I am a planner, thus I plan my outfits weeks, and even months in advance. I thought it may be cute and on the nose to thrift something from the Dolce & Gabbana S/S 2003 "Sex and Love" collection to wear for my student organization's adult content panel. (Truthfully, I was coming up with an excuse to thrift a pair of heels I've wanted for years.) I was struck with the fact the resale value of the iconic "sex" choker (more on that later) and and the fabulous heeled sandals have gone up nearly ten-fold. I so deeply regret not buying the pair in a size 36 on Mercari for $190. Shoe sizes are merely a suggestion.
Even more interestingly, much of this collection has been purchased by rental agencies to rent out with tags that read something like "do not try to buy part of rental collection only." Taglines like that really challenge how I feel about the democratization of fashion, especially when the rental fee is "upon request."
In my search for these shoes or necklace for a reasonable price given their quality and materials, I came across the 2017 article where Dolce and Gabbana admitted they copied Vivienne Westwood's 1989 choker, famously worn by Pamela Anderson on the cover of Playboy in 2016; thirteen years after the copy.
And suddenly, I'm looking at Pamela Anderson in Playboy Magazine wondering about Intellectual Property. How many people assumed this was the same D&G choker famously worn by Gisele Bundchen on the 2003 runway? PageSix even misidentified the necklace.
What would a reasonably prudent person think about the identity of the original designer of the necklace? Would this create a spike in searches for Dolce & Gabbana, even though the necklace worn in the Playboy shoot is a rare, archival Vivienne Westwood piece directly referencing her original "sex" line? (I tried to get the search history on Google Trends and it turned up nothing which I found odd. I wonder if "sex" triggered it.) If Vivienne Westwood wanted to, could they have pursued legal action? And the better question that maybe I'll seek to answer is should they?
The fonts are so identical consumers mix the up. The logo tags are in the back where hair covers. Notably, the Vivienne Westwood version came in multiple colors including silver and iridescent and was even rereleased in A/W 2024 and in World's End the following season. I go so back and forth with myself on beyond the obvious visual similarities, are they same the product? Is Dolce and Gabbana really replacing Vivienne Westwood's place in luxury? If I look at it that way, the answer is no. Dolce & Gabbana is so Kardashian and Vivienne Westwood is so Nana by Ai Yazawa. Brand association places these brands so far apart from each other except when it comes to being a little bit scandalous and sexy.
Dolce & Gabbana embodies the loudness of Italian Luxury from its gaudy gold tones, massive logo, and beautiful and busy prints that remind me of plates. It doesn't shy away from allure with collections like the one aforementioned and plenty of ready-to-wear, barely-there lingerie. Vivienne Westwood is known as punk. I'm not here to talk about what is or isn't punk. Her tartan plaid, edgy shoes, plenty of leather and vegan leather to choose from, and that iconic orb all fit an aesthetic only her name can be attested to. On the other hand, they don't live in bubbles that never interact. Most fashion collectors, myself included, have pieces of both. However, outside of the necklace and a much more luxurious fine jewelry collection, how known for jewelry is Dolce and Gabbana anyway; especially when compared to Vivienne Westwood? I think that's probably a question best answered in analysis I promised to keep off of this blog.
I think both necklaces communicate similar messages, even if market placement differs. There's a shock value to putting "sex" on a necklace and putting it on the sexiest people on Earth in such a puritan society. Sex literally sells here. The resale value of both versions is over $2,000. It's a perfect commodification of the word "sex."
One comes from its archive, before it was an archive, and the other as a piece of 2000s history next to Victoria's Secret, chunky blonde highlights, and The Simple Life. Sex on a necklace was so sought after it was copied and made only available to the wealthy and for the rest of us to gawk at on social media feeds forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment