Read Online The Knockoff Economy by Christopher Sprigman Kal Raustiala - Free Book Online
Authors: Christopher Sprigman Kal Raustiala
Ads: Link
about the design itself has changed, except for its ability to distinguish its owner from the crowd. For fashion goods, in short, exclusivity is a large part of the appeal. 50
Perceptions of beauty matter, of course. But these perceptions are not wholly divorced from perceptions of exclusivity. As Jean Cocteau astutely noted some 50 years ago, “Art produces ugly things which frequently become more beautiful with time. Fashion, on the other hand, produces beautiful things which always become ugly with time.” 51 In short, consumers are drawn to a particular dress from Lanvin or a men’s jacket from John Varvatos in part because stylish people have it and unstylish ones do not. The dress or the jacket will be coveted so long as it enables its wearer to stand out from the masses but fit in with his or her particular crowd. Many historical and sociological studies of fashion argue that this distinguishing quality is central. Fashion is “a vehicle which marks distinctions and displays group membership or individuality.” 52 Consequently, as fashionable styles diffuse to a broader clientele their prestige diminishes. The style in question becomes unstylish, and eventually fades away.
This is the fashion cycle. New designs catch on, become trends, spread, become overexposed, and die. And then a new design appears, a new trend ignites, and the process repeats.
Fashion never stops, but it never goes anywhere either. Whether the fashion cycle is a good thing or a bad thing in its own right is an interesting question, but not the focus of our story here. It is fair to say, however, that fashion is routinely pilloried by intellectuals who view it as capricious, exclusionary, and socially wasteful. The rapid rise and fall of trends has been called “a symptom of intellectual, emotional, and cultural immaturity.” 53 French cultural critic Jean Baudrillard went so far as to declare fashion “immoral.” 54 Other commentators, however, have celebrated fashion designers as artists on par with any painter or composer. Indeed, this is one of the arguments used by advocates of copyright protection—that fashion ought to be treated like other great art forms.
For most of us, though, the fashion cycle is not a subject of great debate. It is just a fact of life; perhaps even an entertaining one that allows us to enjoy new clothes and occasionally scratch our heads at old photographs. Whatever its social meaning or ethical value, the fashion cycle is clearly acentral feature of the apparel industry. Styles come and then they go. Soon after, many of us wonder what we were thinking.
An example of this ascent and descent is the Ugg, a sheepskin boot originating in Australia. Uggs, which date back to the 1930s, had sold steadily for years but became a must-have fashion item for many young women in 2003 and 2004. The style was then widely copied and gained broad distribution. 55 But soon a backlash began, with writers calling the shapeless and fuzzy Ugg a “human rights violation” and urging the fashion-conscious to give them up. 56 By 2005, the Ugg trend was, at least in some quarters, declared to be over.
In a 2006
New Yorker
article about Los Angeles, writer Tad Friend described a telling story of the rise and fall of the Ugg. A local news helicopter was searching for actress Lindsay Lohan following a minor car crash on Robertson Boulevard, in which she was involved. The news dispatcher, Beth Shilliday, radios the chopper pilot:
“I know it’s a long shot, but check the street for a skinny, movie-star looking woman. Channel 2 says she and her assistant ran into an antiques store across the way.” [The pilot] panned down Robertson toward the Ivy [a West Hollywood bistro frequented by the L.A. celebrities]. “Problem is, every girl on the street kind of fits the profile. How’s this?” He zoomed in on a Lohanish figure in dark glasses. “She’s wearing Uggs,” Shilliday pointed out. “Those are so last year, couldn’t be
Perceptions of beauty matter, of course. But these perceptions are not wholly divorced from perceptions of exclusivity. As Jean Cocteau astutely noted some 50 years ago, “Art produces ugly things which frequently become more beautiful with time. Fashion, on the other hand, produces beautiful things which always become ugly with time.” 51 In short, consumers are drawn to a particular dress from Lanvin or a men’s jacket from John Varvatos in part because stylish people have it and unstylish ones do not. The dress or the jacket will be coveted so long as it enables its wearer to stand out from the masses but fit in with his or her particular crowd. Many historical and sociological studies of fashion argue that this distinguishing quality is central. Fashion is “a vehicle which marks distinctions and displays group membership or individuality.” 52 Consequently, as fashionable styles diffuse to a broader clientele their prestige diminishes. The style in question becomes unstylish, and eventually fades away.
This is the fashion cycle. New designs catch on, become trends, spread, become overexposed, and die. And then a new design appears, a new trend ignites, and the process repeats.
Fashion never stops, but it never goes anywhere either. Whether the fashion cycle is a good thing or a bad thing in its own right is an interesting question, but not the focus of our story here. It is fair to say, however, that fashion is routinely pilloried by intellectuals who view it as capricious, exclusionary, and socially wasteful. The rapid rise and fall of trends has been called “a symptom of intellectual, emotional, and cultural immaturity.” 53 French cultural critic Jean Baudrillard went so far as to declare fashion “immoral.” 54 Other commentators, however, have celebrated fashion designers as artists on par with any painter or composer. Indeed, this is one of the arguments used by advocates of copyright protection—that fashion ought to be treated like other great art forms.
For most of us, though, the fashion cycle is not a subject of great debate. It is just a fact of life; perhaps even an entertaining one that allows us to enjoy new clothes and occasionally scratch our heads at old photographs. Whatever its social meaning or ethical value, the fashion cycle is clearly acentral feature of the apparel industry. Styles come and then they go. Soon after, many of us wonder what we were thinking.
An example of this ascent and descent is the Ugg, a sheepskin boot originating in Australia. Uggs, which date back to the 1930s, had sold steadily for years but became a must-have fashion item for many young women in 2003 and 2004. The style was then widely copied and gained broad distribution. 55 But soon a backlash began, with writers calling the shapeless and fuzzy Ugg a “human rights violation” and urging the fashion-conscious to give them up. 56 By 2005, the Ugg trend was, at least in some quarters, declared to be over.
In a 2006
New Yorker
article about Los Angeles, writer Tad Friend described a telling story of the rise and fall of the Ugg. A local news helicopter was searching for actress Lindsay Lohan following a minor car crash on Robertson Boulevard, in which she was involved. The news dispatcher, Beth Shilliday, radios the chopper pilot:
“I know it’s a long shot, but check the street for a skinny, movie-star looking woman. Channel 2 says she and her assistant ran into an antiques store across the way.” [The pilot] panned down Robertson toward the Ivy [a West Hollywood bistro frequented by the L.A. celebrities]. “Problem is, every girl on the street kind of fits the profile. How’s this?” He zoomed in on a Lohanish figure in dark glasses. “She’s wearing Uggs,” Shilliday pointed out. “Those are so last year, couldn’t be
Similar Books
