Hazel Friedman
Today’s trendoids no longer wear their hearts on their sleeves. They’d prefer to sport a logo or two: on their sleeves, around their wrists, even on their jocks.
Once upon a time a name was like a coat of arms – an emblem of exclusivity. But no longer is the logo the obligatory accoutrement of the rich, famous and envied. Exclusivity is now within the reach of consumers with middle-class means and wealthy dreams.
But the lure of the logo is not specific to the 1990s. It is a relic of the 1980s – the era of crass ostentation and shiny excess. In the early years of the more nervous Nineties – a gentler , more thoughtful era – the label was relegated to the realm of nostalgia or cheap knock-off.
But where there’s a will to wear, there’s always a way. And heading the revival of the logo are Prada, Chanel and Nike. In various ways these logocentric multinationals have effectively tapped into the most primitive of all consumer pathologies — the desire to be branded – by clever manipulation of their existing logos. Miuccia Prada, for example, realised that her company’s triangle logo was so hot that everyone was faking it. The answer was to add the company name, subtly stamped or etched to the accessories. Karl Lagerfeldt also understands that variations on the prototype can do wonders for sales. Hence in the Eighties he transformed Chanel’s double Cs into fashion statements in the form of quilted leather and gilt chains. And in the Nineties he has injected an industry that normally takes itself oh-so- seriously, with a touch of irony. Chanel prices are more inflated than ever but its logo also appears on the most basic of fashion necessities, like T-Shirts and knickers.
These days, wearing Nike sportswear is as cool and hip as haute couture. Mind you, wearing both simultaneously has got to be the hippest thing of all — projecting affluence and attitude. In short, the logo helps to perpetuate the perception that you are what you wear. And if perception is reality – as contemporary marketing and fashion lore would have us believe – with a powerful enough logo identity, the consumer can operate on many different levels.
Monograms mean power and logos mean lifestyle. And whether its the Nike generation, or the CK clan, the Nineties answer to the question “What’s in a name?” is, simply, “Everything!”