In the Lap of Luxury, Paris Squirms

[electric_alyce]

Anyone else read this article in the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/fashion/15paris.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

Some French intellectuals want to go much further, calling for the death of the entire luxury industry as a sort of national ritual of purification.
“Since the ancient Greeks, luxury goods have always been stamped with the seal of immorality,” said Gilles Lipovetsky, a sociologist who has written several books about consumerism. “They represent waste, the superficial, the inequality of wealth. They have no need to exist.”

“This whole crisis is like a big spring housecleaning — both moral and physical,” Karl Lagerfeld, the designer for Chanel, said in an interview. “There is no creative evolution if you don’t have dramatic moments like this. Bling is over. Red carpety covered with rhinestones is out. I call it ‘the new modesty.’ ”

(sorry if this has already been posted)

[Faust]

Very interesting article. Pretty sure Lipovetsky is quoted out of context here - he is FOR consumerism, at least in his book Empire of Fashion.

I like this quote.

"Rather than trying to keep the machine running by pumping out high-price hand bags, watches and other goods, he proposed the unthinkable: the entire luxury industry should slash prices. “We need a return to reason, decency, discretion, beauty and creativity — in other words, to true values,” Mr. Némarq said."

Which, by the way, is nothing groundbreaking. Just like we had a bubble in real state, we had a bubble in luxury goods prices. Price increases far outpaced inflation. We need at least a 20-30% correction in retail prices (and the fucking $ needs to get back on track).

Sarkozy is a pussy. Can't you just say that capitalism is immoral?! What is this "amoral" bullshit?

Lastly, with all due respect, I don't think France matters that much in the global economy when it comes to luxury bling. The US, the Middle East, Japan, Russian and China seem to matter more these days.

[ironman]

“They represent waste, the superficial, the inequality of wealth. They have no need to exist.”

what i find about people who say things like this (at least people i know, i.e. journalism student(s)), is that they are hypocrites. they exhibit consumerism just the same, but in different manners and for different reasons. what clothes mean to one is what new foods/restaurants mean to another. what shoes is to one is what hair is to another

i agree that it'd be nice if things went back to true values. but at the same time, as Némark said, the luxury industry "seduces not just the “happy few” but a large swath of the public."

i find it silly to say that the luxury industry represents the inequality of wealth and thus must be eliminated. whether the luxury industry is there or not, people--poor or not--(generally) want to one-up their peers

[Faust]

Again, I think Lipovetsky was quoted out of context. I think he was just defining a certain view that undeniably exists and not his personal view. Of course it misses a paramount point that luxury represents human excellence, just like scientific and cultural achievements do. Of course that is the exact point about it that has been lost in the 20/21st Century. I don't know where he got his ancient greece comment from (maybe he's thinking about austerity of the Spartans?). I would put disgust with luxury appearing in 15 Century, right before the Reformation.

[ironman]

oh, well in any case, i completely agree with this:

Of course it misses a paramount point that luxury represents human excellence, just like scientific and cultural achievements do.

[Faust]

Thank you for responding, ironman. I thought this article would elicit more responses, weird. Paging laika, she knows Lipovetsky much better than I do.

[ironman]

no problem :)

i'm trying to participate more between/during classes lol. give it some time Faust, it's only the middle of the day! :P