International fashion brands incorporating traditional Chinese design elements into their collections have recently faced accusations of cultural appropriation, sparking widespread debate on social media. Companies such as Zara and Adidas have drawn criticism for using features like Mandarin collars and pankou (frog buttons) without adequately acknowledging their cultural significance. Zara, in particular, was rebuked for mislabeling these details as generic "fireman clasps," while Adidas’s marketing of its “New Chinese Style” collections prompted discussions on how Chinese heritage is framed for global audiences.

However, perspectives from artisans and designers deeply rooted in these traditions offer a more nuanced view. Miru Wong Ka-lam, the third-generation owner of Sindart—a Hong Kong shop specializing in handmade embroidered shoes since 1958—welcomes the growing international interest in Chinese design. She argues that the exposure benefits both foreign and local appreciation, shifting perceptions among younger Chinese generations who previously considered traditional attire outdated or reserved for special occasions.

Wong sees this trend less as cultural theft and more as promotion that reconnects people with their heritage. “When I see big brands using Chinese cultural elements in their designs, I think it’s a good thing,” she said, emphasizing that it encourages local customers to embrace their culture more boldly. Similarly, Julie Liu, founder of Qipology, a contemporary qipao label, praised the trend for increasing cultural awareness and stimulating business. Her collections blend traditional forms with modern touches, such as A-line shapes and Mandarin collars paired with jeans.

Both Wong and Liu stress that the distinction between appreciation and appropriation hinges on deep understanding of the cultural context. Wong highlighted the importance of knowing the stories and taboos attached to specific motifs and designs, pointing out that some patterns, traditionally reserved for the deceased or specific ceremonies, should not be used casually. For example, she noted that buttons placed on the left side of qipao symbolize death, a common mistake in some contemporary recreations that can be offensive.

This lack of awareness can be a pitfall for mass-market brands, which may unintentionally misapply symbols of significance. Liu remarked that improper use of designs with unlucky or disrespectful connotations calls for greater caution among fashion houses. Wong recounted instances where customers, unaware of their true meaning, bought funeral shoes embroidered with sacred patterns—items intended for ceremonial use. Such oversights, she warned, can lead to cultural insensitivity.

The ongoing debate over cultural appropriation has been intense, with notable controversies such as the 2018 backlash against an American teenager wearing a qipao at prom. Yet Liu noted that many Western clients now proactively inquire about the cultural appropriateness of wearing traditional Chinese garments. She welcomed this interest, seeing it as a positive sign of cross-cultural respect.

For Wong, balancing tradition with innovation is crucial to sustaining these cultural crafts. Sindart’s adaptations, like slip-resistant soles and improved comfort, exemplify how heritage designs can evolve while honoring their origins. She concluded by emphasizing that meaningful engagement with the culture—researching and understanding its history and significance—is fundamental to preserving and respectfully sharing Chinese design elements in the fashion world.