The Style Icon

Illustration by Johnathan Hayden, view more on instagram @johnny_doodleme
Illustration by Johnathan Hayden, view his work on instagram @johnny_doodleme

Celebrities as Icons
By Molly Cohen

So what is a fashion icon? A fashion icon is a person who is known for their style. Typically a style icon is someone whose style has been documented in photographs, and serves as a style muse. But using the word person and icon in the same sentence seems odd, because the concepts don’t seem to go together. An icon is something that has been so repeatedly used, seen, and popularized, that it is an idealization. As such, saying that a person is, in fact, an icon, or an idealization, is giving a person almost too much power.

Regardless, seeing celebrities as icons is a trend that has been growing for years. Just look back at the fashion magazine industry. Originally, only models were shown as the cover stars, and it was a big deal when American Vogue (with Anna Wintour as editor-in-chief) put the first celebrity on the cover of a magazine. Today, however, celebrities are tracked by paparazzi for their style (as well as their lifestyle) and star on the cover of magazines. As fun as it may be for us to follow our favorite celebs on their style journeys, the question is: what effect is society’s obsession having on celebrities?

When we hear the word celebrity, we generally picture movie stars or TV personalities. And though these people may produce an amazing film or a funny show, why do we value them as celebrities? Is it all in their ability to stay in the limelight? If this is the case, then all we are doing is surely helping them. By labeling certain celebrities as style icons, we are reinforcing their status, and by doing so, separating them further from the rest of the population. As a celebrity, this must be alienating.

So with the negative mentioned, it’s only right to also name the positives of being a style icon. One of the perks is the chance to work with fashion retailers and designers. Just think of Jessica Simpson x Kohls, or Selena Gomez x Kmart, or the Olsen twins, Olsenboye x JCPenney. Another positive is the chance to become a designer’s muse. In 2011, Elle Fanning became part of Rodarte’s ad campaign at 13, and Steinfeld joined the MiuMiu brand at age 14. Which ironically, brings us back to the negative: just how good is it for a 13-14 year old girl to be all dolled up and packaged for an ad campaign? Granted, they are both actresses, so they have chosen to be in the spotlight at a young age, the press will promote their careers, and dressing up is typically all fun and games…but isn’t it odd having a child posing as the muse for the rest of society? Or does the age just point out the societal standard that we want to be “forever young”?

Debates about the effect of icon status on celebrities aside, what is the affect of having celebs serve as icons on the rest of society? Though people too, many celebrities come with their own entourage of makeup artists and stylists for those fancy events where they are most easily documented by paparazzi. As such, it can be easy to form as idealized body image standard. If we are putting these celebrities who have been Photoshop-ed and styled to perfection at the forefront of our minds, we are developing an impossible standard to live up to. The second effect that comes to mind is the “complex” that comes when you find yourself knowing more about a celebrity than you do about your neighbor or classmate. That can’t be healthy. Also tied to connectedness and media, is when you realize your social media accounts become more dedicated to tracking celebs than friends. –We spend our time on lottery relationships: impossible relationships that have a small percent chance of happening, rather than on real life relationships where we’d be way more likely to get a response. For example, repeatedly tweeting at our favorite musician and hoping for a response, rather than tweeting a friend which will more likely start a real life conversation.

Now that we’ve talked about the effects of icon status on celebrities and on society (and we didn’t even talk about the topic from the retailer’s point of view), let’s bring the discussion full circle. Think back to the image at the top of this article that reads: “Be Your Own Style Icon.”

Whether you choose to follow celebs or even believe they are “icons” doesn’t matter, what matters is that you are happy with who you are and are at least conscious of the effects celebrity status has. At some point, some part of yourself should be part of who you aspire to be. It’s great to have others to look up to, but you should value yourself as well.

•What do you think about celebrities as icons?
•Do you think we should even call them icons? Is using the name “icon” hurting society?

1. Huffington Post 2. 3. 4. NY Times
5. 6. The Telegraph UK 7. The Daily Beast


Paying for Branding

Image found on

Paying For Branding

By Molly Cohen

Publishing Fast Fashion? all about Moschino’s McDonalds collection got me thinking: Moschino essentially promoted McDonalds, free of charge. And in turn, the consumers who chose to wear the clothing promoted McDonalds. Long story short: the consumers are paying for branding.

Not a new feat by any means, especially when thinking about the designer handbag industry. Coach bags are coated with “C”s, and Louis Vuitton bags have “LV” subtly printed amidst their design. Though seemingly small details, these icons not only fill up the blank canvas, they also stand for something.

The letters remind the wearer that they are wearing a designer label.
Perhaps this promotes confidence in the wearer, or a higher sense of social status.

For the common passerby, the bag gives its wearer a higher status.
A designer bag automatically creates an assumption of wealth.

The bag could potentially make its wearer a target.
Wearing a thousand dollar bag is just that: having a thousand dollars in your hand.

