Interesting points all around. At the same time, I’ve noticed that home decor seems to be moving in a more maximalist direction, right? Kim is going to have to start “contouring” her beige hallways!
Great article as always! This made me think about the costume choices for Succession, especially for Shiv. I am rewatching it right now and you never see her character in anything that has any type of brand recognition. And I look. It is the definition of inconspicuous consumption, because you know that everything she owns has to be incredibly expensive, because of who she is. But, since you can never point to a single item and be like 'that is Gucci' or 'that is Chanel', you can never know exactly HOW expensive. Nearly every member of the Roy family dresses similarly. It gives the sense of a level of wealth that is so secure in their privilege, they have no need to prove it to anyone.
It's very much The Row, 'Old Celine' vibes as a reaction to glitz and conspicuous consumption. But at the same time, Louis Vuitton and Chanel keep raising their prices, and people keep buying. And isn't there some quote about the best skin care is called Being Rich?
I literally spoke to a friend in a ritzy suburb of Florida yesterday, who told me a friend had saved for years, finally ready to buy a Chanel handbag, only to be told at Neiman Marcus "Chanel isn't sending us any black bags". True? Or are they holding black bags for regular clients only? Who knows. Either way, I think brands want to play both sides, offer minimalism as the new trend but still have maximalist logos for the client who wants it.
(I've always loved the Gucci Jackie bag and should have bought it through a resale site! The prices will go up for sure now that it's featured again. Darn it! ;)
Interesting points all around. At the same time, I’ve noticed that home decor seems to be moving in a more maximalist direction, right? Kim is going to have to start “contouring” her beige hallways!
Great article as always! This made me think about the costume choices for Succession, especially for Shiv. I am rewatching it right now and you never see her character in anything that has any type of brand recognition. And I look. It is the definition of inconspicuous consumption, because you know that everything she owns has to be incredibly expensive, because of who she is. But, since you can never point to a single item and be like 'that is Gucci' or 'that is Chanel', you can never know exactly HOW expensive. Nearly every member of the Roy family dresses similarly. It gives the sense of a level of wealth that is so secure in their privilege, they have no need to prove it to anyone.
One of your best....loved this one. Although the Gucci ads...🙁
It's very much The Row, 'Old Celine' vibes as a reaction to glitz and conspicuous consumption. But at the same time, Louis Vuitton and Chanel keep raising their prices, and people keep buying. And isn't there some quote about the best skin care is called Being Rich?
I literally spoke to a friend in a ritzy suburb of Florida yesterday, who told me a friend had saved for years, finally ready to buy a Chanel handbag, only to be told at Neiman Marcus "Chanel isn't sending us any black bags". True? Or are they holding black bags for regular clients only? Who knows. Either way, I think brands want to play both sides, offer minimalism as the new trend but still have maximalist logos for the client who wants it.
(I've always loved the Gucci Jackie bag and should have bought it through a resale site! The prices will go up for sure now that it's featured again. Darn it! ;)