Glenn Lucke, Round Sunglasses: A Case Study in a Trend

I read an interesting piece in the New York Times today about how multiple designers, without collusion, brought forth round sunglasses this year. And given that such artifacts have about a one year gestation period before coming to market, the writer, Eric Wilson, digs into what happened a year ago to bring about this state of affairs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/fashion/11SUNGLASSES.html?_r=1&8dpc

While I find this case study intriguing, probably all stories about fashion bring up similar questions for me:

Do people buy artifacts BECAUSE they're trendy? If so, why?

Related, given that fashion is at least significantly about creating obsolesence so as to separate you from your money, why play ball? I once asked a guy attending my church's high school summer "Beach Retreat" what the difference was between his $165 designer-of-the-moment sunglasses and the $10 sunglasses I brought for the object lessson. I had purposely picked cheap sunglasses that looked exactly like one of the popular versions of the Oakley sunglasses that were "in" at the moment.

I asked him, given that the lenses are the same, the frames look the same, and they accomplish the same function of blocking UV rays from the sun, what did you get for your EXTRA $155 that I didn't get?

His answer: Mine are cool.

Why? The brand. Identical look minus the brand.

In my estimation the kid had coughed up $155 from his wallet to place in various Oakley employee wallets. For what? For cool.

If it were my money, I still wouldn't spend the $155 on cool. But it's not my money, it's God's money. Is this the best way to steward God's money, purchasing cool? I think of messages I've heard from Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll recently about idolatry, and I don't know how Christians square their stewardship of God's money with playing ball with the idol of being cool and being fashionable.

Gentlemen, start your objections. I'll listen. :)

Comments

[Graham Buck]

Glenn, I'm honestly not sure how anybody does this, to say nothing about the Christian who should have an ethical objection to it. The 'value added service' of slapping a corporate logo on an item escapes me.

I think there might be a correlation between this phenomenon and ancient cultures (are there modern ones like this too?) where to be fat was a good thing, because obesity was a sign of wealth. That one could throw money at food and drink was a status symbol. Same goes with designer ________ (enter whatever trendy item you want here).

Now, there is something to be said for issue like ministering in an area of wealth. That is, if there is a church in a town of uber-wealthy people one would not expect the pastor to live in the slums, nor to dress like a homeless person. There need be some level of 'professionalism' and 'couture' attendent to his/her area of ministry. However, this is not to say that the pastor to the well-to-do has carte blanche to flit away money (if for no other reason then that his/her salary is paid by congregational giving...). A ministry to the wealthy ought to include teaching on good stewardship and giving it away. Maybe, just maybe, missionaries/those who want to go on short-term missions wouldn't have to try so hard to find funding...

aside: that there is a shortage of funds for missions is a massive indictment on the church in America.

... Alright, so I'm done ranting and I'll bring it back to the topic at hand. If we purchase items because of the 'in-factor' we ought to stop and think again. Yes, pay well for things which are worth it (i.e. don't throw lots of money at many bad items, when it would actually cost less in the long term to purchase the more expensive one), but our heart motives ought to always be centered around being the best stewards of God's provision as we can be.

[Paul]

Glenn-
The deeper point regarding wise stewardship of finances is spot on -- but for some push-back on the underlying illustration, let me direct you to one of your prior posts, regarding music piracy and referencing UT Professor Jay Budziszewski (http://commongroundsonline.typepad.com/common_grounds_online/2008/02/ut-professor-ja.html). (I cannot believe I actually know enough to make this argument, by the way). Sport- and fashion-houses dedicate tremendous resources to researching, designing, marketing and promoting various products, from Nike shoes to Gucci handbags to Oakley sunglasses. Their labor, creativity and artistry is meant to be protected by intellectual property laws. When you buy the knock-off sunglasses for $10, instead of the $155 sunglasses, essentially "stealing" the effort that has gone into the creative process, from the legitimate designer, how is this any different (morally) than pirating music? The knock-off purses on a NYC street corner, the knock-off sunglasses and the knock-off songs all dilute the value of the original by flooding the market with cheap copies, and "steal" from the artist who created the work. So, it is possible your student did the right thing but for the wrong reasons. The better answer would have been "I pay full price for these sunglasses for the same reason I pay full price and don't pirate music- because I want to honor the artist, and my integrity costs more than $145."
Thoughts?
Love you, man. Have a great time in S.A. and hope you catch a soccer match (Confederations Cup).
PY

[Scott]

I agree with your point in part, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

We all make value judgements on what we would and wouldn't spend for something. And that judgement is based on a number of things, not just how trendy something is (although I think that's part of it). Take the iphone. My wife would never DREAM of owning an iphone because its way to expensive. she would consider that extravagant. Now, while I don't have an Iphone, I'd be much more willing then her to shell out the money for one because there is added value to me - I'd use many of the features my wife would use, therefore I'd be willing to spend what she wouldn't. That's not necessarily idolatry.

There is also a question of quality. I have no idea of Oakley sunglasses are made of better materials, last longer, or actually do a better job of protecting your eyes from UV rays. I do know that with tennis shoes, I end up buying brand names and spending $60-80 for a pair instead of buying the $20 payless, because the shoes are constructed better and have better arch support for your feet. So even two things that look alike could be vastly different in quality.

I don't deny that there isn't some idolatry going on in your example, but I'd be careful to paint it all with such a broad brush. Thanks for the thoughts!

[GL]

First, Paul, I do agree with you about "knockoffs." I should have used a different term. The Walgreen's sunglasses that I bought for $10 were not knockoffs, but they were sunglasses that looked almost identical to the particular sunglasses that the student had. I could be wrong, but I doubt Walgreen's can engage in knockoffs the way, say, fake Kate Spade purses or fake Rolex watches are made and sold.

So assuming that I used the word "knockoff" incorrectly, hopefully my point about using God's money to purchase cool remains.

Second, Scott, I agree with you, too. In fact, I should probably write this up at some point. From my reading and thinking about the issue of consumerism, I think Christians should bring to bear at least three factors with each purchase of items like clothing, furniture & decor, homes, and cars.

These three factors are:
-the aesthetic (beauty)
-the ascetic (simplicity)
-the arete (quality)

In Scripture I see the Lord commending and acting out all three of these.

Is there a formula? Nope. To my knowledge there is no black and white way to weave in these three factors with each purchase. This is a matter of wisdom and grace.