So, there is this Vogue competition every year. I'm entering this year which kind of pains me a bit as Vogue really embodies the type of journalism I do no want to get into but my uni course is basically forcing us to enter... Section three of the competition has to be a ranty opinion piece so I've done it on the very contradictory term of "new vintage". I don't hate vintage at all....I am just critiquing the manufactured aspect of it. So here goes...
We buy clothes to express something, if that something is profound or meaningful is not said. We follow trends, trends that are supposed to be new, indicative of the our time but in fact they are regurgitated silhouettes and fabrics from eras gone by. Trends which, instead of providing us with individuality like promised, become our shared urban uniforms.
Vintage clothes are “cool” and “stylish”. They are one of a kind so we are drawn to them. When you buy a vintage garment you are consuming somebody's past. The garment once had the ability to tell a story, it carried meaning, memories and substance for and from its original owner. When you buy vintage you express the wish to partake in this nostalgia but you cannot because as soon as the garment parts from its owner, or rather the owner parts from his garment, the memories and the meanings are lost. The sartorial slate is wiped clean.
The heart-shaped burn mark on the garment's right-hand sleeve which acted as a memory for the owner's first toke of a joint sneakily enjoyed behind the school's shed during fifth period becomes merely a hole, nothing more. A flaw in the garment for which you will try to score a 5% discount at the shop counter.
These flaws indicate that the garment, and therefore his owner, has a story to tell and this has become a desired attribute for consumers which manufacturers and designers have recognized. By transforming these flaws into commodities the very contradictory term “new vintage” is born.
Garments are given “characteristics” to make believe that they have been worn in numerous adventurous places, have exciting stories to tell and have had several rough days...the garment is mass produced to be one of a kind.
You can buy ripped, torn, bleached and shredded jeans that give the brand new denim a vintage feel, an edge and a history when in fact its history is nothing short of being produced in a factory followed by a short stay on a shop floor followed then by a longer stay on your bedroom floor.
James Dean, Marlon Brando, rugged cowboys and the members of the Beat Generation are all associated with wearing denim that stood for their non-conformity, masculinity and rebelliousness. Their choice to wear denim was symbolic, it reflected their attitude towards society and their jeans acted as a blank canvas upon which stories, memories and meanings were drawn on. Frayed denim was a way for them to express their anti-capitalistic stance, rendering the fact that you can now buy garments of the same nature bitterly ironic. The genuine meaning of garments which once served the purpose to tell stories, express views and attitudes have now become commodities, commercially driven artefacts which the trend-oriented consumer laps up to give themselves and their wardrobe individual significance when in fact they are merely partaking in an effective marketing ploy called new vintage.
No comments:
Post a Comment