Let’s take a college exam. Is it acceptable to buy something dominated by a prominent logo? Why or why not? Please define “acceptable,” and be sure to include brief historical context, both personal and societal. Booklets open; blue pens in hand.
Recently I bought this bag, excited for my daughter’s wedding.
Back in 2009, when I anonymously began writing here, I admitted to having bought a Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis tote. I have since given it away. It wasn’t particularly comfortable to carry.
This post dripped with High WASP mortification. As I wrote, High WASPs did not show off, as that would be “tacky,” which I have since come to understand as code for “declassé.”
So where did my embarrassment go? Blog exorcism. Here I have revealed, deconstructed and thereby let go of, much of my family’s historical culture. In addition, I’ve educated myself about designers, and developed a set of strong likes and dislikes. As one does. I thank you.
In my current oscillating-between-humble-and-proud opinion, a logo as the mark of a creator you respect is to be honored. A logo as a stamp of one’s capacity to purchase, well, not so much.
Because, think about it.
- We wouldn’t want creators not to sign their works. They have that right, and even responsibility.
- Beautifully designed logos are only one step closer to “showing off” than are recognizable design elements. Consider the recognizable intrecciata of Bottega Veneta bag, Valentino’s pyramid studded shoes, Missoni’s knits and Miyake’s pleats. The only difference is the breadth of the audience, and the precise message communicated. But it’s all makers and identity and community.
- Just because consumers and cheap production made it possible for someone to stamp BALENCIAGA in block letters across a t-shirt for corporate profit, doesn’t mean we have to feel shame about our logos. Someone shrieking doesn’t mean we stop singing.
I’ll put this soapbox back under the lectern where it belongs. Behold a couple of logos I respect. The Cartier Panthère design is legendary, historical. Also kind of gorgeous as a bag clasp. Cartier might be playing catchup here but “Goooaaaaallllll!”
Jonathan Anderson is both a life-changing supporter of my son’s work, and a wild, wild genius. He has taken on the tradition of intellectual design, in the tradition of Miuccia Prada (who has persisted) and Christopher Kane (who sadly has not,) and exploded up and across the landscape. I feel he’s evolved Dior from dainty, prancing Instagirlies, and the closets of Grandes Dames, to something new. I never would have bought a Dior bag when it was all about the Ds. But this.
The toile! The medallion! The bow! The trim! Elevating an entire half-century of prim to art.
This, however. Unremarkable bag; ugly logo, Bruno Cuccinelli has taken over Silicon Valley and so I don’t like him one bit. Rational or no.
The distinction is not always so clear. Jacquemus, a brand I do appreciate, has a similar logo. Regard! What a gorgeous design! Avant garde! Snappy! Does the logo represent the great design chops?
I believe Jaquemus are saying, “We aren’t part of 1990s Logomania and consumerist display.” But they could be well-served at this point by a logo with an affirmative message rather than denial, i.e. “We *are* (name your poison.)” I don’t know. It’s possible to have strong opinions and still understand you might be wrong.
As for design elements, well, just for fun, Missoni. I’d love to wear these at some point, if I manage to live a good long time.
And Roger Vivier. Sigh. Like, with jeans and a backpack. Remember insouciance?
And one last logo. Christopher John Rogers, a Black man who has one of the most distinct styles in fashion today, collaborated with Old Navy on this. Also comes in pink and red. Booyah.
In case it’s germane, I have no idea what the model is wearing on her head. So, back to the topic sentence of our exam answer. Why?
I revere Yves St. Laurent. His Rive Gauche perfume design defined a 1970s aesthetic, never mind rainbow crewneck sweaters in New Jersey winters. He was the first man I ever understood to have a male partner, and he suffered from many with that same understanding. His large black spectacles launched an entire design era. Buddy, thanks for the black and blue, of all sorts, and for the tassel now hanging on the back of my closet door.
OMG those stripes. See what I mean?
