Title ? Are We Losing Our Identity in Fashion? Or Or has modern fashion lost the personal and individual touch?

Or Where lies individuality in Fashion today Or Has fashion taken over the person?

+ Case Study: Louis Vuitton Youre not as glamorous and powerful as you think. Youre just a fleshcovered skeleton that can break at any time. Your image of yourself is all a lie. Jacques Lacan

It is a great disappointment seeing fashion transforming and becoming more of a trend than an expression of ones personality. Fashion used to be about expressing ones self for distinctive identification. It was easy to identify peoples tastes, and personality through their clothes.

These days, however, colours, designs and style in general, have become very limited because the society is not interested in expressing itself through fashion. The drive for fashion these days have rather become the zeal to have a stereotyped and air brushed look of celebrities.

There was a time when women would stay true to their own beliefs and style, by sewing their own garments, and their childrens. This was always a great

inspiration for creativity and for putting a stamp of their personality and individuality on the clothes they made.

Yes, fashion itself is meant to be original, creative and inventive. As our generation matures, however, it has become increasingly noticeable that the society has lost its identity, distinctiveness as well as the real meaning and purpose of fashion itself. We live in a vast world filled with billions of our kind, yet each of us has got a certain zest, a special and personal taste that distinguishes ones identity from the rest of the group; that is how fashion has to be seen and translated for each individual.

It seems, however, that as far as fashion goes, the society has come to an agreement to follow a certain dress code, to adopt unconsciously, a certain uniformity and conformity, by imitating celebrities styles and looks. What has caused this drastic change in perspective, that people have stopped trusting their own intuition? Why do people want to wear and have the exact same belongings as others? Has the society lost its own value and identity by agreeing with everything that the media or celebrity kind have to say? Fashion had more meaning and sense before and during the nineteenth century when people and designers, such as Charles Frederick Worth (18251895) the father of haute couture, the first person to stage fashion shows, was designing clothes tailored to individual and personal tastes and preferences, thereby preserving the clients individuality and unique style.

People used to create and come up with their own designs to distinguish their identities from other groups of people. For example, there were certain styles, colours and fabrics that only royalty was entitled to use, such as royal blue, purple colours and silk and velvet fabrics. The question is how has fashion labels invaded or penetrated or transformed the views of the top of the hierarchy? With the emergence of more affordable mass-produced clothing, the visual boundary between the middle and upper classes has been wiped out. It is therefore impossible for the royalty to maintain distinctive flair, colours and style. The only way to achieve any distinction then became through fashion labels. In recent times couture houses have opened up and started creating pieces affordable to the majority to attract huge clientele. . Mass production has spread fast, creating multiples of pieces to wear, inventing and re-inventing new ideas to keep the clients wanting more. Quality has been traded for profit, different from earlier years where personal identity and satisfaction took precedence quality was affordable. What is sad is that people are unaware of what is going on behind the golden brands! Once upon a time, luxury was only available to the rarefied and aristocratic world of old money and royalty; luxury wasn't simply a product, it was a lifestyle. Today, luxury is different. Gone are the family-owned businesses; the industry is run by corporations that focus on brand-awareness, advertising and - above all profits. (Dana Thomas 2007) Fashion is now price driven as society now determines quality by the price tag; the higher the price, the higher the willingness to buy. This on many occasions result in buying fakes provided the price tag fits; the item on sale is celebrity style.

