Logos

I was thinking about the practice of wearing logos today when I noticed someone wearing socks with the Nike swoosh on them, with a pair of Nike sneakers and Nike shorts. And once I noticed that, I started seeing logos everywhere. Even my innocuous college sweatshirt seemed suspect - as proud as I am of being a Williams College student, in those brief moments of paranoia I suddenly resented everything that bore resemblance to a logo. As I walked from class to class, I found myself taking much more notice of the brands emblazoned on people's clothes. They ranged from the relatively small, like American Eagle's Polo-esque embroidered eagle, to obviously branded sneakers, like the omnipresent Nikes, Adidases, and New Balances.

Which brought me to my next train of thought: while the sheer amount of logos present in our wardrobes is shocking at times, is it possible to incorporate those logos into what can ultimately become a unique sense of style and fashion?

This question was brought up during the last class when we were discussing the issue of logo tattoos, and most people seemed to think that wearing a branded T-shirt was significantly different (and much more excusable) than getting a Nike swoosh tattooed onto a part of your body. There I'd have to agree as well. Getting a tattoo implies that you are willing to be branded for life, and even though as a consumer there are certain brands that I prefer over others, I don't think I'd ever allow myself to become a permanent walking billboard for them. Another issue that was brought up was that company images are subject to change, and what's considered cool one day might be uncool the next. On a more serious note, getting a logo tattoo for a company that is found to have been associated with sweatshops and human rights abuses would probably be a decision most people would regret.

So what's the difference between branded clothing and branded skin? As mentioned above, there's the issue of permanence - clothes can be removed and substituted for others, whereas tattoo removal is much more painful and expensive. Another point, which I mentioned above, is that whether we like it or not, logos have become a part of fashion. Wearing the brand of a cool company can be a way of transmitting a message to other people that you yourself are also hip and desirable - by wearing a company's logo, you can take on that company's image as your own, and my guess is that at least 75% of the $200 you pay for a pair of fancy sneakers might as well be for that image alone.

However! True fashion comes, I believe, from the ability to exude ease and style no matter what you're wearing. And in that sense, shouldn't it be possible for an individual to be stylish without having to resort to giant, obvious logos? Or even small, "classier" ones like the Ralph Lauren polo player and his horse? I think so. And while avoiding brands may be impossible in this day and age (after all, a brand name can also have a legitimate claim to better quality than a virtually unknown name), it's up to the consumer to be a filter and decide how comfortable he or she is with being branded in this manner. So while I don't necessarily buy into Nike's self-promoted image as sportswear for athletic gods and goddesses, I do appreciate the fact that they sell good running shoes. I won't be purchasing any pairs upwards of $100 anytime soon, but having owned Nike shoes in the past, I know that there is a certain promise of quality that comes with the Nike name - and to me, that is worth something.