I would like to talk to you about an interesting phenomenon - the fashion trends of the rich nowadays seem to be getting farther and farther away from the beauty recognized by ordinary people.
"A piece of clothing from a luxury brand is worth a year's salary", but even celebrities are difficult to wear well-looking, and those morbid pale aesthetics, old money and earth tones, and deconstructed clothing on the runway always make ordinary people say "I can't understand......
Today, let's dismantle the truth behind this "aesthetic generation gap".
Recently, the synonym of "Miss Rich" Miumiu and Liu Haocun cooperated with a group of endorsement posters, which made everyone feel bad.
The complexion of working overtime all night + oversize sack skirt, holding the bag, the expression seems to reveal hesitation and emptiness.
The beautiful and smooth little flowers look like a reserve for moving bricks on the construction site.
After the pupil earthquake, I also saw even more explosive photos: some netizens picked up Zhao Jinmai's promotional picture for Miumiu.
The star of the water spirit is concave with the feeling of powerlessness that he can't get a taxi after standing for three hours.
要知道，miu miu之前還整出過四萬一條的鑲鑽內褲。
has been complained by netizens until now.
I don't know if the rich are interested, but I'm definitely not going to pay for it.
It's so weird.
There is also Balenciaga carrying garbage bags.
The show was dressed up with the feeling of going downstairs to throw out the garbage in the middle of a blizzard.
How is this not the top fashion that ordinary people can access? If you place an order online, you can use 100.0 to get 0.
But if you are as expressionless as a model, your mother will probably come out and scold you at this time: "Are you carrying a garbage bag here to smoke??" ”
It's not the first time Balenciaga has done something that everyone can't understand.
These fashion brands sold to the rich seem to be clearly telling us: "Sorry, we don't make ordinary people's money." ”
As shown in the picture, guess how much the same bag of the same style in this show sells.
It's not expensive, it's not expensive, you only need 13700 to buy a bag of potato chips to eat at home.
Maybe the rich people also want to "have fun with the people" and start going crazy en masse?
In fact, the recent spring and summer fashion trends are quite incomprehensible.
Many dresses, T-shirts, and long sleeves of big and niche brands are equipped with ultra-tight round necks, which are quite unfriendly to the figure of ordinary people.
Striped sweatpants, pajama pants, and shorts, which focus on comfort and athleisure, are also quite popular.
But the effect of dressing, it can only be said that celebrities are also quite difficult to control.
If it were worn by ordinary people, I guess the effect would be like that of a junior high school student after school.
What oversize, what cleanfit, can't compare to the original Chinese school uniform.
Fashion also seems to be caught in a carnival of "rich people's aesthetics".
Lao Qian Feng weaves class symbols in beige and camel colors, morbid aesthetics flaunt the status of "non-working class" with pale skin tone and vulnerability, and avant-garde design declares "aesthetic privilege" with cuts that are difficult for ordinary people to understand.
These trends are amplified by social media, forming a kind of weird tear -On the one hand, the brand shouted "art is priceless", and on the other hand, ordinary people complained: "I can't understand it, I don't really wear it, but I am shocked".
After all, I'm not Gu Li who won all the luxuries without even blinking an eye.
Could it be that the aesthetics of rich people really have a wall with ordinary people?
The aesthetic logic of the rich is essentially a sophisticated calculation of identity and resources.
Their aesthetic is constructed based on the logic of investment and identity labeling.
Low-key simplicity and quality first are the dressing guidelines of many wealthy people.
Zack's wardrobe posted in 2016 years, the clothes in it are all solid colors.
It's like saying, "I'm sorry, we rich people don't care about dressing at all." ”
Let's take a look at the boss of the LV collective.
I couldn't tell what brand the clothes I was wearing.
You know, many LV products are full of bells and whistles.
Then you look at the pair of "old Beijing cloth shoes" in the lower left corner......
True luxury doesn't need a logo, and those who understand it naturally understand.
They tend to pay more attention to fabric texture and tailoring technology than novel shapes, preferring basic but high-quality clothing, such as cashmere coats with simple cuts and hand-customized cotton shirts, showing high-end taste in a low-key way.
