Lining the red walls of Target’s exterior at the crack of dawn, waiting for a designer collaboration launch, is quite the shift from strutting the red carpets of major high culture events in that designer’s pieces at dusk. Christopher John Rogers’ haute couture follows the long-standing high culture tradition of the avant-garde in fashion and the fine arts. But that exclusive, elite culture of couture has been translated into the popular culture realm through collaboration with one of the most recognizable brands embedded in American capitalism: Target. Through mediation by the culture industry, these once high culture artifacts of class and wealth have become commodified and reproduced for the masses, fashion for all rather than the few. The everyday fashion lover, the woman who shops at her local mall to clutter her closet with the latest styles of the fast fashion industry, can now gain access to the likes of fashion’s most coveted garments, to the voluminous silhouettes, wild patterns, and bright colors that so characterize Rogers’ designs (Cigliano, 2021). By allowing such high fashion pieces to be accessible to the everyday woman, the line between the avant-garde and the everyday, the highbrow and middlebrow styles of dressing become blurred.
But before that line between high and popular culture can be blurred in such a way, we must understand the distinction that existed to begin with. Storey (2009) offers us some guidance in drawing this division. He explains that “such distinctions are often supported by claims that popular culture is mass-produced commercial culture, whereas high culture is the result of an individual act of creation” (Storey, 2009, pg. 6). Rogers’ haute couture pieces surely embody such a definition of high culture, a result of the meticulous planning and hands on act of design and creation that goes into his often one-of-a-kind pieces. The fact that he studied at the Savannah College of Art and Design only furthers the claim that his work is characterized by individual creation and artistic intentions. Just like the complexity and difficulty of comprehension that exists with avant-garde movements in the fine arts, avant-garde fashion’s “difficult[y] ensures its exclusive status as high culture” (Storey, 2009, pg. 6). Fashion like Rogers’ presents more as a form of art than it does the typical idea of fast fashion we are so familiar with today.
This is in marked contrast to the “mass-produced, commercial culture” that is the Target conglomerate and its fashion department (Storey, 2009, pg. 6). Target as a brand surely can be considered under this idea of popular culture as “hopelessly commercial… for mass consumption… of non-discriminating consumers” (Storey, 2009, pg. 8). The store has become a staple of everyday life for the masses, a name overheard in day-to-day conversations, and on social media through trends like shopping hauls, hacks, or must-have products. The red logo has become recognizable as a symbol for all your lifestyle needs at affordable prices. This is quite different from the “marker of ‘class’” high culture’s focus on taste implies as “both a social economic category and the suggestion of a particular level of quality” (Storey 2009, pg. 6). The high cost as well as quality of design and construction of Rogers’ work serves as a such a marker of taste and class for those of elite culture who sport his pieces, a cost and quality that simply does not exist in fast fashion at stores like Target, even with the collaboration.
So, if such clear divisions exist between high and popular culture like Rogers and Target, what purpose does blurring the line serve? What Target served to gain from this collaboration of high and popular culture is fairly straightforward; driving traffic to its ecommerce and brick-and-mortar stores served to provide Target quite a hefty paycheck. The collaboration generated quite a bit of media buzz, especially on TikTok, serving the bonus to Target of its name in the mouths and minds of people across platforms and the country, driving additional sales (Cigliano, 2021). The collaboration “articulate[s], in a disguised form, collective… wishes and desires”, one characteristic that Storey (2009) describes of mass popular culture (pg. 9). Target prays on the consumers’ desires for the individuality and exclusivity of the high-fashion industry. As a mass-produced product, the name Christopher John Rogers embedded in each piece inextricably generates a false sense of exclusivity, false in that the true exclusivity still remains reserved for the “real” designs worn by elite figures within the culture industry, handcrafted and specially designed by Rogers’ hands themselves rather than the claws and levers of manufacturing machinery.
What Rogers sought to gain from this collaboration is not as clearly defined. Maybe he hoped to expand his more subcultural celebrity status to a more micro-celebrity status. Considering Alice Marwick’s (2015) ideas of subcultural and micro-celebrity, Rogers may certainly fall into the idea of subcultural celebrity in the fashion industry, of not “viewing the celebrity from afar” but through “subcultural, social knowledge and repeated personal contact” (pg. 338). His fame was well-known within his own high-fashion circle to elite figures who might call him up to fabricate a red-carpet showstopper or recommend him to a friend. Through his Target collaboration, Rogers certainly gained more “fame… native to social media” that was characterized by “self-presentation” and more “participatory culture” through increased media interactions more characteristic of micro-celebrity than his previously exclusive persona (Marwick, 2015, pg. 339). However, a glance at Rogers’ social media seems to show that he has done little identity work or interaction with followers since the collaboration, still focusing his media presence on his fashion brand rather than his self-brand. So, maybe Rogers simply sought to gain publicity, establishing his brand as up-and-coming in the high fashion industry for fans to look out for and generate buzz about when his “real” pieces walk down the runway or red carpet, hoping to maintain that distinction between high and popular. Whatever the goal, Rogers’ collaboration with Target opened a world where no longer only celebrities and fashion icons could claim to don Rogers’ designs. The connection to the exclusivity associated with high fashion has been democratized through such collaborations, the names of artists like Rogers’ joining the lingo of popular culture, not just the niche, high culture circle of the designer fashion industry.