Meaning is created in real time, by the author and the reader, the wearer and the community. As long as you feel that logos represent your loves and beliefs, and they do not serve as a weapon against those with whom you are in community, shine on. Define your community widely, goes without saying.
Have a wonderful weekend.
(I will say that my family in real life, in modern times, does not actively embrace the culture I’ve talked about. We were *of* it, but not *for* it, if that makes sense. I alone needed to deconstruct to finally make my own choices, and my family have been remarkably good-humored about this thinking out loud.)
51 Responses
I respect your preferences, Lisa, but my own motto will always be: If you want me to advertise your brand in public, you gotta pay me.
Fair. When I love a designer or a design I feel I’ve already been paid in enjoyment.
Agree!
Yes!
I’m with you on that.
Why not have some air of mystery about yourself – does she (buy expensive things) or doesn’t she?
I have zero objections to logos, unless someone is wearing many of them – but I have the same feeling as too much makeup or too much jewelry. YSL is one of the most beautiful logos ever designed (IMO) and their bags are consistently gorgeous – so why not the signature? I happen to love the old school Gucci print and like the coated cotton bags. Beautiful and practical. I don’t see them as advertisements at all. Enjoy your clutch for a long time. Without the YSL clasp, it might be too ordinary.
I agree with you on the beauty of the YSL logo, especially with the dangling tassel. Yikes! And I am guessing, as we talk, that those who feel OK with logos because of the designs and the designers are all going to have our personal favorites. I also agree the clutch would be too ordinary to be actually beautiful, without some kind of streamlined ornamentation. I plan to take care of it:).
You are so lucky to have such a good-humored and gracious family, and I’m so grateful to you for sharing your thoughts with us. Thanks for writing this post, Lisa. I thought it would be something like this for you. And I have such warm feelings myself toward Jonathan Anderson for supporting your son. I wouldn’t have seriously considered one of his bags previously but if I could justify spending the money on myself now, I’d love one. The adorable little loafer design is so creative, and I hear the leather and construction are truly lovely. It’s not recognizable design elements that I mind, for some reason — it’s the literal brand advertisement. Deconstructing the word “brand,” as something burned in… I’d feel I’d become that. As long as you like what you become, it’s okay.
The problem for me is that for most people, buying a LV or Chanel bag (or worse, those horrible belts that shall not be named) is very different entirely — it’s to prove something that they feel isn’t true, and they do indeed want to be branded by a thing that gives them validation. In almost every case the purchase will be made with a loan, or it will be a “replica.” These are done so well now as to often be unidentifiable as “replicas.” The fact that that word is common parlance now is so sad to me. It could be arrogance or it could be desperation, and there’s no way to know which is which — only that one begets the other. It’s just that I don’t want to be associated with such behavior toward others, really, that I don’t want any logo whatsoever on my things.
I’ve always preferred to buy from an artisan if possible — you’ll almost always find better materials and a lifelong relationship that way, but it’s just rare now to find anything in that space that soothes the need for a little self-expression and creativity. Enter little loafer bags. :) But they do have no visible branding, hence my praise.
I’m trying to do better. I can get behind people supporting a common brand as long as it’s for the sake of art, and as long as they do not judge others who don’t appear to have enough (x) to be considered a friend. I’ve encountered so, so many people in life who do just that. I’ve been treated that way myself, and it hurt.
… Still, though, there is nothing worse than that terrible gold-foil all-caps stamp, am I right?! That Brunello Cucinelli bag is a travesty and so wasteful to me (once again, no offense to those choosing it for personal reasons — I just can’t think of any). Better anything that will last. I hope the little tassel on your YSL stays shiny and brings you joy for many years to come.
Enjoy your clutch and carry it often — remembering your lovely daughter’s wedding, of course, every time you do. And have a wonderful, wonderful weekend. Thank you again for being here. You are loved!
…
P.S. As a philosophy graduate and former TA, I love your nod to “logos”!
I think you’ve articulated the “No Logos” position really well. (I LOVE the loafer bag. In tan leather? So perfect.)
