Re: “Couture Culture,” column, Nov. 7.

The only thing that makes the fact that one is lacking even a basic knowledge of the fashion industry more apparent than the loose usage of the word “couture” is when one criticizes people involved in the industry and their awareness of their effects on the world.

By claiming, “We need look no further than the luxury empire that is Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy [sic],” Lin immediately invalidates her entire article. Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton is a house grounded and supported by almost exclusively European brands...all of Lin’s examples of how Project East has perpetuated the grave social and environmental problems in East Asia stem from this conglomerate. Here a basic understanding of the industry is essential; Lin obviously didn’t realize that there is a difference between the effects of large, Western brands in East Asia versus the effect of the brands that Project East promoted, which were small, Asian brands in the U.S.

Not only is the data that Lin uses to support her argument invalid, but Lin has also failed to realize that in promoting small designers, Project East promotes diversification of the fashion industry. Lin claims that a major problem in East Asia is “over-consumption”, but if more designers are able to survive because of our efforts, it will promote creative intelligence and uproot existing status symbols.

Perhaps when she made the claim “As it relates to Asian designer labels and fashion in Asia more generally,” Lin led herself astray. She doesn’t notice that Asian designer labels and fashion in Asia are separate entities. At Project East, we showed designers from New York Fashion Week, who had Asian backgrounds. Perhaps Lin thought that these designers’ Asian backgrounds meant that they show in Shanghai, Tokyo, or Seoul and would thus affect consumption in such areas.

To address the environmental problems that Lin laments, the designers featured at Project East operate as small luxury brands; most of the goods are made by hand, not in factories. In fact, most luxury goods are not mass-produced. Given this, it is hard to see how their goods contribute more to the smog problem in China than Nike’s sweatshops.

And why did Lin’s Econ paper on Project East fail to analyze the cost and benefit of the show? Regardless of the fact that her article makes points barely tangible to the event, Project East believes that the benefits of scholarships given to young children working in sweatshops by the Confucius Foundation far outweighs the problems facing those who “overspend” in East Asia. Charity is a central part of Project East and it is rude at best to trivialize this aspect.

And beyond the “economics” and “social and environmental” issues of Project East, where is the human aspect? Lin doesn’t realize the importance of scholarships to children in China working in sweatshops, so I doubt that she would realize the importance of giving designers with true creative genius an opportunity to survive in such a difficult industry. These designers, especially ones that have just graduated, have tried so hard to pursue their passion, and Project East believes that their dedication should not go unnoticed. Consequently, we will continue with our goal of promoting Asian designers, raising money for charity, and building relationships between Harvard and the fashion industry. We are a group completely aware of what we are doing; furthermore, we are pure in our intent and consequently impossible to criticize.


TIMOTHY M. PARENT ’09
Cambridge, MA
November 12, 2007