I WONDER WHEN IT'LL HAPPEN, WHEN THE WORLD HAS ENOUGH LUXURY PRODUCTS? Kelly bags stuffed into the gaps of broken windows, glossy mountains of patent Louboutin stilettos and shrink wrapped trainers piled up around the back of buildings. As far-fetched as it seems, consider that even a tin of coke - a most ubiquitous modern day item - would be an inconceivable luxury of manufacture by Cro Magnon man's standards. In that way, I feel inevitable: when every country in the world has accepted declining birth rates and - perhaps thankfully- a slowed down global economy where fewer humans are finding themselves surrounded by a plethora of products in forgotten storage facilities and abandoned apartments, from junk to jewellery, a world full of stuff making for an unwanted inheritance left by a bygone age.

*Concept work titled “25kg”- based on the equivalent weight in gold of $1m. [Source. E.Gucewicz artwork. 2023]*

What will the Luxury companies be doing then, having finally reached a point where they have produced enough ‘luxury’ to successfully cater for entire global demand? A time where Depop (assuming it still exists at this point in the future) is so saturated with Louis Vuitton handbags and Versace heels that no-one has space for them anymore, let alone desire. A time where everybody has some version of a luxury product and a knowledge that if you wear it out simply a couple of hours minimum wage can buy you a new one of similar ‘luxury’ quality, its price so heavily beaten down by the sheer quantity of quality available. Already we are seeing good quality second hand products costing fractionally little relative to lowest income.

As a designer of things, some of them ‘luxury’, I do wonder why we continue to make anything new in a world with so many near-perfect condition excellent pre-loved products available. We all already knew that people never really needed luxury products in the first place, but what will the role of luxury brands be when fewer people want the products, when the idea of owning a luxury handbag just doesn’t feel special or exclusive anymore?

You’re probably thinking I’ve ignored the concept of Fashion : Our desires change because fashions change. But the concept of people wanting to look sophisticated or wealthy because of wearing the latest fashion is a rather old-fashioned concept itself. People are feeling increasing disgust at the pace of new drops and product launches, in a possible future culture that is tense with environmental sensitivity one can easily imagine celebrities and normies both being lambasted or even ‘cancelled’ for wearing something new- as we already see people being lauded for wearing something old.

“I only want to create something that deserves to exist””

— Matthew Williams

There is an undenable growing sense of snobbishness towards people buying new things- especially clothes- especially cheap clothes. Increasingly human culture is revering fashion products that are decades old in a way that is incomparable to any other point in human history. In addition, luxury products themselves are getting curbed, brands can’t legitimately use exotic materials like real tortoiseshell or ivory anymore, while it’s a good thing from a conservation and environmental point of view, it also means luxury is now becoming defined as mere imitation of older artefacts. Relying on continued desire for luxury products just because they have been generated won’t save luxury brands from ceasing to have purpose one day.

Brands like Helmut Lang have resorted to releases of “re-editions” of its most iconic pieces. Sourced from Lang’s extensive archive, yet despite theier pristine ‘brand new’ condition, the re-edtions garner a fraction of the cost of the original pieces, whihc have a fetishistic autheticity to them, almost like the old things carry magic in a way that the reproductions dont. Additionally if you are wearing the right ‘old thing’, this generates the right signal to the others to know- the right people - and it does so with far more erudition than buying a new version of it. [Photo source. *Helmut Lang]*

Eyewear company, Jacques Marie Mage “the CASH” sunlgasses. Undoubably luxurious, tortoiseshell type sunglasses which are not made from real tortoises! Priced £720.00 ($900). Limited edition of 450 pieces. [Photo source. *Jacques Marie Mage]*

