Quiet Luxury: Silence Has Never Been Louder
If you’re like me and haven’t watched “Succession,” you’re probably wondering what all the talk of “quiet luxury” is about. As of late, everyone seems to be weighing in on this idea, piling up one interpretation after the next to the point of utter confusion. Some view it as “new-age minimalism,” others “old money aesthetic” or “stealth wealth,” and then there’s those who call it “boring.” Before we decide on a definition for ourselves, it’s important to address what we’re talking about.
Roy Family in ‘Succession’ / Photo Courtesy of Sky
Fashion has been a means for displaying one’s wealth as early as the 1800s. It all started in Paris and London, where upper-class women layered elaborate petticoats, corsets, and chemises under ornate dresses of silk and linen. Such ostentatious fashions were largely inaccessible to the public until the invention of the sewing machine in 1842. As middle-class women learned to embellish their clothing and imitate the rich, the upper-class turned to minimalism to set themselves apart. This meant subtle details like trimmings and expensive but fragile fabrics that were all too impractical for those without disposable incomes. Any of this ring a bell?
Photo courtesy of David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Photo courtesy of The Row
Victorian era fashions certainly don’t resemble Mark Zuckerberg’s custom Brunello Cucinelli t-shirts (which go for upward of $300) but they’re more alike than we think. Today, wealthy people continue to dress unassumingly as a means of distinguishing themselves from the masses. Gwyneth Paltrow’s recent courtroom appearance, for instance, is considered a defining moment for the quiet luxury movement. Swathed in muted tones and unidentifiable designer pieces, Paltrow was lauded for her $1,690 wool sweater by The Row despite its indistinguishability from a more affordable version by, say J. Crew. Suddenly, everyone is obsessed with looking rich without looking rich.
Photo Courtesy of Getty Images
Photo Courtesy of Getty Images
Consumers aren’t the only ones veering away from flashy logos and trend items. Designers have also adapted to this movement by offering classic, inconspicuous pieces that stand the test of time. Take Gucci, for example. Although the Italian fashion house is widely known for its double 'G' logo, it recently revived its 1961 'Jackie' bag as a shift toward silhouette-focused products. Brands like Bottega Veneta, on the other hand, have subtlety embedded in their DNA. In a way, the ‘Jodie’ bag is prescient of quiet luxury’s rise. Although it has no logo, the bag gained popularity in recent years solely because of its design and quality—evidence of a changing luxury climate.
‘Jackie Bag’ by Gucci / Photo Courtesy of Getty Images
While the embrace of subtle fashion is encouraging for some, it remains problematic for most. Luxury is exclusive by its very nature. But even when desirability rests on intrinsic value—and not logos—a hefty price tag doesn’t necessitate a product’s worth. In other words, I’m all about making a purchase based on an assessment of a piece’s design elements and quality. But just how being fashionable doesn’t mean wearing logos, it doesn’t mean paying logo prices, either.
Article by Meyme Nakash, Contributor, PhotoBook Magazine
Tearsheets by Alexa Dyer, Graphic Designer, PhotoBook Magazine
RELATED STORIES
