The Donald Trump influence on Fashion and Masculinity will be felt in the fashion industry. Professionals should not underestimate the influence of a President’s outlook on style. John F. Kennedy’s inauguration, the President went hatless on a cold January day, that styling decision placed a once accessory staple to the back of the men’s closet for a generation. Men dropped the headwear. Of course, his First Lady who needs no introduction, Jackie, is a timeless fashion icon.
This election could mark an unexpected shift in many ways. People turned away from mass media for opinions. Mainstream channels took a credibility hit. Not only did they get it wrong by a September Issue Size Vogue issue, television commentators could not hide the disbelief on live television. The fashion press misread voter sentiments, publications placed a bet on the wrong horse, then lost. What does that say about their insight? No amount of deflection or no comments can cover up the scale of this pubic misread. After putting Kamala Harris on numerous covers, no one expects Head Editor in charge Anna Wintour to have a public make up phone call to Melania Trump.
Elle
Creative directors will need a rethink over the next months and years. Since the term “gender” became a political toxin, consumers may move away from gender free fashion, out of style. Sure, the houses can produce it. Who will buy the collections outside of four stores in NYC and SF? The marketing and messaging will take a different course. Companies are ditching DEI initiatives faster than a Shein can copy a runway look. Bottom line decisions trump social movements in boardrooms. The 47th Unites States leader’s 75 million voters are too big a market to ignore.
There could be a silver lining, style hope. Brands could become counter reactionary, more underground. The Gap was born in the counter culture of San Francisco. The Mini Skirt shock off the feminine rigidity of the fifties.
The 47th head of the United States will leave an imprint on the way we dress, like or not.
Author Colin McDowell cynical take on the fashion world in his 1994 book The Designer Scam coined a phrase “Display Artists” for those who show up at events to parade around, get pictures eager being a part of the “best” crowd. Today they are called “Influencers”, people who influence others posting on social media. Others display their recent buys in shopping hauls. How can we not notice the neatly lined bags behind content creators on YouTube. These video Display Artists must show the world they can afford the big brands.
The Fake It Till You Make You culture took a hit on Wednesday. The Chinese fashion platform Pandabuy got raided by police. The popular app is known for selling clothing at low prices. The open secret, many fake luxury goods purchased find their way to global influencers. TikTok accounts littered with newly purchased designer labels displayed with so much glee, even Ryan Gosling would need sunglasses. Never mind the source of the clothing. That questionable Dior bag sales for $176 dollars. Why pay 1500 dollars for the real thing? Sixty dollars for a pair of Valentino Sneakers is a steal, no questions asked.
Talking to a professional colleague about the Pandabuy story, this reflects the modern zeitgeist. External validation not with a brand, but with an imitation. Striving for likes and clicks, openly flaunting faketry has no shame.
Recently, while attending some fashion press events, I noticed many Gen Z and Millennials attendees with emblazoned monograms on jackets, shirts and bags. Wondering how so many could afford wearing thousands of dollars on their back, questions answered. The e-commerce site understands its customers. Pandabuy targets young digital content creators who pitch what to buy.
Shutting down one fake site, “with demand comes sellers.”
She was wearing designer clothes, jetting around the globe to one event after another, posting hundreds of images of the perfect family in endless settings. This was the life for the Princess of Instagram, Chiara Ferragani. Her 30 million followers saw every aspect of her social media existence. The former Italian blogger and model had a reality show based around her life with husband Fedez and two children.
Advertisers paid up to 100.000 euros for a posting on her account. Ferragani’s glamorous life hit a brick wall with an apology viewed around the world posted in an IG video. Prime Minister Meloni weighed in on the scandal saying, “The real models to follow are not the influencers who make a lot of money by wearing clothes and showing bags … or even promoting expensive cakes that make people believe they are charitable,.” OUCH!
The Cake
Chiara’s company and Italian cake maker Balacco were fined 1.1 million euros and 480.000 euros respectively for deceiving the public. Authorities in Rome uncovered the Children’s Charity donation was fraudulent. 50.000 euros went to the hospital, while the Chiara pocketed over 1 million euros. Claiming “a communication error”, the influencer sporting a cashmere top vowed to make it right while at the same time crying her unfair treatment.