You’ve also articulated more clearly what I mean when I say I’m good with logos when they aren’t used as a weapon against the community, to make other people feel “less than.” There’s really no excuse for making that kind of choice.
Wait, what belts;)?
I really may buy a loafer bag yet. Totally agree about the tan leather — so dreamy!! You’re encouraging me. :)
I did get that from “weaponization” — sorry I babbled on so much. I just really don’t think many people realize that’s what they’re doing or the consider the impact that it has on others, yet the impact is the same. If the demand spreads like a virus due to activation of social fear, the marketing has succeeded.
As an aside, I’m not sure the email notifications of blog posts are going out properly. I always stop by to chat anyway as if at a favorite hangout, but I’m also on the mailing list and haven’t seen emails come through for the last two posts. Is anyone else getting emails?
Oh, I covet that loafer bag. I think it’s a spectacular design. Sorry, can’t discourage on this one. And thanks for the heads up about my blog emails. I do believe I have fixed the problem.
I have a few items with logos my Christmas present jacket…a quilted Barbour. My vintage coach bags…and only the classic Burberry plaid coat but it’s very subtle.
My recent vintage Canada Olympics Tee.
Gosh darn I wore Rive Gauche in the 1970’s!!!
Loved this post a LOT.
❤️❤️❤️
A Canada Olympics tee? That’s such a cool logo! Wear yours proudly. :) And I don’t remember Barbour and Burberry coats having visible branding, just a distinctive lining? (Then again, I haven’t shopped for coats in a while?)
Your logos really suit you, I think. And the Canada Olympics tee is brilliant:)
I have never liked anything with a highly visible logo, and I avoid purchasing when the logo is a feature.
Something hits me wrong when I feel I am a walking advertisement.
Some of my greatest and most favorite possessions have no visible logo and I am happy about that.
You are not alone!
Lisa, you’ve obviously put a lot of thought and research into this blog post – in fact, there are enough clickable links to keep me riveted through all of next week. Thank you for this!
I’ve only gotten to 2009 so far and, may I say, this is quite a gem: “[addressed to you]…everyone knows that people who carry the [LV] logo are status-whore trash.” Your comeback was priceless.
And who knew about “Pingbacks”? Not I. I’m going to click every one of them AND the Comments in the days ahead.
I’m going to be a listener here. So far I’m learning how I’ve aged out of current trends, how I’ve been selectively severe in my modes of dress since a young girl [can still see an Aunt of mine closing in on me at a family Thanksgiving, she’s looking at me through the bottoms of her trifocals, rearranging my collar and my necklace with impunity, to suit HER].
Again, thank you for this.
Flo, it’s my pleasure. I now think all positions on this issue are OK, as long as some thought and a fair amount of consideration for others are involved. Your Aunt sounds like a legend. Or maybe a very scary story;).
I’m curious why I’m obligated to “consider others” when choosing a logoed article of apparel. Semiotically speaking, a logo is nothing but a sign. A sign is going to be interpreted by those who see it [“the community”]. Even though I may endow my sign with private meaning [which is enough, period], the interpretation of it is out of my hands at that point, and into the hands of the community.
Out in the marketplace, onlookers seeing your Kate bag [I finally remembered your YSL bag was named the Kate, the name of your daughter, especially meaningful since it was bought for her wedding!] how many people in the community will select: Maybe Lisa/the wearer likes that the designer is a gay man. My guess is that more people in the community will see the YSL logo, and select: Lisa’s rich. Or: That bag is too new/too showy for Lisa to be a WASP. Or: Isn’t that gold color just perfect with Lisa’s dress. Or: Lisa really loves her bag and tassel. Or, [me] that tassel should be removed immediately, the perfection of the YSL clasp should absolutely stand alone [see gild/lily, a design crime]. Or: That person in 2009 who called you “status-whore trash.” Out of our hands.
But you love the tassel, so we’re back to your original exam question [always remember to answer the Professor’s question before you even break the spine of your blue book, or there goes your grade]: “Is it acceptable to buy something dominated by a prominent logo?”
