“Logos” Means, Apparently, “Word, Discourse and Reason,” or, Saturday Morning at 8:15am

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.)