Is style not about being different and keeping ones persona. Why does one want to have generic possessions, and be distinguished from the crowd? It seems that people have lost their creative mind and belief in themselves, by trusting everything that has been given and presented to them. One may ask, moreover whether people are aware where and how the products being made nowadays? Why should the fashion label or brand determine ones identity or lack of one? The way we dress reflects not only our personality but also our economic, political and social standing and our self worth. Luxury adornment has always been at the top of the pyramid, setting apart the haves and the have-nots. (Thomas 2007) Dana Thomas states that the luxury as we know it today was born during the reign of the Bourbons and the Bonapartes in France, and such brands as Louis Vuitton and Hermes were founded in the 18th or 19th century by the artisans for the royal court. The wares were created in limited quantities and mostly hand made in order to maintain the superior quality and used only by elite clientele. However, after the Youthquake of the 1960s, which resulted the barrier breakdown between the rich and the ordinary folks, luxury has lost its place and went out of fashion. Anyone then could climb up the economic ladder, and that has brought it to the attention of tycoons and investors. They have taken over the luxury houses from its founders and transformed the houses into brands, where they have set a new target audience: the middle market. ... the idea, luxury executives explained, was to democratize luxury, to make luxury accessible. It all sounded so noble. But it wasnt. It was as capitalist as could be: the goal, plain and simple, was to make as much money as heavenly possible. (Thomas 2007)

The luxury industry has entirely changed the society; the way they dress, interact and the way they simply look at the world. With such turnover created by the tycoons, luxury has lost its gloss, distinctiveness due to easy accessibility. The way I define luxury isnt by fabric or the amount of gold bits hanging from it. Thats an old definition. For me, luxury is about pleasing yourself, not dressing for other people. Marc Jacobs Louis Vuitton is a great example that has been out in the industry for a very long time and has experienced that journey from being an exclusive, individual and hand crafted trademark and becoming mainstream, profit base, machine manufacturing brand. Yes, t is a true representation of luxury, whether it is the handbag covered with the LV logo, suitcase or the renowned trunk. It used to indicate the owners taste, power and the luxury to be and be surrounded by the first class clientele. It has been so, back in the past when only the rich and famous would travel with such luxury. However, in todays world almost everyone can afford a part of Louis Vuittons life, whether it is a bag or simply cosmetic products, which were launched and created by the tycoons in order to make the brand more reachable to those who cannot afford the really expensive merchandises. Anything that has got a brands name on it gets purchased, whether it is something a person needs or not, as it gives a luxury feeling to the customer, a feeling of being a part of an exclusive world. As said by Marc Jacobs himself:

Vuitton is a status symbol. Its not about hiding the logo. Its about being a bit of a show-off. The intriguing questions appear on the horizon that will be surveyed and discussed in this paper: How and why did brands, in this case Louis Vuitton, happen to transform from private to public ownership? How has it affected the world now, as it is more accessible to anyone? Is Louis Vuitton seen as a form and a kind of vulgarity nowadays? As it is known mostly to anyone nowadays, the key and pride of Louis Vuitton is the trunk. The most fascinating detail in the story, irony in fact, is that a man known to be the master trunk maker made his most major trip to Paris by foot, walking two hundred and ninety two mile journey with as little luggage as possible. In 1835, it was that incredible journey that has enabled Louis Vuitton to find his first job as a trainee trunk-maker, at his young age of fourteen. After hard work it has earned him a spectacular reputation that caught the attention of Napoleon III, who hired Vuitton for his wife the Empress Eugenie, one of the most important fashion icons in France at that time. It was a much respected role to have, as well as important, since the royalty used to travel regularly and extensively carrying their luxurious garments and accessories. Louis Vuitton was making trunks exclusively and individually for any occasion, may it be the old lady must have hat box Trianon gray canvas, monogram canvas wardrobe boxes or the mail trunk, made for Charles de Beistegui. The society was becoming, however, more mobile and rapid, their luggage requirements changed. People wanted more practical, simpler, and lighter

luggage than what Louis Vuitton had been making. In 1959, a new technique was introduced that allowed linen and soft canvas to be covered, which made the manufacture of soft canvas bags simpler and better.

Unfortunately, that only led to bigger problems, there was an increased growth of copying and producing fake Louis Vuitton goods, especially abroad, but this exploited by tycoons in increasing the companys market internationally.