Since “for you/for anyone” is understood to follow “acceptable” then Yes, of course, because so far we still have free will, so buy it because you like it, you want it. But, as I’ve said, accept that the logo you select will convey a spectrum of meanings [see siblings, in your case], not just your private one. And we’re also back to your “insouciance” as the final thought on the subject, ie: I Like It, And I Don’t Care What Interpretation You Assign To My Kate Bag Logo.
Thank you [again], Lisa, for a provocative post. And, like Jess, I go to great lengths to find handbags etc with no logo. Indeed, my favorite black turtleneck of all time, Ralph Lauren, came with an embroidered bright red galloping pony on the chest. Five minutes later, my permanent black ink fine point Sharpie rendered him invisible. Say g’nite, Gracie.
Speaking briefly to the “consider others” piece, I think of it in terms of the visible signalling of support. A Cybertruck, for example, might convey that certain things about Elon Musk aren’t dealbreakers to me — to the extent that I’ll actively pay him money for something. People who have been harmed by his efforts may see that willingness and appropriately factor it into their judgement of my opinions and character. Not sure if that’s the way Lisa meant it, just my take.
By the way, when not on my broom, I’m driving a Honda. :)
Yes, that’s one part of considering others. In this case, I was thinking in particular about the point Jess made. Wearing a logo simply to prove you have money, and in particular to make others feel bad if they don’t, that’s the behavior I dislike intensely. So consider the others, the community in which you are choosing to wear, or drive as you say, this or that. Self-expression, hooray. Slapping people in the metaphorical face with a purchase, nope. Something I know you would never do.
My best car ever was a 1980s Honda Accord. Sigh.
How would I ever know, in passing, whether someone I see was “…wearing a logo simply to prove he/she has money, and to make others feel bad if they don’t…” I’m still a believer that a sign has no meaning until an interpretor comes along. In this case, I see Jess’ point as a projection, rather than an interpretation, deserving of an emotional response. So, this concept is obviously over my head, no need to respond :-)
Oof, just the energy it takes to try to make other people feel bad for my own gratification. I didn’t think of that one. What a scary way to live.
We’re always speaking to one another, aren’t we?
Thank you for bringing up corporate logos, Maria. Case in point: Amazon.
I’ve been loud and noisy around here about logos being representative of nothing, until. Now I will over share re that Amazon logo – impossible to unsee, all over town and country and village – that ghastly man, his ghastly values, his ghastly wife [when all else fails, WASPs bring out “ghastly”].
As inconvenient as it is for me personally, I’ve stopped trading with him for years [he IS his company]. He repulses me, and that logo, well.
My first heartbreak over cars was turning in my 1989 Volvo 240 wagon. I could get a sofa and 2 chairs in the back, with room left over for 2 children. Then trading in my 2005 Subaru Forester when it simply could no longer handle the turn out of the driveway, onto the street.
Thanks, Maria and Lisa.
Flo, I have done the exact same thing with the black Sharpie!! I thought I was the only one!
I didn’t mean to imply that nothing I wear has a tiny (tonal if at all possible) logo somewhere — and that’s unavoidable on activewear, jeans, shoes, buttons/hardware, etc. — but I truly am a hard-liner with myself and only myself about prominent ones on handbags. It’s the first place people’s eyes go when meeting us (hopefully after our faces, at least?): to whatever is in our hands.
I just realized while typing that historically, evolutionarily, they would have been checking for weapons — hence the origin of the handshake.
Re: “projection,” the emotional response of others is the full point and pivot of my argument and the basis of all etiquette. Where do we draw the line at not caring how we make others feel? We did cover this as a full day’s topic in legal and social philosophy classes, but it’s not “over your head” at all. I promise.
See this example in children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y95mC9y_Vq8
The “sign” (logoed cup) is arbitrary and meaningless on its own. It doesn’t matter why any one child has the cup and what any one child’s thoughts are — the marketing worked because every child now has to have one out of fear of social exclusion, whether it’s affordable for the parents or not, and regardless of the fact that the cup could be anything in this situation. It’s a McGuffin. I realize this is a low-stakes example, but it makes the higher stakes easier to understand.
