Originally published in print September 2020.
If you’ve ever travelled to any large city, like New York, Paris, or Beijing, you have probably encountered streets lined with stalls selling knock-off luxury goods. From fake Gucci belts to slightly-off printed Louis Vuitton handbags, knock-off fashion is something that has an international reach. In general, it has always been looked down on as a faux-pas in the fashion industry and definitely not something which you want to be caught engaging with. Especially now, as e-commerce sites like Aliexpress and DHGate are providing online ways to access knock-off fashion, it seems as if the perceived scourge of the fashion industry is not going away any time soon. However, is there a chance that fake luxury goods may be the key to evening out the playing field of fashion’s most classist systems?
To start, let us look at why knock-off fashion is considered bad. Other than the obvious wanting to avoid being caught with a fake luxury item and be ridiculed for it, there are some ethical concerns. In general, it is important to note that fashion copyright is an extremely complicated legal industry and does not work like most copyright law. Practically no design can be copyrighted to some extent and very rarely does a designer attempt to engage in a legal battle over a design knock-off, especially since it can be very hard to target who exactly is creating the replicas . When it comes to small luxury designers, this gets even more complicated, as most of the time they do not have the resources to prevent knock-offs of their design. The most recent cultural example of this comes from designer Lirika Matoshi and her strawberry dress that became a viral sensation, leading to many knockoffs and cheap reproductions. In this particular case, I am inclined to side against knockoffs, as Matoshi is a small ethical designer and these reproductions are surely being made under less than fair working conditions. However, I do believe that in some cases, the knock-off industry has the potential to redefine fashion’s greatest signifier of class divide.
Let’s go back in time in fashion history and talk about a designer who revolutionized the way the general public interacted with designer labels: Dapper Dan. Dapper Dan is a designer who began his career in the 1970s but would gain major recognition in the 80s for his designs due to the rise of hip-hop and streetwear. Dan was often kept out of design spaces due to his race, so he used his fashion as a way to reclaim what was being denied to him. He taught himself textile printing and created bootleg fabrics of High Fashion houses, like Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Fendi to name a few. He reworked these fabrics into garments that were not being made by these labels and reclaimed them for his streetwear lines that mostly serviced Black and queer spaces, unlike other fashion brands at the time. By doing this, he was able to reclaim the names of High Fashion goods for the people who were often denied rights to wear them and ushered in an era of “logomania” that resonates to this day. While he was regularly investigated and sued, Dapper Dan’s designs lived on and fundamentally changed the way people interacted with luxury goods.
What was so revolutionary about Dan’s work is that he dared to allow people to reclaim luxury labels for themselves. His work resonated with many other designers, personally and for profit, who would start taking logos from large industry labels and crafting their own designs. Because of this, in many ways, I see a lot of positives which can come from the consumption of knock-off luxury goods as they allow people who may never have the funds to buy such high-priced items to engage and dismantle one of the most exclusive worlds in fashion. When it comes to the ethics of this, it is important to remember that most high fashion labels are far from sustainable and often use the same factories as the knock-off labels. Furthermore, most houses have a long history of stealing designs from small designers and I think there is no harm in stealing them back. In fact, I’ll admit that I own a fake Vivienne Westwood necklace.
Why? Well, never in my life do I believe I’ll have the funds to drop hundreds on a pearl necklace, but I really like the design and the way they look, so I found a knock-off online and see no real problem wearing it. If you asked me if it was fake, I’d own up to it, but I feel no guilt for wearing fake designs. Fake luxury fashion has the ability to allow people of all classes to redefine symbols and signifiers of wealth, and reclaim their meaning from them. If everyone has a Chanel bag, real or fake, the value of an original dwindles, and so does the symbolism. Further, when people appropriate famous logos or patterns and rework them into their own creations, they continue a legacy of many designers like Dapper Dan. They are taking back a facet of the fashion industry from which they have been excluded.
Overall, knock-off fashion will always be a controversial part of the fashion industry. I also find it ironic that those who are so vocally against it are the same people and institutions that have the means to afford and profit off of the continuing of classist values that raise luxury fashion above all else. It is extremely classist of anyone to tell people that they either need to save up to afford an authentic luxury item or don’t otherwise deserve to buy it. Shaming anyone for buying knock-off is ridiculous.
The fashion industry is built on the principles of taking and evolving previous trends and designs. Knock-off fashion, in many ways, is a mere continuation of this, by allowing those often excluded from luxury spaces to engage with luxury items. The fact of the matter is that rich people will always buy authentic luxury and are the backbone of the industry, but middle-class and lower-class consumers should be allowed to buy cheaper alternatives. By expanding and engaging in knock-off fashion, we take away the prestige of symbolic fashion items of wealth, and allow everyone to take part in the fun of dressing up and feeling luxurious. Because, ultimately, that is a luxury that cannot be faked.
