That’s Fashion, Sweetie: My Birkin, not yours
Our generation is filled with #materialgworl, being raised especially to take care of goods that have a lot of value to them, whether the value is monetary or sentimental. As a result, I — a #materialgworl myself — was terrified to damage anything that was “rich” or “expensive.”
This fear is a universal experience, especially in the world of luxury. When we can afford things that were once out of budget, we want the magic of its pristine condition to be immortal.
People will spend $800 on Christian Louboutin red bottom heels to have them sit in the closet or save up $200 for a Byredo perfume to only display the bottle. And, some will find comfort in keeping their $20,000 red Kelly Hermes bag safe in their closet shelf.
I see this fear, albeit understandable, as the beginning of the separation between art and fashion. While, arguably, anything can be constituted as art because art itself is subjective, art does not have to only be one thing — it can be functional, wearable or even life-saving. But when an item is traditionally categorized within fashion but isn’t actively used, it becomes an object and an object only.
Still, on an opposite end of the spectrum, buyers will truly aim to “get their money’s worth.” Sticking to the classic Birkin and Kelly from Hermes, two great examples are Jane Birkin and Mary-Kate Olsen.
Birkin, a British actress, was actually the muse for the iconic bag. After dropping her Hermes diary and telling the then-chief executive, Jean-Louise Dumas that she would give up her signature bag if Hermes designed a large and practical bag with pockets, Dumas sketched the design with Birkin on an airplane sickness bag. Keeping true to her word, she donned the bag wherever she went, stuffing it to the point many would deem “disgraceful” today.
Similarly, Olsen milked her beloved Kelly for every penny’s worth. Even showing up in Vogue’s article, “Relax — Take Pride in Your Beat-Up Bags,” and another article based on her bag alone, titled “Mary-Kate Olsen Is Onto Something With Her Beaten-Up Handbags,” the Olsen twin was famous for using her bag until its very last straw, often with the leather fading, the hardware scratched and the flap hanging open.
Of course, there are other consumers who believe in escalating the value of their items through personalization. One company that famously offers services of personalization is Louis Vuitton. While the brand itself doesn’t shy away from major influences in the art world such as Takashi Murakami and Yayoi Kusama, there is a team of “artisans” within the house whose sole job is to paint illustrations or monograms on bags and luggage.
Another example is Heart Evangelista, a Filipina actress, food-chain heiress and socialite, who began painting on her Birkin bags after spilling some cheese fries on her orange, lizard-skin bag. Since then, she has continued to paint on and customize her Hermes bags and other items in her closet.
While each decision — the extent of usage with the bag and whether or not personalization is added — changes with each consumer, it brings into question if the value of the bag then changes.
Bags such as Hermes’s Birkin and Kelly, Louis Vuitton’s Neverfull and Gucci’s Jackie will continue to appreciate in value but are hard to afford in the first place. If consumers want to have the options to resell or pass down items with actual value, should they avoid the wear and tear of everyday use and personalizations? Or will the physical vintage feel and sentimental value of past personalities increase how much they are worth?
Factors like previous owners, who customized it and the material of the goods will affect the outcome to this question, but the real answer will only emerge when the next generation comes along. I don’t have a time machine, but I do have a hunch: Vintage revival with a customized twist.
Hadyn Phillips is a freshman writing about fashion in the 21st century, specifically spotlighting students and popular controversy. Her column, “That’s Fashion, Sweetie,” runs every other Monday.