Thom Browne and the Runway vs. Reality Effect

What I want to see:

Vs. average real Thom Browne wearer:

😂💯

    Haha anyway. Hi. I was talking to my friend Michelle a couple weeks ago about the concept of getting a high end leather card holder for my birthday. Just a little something to elevate a young man's swag and general fanciness factor. One of the options I had brought up was something from Thom's collection, which she was immediately hesitant of: "When I think of Thom Browne, I think of Korean hypebeasts." Mind blowing revelation... I love Thom's work on the runway as well as his suiting concept, but I had never really considered the way that his brand actually appears in most people's lives. 

    Since that moment, I swear I've seen the four bar everywhere except where I want to see it (on the arm of his signature shortened suit jacket). People are rocking the brand's insignia all over Cal's campus; it's printed on neutral toned zip up hoodies, heather gray t-shirts, and the most run of the mill leather sneaker you can imagine. This is a far cry from the careful and highly elegant presentation that Browne's label crafts in their runway shows and marketing. Their marketing even includes Browne himself, who goes as far as to habitually work out in a cardigan and a polo.

Fall 22

    So what does it mean for a brand to exhibit such a distinct disconnect between pristine marketing, and slovenly consumption*? By one argument, one cannot exist without the other. If Browne only made hoodies, he would not be this successful. Conversely, if he wasn't stacking paper from selling his elevated "essentials," could he put together such beautiful runway shows? Probably not. Something something capitalism.

    I suppose that this balance is pretty widely accepted across all luxury houses. The relative accessibility of logo tees, graphic sweaters, and accessories allows us plebeians to feel involved with luxury symbols while we simultaneously generate the revenue that they require to maintain that same exclusive image. There is always a distinction between what the common man is wearing versus what the ultra rich are keeping in the closet. If accessibility becomes too broad, the whole image shatters. Especially if the accessibility is to poor quality alternatives. See the Mugler H&M line... 

    If everyone wore the suit, would it even be cool anymore?

*However slovenly a $500+ zip up hoodie can be considered to be

    Although I like to picture myself as someone with consistent taste, it's highly possible that never seeing Thom Browne suiting outside is what keeps it so appealing. I guess I haven't really gotten to the bottom of the impact of how we actually see a brand in real life versus their marketing. Oh well. Maybe next time.

    I think that all of this is a really current narrative though, especially as it pertains to notions of "Quiet Luxury," and the generally high level of fashion consumption. Everyone wants to feel and appear like they're getting a slice of the cake, but we're really mostly contributing to the same tiered exclusivity (while simultaneously not rising up the ladder at all). I'm certainly prone to this behavior, although you will hopefully not find me rocking some second tier shit just because of the logo any time soon, especially now that I've released this blog to the internet.

    Anyway this is all getting a little more in depth than I feel like writing about right now, so I'll leave you with this: I have hated the Comme des Garcons Play diffusion line since its inception. I can refer you to some references if you want first hand accounts. Not new to this, true to this. Stop wearing ugly clothes.

Ok. Bye.