2.1 What Happened to Fashion

In the article, What Happened to Fashion, Teri Agins discusses the success of Isaac Mizrahi in the early 90s and the cause of his fashion house’s collapse. As consumer’s needs changed, so did their purchasing habits. Brands like Mizrahi were no longer in demand as consumer’s found similar styles for a fraction of the price. Mizrahi also failed to creative a recognizable image for his brand like other designers did (ex. Donna Karan, Calvin Klein). Like many other brands, Mizrahi became a fashion victim and learned that designers began taking their cues from mainstream consumers and creativity was channeled more into mass-marketing clothes than into designing them.

4 Megatrends that sent fashion rolling in a new direction: 

1.Women let go of fashion: Women began 

getting serious about their careers in the 80s when career women were moving up in the workplace. Professional women became secure enough to ignore the foolish runway frippery that bore no connections to their lives. They began adopting their own uniforms which consisted of skirts, blazers, and pantsuits that gave them an authoritative, polished, powerlook. Couture houses, such as Martha Phillips, felt the impact of this change and closed its doors as Paris designers couldn’t set the world’s fashion agenda anymore. Styles were no longer trickling down from the couture to the masses, instead trends were bubbling up from the streets, from urban teenagers, and the forces in pop music. 

2. People stopped dressing up: By the end of the 1980s, most Americans were wearing casual jeans and sneakers around, even to the office. Men rejected the business suit, led by the .com boom and Internet CEOs. Alcoa became the first major corporation to allow casual office attire, spawning “casual Fridays” all around the country. Many boutiques suffered and closed, like Charivari, as Americans no longer felt the need to dress to impress.

3. People’s values changed with regards to fashion: Stores like The Limited and Gap made fashion available at every price level, and designer labels started to seem useless. It was fashionable to pay less money and to be a bargain hunter. Studies by Consumer Reports opened the public’s eyes to the “Wizard of Oz discovery: behind the labels of many famous name brands was some pretty ordinary merchandise.” (406) Additionally, the movement of manufacturing facilities out of the US made quality available at a low price, compatible with the classic clothing trends of the 1990s, and the fact that Generation X-ers were used to the wash-and-wear functionality of clothing.

4. Top designers stopped gambling on fashion: Many fashion houses, like Polo Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger, are publicly traded companies, which must maintain steady growth for their shareholders. Therefore, they can no longer afford to gamble on the whims of the fashion industry. Agins tells us that “today, a designer’s creativity expresses itself more than ever in the marketing rather than in the actual clothes…fashion has returned to its roots: selling image. Image is the form and marketing is the function.” (408) Branding and logos are the main ways that designers can distinguish their otherwise ordinary clothes. Fashion publications have also lost their power to make or break trends in editorial pages.

The article ends with an important reminder: the consumer is king. As a reminder, Agins states that “those who will survive the end of fashion will reinvent themselves enough times and with 

Mass-marketing theory aka trickle-across theory: fashions spread across different peer-reference groups; fashion information and personal influence in fashion "trickles across" each group

 

Each social group has its own fashion innovators and opinion leaders. Influencers can be anybody from celebrities, to fashion bloggers, reporters, etc.

An example of trickle-across theory occurs when designer fashions are copied quickly for mass-production, providing similar styles at most price-ranges.

 

    

                  Kohl's                                           Rebecca Minkoff   

                                      

So, did fashion really die? 

This is the biggest question remained after the chapter reading. But, the answer is NO. Fashion has changed the form of its existence.

It is no longer holding its original meaning of it as “Parisian Couture” but is now representing individual’s lifestyle. This is because the current public is more interested in cloth than industry. In other words, they care more about functionality and comfortableness of goods than history and authenticity of culture. This movement of self-expression has boosted technological development that allows anyone to express his/her creativity through both expensive and cheap manufacturing. This large variety in clothes gives the public a choice of what to wear.

1.5 Shades of Chanel

The article, "Shades of Chanel", written by Tracy Jennings describes the two-piece tweed suit influenced by the many design touches pioneered by Coco Chanel. The suit is adorned with many iconic elements seen throughout Chanel’s historical fashion collections. These recognizable touches include frayed edges, ribbon accents, decorative shirring, uneven hemlines, texture mixing, bound buttonholes and chain-weighted hemlines. Chanel’s style came to embody the spirit of the independent modern woman of the 20^th century and has continued to influence women and fashion today. The modern suit can be credited to her even though she borrowed many details from menswear. The suit, Shades of Chanel, embodies all of Chanel’s iconic design elements into one, displaying the rich and historical details that continue to influence fashion today.

The symbolism of the suit stems much further than its aesthetic qualities. Every brand enters the market with an ideal customer, tailoring their image and meaning specifically for that type of individual. In the instance of Chanel, the visual and technical qualities of their product have placed them at the peak of the market's hierarchy, so much so that the brand itself has been deemed a "classic." A style that in theory should only be available to those who can afford it is not so true once we look at the trickle-down effect. The finer detail and quality of fabric will be lost as it becomes available for a lower market, however the idea of the style remains intact. One does not necessarily have to be wearing a Chanel suit to perpetuate the idea of a Chanel woman. In other words, there is an entire lifestyle that the Chanel brand encapsulates, going further beyond the basic ability to afford it. Whether it is purchasing an entire look from the Chanel storefront for an aristocratic event or dabbing on the signature fragrance in the department store before a date, we can begin to indicate personal, cultural, social beliefs or conditions that have been imparted on an individual to make them react in this way.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In recent years, people believe in different methods approach to self-actualization through inspirations from high-end goods.

Today we discuss:

Method 1. Believe knock-offs appeal their quality lives

Method 2. Respect essence of classic look and take it in their lifestyle in their own way

People take #1 method intentionally purchase knock-offs with the hopes of appearing as if they can afford that lifestyle. This type of illusion lends an inside look on personal behavior and lifestyle.

Reasons of buying knock-offs are several: indistinguishable look between authentic and knockoff, the price difference, appeal affordability to others, brand loyalty, etc. However, the decision of wearing them may unconsciously harm mental health...
 

A research reported by New York Times states that wearing fake designer goods causes the people more dishonest behavior. 

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/the-moral-costs-of-counterfeiting/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

This research implies wearing knock-offs is lying to self, and the individual will not be able to trust self. But, the result makes sense in the way because authentic brand goods give confidence in behavior, while knockoffs discourage self-esteem or pride. 

What do you think about the negative affection that knockoff goods influence?

What if your daughter or son wants to wear popular brand goods, but you are not able to afford? Would you give her/him knock-offs? 
 

Interesting part of the side-effect given by knock-offs is that the person must know she/he is wearing counterfeit designer goods. This may be the key to find ways to establish friendly relationship with knockoffs. 

People take #2 method respect essence of classic look and reflect its preferable detail in their lifestyle with a feeling of appreciation to quality, functionality, and message. Authentic fashion design offers design aesthetics to the person's taste, personality, culture, and beliefs. So, this depicts an entirely different woman than the aforementioned who would purposefully copy the look with the intent of deceit.

This case is often witnessed when trick-down effect occurs among fashion industry. Major fashion designers’ or celebrities’ presentation in front of media clicks with audiences’ inspiration to make them consider how to mix and match outfits in closet.

It is to say that people who want to take essence of Chanel tweed jacket in their daily wear and purchase J-crew Lady Jacket in Corkscrew Tweed successfully embody independent Chanel women in their own way.

The effort to interpret the essence and message of authentic designs gives the person confidence in the way to live. And, the lifestyle impresses others. This approach to self-actualization is nobler and healthier than instant keep-up-appearance with knock-offs.