion, a lot of people still have this idea that it has to look “crusty” - you know, heavy and dusty and New Age. From the start, we said we weren’t going to do that. We need a product that can seduce. People pick pieces because they’re attracted to them and they feel sexy when they wear them. We’re targeting a group of people who don’t normally chose sustainable, but they’d love it even more if their clothes were. It’s inspiring that the consumer is demanding more of their brands and forcing them to rewrite the rulebook.
AS: I want us to grow very big. With a concept like this, it’s possible to expand it across multiple brands all over the world. And the more people stand with this mentality, the more successful they will be too. It will certainly be exciting to see how much things have changed in 10 years' time.