|
I’m familiar with fashion trends spreading like wildfire: the military jacket, the skinny jean, the gladiator style sandal. But every now and again, it’s a brand or label that becomes more fashionable than the clothes it produces. Right now, it seems the city trendies have all been making the pilgrimage to American Apparel and bringing out the cash much faster than it takes most of us to wriggle into a pair of skin-tight lamé leggings. I find myself walking down the street having a serious bout of déjà-vu as the same highly identifiable clothing passes me by, and I’m left wondering ‘Who sent the memo?’
Don’t get me wrong – I am a fan of American Apparel. I quite often find myself browsing the online store and buying up big where, until now, I’ve had the smug feeling of investing in clothing I wasn’t going to find littering the streets. But let’s face it, since the first Australian store opened its doors this year – it does appear AA has done a huge vom all over the Melbourne fashion scene.
And yeah, I’m confident the irony of AA junkies has not been lost on any of us.
I’m not going to make the mistake of blaming this on the brand – the marketing of sweatshop free labour, simple design concepts, and the sexual nature of its representing models is genius. The clothes itself are well cut closet staples mixed with loud statement pieces, packaged so nicely you can’t wipe the grin off your face. It does seem, however, that the notion of ‘key pieces’ is so very passé and more really is more. As the brand gets bigger and bigger on the world scale I can’t help but think it’s going to be the IKEA of fashion: DIY, paint-by-numbers clothing where you can’t really go wrong. Dressing like the rest of the herd brings with it the sweet relief of not actually having to wear clothing that necessarily represents your style, or more importantly, looks any good on you.
The select few that are able to put together some truly crazy outfits and still look smokin’ really should be applauded – but for the most part it seems people have thrown out the concept of dressing for their shape and instead hopped on the head-to-toe, all decked-out-approach to the label. If you've got that Mary-Kate Olsen emaciated hobo look or that sexy rock edge à la Theodora Richards then you probably can own a pair of high waisted thermals pants with slouch socks and still look hot. But for the most part, oversize t-shirts and long plaid shirts are being worked overtime to hide unbecoming cameltoe - and you might wanna turn up the volume on your ipod to drown out the swishing sound of synthetic fibres rubbing between your thighs as you strut your junk about town…
On the other hand, isn’t that partly what you’re going for? Some kind of stick-it-to-the-man I’ll wear whatever the hell I want ‘tude? You’re right though - chances are someone else is gonna be rocking that gold metallic swimsuit or cotton-spandex onesie out on a d-floor near you… and you can’t both be wrong about how shithot you look. So, work it Melbourne. Pee in the wind. Get your spend on and douse yourself in the stuff like you can’t get enough before the new store opens in Sydney, when we’ll no doubt bitch and moan about those posers in the neighbouring state rocking the same look.
annette-elissa - Monday, 12 May 2008 22:39
Preaching to the choir here, kid. I work for a major "edgy" fashion company here in the States, and most of my colleagues, as much as you'd wish they'd dress in a creative manner, are slathered head to toe in shiny spandex courtesy of AA.
thanks for putting it way better than I ever could. You're my new hero - for today anyhow. |
yalei - Wednesday, 14 May 2008 11:09
the leggings are hoony as |
David Goldberg - Wednesday, 14 May 2008 13:54
Great AA article on this site http://www.knowmore.org/wiki/index.php?title=Behind_the_Logos |
fringe_kid - Thursday, 15 May 2008 21:20
its definitely a brand, and i wont use the word label, that is taking over, which is a shame because they offer nothing in the form of quality or store presence. It looks like target moved in to Prahran I'm sorry. Shame they have some all rite looking stuff. |
O-scar - Saturday, 24 May 2008 16:18
I think i found where everyone got the so called "MEMO" as to what brand you should spend 90 percent of your paycheck on this week.
ta da
[IMG]http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g89/oscarlake27/logo_russh.gif[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g89/oscarlake27/photo_russh.jpg[/IMG] |
O-scar - Saturday, 24 May 2008 16:19
a href="http://s54.photobucket.com/albums/g89/oscarlake27/?action=view¤t=photo_russh.jpg" target="_blank"> |
.albert - Thursday, 05 June 2008 13:54
I dig the no sweatshop policy but I just can't stand the exploitative marketing that AA is all about. People are worried about Bill Henson, what about Dov Charney? Too many stories of barely-18 models paid next to nothing, and billboards where prebuscent bodies rather than slick designs sell clothes.
http://gawker.com/tag/advertising/?i=367654&t=prankster-helps-american-apparel-embrace-porn |
Blaise - Friday, 06 June 2008 20:57
ah thankyou so much - i'm so glad i'm not alone
i too was so smug and happy with myself for having all that AA stuff that you couldn't get here - i hate being seen in the same thing as everyone else
I gave my puppy some of my AA stuff... i'd rather her enjoy sleeping on it now |
lauren - Friday, 11 July 2008 18:46
word!!
i just moved to melbourne from nyc, and i am tallying the gold bodysuits! |
blak - Monday, 15 September 2008 00:04
i'm sorry but AA is unflattering for the majority of people and makes you look like a track marked, st. kilda hooker.
And furthermore, since when has 'marketing of sweatshop free labour, simple design concepts, and the sexual nature of its representing models' been genius? A tried and true subversive formula. |
|
Comments (10)
