Never behind the times, MIT had its own fashion show, with a project called “Seamless,” February 1st. This is incredibly exciting to me, but not for the fashions (hardly for the ugly monstrosities; SpaceDress: “expanding in size??!”), and not for the glimpse of fashion’s technologically advanced future (iPod accessories, what I call a “headache inducer,” a veritable sex-simulator, and a tetanus risking skirt and mono risking jewelry). (To understand those comments, view the video.) No, not for those reasons; it’s just a hoot.

Immediately attractive to me was this TapTap:

The sense of touch is essential to emotional health and development. taptap is a wearable accessory that can record, distribute and play back affectionate touch. Designed to look like a normal scarf, taptap provides extra warmth and comfort by simulating the touch of a loved one.

(Now, some of my best friends are MIT alumni. [I use “some” loosely and “best” strictly: 1 friend.) So you know this comes from understanding and love:] Now … wow. Those MIT nerds are lonely and sad. Yes, sad.

To illustrate:

Safety First! We all need reasons to wear a helmet more often. Impress all your friends with your awareness of head injuries and the damaging effects of loud sounds. A fashion statement with good sense.

Wow.

The best design with my favorite science behind it was the Mathematical Knit concept. “Pleasing aesthetics are commonly based on mathematical proportions. This collection was designed to investigate if number patterns can be used to create design elements.” That is incredibly intriguing, and I’m pleased this designer wanted to use her nerdy brains to produce something visually attractive based on a scientific standard (although the items were fairly average, it was a successful experiment, in my eyes). I’m interested in seeing what more can be done from this.

Like a good educational piece, we’ve learned something. Integrating science, the mind, technology and style is not seamless, but it’s fun to try and a sight to see (and a good subject for humor).

By the way, how did they get pretty girls (with no ’stashes) to model? 0:-)

So, the good Go International: Luella items for Target sold out within 3 or so days. That includes the one top in which I had interest. I knew such frenzy happened with Stella McCartney at H&M, but this is Target, and Luella’s line is supposed to be permanent. It’s kind of crazy. The designs are not that great, but the ads make them look better for layering; smart trick to get people to buy more. Now, shouldn’t design stand on its own? Some Target apparel does, even.

(And the iPod case is cute, but of course a disappointment with no size options; I can’t go without complaining.)

One outrageous thing is you just know a good percentage of what bought out is going to be sold on eBay (search eBay now) with raised prices; which does not make for sound investments by buyers; Target’s clothing is cheap (polyester and thin material). I’m not just bitter because of that top; which just fits something I was looking for and can’t find, no.

I can’t help but assume such craze is not really for pieces, but for the name. But with such tacky bag designs (as fruit-yellow in net! material, where the hanging charms now work against Luella), these pieces do not reflect the good work of Luella’s name. Why bother caring? This is name-brand loyalty to the extreme, and reflects consumer desperation.