Streetwear, in the city of Chicago at least, is an evolving marker of “blackness,” as well as a marker of a “true city kid,” that is a racialized fashion style becoming increasingly commodified by people of all races such as Latinos, Asians and Caucasians. Streetwear, and the culture attached to it, has become an experience that many people from ages 18-30 can identify with. Today young designers all over the city of
From the LDRS website they say, “Our vision when we open remains the same today, “Stay ahead of the curve!”. Our interest outside of retail involves art, music, and everything that involved freshness. Already taste makers as a whole, our staff had the fore site to blend those elements. What LEADERS 1354 as a company stays constantly in search of every slice of vibrant life that exists in
ERS 1354 is a barbershop in a sense. Away from the barbershop.”
Just how sagging jeans signifies a certain “gangster” lifestyle,” streetwear signifies a different type of “gangster.” Streetwear is seen as a lifestyle that consists of hip/hop, art, parties, doing big things for yourself, fitted jeans, fitted hats, fitted tees and a fresh new pair of kicks. My question is, has streetwear been commodified and is streetwear more acceptable in cities because it seems to be an “upgrade” from Americans original understanding of what a “gangster” lifestyle is? Has streetwear become extremely popular in cities because it doesn’t consist of baggy jeans and is not attached to this dangerous and threatening persona? Has streetwear culture and fashion become a place of self-representation? Where people of all races can fit in and feel comfortable in?
This is rich blog posting. It connects to many of the themes in Orbe & Watts, the commodification of "black urban" identity...even black bodies -- as tellingly indicated by the presumably white woman holding the t-shirt "I love black guys." One of the interesting issues you raise that we will talk about more on Tuesday is the notion of authenticity as key to making a racialized identity commodifiable. What is particularly interesting to me about this post is does it matter who is doing the commodifying -- white Budweiser execs vs. black clothing designers?
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting posting on how another "black" clothing style is commodified. When we talk about baggy jeans and streetwear, we can also have a picture of hip-hoppers and skateboarders in our mind. I'm wondering if we can possibly consider some "black cultures" are commodified in a package. Would baggy jeans or streetwear be popular if hip-hop is not widely commodified by non-black people? Or the vice versa?
ReplyDeleteI think maybe not to the extent it is now honestly. I think that the fact that streetwear is so commonly used by people of many cultures, backgrounds and just different types of people in general makes it that much more popular. I think that because streetwear can be such a versatile style of clothing that can be applied to more than one group it can be that much more of a commodity.
ReplyDeleteThe point Priscilla raises really takes the understanding of commodification (as an action) to a new level. Is commodification a process of different targets? Could streetwear and baggypants be commodified without the spread of the hip-hop movement? My understanding and interpretation is that streetwear and baggy pants represent the commodification of hip-hop culture as a whole. Thus, it is not a process but rather one entire entity. The grassroots of hip-hop was a small urban movement with people expressing their individuality, including their clothing. In order to fully commodify hip-hop you have to sell not only the liftstyle but "the look." Indeed, commodification is a layered endeavor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points all of the other comments make. I also think this is really interesting from the perspective of someone who works in retail. I work at the Urban Outfitters on Green Street and I definitely see the commodification of not only street style but many other subcultures to present an "urban" appeal that's geared towards our age demographic.
ReplyDeleteAudrey commented "Could streetwear and baggypants be commodified without the spread of the hip-hop movement?" and I think the answer to that is yes. And I think that that has parallels to a lot of the other cultures being commodified in our society and the components that make it up. When things become main streamed only bits and pieces are represented and visible. While we do occasionally play hip hop music at Urban, it's very mainstreamed hip hop and it's almost done in an 'ironic' sense.
The line “stay ahead of curve” in poxiejunior’s post caught my eye. It makes me wonder about the intentions of such clothing designers, or producers of any cultural commodity. Are they intentionally trying to market their product to a niche (outside the mainstream)? Or, as producers in the marketplace, are they trying to attain the biggest appeal for their buck? In terms of streetwear, it does seem like this genre of fashion is more “acceptable” than that of “baggy pants,” likely because it is more mainstream and is hybridized and less stigmatized to notions of danger or street life. I think any fashion, or means of expressing one’s identity, is a medium of self-representation. Even though we may take the idea for granted, the clothes we wear, and more generally how we look overall on a given day, says a lot about who we are (although, perception of identity is a polysemic and unstable concept).
ReplyDeleteThe Joseph article raised an interesting idea, that of cultural citizenship (defined as “the struggle for recognition, legitimacy, and cultural capital”) being a performative process, as well as a space in which “cultural citizens” (may) struggle to participate. Cultural legitimacy speaks to politics of representation. One could look at fashion in terms of cultural citizenship. If a person’s fashion sense isn’t legitimated/appropriated/positively recognized, he/she will struggle to be considered “normal” or valued. Think about it in the context of a job interview. If someone walks in wearing baggy pants (because that better represents him/herself more so than does the suit on the next candidate), they are immediately marked as “inferior/not qualified/not worthy.” Politics of representation sets up codes in sociocultural behavior which are them normalized and expected; “proper” attire for a job interview is an example. This makes me think of the too-common saying “don’t judge a book by its cover.” Even if the candidate wearing baggy pants or streetwear is more qualified than the other candidate, he/she would likely be thrown right out of the ball game merely due to appearance. I could go on about the hyper-obsession our culture has with image here, but I will resist. Regardless, how do such codes of what is “normal” become normalized? Why does “difference” have a tendency to be tagged with inferiority?