Today, our society runs on symbols. When going into a public bathroom, we know which room we’re going into when we see the male or female silhouette on the door. When driving, we know to slow down and stop when we see a pedestrians crossing sign. When turning on a computer, we know that the broken circle with a line is the power button. When pressing play to watch a movie or listen to a song, we know that the arrow is the play button.

Whether you’re conscious of it or not, we use symbols on a daily basis. In fact, we get so used to seeing symbols that I would argue that we stop noticing them. So it should come as no surprise that symbols are on clothing as well. However, the symbols mentioned in the above paragraph all serve as functions in serviceability – they are designed for the user. Meanwhile the fashion designer logos serve as marketing elements – to create branding and recognition for the designer.

Despite the fact that the designer logo was created with the designer in mind, consumers seem to care too. There are plenty of people dedicated to distinguishing the real from the fake designer bag. Evidence #1

Though arguably incredibly important, the symbols do spur some questions. Once again (and I’m sure not the last), the topic of worth comes up on this site.
•Is it worth spending cash on a designer handbag for the sense of confidence it could potentially bring?
•For someone who wants to show off their professional achievements through appearance, is it worth investing in the designer logo?

These are only questions; food for thought if you will.

What do you think of the designer logo craze? Do you think it’s even related to worth? Have you ever paid for branding (regardless of whether the item was fashion related)? Was your purchase worth the price tag?

Here’s an interesting read if you’re interested in the origin of computer symbols.

Fast Fashion?

moschino x mcdonalds - tobyjohns
Image found on

Jeremy Scott Serves Plate Steaming with Controversy & Consumerism
Keeps Moschino in Limelight with Questions of Copyright

By Molly Cohen

Jeremy Scott, now creative director of Moschino, is pushing boundaries and stirring up conflict with his designs. The Fall/Winter 2014 collection, which debuted in Milan February 21, made headlines in numerous big name publications.

The collection, which is based on American iconography, incorporates McDonald’s red and yellow color scheme as well its Golden Arches. Though Scott uses his own silhouettes, the copying of a world-known logo has caused some debate. Scott, however, views the collection as humorous. He told the New York Times, “Ultimately, we need no more clothes…So you have to have this reason to want things. To me, it’s to make you happy, and to me, that’s linked to humor.”

Funny or not, one of the biggest questions has been the meaning behind the collection. In an interview from the Autumn issue of Dazed, Scott explains the connection between fashion and fast food. “Fashion’s so anti-fat – to have things that literally have fat content on them, it just seems hilarious to me.”

Another take on the McDonalds reference is the allusion to fast fashion – the speeding up of consumerism as the time it takes for an item to go from runway to high street decreases. Scott further promoted the fast fashion trend the day after the show by selling ten pieces in a capsule collection Fast Fashion – Next Day After the Runway.

Reactions to the collection were varied. Celebrities Rita Ora and Vogue Japan Editor Anna Dello Russo embraced the clothing, along with its price tag. Into The Gloss contributor Elizabeth Licata writes, “The looks are so instantly recognizable from far away that they will definitely appeal to young fashion people who have a lot of money and want to use it to get attention. These accessories are virtually guaranteed style blog bait.”

Outside the fashion industry, the collection has not been so easily accepted. Minimum wage McDonalds workers claimed Scott was ‘mocking’ them with clothes they could never afford. A New York McDonald’s employee who asked for anonymity told MailOnline, “For people working in the highly paid fashion world to think it’s “trendy” to wear clothes inspired by the uniforms we put on every day to feed our kids, or to buy a designer bag that is a parody of the meals we serve to earn enough money just to pay our bills; well, it just makes me sad.”

Meanwhile, those interested in law have been fascinated by the collection for its questionable use of protected trademarks. justifies that a case could be made of trademark dilution. All the debate begs the question: Is Moschino’s line helping McDonalds more than hurting it? After all, wearing the clothes from the line is basically being a walking advertisement.

Seeing as it has been six months since the show in February, it is looking like Scott’s trademark centered collection is safe. This is not Scott’s first time making close calls with copyright issues. He was previously sued by skateboard graphic designer Jimbo Phillip for using Phillip’s images in a Fall 2013 collection.

Bob Denike, the CEO of Santa Cruz-based skateboard company – that uses Phillip’s designs – was not happy. “I do not believe in the idea that any publicity is good publicity. There was a lot of interest in this issue, but we do not need this type of PR to help grow our brands. It was actually quite damaging to us. We don’t want to be associated with Scott.”

Blurring the copyright lines is not new to Moschino either. The brand was sued by Chanel when fashion designer Franco Moschino ran the company.

So here are my thoughts:
•Perhaps all the attention the copyright-battles cause is helping the brand?
•Though many publications reported the show in February, the publications that wrote about the collection’s legality were published in March. It appears that the legal debate extended the collection’s limelight period.
•Is the attention for the brand worth all the trouble (literally speaking too in terms of cash)?

•How far is the fashion industry willing to go to make & feed it’s fast fashion consumers and how willing are we as consumers to eat it up?

1. NY Times 2. 3. The Gloss 4. Vogue UK 5.
6. The Business of Fashion 7. DailyMail 8.