Poverty as Fashion: Are expensive brands obsessed with the bummy look?
If you thought Gucci would watch their backs for a while since their last scandal you’re buggin’. The designer brand made another dumb decision with their latest release.
The high-end designer featured a pair of old-looking sneakers that retail at $870. The new shoes are referred to as “vintage” and look worn in and old.
Complete with dirty detailing, the “screener leather sneaker” has taken the fun out of dirtying your beloved converse and vans, and provided you with an expensive pre-prepared bummy look.
Gucci is not the first brand to push the look. Since Yeezy decided to create his own clothing line of ripped sweaters and t-shirts, the rest of the elite fashion industry followed. Find affordable sweaters on this website.
What is it about rich people that make them want to look poor?
Is it an attempt at feeling more authentic? Do the wealthy see value in a sort of anti-materialism sense? But why put on the costume of being poor? Does this count as appropriation?
Nothing will ever top the Homeless Inspired Fashion Collection by Japanese brand N. Hollywood. Designer Daisuke Obana created an entire line based on the homeless he saw on his trip to the U.S.
That’s extreme, but what Gucci is doing is still disrespectful. They expect to sell USED looking sneakers for over $800. The glorification of poverty is not classy and the bum aesthetic is getting old.
Gucci claims the sneakers are inspired by the 70s but they look more like they were worn by a dude in the 70s.
Of course, people took to Twitter to express their disbelief and flame the designer.
This isn’t the first time a pair of dusty shoes caught criticism. Golden Goose came out with “duct tape sneaker” a while back and people weren’t cool with it then either.
Broke life isn’t something you can appropriate. You’re either in it or you’re not.