References
Cigliano, O. (2021, May 27). Christopher John Rogers X target just dropped and fashion tiktok can't get enough. CR Fashion Book. https://www.crfashionbook.com/fashion/a36533862/christopher-john-rogers-x-target-fashion-tiktok-trending/.
Marwick, A. (2015). You may know me from YouTube: (Micro)-celebrity in social media. A Companion to Celebrity, pp. 333-350.
But before that line between high and popular culture can be blurred in such a way, we must understand the distinction that existed to begin with. Storey (2009) offers us some guidance in drawing this division. He explains that “such distinctions are often supported by claims that popular culture is mass-produced commercial culture, whereas high culture is the result of an individual act of creation” (Storey, 2009, pg. 6). Rogers’ haute couture pieces surely embody such a definition of high culture, a result of the meticulous planning and hands on act of design and creation that goes into his often one-of-a-kind pieces. The fact that he studied at the Savannah College of Art and Design only furthers the claim that his work is characterized by individual creation and artistic intentions. Just like the complexity and difficulty of comprehension that exists with avant-garde movements in the fine arts, avant-garde fashion’s “difficult[y] ensures its exclusive status as high culture” (Storey, 2009, pg. 6). Fashion like Rogers’ presents more as a form of art than it does the typical idea of fast fashion we are so familiar with today.
This is in marked contrast to the “mass-produced, commercial culture” that is the Target conglomerate and its fashion department (Storey, 2009, pg. 6). Target as a brand surely can be considered under this idea of popular culture as “hopelessly commercial… for mass consumption… of non-discriminating consumers” (Storey, 2009, pg. 8). The store has become a staple of everyday life for the masses, a name overheard in day-to-day conversations, and on social media through trends like shopping hauls, hacks, or must-have products. The red logo has become recognizable as a symbol for all your lifestyle needs at affordable prices. This is quite different from the “marker of ‘class’” high culture’s focus on taste implies as “both a social economic category and the suggestion of a particular level of quality” (Storey 2009, pg. 6). The high cost as well as quality of design and construction of Rogers’ work serves as a such a marker of taste and class for those of elite culture who sport his pieces, a cost and quality that simply does not exist in fast fashion at stores like Target, even with the collaboration.
So, if such clear divisions exist between high and popular culture like Rogers and Target, what purpose does blurring the line serve? What Target served to gain from this collaboration of high and popular culture is fairly straightforward; driving traffic to its ecommerce and brick-and-mortar stores served to provide Target quite a hefty paycheck. The collaboration generated quite a bit of media buzz, especially on TikTok, serving the bonus to Target of its name in the mouths and minds of people across platforms and the country, driving additional sales (Cigliano, 2021). The collaboration “articulate[s], in a disguised form, collective… wishes and desires”, one characteristic that Storey (2009) describes of mass popular culture (pg. 9). Target prays on the consumers’ desires for the individuality and exclusivity of the high-fashion industry. As a mass-produced product, the name Christopher John Rogers embedded in each piece inextricably generates a false sense of exclusivity, false in that the true exclusivity still remains reserved for the “real” designs worn by elite figures within the culture industry, handcrafted and specially designed by Rogers’ hands themselves rather than the claws and levers of manufacturing machinery.
What Rogers sought to gain from this collaboration is not as clearly defined. Maybe he hoped to expand his more subcultural celebrity status to a more micro-celebrity status. Considering Alice Marwick’s (2015) ideas of subcultural and micro-celebrity, Rogers may certainly fall into the idea of subcultural celebrity in the fashion industry, of not “viewing the celebrity from afar” but through “subcultural, social knowledge and repeated personal contact” (pg. 338). His fame was well-known within his own high-fashion circle to elite figures who might call him up to fabricate a red-carpet showstopper or recommend him to a friend. Through his Target collaboration, Rogers certainly gained more “fame… native to social media” that was characterized by “self-presentation” and more “participatory culture” through increased media interactions more characteristic of micro-celebrity than his previously exclusive persona (Marwick, 2015, pg. 339). However, a glance at Rogers’ social media seems to show that he has done little identity work or interaction with followers since the collaboration, still focusing his media presence on his fashion brand rather than his self-brand. So, maybe Rogers simply sought to gain publicity, establishing his brand as up-and-coming in the high fashion industry for fans to look out for and generate buzz about when his “real” pieces walk down the runway or red carpet, hoping to maintain that distinction between high and popular. Whatever the goal, Rogers’ collaboration with Target opened a world where no longer only celebrities and fashion icons could claim to don Rogers’ designs. The connection to the exclusivity associated with high fashion has been democratized through such collaborations, the names of artists like Rogers’ joining the lingo of popular culture, not just the niche, high culture circle of the designer fashion industry.
