- Considerations of "Modern life"
- Creative writing
- Joie de vivre
- New York City
- The law
I can barely articulate it, but it is hardly just. When I was drafting my personal statement for law school, I basically spent months thinking about my shallow/hollow ideals of protecting creativity in fashion. But the more I thought about it and tried to make it relevant to myself, the more I find it to be diametrically opposed to …well, a number of other things and mostly just frivolous and hypocritical.
So-called “tribal” prints have been all the rage for the longest and obviously it would not be the most feasible to make it illegal to appropriate these prints. But if, and let’s face it, it is the point of intellectual property to protect the profit of said property, then isn’t the fashion industry just guilty of what they’re fighting? Let’s take a look at this choice quote: “We had wanted to do a fabric PS1 for a while, but hadn’t found anything we wanted to use,” said Lazaro Fernandez, of Proenza Schouler. “Then this project came along, and it was perfect.” BOOM, who did the work of the design in this case. I get it, you designed the structure and therefore is just borrowing a pattern that so happens to be associated with a group of people. Can I design a bag and borrow a pattern that so happens to be associated with a group – namely something like Louis Vuitton and Gucci, and still call it JAEZ? NO.
It is all about money, let’s be real. The protection is hardly ever going to benefit the up and coming designers it is supposed to help. Why? It’s about profit, not creativity. The fashion industry is a business, not unlike any other businesses. It’s apparent in the politics of trends, fashion editors, buyers and how the actual fashion is then filtered out to the public. It is apparent, moreover, in all the shitty shitty diffusion lines even if they are clever little business tactics.