You may point out that brands are capable of rethinking the idea of desire itself. A classic case of the rebranding of desire was demonstrated by Edward Bernays for Ford and other American car manufacturers in the early 20th century. Bernays, using his uncle Sigmund [Freud]’s concepts of human -and in particular male desire- turned the American consumer who was satisfied with their car because it worked, into the American consumer who desired this year’s model. The consumer incentivised and policed by the impending social judgement of their peers. This provided the Ford company with what they perceived as a solution to the problem of overproduction. But a love of new-ness is something that has existed in Fashion since it started: and so as a strategy, isn’t new. While that approach might continue to work economically for fast fashion brands, for luxury brands a fast paced product rollout is considered tacky and will earn yet more disdain because it ignores that environmentally savvy future consumer I mention. The invigoration of desire through ever-new product ranges is a minefield that will require a marketing genius like Bernays to reappear on cue when needed - and may yet remain unnavigable.

*Male desires and insecurities were first used by Bernay’s to sell cars for well into the 21st century*

So there is another type of desire that is not based on increasing the craving for the newest or sexiest thing : Desire based on scarcity. Waiting lists and limited edition drops both command a hike in perceived value allowing the price to go up while also introducing a sense of urgency, and therefore can bring marketing campaign costs down. This is the oldest trick in the luxury brands handbook : Hermes knows that if they make too many Kelly bags then the bag becomes in-exclusive, or worse : common. A seemingly irrelevant but workable comparison is Stella Artois, which in the early 1990s was more expensive than other beers. But due to growth of their brewery, became one of the cheapest beers possible by the 2000’s- rendering their advertising tagline “Reassuringly expensive” hopelessly out of touch with the rock bottom price and association with that product's apparent lack of luxury. Some luxury brands have handled the maintenance of ‘scarcity in other bafflingly cack-handed ways : One case involving unsold handbags being burnt rather than included in discount sales. The public outcry at the discovery of this perverse waste resulted in the firm losing some brand-equity as well as money from the unsuccessful design.

Stella experienced incongruity in the UK in the 1990's, running adverts like this alongside earning a trashy nickname “wifebeater” because some saw the beer's inexpensive price meant it'd appeal more to families suffering from alcohol problems. About as undesirable a reputation a brand could get, the campaign was eventually dropped in the 2000's.

“scarcity isn’t just about burning bags, it can be played artfully- just like Andy Warhol did.”

All this pressure to induce desire, but not by generating endless new looks and drops, to increase both profits whilst also maintaining scarcity, and to all that whilst not mucking up the planet, puts luxury brands in a bit of a conundrum. So what could allow luxury brands products to grow prices to eyewateringing fabulous amounts in a world full of risk of saturation or shame from environmental responsibility? Well, scarcity isn’t just about burning bags, it can be played artfully- just like Andy Warhol did.

But he was an artist.

So then, let's consider the artist:

In a business sense artists are elite capitalist high achievers of the most disgustingly effective order : An entity who manufactures works requiring minimal overhead costs and yet sells for sometimes millions of percent more than in the input costs- and (if they are a successful artist) an ability to repeat this process for the rest of their lives. Pablo Picasso -at the height of his popularity- took a large party out to an expensive Parisian restaurant, when it came to paying for the bill he allegedly signed the receipt with a quick drawing which was accepted as more than adequate payment. History is filled with tales of almost tulipomania-esque capital power sustained by some artists. Ye (Kayne West), made multiple fortunes with each of the many projects he touched. This conceptual midas touch made him a billionaire, for a while, until his falling out and subsequent break with Adidas in 2022. And that's the thing, being a single mortal doing art is a terribly weak position too. So now imagine this concept applied to a brand. Taking the idea of the artist from corporeal to corporate would be an almost impossibly delicate balance to strike, but if achieved, could be an ultimate evolution luxury houses could wish for. A state of brand where they can reduce production overhead costs and environmentally pollutive side effects and instead focus on manufacturing a curated but steady flow of ‘luxury artwork pieces’ that one day could rival a Rothko’s price tag.

