I'm a wannabe.
Which is why I empathize so strongly with H&M.
Not that it needs my sympathy, considering that it's made trillions of kabillions of dollars off of its wannabe status,
but still...
but still...
I get it.
In fact, I think that people who write fashion blogs are all kind of wannabes of sorts. We're not content just consuming - we want to participate, to make,
Last week, H&M, which made its name mimicking designer-stipulated trends, showed a collection of its own.
Naturally, Eric Wilson of the NYT immediately mocked the presentation, much like Suzy Menkes mocked bloggers in her recent article for the same publication.
"Wannabe" has to get its derogatory connotation from somewhere, after all -
god forbid it should be seen as a positive ambition to improve.
god forbid it should be seen as a positive ambition to improve.
As it is, it's essentially an insult.
I guess we have the age-old desire of the exclusive to remain exclusive to thank for that.
The collection, in my opinion, wasn't anything extraordinary. Even so, the fact that the H&M A/W '13 line was immediately pegged as irrelevant due to the fact that it wouldn't be able to imitate the collections currently showing
is just obnoxious.
is just obnoxious.
So what if the designers at H&M want to take their imitation one step further? Maybe they've seen and learned enough from replicating thousands and thousands of fast-fashion trends to create one of their own?
Isn't that what imitation is for, after all?
Isn't that what imitation is for, after all?
You have to know the rules before you can break them,
[[or so I've been told.]]
And can you imagine what this could mean for "fashion"?
What if a new, ground-breaking trend didn't begin with Dior or Lanvin and trickle downwards in a diluted iteration to a more affordable brand - but began with the affordable brand in the first place?
What if creativity wasn't limited to the elite?
What happens when the wannabe bes?
Could a fashion industry exist in which the "aspirational" aspect wasn't based on wealth, but on sheer innovation? Would we lose the quality and intricacy of designer goods if affordable brands reigned supreme?
Is the only reason that the H&M collection "crashed" PFW, rather than joined it, because of its inherent wannabe status? It's affordability?
Is the only reason that the H&M collection "crashed" PFW, rather than joined it, because of its inherent wannabe status? It's affordability?
![]() |
hat, tank 1, tank 2, jeans, gold necklace: H&M, blue necklace: Anthro, boots: Jeffrey Campbell |
Cheers.
i for one was stoked that h&m showed their own collection. it showed a desire to contribute more than just knock offs to the fashion world and maybe leave a little more of a lasting mark. regardless as to how it went over it was a step in the right direction. but maybe i'm just excited to see a fellow wannabe make good.
ReplyDeleteabigail
www.farandwildjewelry.blogspot.com
Great post brings up some interesting ideas.
ReplyDeleteAli of
www.dressingken.com
Yes indeed, what IF fashion was based on innovation as opposed to wealth? {What a concept!} Great post, dear! XOXO
ReplyDeletewww.foxyoxiesupernova.blogspot.com
Great post, and I love your blog! I found you via Links a la Mode on IFB with your smile post. :) As a bargain-shopping fashion blogger, I think the kind of snobbery you're talking about is so silly. I shop at H&M when I'm in a city that has one - KC is closest. I also love Target and TJ Maxx, not to mention the fact that I'm a thrift store maven! I grew up very poor, so even though I COULD buy the pricey stuff now, I don't. Sure, I want a pair of Loubutin Pigalle's. But I also want to retire young. So, there you have it.
ReplyDeletehttp://rorschachcoffee.typepad.com
love this entire outfit! you look so so stunning! xO!
ReplyDeletewww.thehautecookie.com