Just one of those 'cameo' observations that has come back to me after a few days. Sitting waiting for the train at Union Station Washington DC, I noticed a young lady wearing what appeared to be a fur coat. She had her back to me and so I could see that in the middle of the part of the coat that covered her shoulders there was a label on the outside. I couldn't see what it was but it made me think. Once upon a time the mere fact of wearing afur coat was a statement. Now even fur has to have a label? Of course there are number of other possible factors involved here. Was ther fur real [looked it]? Did even that doubt mean that a label is necessary? Is it that labels [worn outside for the status-giving function of conspicuous consumption] are the new fur? It just seems interesting that a fur coat needs [apparently -on my preferred interpretation] the legitimaising of an outside designer [?] label.
Other factors that may impinge on the semiotics of this display: the woman was young [early twenties?], she was black [in Washington DC] and she was travelling by public transport. Perhaps there are other factors I haven't picked up, but these add up to an interesting picture and the word "bling" comes to mind as a cognate.....
No comments:
Post a Comment