Ye (Kayne West), made multiple fortunes with each of the many projects he touched. This conceptual midas touch made Forbes announce that he’d reached billionaire-wealth status in 2020. However by 2022 his fortune reduced signficantly after a series of gaffs, such is the fraglity of the individual as opposed to the corporation [Video source Forbes]

The proposed endgame for this observation is that fashion brands will one day be able to create and sell just one single item, say a handbag, for around $1m. Or more. Imagine if Daniel Lee at Burberry had created a $1m handbag as part of his debut at the brand? The outraged fanfare of press attention, the indignant disgust from some members of the public, the baffled excitement from unthinkingly loyal fashion fans. Whatever your opinion might’ve been, the chances are you’d have had an opinion. This huge price for just one handbag would ensure some excited press. Perhaps pouring fuel on that fire, the pre-written responses from the brand could read like cut-and-paste Damien Hurst interview from the 1990s, just edit out “shark tank” for “solid gold bag” and you’d have a crude approximation of the press release. A crucial part of this plan would be that the bag would have to sell promptly and just as crucially the brand would also have to be able to repeat the process, often. But with the help of Sotheby's or another participating auction house they’d have a good chance at finding a buyer quite often, but in perpetuity?

“It’s a big dilemma. Artists and conservators have different opinions about what’s important- the original artwork or the original intention. I come from a conceptual art background, so I think it should be the intention. It’s the same piece. But the jury will be out for a long time to come.”

— Damien Hirst

The really hard thing would be to approximate an adequate replica of the authenticity that the powerful artists cultivate. Maintaining and even growing value of multiple repeated $1m bags would be the new focus of special interest for the brand. But I think - as abstract as this all may seem- some brands have already started thinking like this and have been hiring accordingly. The late and much respected Virgil Abloh was appointed artistic director of Louis Vuitton in 2018. A designer who was, in a way, more like an artist than a typical fashion art diretor, bringing art-world concepts like ‘ready-mades’ to fashion in a way that was far more commercial than earlier ‘ready-made’ users like Martin Margiela. Ready-mades in design are basically- in Virgil’s words- the idea “of bringing a bashed up candle from your garage and putting it a gallery space and suddenly it goes from being junk to becoming art”. A brand can’t decide to do that at a board meeting and expect their decision to be taken with any authenticity by the public, so they need to buy someone in who is already demonstrating they are an artist on some legitimate and authentic level. Virgil was, arguably, a form of ‘ready made’ himself; an artist facilitating a luxury house’s dream of manufacturing artwork priceable objects. That is all speculation fro me of course, as Virgil didn’t do anything so outrageous as a million dollar handbag… But that's not to say that a small part of his legacy has unintentionally but quite possibly nudged luxury strategy in that direction.

*Virgil Abloh took concepts from the art world and applied them to the fashion world in a way that was more commerical than before. [Video :* *Youtube]*

I first I discussed this concept with my agent back in 2019 and it stayed as an abstract and farfetched thought until earlier this year when Pharrell Williams filled Virgil’s old shoes at Louis Vuitton and one of his first projects with was creating a microscopic 3D printed handbag sculpture that was sold at auction for $63,000.

It’s not $1m, but it’s a bold step in that direction.

It’s not a question of if it might happen, it’s a question of when.

Pharell Williams and MSCHF collaborated to produce a microsopic handbag for Louis Vuitton to much press fanfare and attention. It doesn’t have to be a million dollar gold handbag, it can be a sculpture of a handbag, or just a sculpture, or even a performance art piece that is sold as an NFT- whatever the ‘artist’ (or even, ‘artist in residence’) decides- as the price is right and the media fanfare is ensured, this vindicates my 2019 conversation suggesting that we’ll increasingly be seeing not designers, but famous artists appointed to Creative or Art direction roles at the major houses.

Thanks for reading this! If you have any further thoughts on this and to discuss more - or wish to challenge any of my opinions - I will be delighted to discuss more!

I love it when readers message me to talk further on subjects - So don't be shy if you disagree or want to tell me about something I missed. (link in menu) or contact me here!