Balenciaga’s Kering T-Shirt– Breaking the Fashion Fourth Wall
Balenciaga’s AW17 collection contained a deeply understated piece. It was a simple t-shirt with the logo and name of Balenciaga’s parent company– Kering.
This t-shirt is not highly sought-after, or particularly exciting, and I am yet to see much discussion about it online, but… there are a few things about it that interests me.
It Breaks the Fourth Wall
It breaks the fourth wall by disenchanting the consumer and highlighting the simple fact that Balenciaga is not a lone company, but rather the arm of a larger corporation.
Anti-Meaning
It feels like the opposite of a Supreme Box Logo hoodie. In the past, people would wear Supreme as a way of aligning themselves with the message and clientele of the brand. But what is the message of a corporation like Kering? And what are the unique features of its clientele? There are not any. It is an umbrella company. It has no definining aspects of itself. It just houses other companies. If there is any ideology, it exists only in the implicit sense.
Implied Interconnectivity
This t-shirt is not only a Balenciaga piece, but also a Gucci, Bottega, Alexander McQueen and Yves Saint Laurent piece. It collapses rivalries by showing their unimportance. Under the surface, there is a lack of identity. Or perhaps, it questions the nature of identity when many entities are so strongly interconnected.
Anti-Capitalist
By revealing such interconnectivity, Balenciaga have given a clear indication that themselves, along with many of their peers, are not independent and autonomous beings, but rather that they share the same overlords.
Fashion Absurdity
It highlights the absurdity of a fashion-driven corporation not even being properly associated with fashion. Kering is behind so many high-end clothing brands, yet its logo means nothing to the consumer. It is as if this t-shirt is mocking this fact whilst simultaneously pulling back the curtain on the industry in a small way.
Final Words
The Kering t-shirt is a strange thing to be interested in. It is clearly a niche product that was not designed to be marketed at the general public. But something about it feels significant. It feels forbidden in a way, like it goes against the nature of the industry by breaking the spell and revealing the unspoken interconnectivity between the fashion industry. There is also something anti-capitalist about it, too. These separate fashion houses present themselves as being independent and free, yet they all share the same overlord. In this sense, it provides a dark sense of discomfort and realism to the industry.
