Can't live with 'em,
can't live without 'em.
Except that we could probably totally live without them.
just ignore everything I say.
I feel like we're reaching this weird point in time where designers are defined by their ability to permeate social media, not by their traditional acclaim.
Burberry, for example, is iconic.
Yet, it now sees the need to put on these extravaganza events as fashion shows in order to infiltrate my Instagram for weeks to come.
Sort of like the relatively new brand, Rebecca Minkoff's, hire-an-up-and-coming-singer-to-sing-during-the-fashion-show technique.
Or Roberto Cavalli's Hunger Game-esque spectaculaire.
Or Thom Browne's eerily religious display.
Or Opening Ceremony's . . . chocolate wall (?)
What's strange about this is that it's now the norm across the board.
No one is above needing to cater to the rampant blogger culture and flashy, eye-catching showcases that get their attention.
In my mind, I thought that the older brands wouldn't need to give into these cheap (but not cheap at all) tricks. I thought that they'd somehow be "above" catering to our most base desires.
Seeing as I'm very evidently wrong,
have we reached the point at which old and new designers can reach an almost immediately equivalent status?
Or will there still be, similar to the old money vs. new money divide, an old fame vs. new fame component,
that separates the traditional fashion elite from the newcomers?
How much longer before a brand's worth is based solely on the celebrity level of the front row attendees?
Or the number of #regrams.
Or the virality of a single post-show street style shot?
|purpose of this outfit is mix of new/old designers.|
not just to look at me 1000 times
but obviously, it's a side effect
coat: Burberry, shirt: NSF, pants: MOTHER denim, shoes: Theory, scarf: Hermes
How much longer before the clothes themselves don't even matter?