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. :)






Recent Comments