Even the “tasteful” ones. A landmark Spyplane Reckoning
So filled with wisdom. I can never figure out why it's ok with so many to donate rental space on their bodies to clothing logos. My pet peeve is the logo on the side of sunglasses...Why, Miuccia, why?
I’ve de-branded clothing since I was a kid and still do, but I somehow ended up becoming a graphic designer.
My take - I love a blast over, nearly abstract level logo on 90s gear from a shit brand like Nautica. It's like how camo becomes a solid color from a distance, it loses all meaning and context.
Loved this post!! Also have always had innate logo-allergy but that’s because my culty boarding school in s india banned logos. I think that was part their counter-culture bent and also from some prudish impulse to not let adolescent eyes have cause to linger on adolescent chests :) but I do have a weakness for non-clothing brand merch, makes me feel grounded in time and place :)
believe this is similarly articulated in architecture as the duck vs decorated shed discussion
"...‘90s skatewear company doing a cheeky logo flip." Always made me laugh when B. Kruger jokingly suggested that one day Supreme would sue her, after they sent C&D to anyone that makes a BOGO lookalike...AFTER THEY KNOCKED OFF THE GOAT. Talk about calling the kettle black. SMH
Lacoste was founded by a tennis player, and initially made actual tennis shirts. Polo seems like it's in a different 'fantasy sportswear' category. Maybe this is pedantic but it seems like there's a distinction. Lacoste also claims to be "the first example of a brand name appearing on the outside of an article of clothing". So maybe they're the O.G. villains here.
Stone Island considers itself sportswear ("Sportswear Company S.p.A") but that seems like a stretch.
I'm trying to justify getting the badge in but really I know this Spyplane Holy Decree to be true.
What about wearing Carhartt??
Was just coming here to mention Cayce Pollard but I see that the Spyfam beat me to the punch :)
So low that no more high horses, so hard to wear Polo
When I do, I cut the pony off
Now there’s a hole where there once was a logo
How do we feel about “cutting the pony off” i.e. removing logos from clothes. I’ve became accustomed to using my seam ripper to remove logos from Carhartt pants and Patagonia jackets. I appreciate the utility of these brands and there accessibility on the secondhand marketplace. Yet, deeply feel the aversion to make advertising apart of my being in the world. I personally love the impression the removed logos leave suggesting a brand but making no claims to it.
love hearing about everyone’s dads not wanting them to be a walking billboard... makes me feel warm! my dad, a king who still buys all his clothing in packs from the center aisles at Costco, once bought me a Patagonia Snap-T for my birthday and painstakingly used nail scissors to unstitch the front label before wrapping it up for me. no disrespect to yvon chouinard but fuck a label!!
Always appreciate a brand that gives you the opportunity to take a seam ripper to a logo to make the item unbranded
Niche, but wearing a fashion logo also reminds me of when you walk into a kid's Bar Mitzvah and their name is plastered all over everything in the room and up in neon. Like, we all know why we're here! Turns the whole thing into an effort to impress rather than a celebration of something awesome :/
I wonder if taking a 2nd hand item of branded clothing & making it your own via painting it, or dyeing it, or sewing it, etc., makes brand-revulsion any less powerful or if it possibly becomes a statement of personal expression trumping consumerism?
Love this, insightful as ever. I'm pondering the distinction between a straight-up logo and a "motif" that's associated with a brand. Case in point, I have a pair of socks from that Christopher Kane "More Joy" sub-line; the one that deploys ye olde graphicks from "The Joy of Sex" by Alex Comfort. I love these socks despite the fact (or because) I find them inherently silly - but does the "More Joy" typography count as a logo, given the clear and known association with Christopher Kane? I mean, I'm going to wear the socks regardless (no haters for my feet), but I wonder if there's a blurry line around what actually constitutes a logo?