August 13, 2020

Creative scope of the designers was stifled from the beginning

 Good evening! This correspondence serves to contribute to the current discussion in relation to the National Wear. The attached design was also entered into the same competition.

However, it did not see the light of day. Whilst this is not declaring that this should have been the winning design, a statement has been made with the dress displayed above. It goes to show that they were not short in options to arrive at such a poor decision.

The unfortunate outcome of this initiative has led to many unanswered questions. The question of ‘what could have been?’ will continue to rest on our minds for a very long time.

I’m sure that many others will also have brilliant ideas as to what they will like to see as the ideal national dress. However, it is important for us to arrive at a consensus in a more democratic manner.

The entire approach to this competition was wrong. There was not enough publicity to begin with. Additionally, more was left to be desired regarding the guidelines.

The judging was also restricted to a small group of individuals. Designers were instructed to develop a design that is easy to replicate and affordable (for mass production).

This means that the creative scope of the designers was definitely stifled from the beginning. Hence the reason why we would always be thinking about what could have been if the competition was better structured with the designers having more room for creativity.

Despite these circumstances, I would still say NO excuse whatsoever for that white dress. However, I think the design above based on the various limitations has been a great effort by the designer.

Transparency is critical in the execution of these national activities. I would be grateful if you can integrate this perspective into your dialogue. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *