After organizing the feedback on the sketches, I realized that the designers’ critiques of “cultural expression” were actually a valuable reminder. Their observations were precise and insightful. They were not rejecting culture itself; instead, they were emphasizing how culture is worn, experienced, and felt.
In the third part of the questionnaire, I posed what seemed like a simple question:
“Among space, time, and senses, which dimension do you think is most important in the current fashion industry, and why?”
But after reading their responses, I realized that the question was far from simple. It wasn’t asking them to pick a preference—it was asking them, through the lens of real professional experience, to test whether No-Anxiety Design Thinking could actually be translated into a workable design methodology. The results gave me a direction that was both clear and concrete.
Most designers chose the sensory dimension as the most important.
They believed that the most direct and fundamental meaning of fashion comes from sensory experience—vision, touch, temperature, the rhythm of color, the physicality of fabric.
One wrote:
“Consumers make judgments in one second, and that one second is always visual and tactile.”
Another said:
“Fashion is a sensory product, and beauty is a sensory experience.”
They explained the sensory dimension in very specific terms: fabric softness, color saturation, the ease of lines, the warmth of touch… These are real, tangible, actionable design decisions.
This made me realize for the first time that the “sense of no anxiety” I extracted from culture is felt by the body through these sensory details before anything else. In other words, the sensory dimension is the most immediately transferable into a concrete design method.
Another group of designers chose the time dimension, and their explanations made me rethink the role of “tempo” in fashion.
One wrote:
“Every decision in the fashion industry is tied to time, from trend releases to consumption cycles.”
Another noted:
“Cycles of nostalgia, seasonal shifts, local rhythms—time is the logic of the industry.”
These answers showed me that the time dimension is not simply “Chengdu’s slowness,” nor the cultural notion of “waiting.” It can be translated into durable silhouettes, low replacement frequency, long life cycles, repairability, recyclability, multi-scenario wearability.
This is the design language of time.
Compared to cultural narratives, it operates more like a systematic methodology. And the designers clearly recognized this.
A smaller group chose the space dimension, but their interpretations opened up an entirely different way of thinking. They weren’t referring to cultural spaces; they were talking about the relationship between the body and clothing.
One designer wrote:
“Space is the sense of position the body has within the garment.”
Another said:
“Whether someone can breathe freely inside the clothing is the most basic spatial experience.”
Some designers went further—speaking about display spaces, brand spaces, virtual spaces—believing that the spatial dimension determines how fashion is viewed, experienced, and consumed.
Though these responses were fewer, they pointed toward a future direction: space is not cultural space, but experiential space. And experience is, fundamentally, the core of “no anxiety.”
When I placed all three types of responses side by side, I felt a new sense of confidence for the first time:
No-Anxiety Design Thinking is not just a cultural narrative—it has real industry applicability.
Designers, through their own language and professional insight, translated the framework for me:
- Sensory Dimension — immediately actionable; grounded in fabric, color, texture, silhouette.
- Time Dimension — systemically actionable; grounded in lifecycle, rhythm, sustainability, durability.
- Space Dimension — future-oriented; grounded in bodily freedom, brand experience, and spatial storytelling.
At that moment, I finally understood:
In the first three interventions, I was trying to explain what Chengdu’s cultural state is.
In the fourth intervention, industry designers showed me how that state can become a design method.
My research is no longer simply about “understanding Chengdu,” nor about “expressing Chengdu.”
It now carries the potential to be absorbed by the industry, practiced by the industry, and developed by the industry.
And for a researcher, the most grounding moment is precisely this—seeing an idea move from culture to design, from theory to practice, from the individual to the industry.
Chinese Version：
在完成草图反馈的整理之后，我意识到，行业设计师对“文化表达方式”的批评其实是一种非常珍贵的提醒。他们看得准确，也看得深入。他们并不否定文化本身，而是在强调文化如何被穿上身、被体验、被感受。
在问卷的第三部分，我设置了一个看似简单的问题：“在你看来，空间、时间、感官这三个维度中，哪个在现实时尚行业最重要？为什么？”但真正阅读设计师的回答后，我才意识到，这个问题并不简单。它不是让设计师做选择，而是让他们用真实的专业经验去检验：无焦虑设计思维是否能转化为可执行的设计方法。结果给了我一个非常清晰、也非常具体的方向。
大多数设计师把 感官维度 放在最重要的位置。他们认为时尚最直接、最本质的意义来自于人的感官体验，即视觉、触觉、温度、颜色的节奏、面料的体感。有人写道：“消费者在一秒钟内做判断，而这一秒永远是视觉和触觉。”也有人指出：“时尚是感官的产品，美也是感官的体验。” 他们把感官维度解释得非常具体：面料的柔软程度、色彩的饱和度、线条的舒展感、触感的温度……这些都是真实、直接、可落地的设计决策。这让我第一次意识到，我在文化中提取出的“无焦虑感”，其实最先进入人体的，就是这些感官细节。换句话说，感官维度是最容易成为具体设计方法的部分。
而另一部分设计师选择了 时间维度，他们的解释让我重新理解了“节奏”在时尚中的作用。有人写道：“时尚行业的每一个决策都与时间相关，从趋势发布到消费周期。”
还有人说：“复古的轮回、季节性的更替、本地节奏的差异……时间是行业逻辑。”
这些回答告诉我：时间维度并不仅仅是“成都慢”，也不是文化里的“等待”，而是可以实际转化为——耐穿性版型、低替换频率、长生命周期、可修补、可循环、多场景穿着。这是时间的设计语言。比起文化，它更像是一种系统性的方法论。而行业设计师恰好看到了这一点。
还有少数设计师选择了 空间维度。他们并不关注直观的文化空间，而是把空间理解为人与服装之间的关系。有设计师写道：“空间是身体在服装里的位置感。” 也有人说：“一个人能不能在衣服里自由呼吸，是最基本的空间体验。” 更远一点的设计师从展示空间、品牌空间、虚拟空间谈起，认为空间维度决定了时尚被观看、被体验、被消费的方式。这些回答虽然不占多数，却打开了一个更未来的方向：空间维度不是文化的空间，而是体验的空间。而体验，本身就是无焦虑的核心。
当我将这三类回答重新放在一起阅读时，我第一次感觉到一种完全不同的信心
无焦虑设计思维并不是一个只存在于文化叙事里的概念，它具有真正的行业可用性。
设计师们用他们的语言、他们的职业经验，为我重新翻译了这个框架：
- 感官维度：立即可用，落在面料、色彩、触感、廓形的具体操作上。
- 时间维度：系统可用，落在生命周期、节奏、可持续、耐久性的行业逻辑上。
- 空间维度：未来可用，落在身体自由度、品牌体验、展示空间的叙事结构上。
这一刻，我终于明白：前三轮干预中，我一直试图解释成都文化是一种什么样的状态；第四轮干预中，行业设计师告诉我这种状态如何成为一种“设计方法”。
我的研究不再只是“理解成都”，也不再只是“表达成都”。它开始拥有一种被行业吸收、被行业实践、被行业发展下去的可能性。
而对于一个研究者来说，最踏实的瞬间，就是在这一刻，看到一个概念从文化走向设计，从理论走向实践，从个人走向行业。
Leave a Reply