I agree with Neyshalee’s idea that streetwear is commonly used by people of many cultures and backgrounds. It’s different types of people in general that make it so popular. So from my point of view, the streetweear and baggypants are definitely not commodified by only one single culture, race, or social group. Instead, they may be co-commodified by several cognitive categories.
ReplyDeleteHowever, sometimes I feel it ambiguous to tell who is commodifying the difference. An example that comes to my mind is tanning v.s. whitening. As has been observed in nowadays culture, it’s common to see people who have lighter skin colors are trying to get tanned while people who have darker skin colors are trying to put on whitening cream on themselves. In this sense, it’s hard to tell which group owns the “otherness” and needs to be commodified.
People always tend to think that “black” identity or “black” bodies are the ones that should be commodified. I guess this is just because that whiteness is still the dominant and powerful trait in our modern society.
" Has street-wear become extremely popular in cities because it doesn’t consist of baggy jeans and is not attached to this dangerous and threatening persona?"To Answer your question yes and know. I believe it is all about appealing to the individual consumer. A person may buy street-wear with the intentions of being perceived as a hip-hop gangster or a person could buy it with the intentions of being perceived as a skate boarder with no gangster affiliation. I believe it is all about self representation at the end of the day and people will purchase whatever they feel best expresses them.So street-wear may not be about baggy jeans but it still is apart of black identity in which other races choose be apart of despite negative undertones that may or may not be attached. So yes street-wear is popular because it is not solely attached to gangster appeal but nevertheless it still incorporates backwards hats big logos and saggy pants their just happen to be skinny jeans.
ReplyDeleteI believe materialistic things are commodified by the culture they come from. Once it's exposed to others in a way style they take upon to commercialize it to approach society. When other culture see the style they try it out to see how other people will see it. Before you know it the wear is out there to take care of style for the year. Clothing wear isn't culture it's the way you perceive the culture.
ReplyDeleteAs many of you may already know, things like baggy jeans did not signify the same things they signify now. Baggy jeans for example was a mark of homosexuality in prison culture and this culture later transferred to the streets where the signifier became 'tough' and 'gangster' as it related to prison experience without the added stigma of homosexuality. Cultural citizenship is a bit slippery.Blacks who are a part of street culture might not see street clothes as a signifier of violence however someone completely outside of the culture say, upper class whites might see street clothes as a signifier of blackness and because of their skewed perception of 'blackness' they might associate blackness with violence and thus then it is possible to associate violence/gangster mentalities with street clothes because street clothes are associated with blacks who are associated with violence.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that street-wear has become commodified because it is a more acceptable form of fashion. American’s like the imagery of being put together and clean cut which street-wear fits into moreso than the baggy jean fashion. I agree that street-wear has become a place where everyone can fit into it and represent themselves individually. However, I feel that the “street-wear” culture has been stereotyped and those who participate in it symbolize a single represented image just like individuals that wear saggy jeans project a particular image. Granted the street-wear fashion is diverse and individuals customize their look to what they like best, it doesn’t remove the fact that it is street-wear. For example, crayons in a coloring box come in different individual colors but when people view them they are still viewed as crayons. So I disagree that street-wear is a method of self-representation because viewers still categorize that individual when observing them.
ReplyDeleteI bet this "Streetwear" brand is expensive. REALLY expensive. I dare to say unaffordable for the typical consumer outside of the "hip Northside neighborhood of Wicker Park" or downtown Chicago. Maybe it is more "comfortable" to go to a club with paid membership than one with unlimited access to just any good for nothing hooligan. MEANING; if I wear a brand that signifies I paid a lot of money, and I see another individual doing the same, then we BOTH know that we BOTH had the money, often translating into social standing, to wear this cool gangster stuff. Moving this commodified style (baggy jeans, flashy sewn brand badges) into a CLASSIER (more expensive) realm makes it more INCLUSIVE to richer demographics, because it's less intimidating and more EXCLUSIVE to the poorer demographics from which the original stlye hails.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very classic breaking-of-the-band story. The slightly more ethnically-ambiguous, tentatively reminiscent guitarist ends up leaving the rest of the edgier, more controversial group to make a hit single after bleaching the tips of his hair a faint blonde.
All of the responses are carefully thought out. However, I really must agree with Audrey's interpretation of the concepts of authenticity in "Streetwear" and the method in which this cultural form is commodified. Also, I agree with Kortney when she states that "Streetwear" is a self-representation. Overall, the main factor and who matters here is the dominant discourses of Streetwear which continues to attach stereotypes to clothing. Clothing is a symbol of visible representation. It does not only represent who you are as far as your character goes. Clothing goes even deeper to who you are ethically, religiously, and of course culturally. A great example of this, I would say, is the hijab. The hijab is traditionally worn as a head covering worn by Muslim women. If I, as an African-American, Christian woman, chose to wear the hijab I would be considered a Muslim woman. This is the stereotype and the language typically associated with this clothing style. Language and stereotypes go hand in hand when making and constructing categories to place people in. Power and economical status is a determining factor as to which apparel is appropriated as something that is a part of mainstream discourses and ideologies if this makes sense at all lol. It is through language that we use to communicate with others of various nationality and ethnicity in which these stereotypes are made. If we continue to associate our selves with this language, therefore, it appears unavoidable, we are continuing, unknowingly the same aspects of commodification as we attach these stereotypes/identification factors to attire and fashion trends as well.
ReplyDelete