How Far Can You Go with The Fever of The Logo?
Everyone knows that there are many people who know dress as a demonstration of big capital. For many, the fact of dressing well is not something that comes out from the inside, but a failed attempt to demonstrate a social position which, in many cases, do not have.
I refer to the evidence: ladies who spend thousands of dollars on Louis Vuitton Handbags with the logo for that see from afar the rich that is (even if they’ve had to eat bread and water for five months to be able to afford it), teenagers with backpacks of strident logos showing their social identity and a long etcetera. Shirt of Zara to Crown this post with the logo of the firm registered has awakened in me a reflection: anything goes to prove to the world that we carry a brand name garment?
In my opinion, the only thing that proves the fact to wear a shirt that says big ‘ Burberry Prorsum ’ or ‘ D & G ’ is a lack of style and personality. If the garment, as well as carry the logo, turns out to be false, we passed little taste to the lack of the same. Look what you have in excess is horrible, but appear with false marks what is not is detestable.
Perhaps many will share my opinion and coincidiréis with me that that announce that what I put is of such firm, is no more than one tacky over the world. However, in what many have not thought is in those firms have precisely known how to grow selling a logo. Like the double C on Chanel bags, garments male as the poles of Ralph Lauren they have become inseparable from its rider image playing polo. Someone imagine a polo Ralph Lauren without its icon (getting bigger, by the way)?
In this case, it isn’t so frowned upon to demonstrate without rhyme, nor are the firm from which it comes the garment? Are we not in the same case as the Lady with the boslo of Louis Vuitton? Is best seen horse Ralph Lauren and why not clashes we see it or assumes the same tacky? Other brands such as Tommy Hilfiger They also pose the same dilemma for me.
And what about the alligator’s Lacoste, that symbol which has passed from generation to generation and currently has a spectacular boom. We put it in the category of tacky or a symbol that doesn’t understand fashion?
I think we all have clear that there are two distinct groups: one is the lady who takes the bag from Louis Vuitton with your logo LV covering the surface and even the Italians carrying a D & G false in its fitted t-shirts and other are the Poles whose symbols have settled today as mere details whose display is not considered tacky like Lacoste crocodile, the double band of Tommy Hilfiger or Ralph Lauren horse.
But then, does the category we put this new shirt from Zara? You be able to wear a shirt with the logo of a brand low-cost or that because it would be too much?