While the rhythm of life is becoming more unstable, modern fashion rushes along with it from one extreme to another. Style begins to be determined by such a set of factors that it becomes impossible to predict what awaits us in the near future. Today's catwalks and their creators rush in search of fleeting trends that can inspire them to new discoveries in style. At the same time, fashionable attitudes that have not been at their peak for long are thrown aside, where they mix with mass culture, boredom and die alone in the dustbin of last year's trends. The craving for utilitarianism is a logical reaction of fashion recipients to an unstable situation. Normcore and others like it are just the most striking manifestations of a trend, for the emergence of which it is enough only to occasionally watch the Tumblr feed. But no matter how strong the desire of the creators to tear fashion away from its roots, there is one area of life that has had a decisive influence on fashion and style for thirty years.
In the 60s and 70s of the last century, fashion was the lot of a very, very small layer of people. Clothing was created to show luxury and wealth, and all aesthetics were dictated from top to bottom. All this led to a powerful protest movement, which in particular manifested itself in the punk revolution in the UK of the 1970s and the creation of a special fashion that did not imitate the clothes of the rich and famous.
Through the work of figures such as Vivienne Westwood, Malcolm McLaren and Zandra Rhodes, the well-dressed world realized for the first time that clothing could be a way of protest. Pins, ripped jeans and other punk attributes migrated from the slums to the catwalks and remain there to this day. Something similar happened in the 1990s, when the fan movement and groups such as Oasis and The Stone Roses created a trend called "terrase casual", which bizarrely mixed sportswear and traditional work items like parkas and jackets. -harrington.
All this is the result of the influence of the bottom on the top, the working culture on the world of high fashion, and this process continues to this day. From patchwork jewelery from Junya Watanabe to glam rock experimentation from Saint Laurent, designers rely on a proven set of looks dating back to the Sex Pistols.
Thus, the economic hardships of the late twentieth century and unrest in the proletarian environment forever changed the world of fashion, making it a strange cocktail of luxury and original simplicity.
But don't look for real social implications in this quest for inspiration. Considering how many punks and skinheads have appeared on the streets in recent years, this should be seen as a rather firmly established fashion with clear rules of conduct. Not everyone who wears a bomber jacket shares the Nazi views, just like not every Mohawk belongs to an ideological punk.
At the same time, there is a much more subtle kind of cultural appropriation, which is less dependent on subcultural affiliation, but retains the stylistic authenticity of the original source. Expensive tracksuits, retro sneakers, nostalgia for the 90s - this is perhaps the greatest unconscious nostalgia for working-class culture in history.
For decades, the blending of high fashion brands such as MOSCHINO, Armani and Versace with casual sportswear from Nike, Reebok, Fred Perry and Champion has been seen in many parts of the world, including hip-hop culture. The culture of the British Chavs brought this eclecticism to its peak, creating a recognizable image that even domestic designers like Gosha Rubchinsky use.
The culture of the living quarters creates fashion and no one can deny it. The recent story with the Burberry brand showed the inconsistency of the concept of producing clothes for the rich - no one wanted to wear such clothes that screamed about social status with their whole appearance, while most of the country's population was in an unenviable financial situation. In the end, the new designers managed to bring the brand out of the crisis, but it became very indicative of the rest of the famous brands.
Almost every major fashion house has expanded production of its own line of sneakers (many of which are completely replicas of the entry-level mass-market brands), which means that the fashion went on the wake of the working class. Unique processes can be seen even in classic men's fashion, where Air Jordan sneakers have become normal with a classic suit.
But what led to this change? Why is fashion bottom-up oriented? On the one hand, there is always an element of authenticity in a work culture that fashion trends lack. What came straight from the street always seems more sincere than what has matured in the minds of educated fashion designers. Yet underneath it all lies something more sinister, with much deeper cultural connotations. If earlier mass fashion was a dressing up of a poor person in the clothes of a rich person, today everything is exactly the opposite.
In reality, the explosion of street culture in high fashion is a kind of flirtation of the rich with simplicity and cheapness. The fashion industry does not strive for cheapness, but simply takes shape, filling it with new content. So, an ordinary cap from a well-known designer can cost fabulous money, but it leaves it possible for knowledgeable people to read the fact that this piece of clothing, although it looks simple, is not really that way. The rejection of external pretentiousness did not indicate the rejection of unique consumption, but encrypted it among the mass style templates. Thanks to the blessing of fashion, an expensive wool coat paired with a three-piece suit and a pair of running shoes can finally be considered stylish.
Of course, we've only touched on a small part of the overall fashion landscape, and it would be ludicrous to assume that the fashion industry will just sit and wait for the working class to come up with ideas that can be scouted, stolen, and appropriated. This scheme no longer works after anyone can create a style, and the distance between the people and the creator has been reduced to a couple of clicks.
