Q１I want to hear once again the merits and demerits of applying a way of thinking called social dynamics (fashion/ standardization and differentiation) to various design industries. Furthermore, how can one grasp fashion trends oneself?
A1：The techniques of the fashion industry have been applied for about 90 years, and various examples appear in the writings of Walter Lippmann and V. Packard. I wonder if this is not already generally known. The merits and demerits vary with different standpoints, so it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion; we are both consumers and producers of fashion. Various industrial fashions (social dynamics by standardization and differentiation) necessarily follow the maturing society. Ideas of returning to agriculture and the 'slow life' may be a reaction to the increasing speed of society's fashion.
Q2：I didn't think that the opinions of other persons had such a strong effect on the choice of our clothes and household electrical appliances. Are there other examples where the commercial world influences our choices - are there some specific examples?
A2： If there is hardly a single good or service in the world which isn't designed, one can say that everything reflects someone else's opinion. But, the ways in which things are received varies with individuals, so the other's intention (through design or PR strategy) may be un-noticed by the buyer who may think that he/she is acting out of their own free will. It is widely known that such a PR strategy is applied in elections.
In the same way, the literacy of influence can be found in the way works of art are appreciated. It provides training in reading the text and context of the work. 　Appreciating art is not just the physical beauty of the work, but also the enjoyment of reading the intention of the author.
Q3：Concerning the connection with apparent different views of Ohler, Deschamps, and Chanel, please comment on how mathematics / art / apparel participate as the root of such differences.
A3：I would like you to grasp that mathematics is the basics of sciences such as physics / chemistry / biology. First, science innovation is the basis of creating new technologies, which establishes the differentiation of function. As part of this, there is the cost-down due to standardization. For instance Dell computers are assembled from devices from all over the world.　Then the differences between the functions of products disappear. Thus, factors outside functionality - e.g. extending product life- are used to differentiate in terms of added value. In the art world this is exemplified by collaboration between artists (double named works) to create emotional added value.
There is function-related fashion (differentiation and standardization) and fashionableness related to art factors. A dynamic is formed here between psychological, social, economic and cultural factors in the fashionableness of the science & art. Ohler, Deschamps, Chanel caused creative innovation in these fields. This revolution was not limited to each field, but generated a matrix which crossed both time and field, and I wonder if it can't be said that it promoted activation of social design (architecture). It would like to think about this with all of you.
Q4：Starting with science, is scholarship really determined by fashion? If so, how far can this be checked, and shouldn't a line be drawn here?
A4：I wonder if there isn't also fashion (standardization and differentiation) in study too? I think it is already widespread, otherwise it would be unusual to research in areas where there are already many results and conclusions. In short, even with individual research, differentiation is necessary. For example, how about the study of environmental problems? Why is robot study so widespread? There is also a fashion in carrying out research on the science of arts, and aesthetics. Because this has been established in response to a society's request, it should be evaluated positively.
On the other hand, while emphasising the importance of basic research, whether it is natural sciences or humanities, I think that studies without direct ties to industry (research where industry-university co-operation isn't formed) are becoming difficult. Such a fashion (of differentiating scientific research according to economic criteria) should make us think carefully about the ranking society attaches to basic scientific research.
Q5：Fukamachi sensei- please tell me your impression of the opinions you have heard from participants in this cafe style event today.
A5：It was very valuable to hear the opinions of participants. Through sharing everybody's thoughts, thinking diversifies and discoveries are made. Because a lot of different people from different backgrounds came this time, it was very significant.
Q6：How do you see the future developments in fashion?
A6：Regarding fashion in the narrow sense (clothes and related things), developing countries are following the path of developed countries, and from the point of view of the fibre industry (which needs a low wage work force), it is necessary for the center to shift in the world. The implication is that it is necessary for Japan to differentiate itself based on its superior creations in both sciences/technologies and in art (emotion).