 |
| Venus of the Rags by Michaelangelo Pistoletto 1967,1974 Source: tate.org.uk |
Anyone who is knowledgeable about the fashion industry knows that the industry in itself is not at all 'democratic.' It's more of a feudal society in some ways. The shape of the feudal system (a triangle) corresponds to the production rate and exclusivity of each class or collection in the fashion industry.
There is no doubt that the industry possess a certain hierarchical nature about it. At the top there are the Haute Couture designers, designs and buyers at the top of the food chain and then the order progresses from ready-to-wear to fast fashion to sweatshop manufactured pieces of mass production.
Is the disease of democratisation in the fashion industry just that though?
Realistically, there is no way of producing couture for the masses. You can probably buy a cheap copy of a couture gown from a website such as The Celebrity Dresses.com. They have hundreds upon hundreds of different styles to choose from. However how do copies of Givenchy Couture compare to the real thing. The end results will of course be different in both material and make. Couture gowns will have almost always have a toile dress (sample dress made from a cheaper fabric, usually cotton) made before the actual gown is produced while the copies will made straight off. I read somewhere once that the difference between a ready-to-wear piece and couture piece is that once a couture dress is taken off a model, it will still retain it's shape as if it were still on the model and the ready-to-wear dress won't.
"Affordable luxury" comes at a price - you really do get what you pay for.
Multinational chain stores such as Zara or H&M who are best known for their fast fashion approach to production often claim that their stores bring affordable luxury to the masses. In perspective however, are they really democratising the fashion industry? Not really. They're just legitimising their marketing strategies as couture for the masses.
When the designs have trickled all the way from the runways in Paris down to a hanger on Zara's sales rack in many ways it is much of the same as buying a cheap knockoff of a Chanel 2.55 handbag. So why aren't we shunning those who buy "fast-fashion" or "affordable luxury" pieces from Zara in the same way that we do those who buy cheap knockoffs of designer bags?
Just because they are sold in a legitimised store instead of some dodgy street corner or marketplace in China means that we overlook the obvious, it really is superficial of us. Yet the few who are able to buy ready-to-wear pieces from the luxury fashion houses are labelled as materialistic or superficial for spending hundreds of dollars for a t-shirt by ACNE.
There is no winning with the democratisation of fashion.
Is the disease of democratisation in the fashion industry just that though?
Realistically, there is no way of producing couture for the masses. You can probably buy a cheap copy of a couture gown from a website such as The Celebrity Dresses.com. They have hundreds upon hundreds of different styles to choose from. However how do copies of Givenchy Couture compare to the real thing. The end results will of course be different in both material and make. Couture gowns will have almost always have a toile dress (sample dress made from a cheaper fabric, usually cotton) made before the actual gown is produced while the copies will made straight off. I read somewhere once that the difference between a ready-to-wear piece and couture piece is that once a couture dress is taken off a model, it will still retain it's shape as if it were still on the model and the ready-to-wear dress won't.
"Affordable luxury" comes at a price - you really do get what you pay for.
Multinational chain stores such as Zara or H&M who are best known for their fast fashion approach to production often claim that their stores bring affordable luxury to the masses. In perspective however, are they really democratising the fashion industry? Not really. They're just legitimising their marketing strategies as couture for the masses.
When the designs have trickled all the way from the runways in Paris down to a hanger on Zara's sales rack in many ways it is much of the same as buying a cheap knockoff of a Chanel 2.55 handbag. So why aren't we shunning those who buy "fast-fashion" or "affordable luxury" pieces from Zara in the same way that we do those who buy cheap knockoffs of designer bags?
Just because they are sold in a legitimised store instead of some dodgy street corner or marketplace in China means that we overlook the obvious, it really is superficial of us. Yet the few who are able to buy ready-to-wear pieces from the luxury fashion houses are labelled as materialistic or superficial for spending hundreds of dollars for a t-shirt by ACNE.
There is no winning with the democratisation of fashion.
Great post, Adeline! I had no idea about the copy of Rooney's Givenchy dress....how scary.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that there aren't stricter laws to stop Zara, H&M, etc. from copying the ideas of fashion designers. People have argued that fashion is too "utilitarian" to copyright, in the same way that you can't really trademark food recipes or rules to games. If there were stricter intellectual property laws in fashion these ideas would simply be floating around in the sky. Zara is bringing these ideas to the masses and they're happy to consume. Is this stealing? Is this democratic? Who knows. But it makes a crapload of money.
I agree! the degree to which this 'democracy' involves the manipulation of low wage countries is distasteful to say the least. (Granted Zara cuts their fabric in house)
ReplyDelete