Perhaps many remember “Zoolander”, the comedy released in 2001 directed by and starring Ben Stiller, for the “Blue Steel”, the iconic look that the actor put in this film. However, this film, in addition to having unforgettable jokes and the eclectic participation of celebrities who go from Donald Trump to David Bowie himselfis a scathing critique of the prevailing banality and snobbery in the world of fashion.
The antagonist is a tyrannical designer named Mugatu (who is the caricature of eccentric fashionistas like Karl Lagerfeld), which presents a collection inspired by “crack-addicted homeless people and prostitutes” called “Derelicte” (“Abandoned”). “It is the future of fashion”, he assures with amazement, “a way of life”. In this way he opens clothes that are basically garbage, cardboard and torn clothespresented as haute couture items.
But as is often the case, reality is stranger than fiction.
Last week, social networks were abuzz with the launch of the latest collection of Yeezy, a collaboration made between rapper Kanye West’s brand and GAP, with the Balenciaga label. The reason? The garments (sweatshirts and joggers worth more than two hundred dollars) were not arranged on hangers, but in huge black bags. The objective? That customers have to bend down and live the experience of digging and rummaging through these huge bags (which look like garbage) until they find what they are looking for.
The provocation is clear: this display has obvious echoes of the bags or baskets of donated clothing that can be found in hostels for homeless people. It refers directly to people searching through the waste.
Given the outrage of users of all possible social networks, the rapper Kanye West who is also the ex-husband of Kim Kardashian (not a minor fact to better understand his theoretical framework?), he defended himself by saying that he is “an innovator” and that he is not here to “sit back and apologize” for his ideas.
In turn, he pointed out that his goal is to make that fashion is “more egalitarian and less pretentious” by defying convention. However, it goes without saying that his proposal does not question any inequity, but rather dramatizes a situation of lack and marginality. As expected, it was a bestseller.
It’s not the first time the most select firms seek to reinterpret and aestheticize poverty, transforming it into an elitist and cool fetish. The flamboyant Mugatu and his clothing line at Zoolander, for example, are a “homage” to the controversial fall/winter 2000 show that John Galliano created for Dior. This catwalk, one of the most controversial in the history of haute couture, was “inspired” by the “looks” of the street population of Paris. Even the models had their faces made up to make it look like they were dirty.
This year, Balenciaga broke the internet with a similar move. Four months ago, the firm presented the “Paris” sneakers: a completely destroyed shoe. In turn, this brand, directed under the creative vision of the Georgian Demna Gvasalia, (the new fashion agent provocateur), launched bags that literally have the shape of a consortium bag.
The price: $1,790. Much more than the cost of a standard MAC computer. An accessory that fascinated celebrities like Kim Kardashian, of course.
For the fashion journalist Lucía Levy, Gvasalia “is known for generating clickbaits: that is his marketing strategy. Or you love it, or hate it”; and he believes that this gesture is “a fetishization of poverty”. “He’s making fun of his clientele, who are basically millionaires, saying: ‘look how stupid you are, how I underestimate you, that I sell you all broken shoes and you buy them the same'”. At the same time, he reflects: “There’s something interesting there, because the rich never get to the point where their sneakers break, because when one of them comes undone they don’t mend it, they buy five new ones.”
“Balenciaga’s trash pouch is part of the irony of fashion”
Jimena Lopergolo is a lawyer and directs the Fashion Law degree at the UCA in Rosariowhich addresses fashion law from a legal perspective and how this artistic expression can be read from communication.
-Jimena, what is your opinion about the trashy proposals (inspired by garbage and the “vulgar”) of brands like Balenciaga? What reading can you make of this phenomenon?
-In a country where poverty hurts, this attempt to romanticize or vainglory lack seems to me, to say the least, unhappy. Regardless of that, leaving aside personal sensitivities and focusing only on the analysis of fashion for fashion’s sake, I think that the case of the Balenciaga trash pouch is part of the irony of fashion. It asks us from the place of “how far are you willing to go to be fashionable?”. I even read it as a provocation worthy of a disruptive mind that seeks to “annoy”, “make uncomfortable” the popes of haute couture.
From that point of view, I find it fascinating, because only those who are qualified to make fashion can laugh in the face of fashion. It is those games that the rebellious children of this industry make, that these licenses are allowed to say “I say what is fashionable and I am going to have a lot of people who, to belong, are going to wear this or that, analyzing it Regardless, it’s actually ugly, trashy, or not worth it.”
-In other moments of history we have already seen how haute couture “absorbed” styles that were used in urban environments by people who did not have, particularly, a high purchasing power. For example, as happened with punk, a movement that had the philosophy of making garments with scraps and discards as a way of challenging consumer culture; or “grunge”, defined by a “rotten” and non-conformist aesthetic in the 90’s… Is this a perverse twist on this dynamic?
-The parallelism you make with grunge is correct, which in fact founded an entire generation and was a revolutionary movement, a look at the world. The “do it yourself” of the punks, for example, meant: “dress as you sing”. But the difference was that grunge and punk were generated in the street and sucked up by haute couture and top brands. The elite fashion industry said: “hey, there is a movement here that is generating something and I need to sell”. So he takes it, converts it, makes it cool, prices it much higher and makes it select.
Here we are standing on the other side: someone who is already Balenciaga and who sells their products at sky-high prices is telling you -and I think the irony is there-: “I sell you what I want and you are going to pay for it because I am Balenciaga” . It is total snobbery. For me there is the irony. It’s laughing in the face of your target. So, to what extent the need to belong? At what price? What are you willing to do? There is the question.
-In that sense, considering that this brand is romanticizing poverty and transforming it into a cult object for billionaires, in what terms do you think fashion can be disrespectful?
-Definitely fashion can be super disrespectful. In fact, you see this a lot with cultural appropriations. There are a lot of judicialized issues of indigenous communities or native places against very first brands that make cultural appropriation of their fabrics, the way they combine their colors or the clothes they wear. At one point they trivialize it, because they upload it to a catwalk completely outside the context in which that garment was created and for what it is used by the original communities.
Is it a cruel gesture? Is it the creation of a brilliant and twisted genius? Is fashion making fun of fashion? Brands laughing at their consumers? Is it making poverty a performance for the 1%? As if we were living in the Zoolander satire, in a world that is increasingly violent, unequal and precarious, millionaires pay thousands of dollars to wear clothes that look like “poor” clothes and transform this consumption into a cool and elite experience. As one Instagram user puts it: “Meanwhile, Kanye West is laughing at us on the way to the bank.”