As an adult, I would choose not to be associated on sight with the bullies, even though I’m not one, no matter how much I liked the cup. My own feelings no longer respond to mean-girl comments like they did when I was a child. I would just rather no one feel shame in my presence, and I dislike the brand for profiting from shame. Not everyone will have that preference or make that choice — clearly, very, very few do. The cycle starts at a very young age — and the logoed bags arrive in high school, of course. Every single one is thoroughly and repeatedly checked by rivals and most are mocked for being fake, whether they are or not. There’s no end to it. I’m simply refusing to be viewed as a player in the superiority game, knowing I would be viewed that way if I had the McGuffin.
I truly understand where you and your premise/argument are coming from here, Jess. Thank you!
Jess, you are kind to come back and reassure me [ie, your premise, in action]. I will put more thought into what you say [which, I’ve gathered from the Myers Briggs Personality Inventory results is my downfall, being an INTJ]. I was told I’d be tripped up in life by the lack of the letter “F” [Feeling] in my testing results [test given by a Jungian analyst rather than a 15 minute online quiz]. Which may be why I can’t fathom caring about how someone would feel about what I’d wear. Harsh I suppose, but is it my job to consider the feelings of the community when I get dressed? or is it their job to build inner resources to safeguard themselves from hurt feelings by fwhat others do? [She has a Gucci, and I don’t, so it must be about HER.] For now I’ll sincerely keep all you say in mind, so thank you, Jess. Perhaps a missing piece about me is that I was raised by a bohemian Mother who preached [whenever we’d listen]: “DARE to be different!”
Aww — that is so kind, Flo. ❤️ I always like reading your comments and will sincerely keep them in mind as food for thought as well. You’ve made me VERY thoroughly examine my own feelings and question my opinions, so thank you! I’ll continue to think about what you’ve said.
After posting, it occurred to me in reference to our hands being points of focus that my watch also has a minuscule logo, as they all do — but I don’t think anyone can see it, especially since I can barely see the time. ;) Maybe that’s my one logo. I do love the watch.
Many of the photos are not showing…only a question mark. I do not know how to solve this.
What is your son’s name and where can we see his work?
Huh. Let me see if I can fix the photos. Sorry for the technical issues!
My son’s name is Patrick Carroll. He’s a textile artist and a soon-t-be-published (2027) novelist. good way to see his work is through these links on his website:
https://www.summon-elemental.com/995583103441
Thanks for asking!
And another good way to see him is to watch him actually at work on his Instagram acct. https://www.instagram.com/p/DIM-FO9SwLV/
Welcome back. I realized with a bit of a jolt this morning that I couldn’t remember the last Saturday post from you. Someone mentioned in a comment today that they weren’t getting notifications, and soon after one magically appeared in my email. I read today’s post, and the one prior, which turns out to be your first post back.
Do you remember the 1980’s Bottega Veneta tag line, “When your own initials are enough?” When I was newly out of college and at my first job at the Stanford Research Institute, there was an elegant woman consultant who had the first BV bag I ever saw. I admired the quality of its fitted interior. I bought my first BV bag not too long after, and appreciated their designs and quality. Today, I mostly avoid logos, which I think may be rooted in that BV tagline, and in some of the 1980’s and 1990’s excesses. A friend has a vintage black Gucci bag with the logo stamped into the leather, which I admire. One of my favorite clutches from the 1990’s, which I still use, is a Louis Vuitton zippered pouch bag. I think it may be intended as a toiletries bag, but it shines as a clutch. Presently, I try not to buy things, but instead use what I have. Jacquemus has some beautiful pieces. I love the designer’s love of his Grandma Liline, which I take as a nod to the idea that beauty and elegance are ageless. The Jacquemus Turismo bag in leather and in raffia appeal to me.
