fashion / branding as transferable signifiers.

Fashion is a way of communicating. When you get your message wrong, it’s good that the people around you let you know. - Dries Van Noten.

Branding practices, in general, have a lot to learn from fashion.

Over the last several months, I've developed a more than passing interest in fashion. This has, for some people, come across as more of a vanity issue than anything else. I'll freely admit that vanity has something to do with it, as I care what I look like. But I also care what the way I look says. I care about the role clothing plays in my projected persona, and the interpretations of my identity that others make.

I recently referred to branding as a transferable signifier, something that consumers can take onto themselves as an element of a constructed, projected identity. The connection between clothing and branding is one that transcends logos. A specific cut, style or fit, is potentially as heavy with meaning as the brand of any global corporation.

A lot of my ideas about this stem from issues and questions I have related to racial identifiers and stereotypes. As a mixed-race (Jamaican / Irish) individual, I find myself asking questions about how certain clothing makes me look. I'll be the first to admit that this is a stupid thing to have to ask, but I'm in no way blind to the fact that if you put me in certain clothing, a percentage of the population will immediately make negative assumptions about me. There is a smaller-still percentage that will make negative assumptions about me regardless, but I'm still fascinated by the potential of having an immediate visual signifier that I can control - in contrast to my facial features and skin tone, an immediate visual signifier that I cannot (and have no desire to) alter.

If fashion is a method of communication, then I would argue branding with logos is the crudest form of yelling in comparison. Brands should aspire to be like clothes - something that adds to the consumer identity without usurping it. Something that takes first impressions into account, and manipulates them to the consumers advantage. Something that intends to speak louder than words.

dirty denim and brand values.

Starting with a polemic: Jeans are more or less interchangeable. There are obviously differences in fit and finish, but more or less everything is based on the original designs by Levi Strauss, which are more or less ancient.

The idea that 'Denim maniacs know that the only way to wear raw selvedge denim is to wear it often and never wash it so that the denim develops natural wear and incredibly unique features like a patina, whiskers, and honeycombs' is something I have been exposed to before (and something I'm currently practicing), but it was put back into my head when I read about the Evisu Dirty Dozen + 1 Project.

The general idea is to pass around a pair of jeans, and add value to it by creating a history and a story. Another, similar idea, arguably even more attached to the idea of authenticity that I have encountered is sending the jeans to be worn in farming communities for 6 months, then selling them worked in. (as referenced in this PDF)

What amuses me is the core idea, wearing in denim over time, creating a personal attachment and story, and stepping outside the brand for value, is completely lost. Buying raw denim and wearing it in yourself can be seen as a signifier of dedication, understanding of fashion, and to a certain extent, individuality (the jeans are yours, partially created by you, and unique). But someone else wearing them in, in a particularly authentic fashion, strikes me as missing the point entirely.

This is the same brand of authenticity which seems to mean 'fake in a real way'. This is the brand of authenticity that makes PBR the beer of choice for hipster trust fund kids.

Associations are all powerful, when creating a brand story, and Evisu is obviously counting on that to overcome the questionable authenticity of having cool people wear jeans to increase their value.

My immediate reaction to dirty denim is that it has the value of placing the consumer directly into the brand story - the product is then unquestionably authentic, because it reaches it's value only when used, and even then, only when used in a manner determined by those dedicated to the idea. The jeans are the same product, whether washed or not - but expressing an understanding of the 'proper' course of action is basically a statement that the brand considers their time with the product preparation, and the consumer should consider it the same.

Masterminding programs to 'create' wear in an authentic manner is amusing, because it's no different than taking a belt sander to the product for 30 seconds and shipping it - except that it also contains a strong whiff of colonialism, masked in the hunt for authenticity. I would be more impressed by the notable charitable value in providing work clothes for farming communities, if it didn't intentionally piggyback on an existing trend. I suppose it amuses me that the charitable aspects are related to getting residents in developing nations to pre-wear jeans for western markets - everything else has been outsourced already.

signal as noise in clothing.

Clothing is a point of interest for me, because it's the main signifier that people can shift without a lot of effort. Clothing, as I'm sure I've mentioned here before, is one of the strongest signifiers of identity, because it denotes an allegiance to a sub-culture, and often the level of dedication / sect in which one fits into that culture.

I'm starting to wonder how much farther we have to go before clothing because noise, just like everything else.

[note: i'll go link diving later to illustrate the point better]

I've heard that some lines are considering offering more than 2 collections a year, simply because the gap between something hitting the market, and becoming ubiquitous, is shrinking. Even with the coming recession (as far as I'm concerned, it's coming) people are willing to spend heavily for differentiators. This also becomes a problem when displaying large labels is out of fashion, and on-trend clothing is readily available at low prices, thanks to retailers like H&M and Forever 21. People will spend more to point out that they can, or for an increase in quality, fine. The question is, will the increase in number of new collections result in a more direct, and complete mining of the sub-cultural fashion landscape?

Couture has grabbed inspiration wholesale from subcultures time and again, forcing fashion migration in some groups. I recall at one point in the mid-90s commenting that being a skateboarder was tantamount to being a Backstreet Boy, in terms of buying in to the mainstream culture that skateboarding has claimed to reject.

I've never thought that you could actually judge someone's personality by their clothing, but there was a time you could judge how they wanted to be perceived. If the timetable and absorption of new fashion / inspirations is accelerated much more, I have to wonder if that will result in fashion's signal becoming noise.