In the WSJ today, there’s an interview with Miuccia Prada, on the subject of why so many women are “squeamish about fashion.” Prada claims that at one time she thought fashion was “stupid” but eventually changed her mind.
Ms. Prada has come to terms with her profession only of late. “I’ve recently re-evaluated my job,” she said. “I’ve realized that fashion is a very powerful instrument that…allows you to transmit ideas and shape opinion.” ….
Ms. Prada doesn’t have a signature style, like Tom Ford’s dripping-in-sex-appeal look or Valentino Garavani’s Oscar-night elegance. But her attitude is clear: I think therefore I wear.
That’s why she scoffs at those who fall victim to logos instead of developing their own styles. “Buying a $5,000 handbag just because it’s a status symbol is a sign of weakness,” Ms. Prada said. “Daring to wear something different takes effort. And being elegant isn’t easy. You have to study it, like cuisine, music and art.”
Well, a couple of things. I’ve read this point before, that fashion can “transmit ideas.” I wish the interviewer would have asked what seems like the obvious follow-up question: Like what?
At one point there’s some discussion of ideas about beauty (“I want to reintroduce the concept of beauty — a new sense of beauty”), which is fine, but is that it?
I’m prepared to accept that beauty is a reasonable thing about which to have ideas. But the implication that there’s some kind of intellectual bravery in this, and that somehow beauty is a concept that society just doesn’t think about enough, strikes me as absurd. But I guess the whole premise of the interview strikes me as absurd. I don’t see a big crisis out there in fashion being underrated, and not being focused on enough. As you go through your day today, see if anything makes you think, “Wow, this society is just way too focused on science, economic policy, and civic engagement. People really should spend more time thinking about fashion.” See how often it strikes you that fashion is really underrated.
To be clear, I’m not attacking anybody for thinking about fashion. What I’m questioning is whether, say, Prada fans are some kind of embattled underdogs who need defending.
Finally, I’m amused by Prada’s comment that: “Buying a $5,000 handbag just because it’s a status symbol is a sign of weakness.” Keep that in mind next time you’re spending $5,000 on a Prada handbag (or perhaps buying a brand-new Prada phone). Make sure you’re not doing it because you’re a brand weakling. Make sure you’re doing it because of how hard you’re thinking.
Everybody’s heard about the democratization of luxury, etc. etc. An interesting counter-narrative to this conventional wisdom could be written by someone, on the subject of how luxury resists democratization, and it might include a section on Tiffany’s.
In an article on Tiffany’s yestersday, The Wall Street Journal told the story of a silver charm bracelet, priced at around $100, that was introduced in 1997, “to address the then-emerging trend toward affordable luxury.” The bracelet was “a sensation.” That was good news for Tiffany’s. For a while.
Within a few years, the company’s managers became “concerned about the crowds in Tiffany’s suburban stores.” Company research found that “Tiffany’s brand was becoming too closely associated with inexpensive silver jewelry.”
So they started raising prices on the bracelets, first to $175. People kept by buying them.
This in and of itself is pretty interesting. Tiffany’s seems to have enjoyed amazing pricing power — as far as I can tell, that boost amounted to pure profit, and there was no improvement to the product, but people were buying anyway.
By 2004 the price was up to $250, and sales finallly died off. (Interesting to speculate how much of that was actually price-related and how much had to do with a fad running its course.) That, it seems, was Tiffany’s real goal: getting rid of the affordable-luxury riffraff, to protect their not-so-affordable luxury image. The Journal‘s Ellen Byron writes:
At its flagship New York store, Tiffany began inviting its best customers to observe artisans creating one-of-a-kind jewelry in its storied seventh-floor workshop, which is closed to the public.
Now, Tiffany can boast that its biggest sales growth in the U.S. came from sales and transactions over $20,000 and over $50,000. In the most recent quarter, sales in stores open at least a year grew 4% over the year before, with the newly renovated New York flagship posting a gain of 13%.
Still, as the piece notes, Tiffany’s challenge isn’t over, as it continues to walk a line between expanding (it’s up to 64 stores in the U.S.) and still seeming exclusive. Here’s a link to the whole article, but you have to be a subscriber for it to work — and in that case you’ve probably already read it.
[Supreme]
The relationship between high fashion and street wear goes back a long way. In a recent book called “The Essence of Style,” by Joan DeJean, there is an anecdote from the spring of 1677, when “an inexpensive gray serge cloth” worn by Parisian shopgirls was adapted by “ladies of the court” who liked the fabric’s look and incorporated it into their elegant wardrobes. This is how it has seemed to work ever since — right up through the archetypal example of the “grunge” style associated with the Seattle music scene appearing on the runways, courtesy of the designer Marc Jacobs (then working for Perry Ellis) in the early 1990’s. In other words, the streets are raided for ideas and inspiration that get reworked in a couture context — “the aura of wealth and luxury,” as DeJean wrote of the 17th-century version of the high-low mash-up.
All of this implies tension between street populism and couture exclusivity. But in the last few years, as some sneaker shops have come to resemble highfalutin art galleries, it has been a little less clear who is borrowing what from whom. Consider, for example, Supreme. Read more
"
. With 
.
.
Kim Fellner's book 
.
A