As was mentioned before, luxury, as well as the use of goods, e.g. trunks, used to be essential and more valuable, in the past.

It is true that Louis Vuitton supplied only the rich, like matrons and businessmen, kings and queens with the luggage, as it was the only brand manufactured with great quality and materials.

In recent times, however, although the look of luggage has noticeably lost its true necessity, it has not lost its demand. The brands, including Louis Vuitton, have become more commercial. It is not so much about the quality of the product anymore, but the status and image that the majority desires to portray to their peers.

Back in the past Louis Vuitton was an elite and exclusive brand for a preserved few, these days it has become more mainstream and therefore, accessible to almost anyone. The brand has become so typical and standard now, that the society have found fake alternatives which compare adequately well in exuding the same image hitherto reserved for the true and real Louis Vuitton customers. Nowadays, one can walk past Oxford Street, and

purchase the Vuitton and Gucci bags in the kiosk right next to the station.

This rampant availability of copy cat versions has diluted the exclusivity of the real product. .

However, after making a survey on Louis Vuitton and other exclusive brands asking whether luxury has lost its lustre and whether the accessibility of brands have affected the societys identity there was a different views; this led to a debate. Many agreed that luxury has lost its gleam due to its accessibility to every class of consumer, whether it is by purchasing real and fake products or because of the democratization of fashion through blogs and social media.. Nevertheless, others have stated the opposite believing that brands and fashion in general, have no major impact on people. According to Pundir Nirupama, fashion acts as a sign, and activates forces of differentiation in terms of taste, social identity, and financial ability. Fashion, he said, serves the accumulation of symbolic capital through conspicuous consumption, and it needs continuous innovation and improvement in order to keep up its distinctive capacity. Fashion and mass production these days are intertwined. Mass production allows fashion to spread throughout society and to transcend class barriers, but on the other hand it depends on fashion as a motor for keeping up demand. (Nirupama 2007). Nirupama has also mentioned that fashion is related to elite groups, the upper class, whereas on the other hand, fashion requirement usually appears from groups whose position is described by a lack or loss of stability. (Nirupama 2007)

The idea of fashion as a result of conspicuous consumption goes back to Thorstein Veblen and his Theory of the leisure class, first published in 1899. In this study, Veblen criticizes the lifestyle of the upper classes and shows that ostentatious consumption and waste have become symbols for wealth and social status In Theory of the leisure class, Veblen portrays an upper class who struggles for social distinction within, and whose lifestyle is imitated by the lower classes. For Veblen, fashion therefore develops on two levels: It emerges through innovation within the upper classes who continually create new forms of apparel, ornament, and dress ever more sophisticated and expensive in order to reaffirm the place they occupy within their own social space. Fashion spreads through imitation as the lower classes start imitating the upper classes' behavior.

References

Books: Barnard, M. (2002) Fashion as Communication. Oxford: Routledge. Dana Thomas (August, 2007). How Luxury Lost its Lustre How Luxury Lost its Lustre Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Lustre. New York: Penguin Press. 1-60. Leonforte, P and Pujalet-Plaa, E (2010). Louis Vuitton: 100 Legendary Trunks. Paris: Abrams Books. p1-200. Nirupama, P (2007). Fashion technology: Today and tomorrow. New Delhi: Mittal Publications. p3-10. Veblen, T (1994). The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Penguin Classics. p1-200. Veblen, T (1984). The Economic Theory of Womans Dress. New York: The Popular Science. p198-205.

Websites: Bjork, J. (2009). Fashion And Identity. Available: http://www.goodlifer.com/2009/05/fashion-and-identity/. Last accessed 7th Feb 2012. Hart-Da Silva, J. (2011). Case Study. Available: http://www.globalblue.com/destinations/france/paris/case-study/. Last accessed 26th Feb 2012. Richmond, L. (1997-2011). A Guide To Psychology. Available: http://www.guidetopsychology.com/identity.htm. Last accessed 8th Feb 2012.