I found your post quite interesting...

So do you believe that all fashion is contrived if it is not made for purely utilitarian purposes? I'd hate to see the creative side of fashion disregarded as an art. Yes, a lot of couture is terribly contrived, like a lot of strange, uncomfortable, and unwearable creations labeled as "high fashion". But, when it comes to classic pieces like a basic black shift, a simple suit, and a white button-down shirt, is it fair to call these pieces "contrived" if they are produced by Tommy Hilfiger? (I remember Cayce's allergy to that particular brand.) You said Cayce's general philosophy is an allergy to all things fake, contrived, and vacuous, right? Does it become about the clothing, then, or about the designer himself?

Just wondering...

I found that an excelent post J.Cormier.

I don't think that Cayce's allergy could be put down to if something is utilitarian or not. The fact that she has little reaction to the Hello Kitty brand would preclude that.

Or has hello kitty some dark utilitarian purpose that I don't know about? (Shudder)

Could it be that the level of allergy is related to the familiarity that she feels to the brand? Thus brands such as Michelin and Virgin create more of a reaction as they are more common to Cayce's world?

From her talk of mirror worlds and suchlike it can be seen that Cayce is acutely aware of things that either fit into her world or not. Another effect of the allergy?

Perhaps her reaction was not because it was contrived, but rather it was copied? She follows the history of the style, something like Savile Row, J. Press and BB, then Ralph, and finally TH. Her problem may stem from the fact that TH is now trying to exist solely as an idea, a brand, since he has contributed nothing to the style himself, but rather just copied it.

You may be onto something, mikethecat :

Cayce is dedicated to finding cool trends.
Once something is processed, digested, and stripped of its soul by a company, it's no longer cool.
It can even be repulsive.

Hello Kitty is not repulsive because it's unique.
It's not a case of a company digesting a street phenomenon.

But I'm not sure that really explains the Hilfiger. It's not that Hilfiger has been co-opted from something, but that it is a soulless thing devoid of creativity. I think what Cayce reacts to is the sense of a thing having a personality, a creator. I think Hello Kitty doesn't trigger anything because it is distant from fashion in many ways, and particularly because it is not trying to be cool in any of the usual Western ways. HK doesn't pretend it is deeply significant of anything, but even through the corperate reproductions it is possible to catch a glimpse of a bit of creative joy in it.

Of course, I'm not sure if the Michelin Man is really trying to be cool either, except in the sense of a man in his fifties saying to his children, in a futile and far too late attempt at bonding, "Hey, those are some pretty funky tunes."

My own Fashion aversion I trace back to Patagonia.
Twenty to thirty years ago when my buddies were Snow and Ice climbing we wore old Helly Hanson fleeces, fisherman gear essentialy. I'd snag my dads old gear from working the fishing grounds and cozy up in it. It pilled up it would get pretty nasty looking but stayed light and kept you warm if you had your layering figured right, over time it became the stuff to climb in, it was hard to come by, we'd replace zippers and such to keep them in service.
This was way this was before Patagonia made the polarfleece scene. (I knew them for their pants/shorts and such, a scabby patched pair of iron pants were symbolic back in the day). For those of us in Alaska, we went to Seattle for gear we could'nt get in-state.
All this to say when the Patagonia fleeces first came out they were pretty great, got better, good gear and most of us know that logo pretty well by now. I used to associate it with climbing. Now I associate it with outdoor fashion yahoos. Not fair of me really but there it is.
Patagonia is still functional wear though now for me at least it also carries the association of People making a statement about them selves that feels to me to be self-conjecture; "I like to think of myself as an outdoorsman" or " Hey, do I look rugged to you? I look rugged to myself indeed I do."
There will always be gear heads, hell I've been one myself, but the Logo has know become symbolic to me of posturing. I suppose that puts me off. I love fashion though so go figure.
Labels put me off, I think also in part because I make cynical assumptions when someone is decked out in Tommy or Abercombie type logo and Labels. I still remember those first glam gear cataloge that patagonia sent out, Big color, too cool and an advertising campagin that filled the hills with rookies ready to love the great outdoors.
Upon reading pattern recognition I was taken back to that thing that you love, what ever it is... becoming over run with people. just over run.
The Michelin Tire Clown?... well, that's just creepy.

It's all about the logo baby

quote:

Originally posted by ArkanGL:
You may be onto something, mikethecat :

Cayce is dedicated to finding cool trends.
Once something is processed, digested, and stripped of its soul by a company, it's no longer cool.
It can even be repulsive.