References
Cigliano, O. (2021, May 27). Christopher John Rogers X target just dropped and fashion tiktok can't get enough. CR Fashion Book. https://www.crfashionbook.com/fashion/a36533862/christopher-john-rogers-x-target-fashion-tiktok-trending/.
Marwick, A. (2015). You may know me from YouTube: (Micro)-celebrity in social media. A Companion to Celebrity, pp. 333-350.
Storey, J. (2009). What is popular culture? Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, pp. 1-16.
Hi Carly,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interesting post! I was immediately reminded of the Kardashians' collaboration with Walmart. Although Kim Kardashian might not have the same kind of status and respectability that Christopher John Rogers has, at least in the couture fashion world, the collaboration blurs the same lines of high and low culture. Drawing on Benjamin's idea of the aura, there is a definite diffusion of the aura in these products. They are made with lower quality materials, take much less time and intensive human labor as is characteristic of couture pieces, and are mass produced. This is not to disdain these products; these are simply the distinctions between the couture pieces that can take thousands of hours to make by "Rogers’ hands themselves" and those made by "the claws and levers of manufacturing machinery." The products in Target and Walmart lack the sought-after exclusivity and the unique handiwork of an established designer.
However, as you argue, the intent behind these products is not to recreate the exclusivity of the authentic haute couture products. For stores like Target and Walmart, the collaborations are an excellent business move, having raked in mountainous revenues. However, for Rogers and the Kardashians, the collaborations are simply an act of personal branding. This is another characteristic of microcelebrities: the facilitation of intimacy with their audience. By catering to Target and Walmart's customers, they are able to familiarize even more people with their names and create a perception of being closer to the customers. If their products are more accessible, then they, by extension, are also more accessible to the customers.
Hey Carly, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this collaboration. This is such an interesting and creative topic. In response I thought of a few of Target's previous collaborations with higher end brands such as Tory Burch and Love Shack Fancy. Each time I am notified of these collaborations. Upon taking a moment to think about my reaction I must wonder, why is this? I believe my surprise is due to the learned understanding of high and low culture I possess. My existing schema of high culture interferes with my ability to associate companies such as Target and Christopher John Rogers. The blurring of high and low culture by this collaboration plays a role in undoing some of the gatekeeping associated with high culture. The partnership between Target and Rogers is likely postmodern culture based on Storey's sixth definition of culture, which recognizes postmodern culture as one that no longer differentiates between popular culture and high culture. There is a diffusion of cultural boundaries attributed to the infiltration of couture in hugely commercial franchises. I am curious as to what the implications are for fast fashion in these partnerships. Is it worth it for a high end brand that operates without using fast fashion tactics to start just to provide their pieces at a subsidized cost? In my opinion any expansion of fast fashion is detrimental. The trend should be moving away from unethical labor but in this case it is just introduced to a new company as a means of democratizing couture.
ReplyDelete- Elizabeth Ford
DeleteHi Carly!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post. I think you raise a great point in that by partnering with Target and offering more affordable alternatives to his high fashion lines, Rogers is able to expand his audience and be more accesible.
However, I can’t help but wonder how the standardization and commodification of his work will impact the success of his high fashion lines. I think that often, fashion connoisseurs are appealed to the exclusivity of a brand and the status associated with being able to afford or have high fashion items. While others may genuinely like the products of a specific designer and would buy an item regardless of where it came from, others are often paying to flaunt a brand’s logo or for the ability to say that the item came from xyz brand. Thus, by making his line more accessible, does Rogers risk alienating his high fashion clientele who no longer see his brand as a status symbol?
Similarly, to what extent was the success of Rogers’ Target line due to excitement at the opportunity to own something with his name on it versus people buying the items because they truly liked the line. When looking at the success of both his high fashion and target lines, it is possible that his success is due to his audience being “zombies who mindlessly accept of are slaves to the media” (Adorno and Horkheimer). The high fashion buyers who buy his clothing for the status are directly feeding into the idea that audiences are incapable of making decisions for themselves. Instead, they are actively doing things that they have been told will elevate them in society because they are slaves to the attention. Similarly, the people buying the line at target just to say they own Rogers’s clothing are not buying the clothes for themselves. Instead, they are doing it because they have been told, by the media and society, that this is something they should own and thus purchase without considering their own opinions.
While your response specifically focuses on Rogers’s partnership with Target, I do believe that the same ideas remain consistent with any high fashion brand/designer’s decision to create a more accessible line. To what extent does the commodification and standardization of their work impact their name in the long term?
(Amber Tapscott)
Delete