Up until a few decades ago provocation in fashion was embodied by garments that revealed too much skin and were therefore relegated under the "indecent" or "immoral" category. In a way, though, items such as extremely short mini-skirts or Rudi Gernreich's monokini also contributed to liberating women and sparked debates on women's rights.
Nowadays provocation seems to manifest in very different ways, that, quite often, just offend consumers rather than sparking clever debates. We have explored in a previous post the embarrassing rather than provocative "poverty chic" trend via a pair of faux distressed (or rather "barely there") sneakers by Martin Margiela.
In more recent weeks there has been collective indignation instead for Chanel's €1,260 wood and resin boomerang. A status symbol for those who may be able to afford it, this item from the fashion house S/S 2017 pre-collection (though the fashion house had already released a few years ago a boomerang without receiving the same coverage; fashionistas may also remember that Hermès marketed in 2013, a €516 boomerang) is actually an appropriation of Indigenous Australian culture.
A weapon of survival, once it received the luxury treatment and was marked with the unmistakeable double C logo, the boomerang was turned into another luxury accessory, an expensive object summoning up the undesired ghosts of cultural exploitation and ignorance.
Chanel issued a statement through a spokeswoman claiming that the house is "extremely committed to respecting all cultures and deeply regrets that some may have felt offended. The inspiration was taken from leisure activities from other parts of the world, and it was not our intention to disrespect the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community and the significance of the boomerang as a cultural object."
Shame that, even while apologising, the fashion house ended up considering the item as an object that could be categorised under the "leisure activities" label, like the other objects in the house's pre-collection - a set of three tennis balls (€370), a racket (€1,450), beach paddles and balls (€3,170), and a standup paddleboard (price available on request).
All of these items become risible objects mainly produced for wealthy people with too much money to spend (no serious sportsperson or athlete would invest in such luxury pieces...). But in the case of the boomerang a bit of research would have helped the company avoiding embarrassment and appropriation accusations.
Yet there are other examples of useless fashion-related objects along these lines: maybe keeping in mind people with too much money to spend, Karl Lagerfeld announced in February that he was going to collaborate with German plush toy company Steiff to create a cute cat toy representing his beloved and pampered pet Choupette. Sold from today in a limited edition of 2,000, the toy and its magnetic mouse in faux leather complete of certificate that reminds consumers that they have just bought "the most famous cat in the world", retail at roughly €499.
You wonder why, rather than producing a more affordable stuffed toy, they had to opt for such an expensive option. This is a Haute Couture pet, you saying? Well, the thing is, you feel warmed up by the thought of seeing children playing, eating, and sleeping with their (affordable) stuffed animals rather than wealthy grown ups building gilded altars to (extremely expensive) inanimate objects.
The third and final (at least for now...) example of useless fashion comes courtesy of Jeremy Scott who launched during the Cannes Film Festival the "Moschino X Magnum" collection, consisting in seven PVC coated canvas tote bags. The accessories are characterised by a print of a badly drawn cartoon character holding or eating a Magnum ice cream. The price of these masterpieces of design? €250 each.
Asking why should we care? Because these products offend the intelligence of consumers, they are more or less made without thinking and without caring and with the hope to make easy money.
Chanel may have collaborated with real Aboriginal artisans; Lagerfeld may have donated plush toys (or money) to associations taking care of migrant orphaned children and Scott may have just avoided producing more crap that pollute the planet following the example of some artists out there creating new works from old and recycled pieces. Preserving the respect of consumers should indeed be considered as more important than making more and more money, in the same way as creating genuinely thought-provoking fashion designs should be deemed as more noble than putting out useless crap.
As for Jeremy Scott, he may have actually learnt something new and more vital from this collaboration, and that's how to decorate and serve ice creams. Maybe the loss of the fashion world (if he ever decides to leave it...), could be the gain of the food and beverage industry.
It's hard not to think that these products are parodies. But perhaps parody itself has become a luxury item.
Posted by: Kmaustral | May 24, 2017 at 07:02 AM