Hello Kitty is not repulsive because it's unique.
It's not a case of a company digesting a street phenomenon.

Are you sure about that? I know Hello Kitty is still considered unique and adorable, but part of me wonders how long that will last. Sanrio has produced so much Hello Kitty merchandise since it started promotions with Target back in 1999 (I think.). With more accessibility and a lower retail price, Hello Kitty's uniqueness will disappear. Sure, I'll never forget the Classic Hello Kitty design that utilized red, yellow, and blue and began in the 1970s. It will always remain a good look and a nice example of simple, yet cute design. But I think Hello Kitty has gone through a great deal of processing and digestion and is in the process of being stripped of the things that make it unique, those things previously being its availability only in small Sanrio shops, its moderate price (much lower nowadays), and its limited products (a Hello Kitty vacuum AND fan! Amazing!).

I think though that Hello Kitty has always been much more genuine then TH ever was. It was an original idea, and while it may be mass marketed, it is still an original in that sense.

quote:

Originally posted by mikethecat:
I think though that Hello Kitty has always been much more genuine then TH ever was. It was an original idea, and while it may be mass marketed, it is still an original in that sense.

Okay, I think it's safe to say that a gazillion brands are far more original than TH.

Does mass marketing cause a brand to lose its uniqueness? Or is the mass marketing itself part of Hello Kitty's uniqueness?

Well, the sort of psychic-carpet-bombing effect of entering a Sanrio store is a fairly unique experience, I will agree.

quote:

Originally posted by colin:
Well, the sort of psychic-carpet-bombing effect of entering a Sanrio store is a fairly unique experience, I will agree.

Yeah, I know. Did I ever tell you that my first job ever was working in a Sanrio store? We were the cutest store in the mall! I loved it.

Hello Kitty is unique in the way that the designs are their own, and that I can't think of any brand that replicated the phenomenon on such a large scale.
Sanrio is free to digest, recalibrate or change their products : they were theirs in the first place, and they are still as pointless as they were in the beginning.

Hillfinger and his cronies took basic universal designs, and sold them under their own brand.
Nothing interesting.

I don't think that it's as simple as a Hello Kitty to HF comparison.

Cayce shows allergic reactions to the Michelin man who is quite original if nothing else, and yet the sterile soul devoid places that are Starbucks have much less reaction.

The Nazi SS symbol and the swastika give more of a reaction than the hammer and sycle motif.

It seems that her reaction follows only the pattern of interest and associations in Cayce's own head and is not effected by a rule uniform as how much it is marketed, or if it is original.

The closer things fit into her world view the better she gets on with them. If they clash a little then she reacts.

Yeah, there is that too... subjectivity.

Yet if that was the case, that her reactions were subjective and a result of what's in her own head, either Casey is a perfect mix of popular culture, or the lowest common denominator. Don't forget that she uses her "skill" for marketing purposes. Companies use her to determine "Will the market except this?" If it was all just in her head, they would seem to be paying a lot of money for just one person's opinion.

P.S. ArkanGL what does stale Dijon look like?

quote:

ArkanGL what does stale Dijon look like?

beige

We should keep in mind the possibility that the Hello Kitty Immunity is simply due to Cayce being lost in translation. The overt irony of her time spent in Japan is that Tokyo is perhaps the most excessively branded, commercialized city in the world, and yet Cayce really has no allergic reaction to it. Just like the shampoo, which has the wrong PH for "gaijin hair," Japanese commercial culture simply doesn't affect her. Square peg in a round hole. Doesn't fit.

Also, it occurred to me just now that maybe such a brand allergy is not so much meaningful in itself as it is an explanation for Cayce's strange intuition. Have you ever known anyone who was allergic to nuts? They know more about nuts than almost anyone else (what they're found in, used for, what constitutes a nut, etc.), because if they didn't, it might kill them.

Interesting. I never thought of the whole lost-in-translation factor. Excellent point.

Just a thought (although pointless) :

Maybe Gibson himself is immune to Japanese commercial culture.
And since he does not find it threatening, so does Cayce.

In that case, maybe there's no deeper meaning to Cayce's absence of reaction to a brand, than the simple fact that Gibson likes it.
(like for instance with Starbucks, if I remember correctly)

That's probably the case, ArkanGL. I don't necessarily like the corporate-domination aspect of Starbucks, but I still flock willingly through it's doors to get my fix. It's weird what we make exceptions for.