the codes are sorted so the map looks like a mesh-
work shaped flow-chart with diverse sub branches.
The codes are presented as black framed Polaroid
photographs with images copied from the brand’s
catwalks, advertising, catalogues, books and website.
In the workshop’s first step she mounts some of these
Polaroids on the wall, connecting the folders and
codes with thread, showing the flow of code through
the brand. The participants have a stack of extra Po-
laroids with more images, as yet unmounted, and
they are free to reinterpret the structure, add their
ideas, move images and create other forms or flows
of the code through the diagram.
From this code González helps the participants to
create new programs or patches by remaking old
clothes. The participants can “brandify” their old
clothes, making the reconstructed clothes mimic the
decoded brand by combining elements from the
codes found on the chart. These new garments are
often produced through quite simple procedures de-
pending on the skills of the participants. Some turn
out as unelaborated reinterpretations of the brand’s
traditional colour palettes, while others are thorough
excavations into the cut and fabric composition of
special collections.
It is in this simple but multilayered practice of de-
coding and redesigning that the special quality of
González’ project becomes clear. Here the workshop
participants collectively map and discuss a brand’s
components, reverse engineer this code, analyze ma-
terials, cuts, draping, details, and finish off the gar-
ments. They also discuss the depiction and represen-
tation of these garments in the fashion photographs.
This is where new collective “clothing competence”
is cultivated among the participants. From here they
also start to reconstruct the old clothes into new
forms, they mimick the original brand, but they do
not make copies. Instead they analyze their resources
to see how these old components best become new
code, but a code performing the same visual or ma-
terial function as the original brand. They remake
something new, something unique, an experimental
“program” out of an existing and branded code.
The new garments or accessories, or “programs”, are
photographed with a Polaroid and mounted back
onto the chart. The photographs are then connected
with thread to its inspirational code cards to show
how the code was used and from where details were
taken. The additions from the participants create di-
agonal or rhizomatic lines drawn through the origi-
nal research web of images. The new programs be-
come part of the code map on the wall and become
just as true as the authentic ones, to inspire new cre-
ations from other participants. The first brand
hacked at the week-long workshop in Istanbul was
Gucci, in which participants were ”Guccifying” their
clothes ad this was followed by Turkish brand Vak-
ko.
The workshop offered a systematic way to interpret
fashion expressions and a vocabulary for discussing
details, as well as practical help for the practical deci-
phering of the mapped ideas. Like hacking, this was
a line of practice that focus on the mastering of cod-
ing skills, both reading code, finding loopholes, flaws
or strong codes, and hands-on reprogramming the
code. The new garment or program was a running
application, program or patch – a reinterpretation of
the code, not a copy, but visually as “real” as an au-
thentic piece. From these various levels of skills and
coding, González’ created an atmosphere where “au-
thentic” Gucci pieces were created by the participants
from their old garments. The resemblance to the real
Gucci studio was apparently so accurate that one
participant thought that I was Tom Ford, the famous
head designer of Gucci.
Roland Barthes saw fashion as combinations of se-
mantic codes in his book The Fashion System (1983)
and his theories of fashion have often been regarded
as too strict or mathematical. To better understand
González’ use of fashion code we can instead explore
how media ecologist Alexander Galloway frames the
concept of code in relation to network ecologies. He
means that code is a stronger text, affecting the world
in a more physical sense than the written word on
these pages, as “code is the only language that is exe-
cutable” (Galloway, Alexander 2004: 165). Code is in
this sense not only a messenger, but also a container
of activity, carrying an impetus or a force of execu-
tion. It is in direct connection with the electronic
energy that flows through it. Code’s basic function is
to facilitate, to run, but also to control operations.
“Code has a semantic meaning, but it also has an en-
actment of meaning.” (Galloway, Alexander 2004:
166)
The code depicted in the fashion magazine is the key
to the code, but also the program itself, showing the
“correct” or “expected” way of how to execute the
fashionable code. It dictates acting, not looking. It