by Eugene Rabkin
"The recent scandal involving the staff at a Balenciaga corner at Printemps, the Paris department store, in which it allegedly discriminated against a Chinese shopper, is reprehensible in its own right. And while the incident could be written off as a one-time faux pas that involved a particular member of staff and not so much the brand itself, there is something more unsavory about Balenciaga. Namely, it is that I find the output of Demna Gvasalia, the brand’s creative director, distasteful in the way it hijacks the aesthetic codes of the poor and dishes them out to those who can afford $800 hoodies.
Much ink has been spilled by the fashion media about how Gvasalia has been “subverting” fashion by elevating the taste of the lower classes. It started in his first collection with the “bazar” bag, that is reminiscent of those the poor around the globe tote around, only it’s made of leather and costs $2000, and continues to an $850 shirt “inspired” by a plastic trash bag. Somehow it’s supposed to make high fashion more “real” or socially aware. In reality it does the exact opposite. No verbal gymnastics on the part of the fashion media can avoid a simple and glaring fact – fashion is in the business of selling expensive things to those who can afford it. More than anything Gvasalia’s insistence on selling the sartorial codes of the poor to the rich is reminiscent of a carnival where the rich dressed up as the poor, only now this role play takes place 365 days a year. In more familiar words to the poor, is Balenciaga “taking a piss”?
Why do Gvasalia’s sartorial exercises that could be simply written off as camp seem offensive? Because to the poor the idea of designer fashion, like that of all luxury, is aspirational. When you grow up poor, you are only familiar with the lowest common denominator of fashion – say logoed goods from Louis Vuitton, Versace, or Gucci. These ideas of luxury are simplistic, but also honest – because to the poor fashion equals luxury, and luxury equals status. Their aspirational nature is universal, whether you are a working class British football hooligan buying your first Stone Island jacket, or a kid from immigrant Brooklyn buying your first Versace shirt. The idea that fashion can be ironic is the last thing on the mind of those who aspire to rise above the world fate has thrown them into."
Read the full article on SZ-Mag
"The recent scandal involving the staff at a Balenciaga corner at Printemps, the Paris department store, in which it allegedly discriminated against a Chinese shopper, is reprehensible in its own right. And while the incident could be written off as a one-time faux pas that involved a particular member of staff and not so much the brand itself, there is something more unsavory about Balenciaga. Namely, it is that I find the output of Demna Gvasalia, the brand’s creative director, distasteful in the way it hijacks the aesthetic codes of the poor and dishes them out to those who can afford $800 hoodies.
Much ink has been spilled by the fashion media about how Gvasalia has been “subverting” fashion by elevating the taste of the lower classes. It started in his first collection with the “bazar” bag, that is reminiscent of those the poor around the globe tote around, only it’s made of leather and costs $2000, and continues to an $850 shirt “inspired” by a plastic trash bag. Somehow it’s supposed to make high fashion more “real” or socially aware. In reality it does the exact opposite. No verbal gymnastics on the part of the fashion media can avoid a simple and glaring fact – fashion is in the business of selling expensive things to those who can afford it. More than anything Gvasalia’s insistence on selling the sartorial codes of the poor to the rich is reminiscent of a carnival where the rich dressed up as the poor, only now this role play takes place 365 days a year. In more familiar words to the poor, is Balenciaga “taking a piss”?
Why do Gvasalia’s sartorial exercises that could be simply written off as camp seem offensive? Because to the poor the idea of designer fashion, like that of all luxury, is aspirational. When you grow up poor, you are only familiar with the lowest common denominator of fashion – say logoed goods from Louis Vuitton, Versace, or Gucci. These ideas of luxury are simplistic, but also honest – because to the poor fashion equals luxury, and luxury equals status. Their aspirational nature is universal, whether you are a working class British football hooligan buying your first Stone Island jacket, or a kid from immigrant Brooklyn buying your first Versace shirt. The idea that fashion can be ironic is the last thing on the mind of those who aspire to rise above the world fate has thrown them into."
Read the full article on SZ-Mag
Comment