There's that "Sex and the City" episode when Samantha furiously spots a schlub in a tacky track suit sporting the red Hermes Birkin that she so covets. Recently, I too saw a similar schlub at Miu Miu with the Prada Fairy bag, and my friend exclaimed outrageously, "Now, what is that?!" I shrugged, and simply said, "Women who dress like that think they can get away with it because they have the newest 'it' bag. They think it excuses them." And yet my friend persisted: "Women like that don't dress for style; they dress for status."
And I realized that she was right: there are legions of women who mindlessly purchase 'it' items because fashion editors have praised them, not because they truly see the artistry or aesthetic value in that item. The sloppiness of thinking is what translates into the sloppiness of dressing. And while I cannot be excused from the concept of status dressing (after all, I do purchase designer things), I do not simply buy things for status with the mindlessness of a drone. For status without style is like an artist's signature without the art.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
That last line says it all! Commercializing style can kill it, and, in desperation, designers are sometimes driven over the top to make purely aesthetic statements. Our wardrobes benefit from neither extreme.
Check out Murakami's exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum -- his collection of bags for Hermes manages to be both ironic and just plain fun, and couldn't that be a fashionista's creed?
Post a Comment