Billy McFarland and Fyre Festival, Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos, Sam Bankman Fried and FTX, now Chaira Ferragani all have many behavioral patterns in common. This group lived larger than life lives in the spotlight, an incredible sense of entitlement with unmatched compartmentalization skills not wanting to understand the consequences of their actions. The Italian IT Girl’s new multi million euro Lake Como Home has been pinned to the top of her Instagram feed.
Fraud pays, was this 36 year old’s first questionable charity project? According to media outlets, there are swirling questions around similar charitable collaborations from 2021.
Having been featured in Forbes and Fortune magazines, the “Girlboss” term applied to Chiara, a business woman in charge. There is a class at Harvard teaching her style of branding. Perhaps these gatekeepers should have looked a bit deeper than beyond a filtered image. Eyewear brand Safilo cancelled her contract due to moral lapses. You think!
For influencers, the lure of the spotlight is too hard to resist. Who imagines Mrs. Ferragani going away quietly?
Fame is a cheap commodity in the social media world. The lust for for followers has corroded the lines of behavior. Chasing likes is a pluto treasure hunt in the digital world.
Director, actor and producer Hugo Becker shows the self-destructive side of bargain basement celebrity with his Oscar qualifying short film MUKBANGER.
A Black and Paper interview with Hugo Becker.
Why do you think people are obsessed and willing to be mocked and to risk life and death for Social Media celebrity or fame?
I do not believe this starts like that, from one day to the other. It is a long and sad process. What I try to demonstrate in the movie is that it usually starts in a very genuine and naive approach. People who end up making these type of videos had no clue they would end up doing this when they were starting doing videos as teenagers. That is why it is much more dangerous than we think. It is not only for other people, some very balanced individuals sometimes fall into this downward spiral. It is the same type of addiction and vicious circle you find in drugs or porn. And I am not only talking about the creators, but also the viewers.
Is Mukbanger a class or socio-economic issue commentary?
Money is part of the issue, for sure, for some people. But not the main reason. Love and attention are. Otherwise they would do something else I think, because there are many bad ways to make easy money. The real reasons of people getting involved in MUKBANG are I believe the quest of recognition at all costs, the loneliness, the lack of love and existential issues.
And of course the social networks and some algorithms, because let’s face it, they provoke and accelerate this downward spiral. Because they push you more and more in the same environment, leaving you in a kind of mental cage. In which the definition of success is to be viewed, to be followed. To exist. As much as possible. No matter the cost. When success actually should be about achieving something that makes sense, about helping people around you, about fighting for your ideas, trying to improve the world around you.
France is a country and culture renowned for cuisine, you are a Frenchman, in the movie those images are poles apart. Please explain?
Well, there is art cuisine and Food porn. These are two very different things. I did a series called Chefs as an actor, and we were lucky enough to be taught by great French Chefs like David Toutain, and Thierry Marx. Thanks to them, I learned that art cuisine is about creating something beautiful, supposed to make you feel good, to enlighten your day, to make you travel in your head, while learning a whole new taste universe that you might not know.
The other, Mukbang, is not about food really, it is about putting your physical health in danger with random and bad products, in a huge and absurd quantity, it is about damaging yourself, your body and in the long run your mental health. And that is what probably fascinates and/or reassures people watching. Not about the food they eat in reality. The first time I learned about Mukbang, and watched a documentary about it, I did not eat for two days. Not only because of the food, but because I could not believe it was a real phenomenon watched by millions of people. And when I realized it was actually real, and not science-fiction, I was terrified that we already got to that point… As if the tv show in the movie Requiem for a dream was actually really broadcasted on Fox.
There is a slippery slope of good guy/bad guy in the film, explain.