Your vacation trip to the Ojai Inn looked lovely. You’re the second friend who has chosen it for a meetup trip. It’s a pleasure to see Kathy’s work in your room.
I do remember the tagline, and I felt that way for ages and ages. Writing this blog, learning about designers, and in particular coming feel support for some of them for one reason or another, has change my mind.
I too try not to buy things. Especially after that wedding, hoo boy!
Well my mother thought so and wouldn ‘t buy anything with a logo on it. Still, when she used a seam ripper, etc., to unpick the embroidered rocking horse on my newborn son’s onesie, I thought she was going too far. Not a logo rocking horse your regular old baby clothes rocking horse.
I’m WASP too though if this was why my mother thought this way I don’t know as she modeled for Gimbels, Macys et al as a small child and as a teenager for magazines so that could be where the no logos idea came from? Clients that wouldn’t want other people’s promotional material in their ads.
I can just imagine your mom and her seam ripper! I have all kinds of thoughts as to why WASPs hate logos, but I like yours:)
I’ve logo adverse. Seems showy. If something is good, it should stand on its own merits. Kind of the ‘walk it, don’t talk it’ mantra. Or maybe it’s now called “quiet luxury.”
I understand your perspective. As I have come to see designers as artists, and despite the terrible usage of logos common since the 1990s or a little earlier, I have come to appreciate them.
My take on logos: less is more.
My feeling would be one is good, and if more than one, should be 10 and should be some kind of artistic statement;)
I don’t care for logos. But the YSL bag is beautiful. I probably would not have bought it, but I can understand why you did.
Thank you.
Never associated my love and appreciation for blue and black together with an homage to YSL but I think you are on to something here. When questioned, I would just say “It’s French!”
It is definitely French;)
What a bunch of hypocrites! You wear the designers however you don’t want to admit it to your social circle. Using a sharpie to black out a designer logo is just ridiculous.
I’m thankful for this discussion and its varying viewpoints (even the mean comment) and may land on a different personal choice in the future. I agree with Lisa and she’s changed my view of this. But the people in my community in no way resemble our hostess or the commenters here at present.
Why not be your own artist and make an item your own? Don’t like the ruffled hem? Remove it. Don’t like the belt? Make your own. Don’t like the color? Dye it. Don’t like the red pony? Make it black. (shrug emoji here…?) Pretty sure I’ve been doing this since kindergarten — a certain Puffy-Painted skirt comes to mind.
Are alterations wrong if you own the item, but it came “signed” with a logo? Is there a point at which they become wrong?
I think I would only feel that I shouldn’t alter an item myself if someone made it just for me or it was one of a kind. Still, real artisans will alter items for you in almost any way you’d like if you ask. Of course, their signature would be a joy to wear, but they never do seem to feature it in front of their craft.
You’re so right about the “varying viewpoints,” Jess. With so many interpretive options from which to choose, I never would have guessed my actions made me a hypocrite. I’ll add that to my cv.
Flo and Jess, thanks for carrying on, and being good sports and not replying in anger. We can do this my friends, I know we can! Viewspoints hooray! Insults, no thank you!
This is just so rational, Jess: I like this part, but I dislike that part, but it’s soft and it fits so well, laundering seems straightforward, price is good, I like it in more ways than not, I’ll just apply a quick fix to make it mine instead of belonging to a corporate conglomerate. If you could see the number of shiny letters N and B [New Balance] in my box of scraps. Like you, “pretty sure I’ve been doing this since kindergarten.”
Pamela, I had been happy to have this discussion proceed without me, as it had its own steam, and so I am only just now seeing your comment. While I support your right to your opinion, 100%, I don’t welcome what feels like mean language toward other commenters. Since people have responded already, I’ll leave this up. I am very happy to have you participating here, but in the future if you could try to share your opinions without insults, I would much appreciate it. In particular, calling people hypocrites, and deeming someone else’s actions “ridiculous” step over my line. Thanks in advance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/25/style/is-the-handbag-over.html