Thursday, May 29, 2008

Glamour at any price

I'm referring to our society's obsession with wealth.



I am not sure if it makes me a grumpy old man (my obsession lately) or a hypocrite (crimes against fashion and recent mellowing out aside) but where better to look at what a society values than at those it has placed at the top.

The Celebrity for example.

Our famous people seem to be walking advertisements for luxury items.

The name dropping of brands is obvious and is the most noticeable indicator.

But on a fashion level it seems that most 'STAR' images are just the result of having a deep pocket.

I know I've spoken before about the irony of the rich and famous wearing free designer clothing to a red carpet even though they are probably the only people in the world who can afford them.

Yet the world looks up to them and wants to own that bag, shoe, dress, shade of lipstick.

It used to be that what separated a star from the rest of the world was individuality.

When Madonna first arrived on the scene she used to wear cut off lace gloves and rubber bands as bracelets. She made her own clothes because she didn't have money to buy them. But her choices in clothing defined her. There are other examples of course. Bowie used makeup. Boy George used that and more.. Bruce Springsteen simply wore a check shirt and beat up denim. But what all of those stars had in common was that they carved out a niche that ultimately only they could carry off.




Today, it seems anyone can dress like a celebrity with the right amount of money.

Or lack of imagination.

I guess the question I'm asking is have pop stars always epitomized wealth?

Or have they always toed the line? Dressed inoffensively?

Or was there a time when they represented individuality?




Or rather, was rich always better?




I'm thinking of seminal 80's films like The Breakfast Club.

In the midst of the so called wealth obsessed era of the 1980's, the good guys were always the under dogs. The assholes were in the Armani suits on Wall Street.

And that was in the decade of greed.

In music, to stand out you used to have to make an effort. You used to have to be unique.

You used to have to be rebelling against something.




Rock and Punk weren't the only genres of music that had an audience with a chip on its shoulder. Dressing like a Goth or wearing eyeliner was something you did which your parents didn't like. And as a teenager, this was something you wanted to be reinforced. You were not your parents. You were an individual.






What are today's youth rebelling against when they are wearing two hundred dollar trainers and saving up to buy a diamond encrusted watch? Are they rebelling against their class? Or are they just helping to reinforce it?

I know there'll always be a rocker who wears vintage clothing or takes something old and makes it new. But more often than not, we seem to care more about amassing 'things' than we do about being individuals.

Do you think maybe it's cyclic?

Ie are we due a 'grunge' period soon?

I love Glamour.

I always have.

But not at any price.