My intention was clearly not to point out one person responsible for the whole thing. But on the opposite, I strongly believe that all of them share a responsibility at their level. Like we all do on many subjects. Of course, everyone in its own way, and at a different level of responsibility. But is Mika naive and innocent? No. Is his manager protecting him like he should? No. Is the broadcaster supposed to let them do this? Probably not. Are people supposed to watch things like that and encourage the creation of such videos ? Clearly not. Can the family have a good and or bad influence over it? Yes, but sometimes we unfortunately do not even realize how our reactions, and choices can affect and have consequences for other people around us. So, question is, once we know, what do we do about it? What is the limit?
What was the cinematography influence?
So many geniuses. So many people I admire. Complicated to say. Of course, I am an unconditional fan of Stanley Kubrick, Paul Thomas Anderson, Milos Forman, Agnès Varda, Darren Aronofsky, Joachim Trier… I have always been impressed of the way they manage to put you in the shoes of the character so that you feel like him and you understand his weirdest behavior without explanations.
For that film, Mukbanger, I wanted the audience to feel trapped inside, like him. Looking for a way out, trying to escape. That is why I used this format 4:3, and I made these frame choices of Mika literally eating the frame. In the meantime, it had to be moving and interacting all the time so you never get a chance to stop and think, like him, you just go on, because you want see further, you want to know how it ends, you are addicted.
I also somehow wanted the audience at the end of the film to understand that they actually are in the position of the viewers, the “voyeurs”, and to understand how addictive this can be for anyone. And thus why we have to be extremely careful, especially for the younger generation. Because this addiction is part of us… you want more ? Well, this is human nature, most of us if not all of us do unfortunately. All right then, but therefore it is urgent that we help people focus on the interesting, on the beautiful, on the things that are greater than us. Talk about ideas, about how to improve things, and not waste time watching people wasting their own life Mukbanging.
To me, this phenomenon is like an alarm, it is really the metaphor of human nature over-consuming and choosing the wrong path. This movie is a small attempt to stop it.
The coveted Blue Check Mark, a sign of a certain social media status, membership into an elite club of verification. Platforms dangled these haute emblems to commoners, an aspirational symbol of digital legitimacy. Recently I started getting message on my Instagram account asking me to verify my account. I stopped posting on IG in 2017, at best I irregularly use Stories and have never posted a Reel. The message was a bit odd. For 16 euros a month, I could get verified, no longer a “A Digital No Person”, suddenly a somebody with my eight hundred or so followers. It is no secret Meta has suffered from a tough economy and some heavy VR investment losses. But to cheapen their most valued commodity to raise fast money is a peculiar plan.
Elon Musk’s Twitter started the cash for easier verification trend. The world’s second richest man overpriced buyout of the text based site came at high price with a low cash flow cupboard. Zuckerberg’s picture sharing site soon followed suite playing on its 2.3 billions monthly users hunger for esteem in the InstaFame galaxy. It asks the question, if person only to pay for for the Blue Check, then perhaps it is not so valuable after all.
Fronting: Acting like you are more, or you have more, than what really exists.
Fake: is a word to describe people who aren’t themselves in order to gain friends and end up being more popular. They seem very nice to everyone, yet trash-talks them behind their back in order to get attention from people and make “friends” just to improve their social-status.
Shameless display of wealth entered a new dimension with the advent of social media, especially with Instagram. A post is not just a post, a picture is a digital brand. Fronting the fabulous life gives cred to the IG generation, living the Kardashian life. The economic reality behind the filtered smile, a lack of cash to sustain the image. Shopping, shopping, shopping for a designer bag, the latest sneaker, that brilliant fuchsia piece takes money. Bill Gates is now divorced, available, but the tech mogul does not want a clothes horse on his arm.
A TikTok post from a luxury retailer sales person revealed the hard truth. Fronting is mainstream and has reached the top. According to the sales person, people buy items, post them, then return the clothes to the store. Is this behavior new? NO! The past few years, there have been stories about “Instagram Returns”. Customers buy, wear, post, take back to the store. A generation go wearing something then brazenly returning was considered low to no class. In the 21st century, embarrassment is an outdated concept. Attention seeking knows no bounds.
