I was roaming around on Twitter this morning, and I saw an epic rant by physicist Mika McKinnon (
@mikamckinnon

) about the Met Gala looks. She was basically saying that there is a lot of STEM skills going on in creating a couture look for a red carpet, especially when that red carpet is a tribute to Rei Kawakubo.

For those of you who aren't on Twitter, I'm going to copy and paste the tweet-storm and the pics she was talking about in each tweet. I'm numbering the tweets to correspond with the pics I'm attaching. Where there was no pic attached, I'm attaching a pic of the tweet to preserve the matching until there is no more need

She also wrote it up in article form for Racked [dot] com and that article is here https://www.racked.com/2017/5/.....ngineering

1)
The engineering casually on display at #MetGala never fails to impress me. I do nearly every textile craft . That's mindblowingly hard

2)
Multiple fabric & fundamental material changes, dramatic structure, intense texturing, all in dynamic form

3)
All the boobtape in the world wouldn't achieve this look without strong engineering during design

4)
Getting the right silhouette? More engineering. Even a good crinoline takes all the math; hoops even moreso.

5)
Q: Women are inherently uninterested in STEM!
A: Maybe idiots should stop constantly redefining STEM to exclude anything feminine.

6)
Contouring for a dynamic body = hard. Draping dynamic contours with a drooping material = wtf SO MUCH MATH.

7)
I hold a physics degree & did computational grad work. Seeing these
dresses as a final exam question would make me break into a cold sweat.

8)
With wearable EL wire and LEDs, fashion design requires understanding E&M. Gorgeous applied circuits!

9)
Confession: Every attempt I've made with wearables in my gowns has
failed because I under-designed for the weight of the battery packs.

10)
High heels are a sliding block problem in friction & inclined slopes. Bonus: Pressure; Material strength.

11)
Getting those beautiful curves on the rosette-ruffles? Applied geometry incorporating fabric bias.

12)
Geometry required to make a line on a curved surface read as straight is not trivial. (Tattoo artists know the pain)

13)
Ruffles & pleats require more math than I can tolerate to calculate fabric. Bonus: Make a curve look straight, redux

14)
Creating structure with flexible material while still allowing for kinematics (walking, posing): Engineer with bias.

15)
Q: What does bias have to do with fabric?

A: Bias is a material property of woven fabric; most elastic 45° off warp & weft. Related: grain

16)
Q: Why bother calculating? Just sew something and adjust it until it works!

A: Ahahahahhahahagaadhgddxvb... No. That doesn't work. At all.

17)
1. Fabric is expensive, Lace can be >$150/meter. Over-buying is infeasible.
2. Fixing flawed design STILL needs math (& is harder).

18)
I started machine-sewing at age 4. I've been taught by amazing
seamstresses. I'm extremely detail-oriented. I still have Epic Sewing
Fails.

19)
Common problems: Misunderstanding material properties, poor conversion
from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry, miscalculating allowances.

20)
Think about the geometry this dress. Pattern cut on flat fabric, sewn into curved surface, reads as straight lines.

21)
Boning is a structural engineering problem. How do you balance rigid & flexible to control dynamic loads?

22)
Fabric is dense and heavy. A train this long with this many layers needs serious hidden structure to stay attached.

23)
Upside of ignoring fashion design as applied, challenging engineering?
Explaining this will never be on an exam:

24)
Q: How does fashion require transforming between Euclidean & non-Euclidean geometry?
A: Cowls are cut as rectangles:

25)
Beyond structural challenges, aesthetic theory relies heavily on math
& optics. Golden ratio, Fibonacci spiral, rule of thirds,
illusions...

26)
What gets me about fashion design is that every challenge is compounded
by using jiggly, fragile, dynamic, temperamental humans as the base.

27)
Fashion designers are stealth engineers using way more math &
physics than they let on. Fancy gala gowns are masterwork engineering
displays

I had never thought about it like this. Like, I have always had respect for the creative genius that goes into a Rei Kawakubo creation or a Rick Owens runway show or even the shredded Isabel Benenato sweaters I own. Like, even with the shredded sweaters, I could never come up with something that just looks as right as my sweaters look. I could never do what Rei Kawakubo and Rick Owens do. I've always had respect for the sewing skills and knitting skills, and all of that.

But I had never thought about how much algebra went into taking a pattern and making it for a bigger or smaller size. I had never thought about the geometry involved in making straight lines appear on the curves of a human body.

I had also never thought about baking/cooking as chemistry, but it is. I had never thought about knitting/crocheting being manual programming, I had never thought of those traditionally "women things" as being STEM fields, and yet they are. Women are way smarter than anybody (including themselves) give them credit for.