Although the rich have money, they are actually very "picky" in spending money, and they want to make money with money to ensure their value.
They will see fashion items as an investment, collecting pieces that are historically significant or representative of the designer.
Buying Chanel and Hermes bags is often not for practicality, but to show identity.
Money can buy rights, money can buy resources, and finally money can be made with money.
The aesthetics of the wealthy will also be more inclined to reflect the integration of culture and art.
Because clothes are not only a shelter, but also a mobile identity certificate and a display of cultural capital.
Ordinary people's aesthetics are more inclined to find a balance between practicality and self-please.
Wear items to be functional first, the wardrobe must have jeans, white T-shirts, sneakers, the pursuit of good-looking, versatile, more than one clothing cost-effective.
Showing emotions and expressing personality are also the key words for ordinary people to wear.
Cartoon-print T-shirt, dopamine colour, oversize silhouette...... These intuitive colors and patterns have become a window for ordinary people to express their individuality.
Ordinary people will also be more inclined to choose the basic models that are popular in the season or recognized by the public.
For example, the popular "relaxed dressing" and "intellectual style" a while ago, the motivation for ordinary people to follow the trend is not only aesthetic identity, but also to avoid the risk of becoming an "aesthetic outlier".
The formation of aesthetic differences mainly stems from the gap from the wallet to the mind.
The wealthy have strong economic strength, and their consumption pays more attention to quality and uniqueness; Ordinary people need to consider the price and pursue cost performance.
The self-construction of their social identities is also different.
The wealthy should use aesthetic distinctions to consolidate class identity; Ordinary people are integrated into the community through a practical, mass-engaged aesthetic.
Beauty is the product of experience, and experience often requires money to incubate.
The wealthy will have more opportunities to be exposed to artistic and cultural experiences, thereby cultivating an appreciation for abstract aesthetics. Ordinary people tend to rely more on intuitive, easy-to-understand aesthetic elements.
From the perspective of psychological mechanism, the rich pursue uniqueness and highlight identity; Ordinary people pursue a sense of security and tend to choose an aesthetic that is recognized by the public.
It's like the line in "Parasite": "Money is like an iron, ironing out all the folds" - but the direction of ironing is very different.
Nowadays, if you want to stand at the top of the chain of fashion aesthetic contempt, there are only two ways to go: either "go back" and dig deep into cultural accumulation; Or "to the future" and embrace pioneering experimentation.
Where does the sense of luxury of traditional aesthetics come from?
The main thing is that symbolic historical narratives can construct scarcity.
Most luxury brands know this – Hermès' silk scarves are inspired by 19th-century paintings, Chanel's tweed is inspired by Scottish estates, Balenciaga and Valentino's reinvention of "quiet luxury" through academic tailoring......
The reason why classics are looked up to is because they carry the aesthetic code of the times.
The avant-garde future aesthetic relies on subversiveness to show a sense of luxury.
AI-generated fabric textures, virtual fitting rooms, 3D digital creation, and blockchain technology allow consumers to trace the carbon footprint of each garment...... They are not selling products, but the illusion of "participating in the future".
However, if you search for "aesthetic contempt chain" on social media, you will find: those who wear Uniqlo don't look down on those who wear ZARA, those who listen to classical music ridicule and listen to Douyin Divine Comedy, and those who chase Morandi's color scheme complain about dopamine and wear "earthy......
The rich despise "local tyrants showing off their wealth" with "low-key luxury", and despise "practicality" with "artistry"; Ordinary people use "down-to-earth" to ironically "pretend", and "cost-effective" to deconstruct the "IQ tax".
Aesthetics is never a purely sensory judgment.
The public's judgment of "beauty" has always been deeply bound to resources, rights, social identity, and cultural capital.
The French philosopher Bourdieu pointed out that the essence of aesthetic taste is a tool for distinguishing class tastes.
Aesthetic differences present the truth of life in different dimensions, which is a mirror image of the distribution of social resources and the accumulation of cultural capital.
Although the aesthetic hierarchy objectively exists, beauty has never been more than one answer, and the interest of the world stems from the uneven polymorphism.
Perhaps, the real password of a sense of luxury is hidden in the delicate balance between "self-knowledge" and "tolerance".