No, seriously. WHAT are you wearing?

Taste is a tricky thing. In the chapter “Viewers Make Meaning,” taste is said to “depend on one’s class, cultural background, and other aspects of identity.” Most would agree that taste is determined by the higher class, which, in contrast, dictates what it means to be of a lower status. (This stems from the Marxist thought that the bourgeoisie dominate the means of production, hence giving them the power to rule over the proletariat class.) In more contemporary terms, if you own a Van Gogh, odds are you’re damn rich and therefore have “more culture” than the average Jane Doe who owns a mere portrait of a vase of flowers. There is a strong correlation between culture and education, which is a product of affluence. That might sound unfair, but it is necessary to make these distinctions in order to classify art.
Is that still the case though? Contemporary society has now blurred the distinction between taste and culture – that is to say, you do not have to own a Van Gogh to be considered “of high culture.”
Taste, as we all know, is socially constructed, like most things in this world. While back then, the trendsetters of taste may have been the pompous opera goers and classical music-listeners, now we have come to a new definition of what it means to be “of high culture” (said with a British accent).
Celebrities. They are famous and successful, and surely those are admirable traits. Hence, we must follow them. WHY do we buy magazines like Cosmopolitan or Allure? Because we want to know what (or rather, WHO) Blake Lively is wearing.
Let’s see. What IS she wearing?
Really? A plain red top folded in places that I could have personally assembled with my own bed sheets?
No no, but it’s VERSACE.
Ah, now it makes a difference.
I’ll say again, taste is socially constructed. These celebrities add value to the name “Versace” by wearing them. Why? Because we also want to BE Blake Lively. Maybe, if we own that dress, we too can star in our own hit TV series and be around very, very attractive males.
The hierarchies of taste are defined as when “subculture styles gain taste and cultural capital and in turn become valuable to monied classes.”
“Subculture” here refers to the fad of the “upper east sider.” The Gossip Girls marketed it, now we want it. Style becomes commodity because of a culture that everyone wants to be a part of.
But as I said, taste is a funny thing. It shifts, it changes. Heck, you don’t even have to own a Versace dress to be considered part of the fad.
Buy one of those plain ratty tees at American Apparel. They’re loose, they’re unflattering, they’re IN. Get one, and you’re automatically on the A-list, up there with Blake and the gang, because THEY seem to like it, and THEY’RE of high status.
I’m not pointing fingers here, because the fact is, I own one. It’s comfortable is all I have to say. In retrospect, however – man, did I really spend thirty dollars on a shirt I could get off Chinatown?
Point of my argument is, taste can mean a lot of things, depending on place and time. Back then maybe it meant owning a Van Gogh. Now, for some, it's all about the Versace. Others, oversized v-neck t-shirts.
The media really is sneaky, creating value out of nothing.