I'm amused by current fashion which features $150 jeans which are ripped out at the knee, shaggy on the cuff, and missing a pocket. I think they are supposed to portray a well-worn, frugal style, indicating that "I won't throw them away just because they have a few holes in them." But at $150? There's something wrong with this scene.
And then there are the $600 tweed blazers you (not I) can purchase with elbow patches and mismatched buttons. It's a British thing, demonstrating the old "smoking jacket" style. All that's missing is a pipe and a comfortable leather chair in the well-stocked, cherry panelled library.
The idea is to look austere...in a conspicuous way. Conspicuous austerity is a variation on the idea of conspicuous consumption that is characterized by over-the-top purchases that broadcast the idea that you have spent a bundle on something. Like a Rolls Royce in your driveway, authentic diamond bling, or uncomfortable imported Italian shoes.
Conspicuous Austerity, on the other hand, is characterized by the spending of large amounts of money on clothing and items to make you look austere, or frugal. Can you imagine having to purchase austerity? Isn't that an oxymoron?
The emphasis on the term conspicuous austerity is on the word conspicuous. It has more to do with the broadcasting than the frugality.
We have friends who are very, very wealthy but who shop for many of their clothes in second-hand shops. That may sound like conspicuous austerity but, in reality, they are people who are sincerely frugal in their lifestyle and would (literally) give away the shirts off their backs to help someone in need. So it's important to be careful about labelling.
I'm not saying I'm immune to the style. My favorite jeans are frayed at the cuffs and have a couple of holes in them. They are my most comfortable jeans; they fit just right. But...they cost me about $40 around ten years ago. I never would have bought them in their current condition.
My wife keeps asking, "When are you going to get rid of those jeans?" My answer is, "Probably not right away." I do have to admit that the other day I took a pair of scissors to them, clipping off the frayed threads at the cuff and some errant threads around the pockets. But they're not going anywhere for a while.
So, to get back to the topic, why do you suppose affluent people want to portray themselves as needy? Why the torn $150 jeans, the patches on the $600 blazer sleeves, the mismatched buttons on the $300 blouse? Let me put on my therapist hat. I wonder if there is a need to portray comfort on an uncomfortable body. Could it be that anxiety about one's shape, tone, coloring, image is so demanding that it calls for a sign that "I'm really relaxed about all this" when, all the time, the anxiety is rampant? Maybe that's a stretch. It even sounds like it as I write it.
But, the bottom line is that it still seems a little strange to me to spend hundreds of dollars on fashion-designed clothing that one can purchase in a Salvation Army thrift store for a few dollars. Conspicuous austerity will remain one of those phrases that I place in the "mystery to me" folder.
No comments:
Post a Comment