One Saks Fifth Avenue shopper complained the high-end clothing mecca feels more like a thrift store, with many pieces on the store shelf looking worn.
An excerpt from Before Tacky Podcast the team spoke about Instagram’s affect on fast fashion. Trying to live the large life while caring about sustainable fashion is a contradiction for the social media set.
I had a rather funny yet poignant conversion about how the world works today. Fake It Until You Make It is the modern lifestyle concept Impostor. Yet with this concept comes another term, “Impostor”. Those who can cover their skin with a piece of Fabulousness that gets them in the right place being around the right people wearing the right (usually borrowed) clothes to attract attention. To the untrained eye these Anna Delvey wannabees in waiting will pounce on any unsuspecting victim.
At an event in Berlin, one such Impostor reared the head. To some attendees the fake designer belt worn with a colorful statement jacket caught some interest. A peacock gets attention by displaying plumage. As the event continued to the evening my friend told me the background of this particular bird. A different cheap jacket for a different event is all it takes. The German Capital is not known for its high fashion trend spotting. A polyester blend menswear piece is all it takes to get noticed.
Quote from the Netflix Series
My blue jeans had more value than Mr. Attention Seeker’s entire outfit but my denim lacked the bling. You see, certain backgrounds in German need to fit in a box, this includes dressing. A Person of Color must have flair to reinforce the categorization. Stereotypes don’t fall so easily. Amazingly, the Impostor had longer and more conversations than the serious attendees, myself included.
Cotton Candy is a decorative sweet but not a meal. My photographer colleague related to me the story of Disco Super group Sister Sledge being in Berlin for a performance. The ladies were not GLAM GLAM upped enough to get noticed compared to the flaunting German Celebs. Only after the platinum selling trio hit the stage did the photographers and press realise their oversight. Luckily for my friend, he was the only picture taker who got Red Carpet photos of the singing trio. The advice he gave me, “You are Sister Sledge” to people. “Dressing in jeans and t-shirts is functional, not attention getting.” SNAP!
Should I become more of an Impostor? Dress extravagantly? Do I need to change to a flashy Instagram account to get more likes? Those are the questions.
Has the influencer trend come to an end? Not sure, but change is taking place. Influencer marketing earned 1 billion in 2017 but the shine is beginning to tarnish. Marketing survey firm Bazaarvoice released findings concluding consumers are growing tired of staged posts by paid influencers. Many of the surveyed responded the quality of the postingsare turn offs, repetitive posts lacking originality.
Asked, 63 percent felt influence content has become too “materialistic” and “misrepresentsreal life.” Thereis a feeling authenticity has been lost. As well, 49 percentfeel there is a need for tighter regulation of online posts.
Authorities on both side of the Atlantic have now started scrutinizing the influencer field. The United States Government Agency, The Federal Trade Commission has issued issued warning letters concerning paid posts without proper disclosing. no enforcement has been enacted, yet.European Agencies agencies have actively notifiedinfluencers to delete undisclosed post. Many have lostcourt cases
Recently Dior made a social media splash by seeding the brand’s Saddle Bag to fashion influencers.
Dior Saddle Bag Social Media Success but at What Price
The stunt felt cheap. Don’t get me wrong. Iam a fan of the brand. Creative Director Maria GraziaChiuriwon me over after the second collection. Openly giving away a $2000 bag on Instagram then expecting everyone else to pay, TACKY for a prestige fashion brand.
This is Social Media Pandering. Influencers who got the “freebie” did not even try to make good images of gift. Pictures posing with the “trendy item of the season” were laughable, others cringeworthy. To add insult, lacking originality or fashion knowledge, there were plentiful but standard Junior High School Newspaper captions: “So happy to have gottenmy Dior SaddleBag”, “Love mySaddleBag”. An aspirational accessory felt like a retread jacket from H&M. Ihope “Fashion Degradation” does not go lower.
Social Media stars have becomenew celebrities, but if you ask what is their talent or appeal, the answer raises more questions: How does an app filter make astar? How does an app filter make an expert? Ithink we are still lost but going with the flow.