I expressed my frustration in class, but I’m going to take this opportunity to elaborate on my frustration. Why is the new fad that appears to have swept the nation related to being “different.” This to me seems like a contradiction in itself. At first, all the people who got into the new trend appeared to be in the minority, they were dressing in mostly cotton, spandex, body suits and tights so bright you can spot them from a mile away. Was it a matter of taste, as we discussed in class, that sparked everyone else to follow? Or was it the aggressive and very well marketed ad campaigns that American Apparel wisely executed within major U.S. cities? In terms of taste, it’s difficult for me to see how this brand can appeal to so many people; bell bottoms and fleece jackets, I understand. But an all spandex outfit, I don’t. I must admit, the clothing is not ugly, however, for the price you’re paying to be so “stylish” you’re coping out on the quality. The same applies for Urban Outfitters. Both stores have the same concept in mind, making truly simple clothing appear to be much more valuable than it actually is.
Meanwhile, it seems as if American Apparel has gotten a bit ahead of itself. I personally had no idea what American Apparel was until I moved into the city full time, making me think the brand really only blew up in the last 2-3 years. However, they took their great success and used it as motivation to sell as much as humanly possible; American Apparel is the new Starbucks, one on every corner! What they couldn’t predict, over at headquarters, was how the recession would factor into their pricey clothing line. Check this article out: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9AFSUM01.htm , to get an idea of what I’m talking about.
Also, American Apparel is known, as I said, for their provocative ads and billboards. However disturbing some may find these ads, they really do meet their goal in leading people to their stores. So maybe in this case, taste has little to do with this fad at all. It seems more logical that people would spend their money wisely, especially during such tough economic times, and invest in longer lasting, while still fashionable, clothing rather than follow the trend of “trying to be different” by having an entire wardrobe from the same store.
Interestingly enough in class we defined aesthetic as pleasure seeking and taste as a social and educational background. Well the American Apparel ads are highly demeaning to woman. I had this discussion in another media class where one of my classmates explained that when she worked the register of the store, they made her sign a contract saying that she will be fine with degrading female status because she had to stand under a huge poster of a girl with her legs wide open. If American Apparel is tasteful then the "high" social and educational background looks quite vulgar. And honestly how aesthetically pleasing is to see pictures of girls in highly distorted positions. Wait I've never seen a distorted male model in the American Apparel ads.
ReplyDeleteWhat bothers me about American Apparel clothing is that I can get a similar asthetic by shopping at Wal Mart or KMart. I think American Apparel is just another example of clothing people buy because they are told (through advertising and word of mouth) that it is quality/cool/hip.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that their advertising seems to work is so strange to me. I almost feel that the kind of girl who would be willing to spend 30 dollars on name brand leggings or plain tshirts would not be the same girl who would be receptive to semi-pornographic marketing. Maybe the fact that their advertisments do work on that girl is just part of the whole ironic hipster thing.