The proliferation of Gucci has alarmed many fashion consumers who are concerned its ubiquity puts it in the same rank as brands such as Michael Kors. But what’s more alarming than the gorgeous GG logo on every arm and toe, is the campaigns which seem to, at a deeper level, glamourise poverty with black faces at it’s centre.
A sombre black male is depicted with an arrow in his hi-top fro, wearing a Gucci belt and a t-shirt which could be described as “glamourising the death of black youth”.
Gucci’s depictions of post apocalyptic consumerism are ethnically diverse, abysmal and glittered in luxury where illustrated models pose in a hellish environment.
What do these images mean?
In one particular illustration, a black and asian woman look upon a ‘fashion god’, a white woman who “represents the great Sphinx of Giza which was a solar point of worship thousands of years ago”. It could be argued that we therefore have an Asian and black girl, adorned in Gucci of course, looking to her for approval.
Balenciaga has been evidently inspired by the old style family portraits that perhaps black people today will be familiar with. RONIEBOND went as far as to appropriate these images, captioning a photo “An alternate universe, at a portrait studio in Magodo, Lagos”.
It’s nice to see black faces but why are the black people who are represented are put in subservient positions? @beyondcey points out “dry skin, clothes that don’t fit or even look moderately wearable”. Is the glamorisation of poverty the ‘in thing’?