Cultural Baggage

“Cultural Baggage”

Naomi Klein of her book No Logo believes that Western society is experiencing an 'etherialization of capitalism'. It's believed that it has drained the concept of production from the market and filled the vacuum with images, signs, symbols and branding, producing a semi-religious aura which expands to fill the public space (Seabrook, 2004:34). These symbols and logos have become attached to products, distorting how the consumer values the actual product. Skeggs explores this concept of the production of items being no longer created for their immediate use by the producer, but for their market use (Skeggs, 2005:56). Society has come to comparatively value its commodities on the social and cultural benefits rather than just the use value. This issue is further developed as the exchange value of products differs so dramatically from the use value that it must possess other qualities to be accepted by the consumer as of reasonable worth. The Louis Vuitton designer wears are a prime example of such culturally charged objects. With luggage price at thousands of dollars the distance between cost of labour hours and exchange rate differ dramatically. Through Skeggs theory of 'Propertising Culture' this essay will explore how the Louis Vuitton brand successfully acquires such high exchange value of its products, and what properties their products possess for consumers to believe the price is an inherent quality.

The Louis Vuitton Company was established in 1854 by Malletier Louis Vuitton who designed the first flat top suit case. The company is famous for its luggage but now also designs shoes, journals, scarves, sunglasses, jewelery, watches, and ready to wear designer garments. Every design of The Louis Vuitton Company features the now famous 'LV' initials. The signature patterned 'LV' monogram fabric is the most popular features of their products, and its design in 1894 made Louis Vuitton the first designer label in contemporary history (Walker, 2007:253). In her book How Luxury Lost its Lustre, Dona Thomas explains that during the time of the final fall of the French monarchy in 1948, houses such as Louis Vuitton and Cartier were founded by artisans. After the loss of political power, “luxury became the domain of old-money aristocrats and elite families” (Thomas sighted by Walker, 2007:252). Louis Vuitton has striven to continually embody this concept of luxury. They have taken this element of culture and promoted it as an extension to the brand which now embodies their products (Klien, 2000:95). After world wide success, the brand continues to trade on its exclusive and authentic element by distributing only limited amounts of each design globally, this maintains elitist image of the brand, and the high price tag. Through a series of different marketing tools, The Louis Vuitton Company aims to make the brand the main feature of its products rather than fabric features and embroidery detail (Klein, 2000:34).

The LV logo is a prominent feature of all Louis Vuitton products, and is a persuasive reason for purchasing their products. This cultural value which consumers believe Louis Vuitton products possess, can be analysed through Skeggs' theory of 'propertising culture'. Unlike Marx who focuses on production, Skeggs believes that the structure of class is based on how the 'different forms of exchange' make up the economy (2005:47). She believes that class is symbolically produced through its relation to cultural symbols, which are applied to bodies to gain value in social space (2005:50). Culture has thus been converted into a 'highly mobile' commodity and becomes attached to certain products or people. This occurs through evolved social practices or can be inscribed through marketing. This propertisation of culture is viewed by Marx as problematic because objects are no longer valued on their use-value and “the product becomes increasingly one-sided... [I]ts immediate use-value for the gratification of the needs of its producer appears wholly adventitious... and inessential” (Bennett, 2005:126 quotes Marx).

Branding promotes this 'inessential' value and is one way through which objects have become de-materialised (Skeggs, 2005:47). Skeggs' concept compliments Marx's theory of commodity fetishism which claims that because of this de-materialisation, individuals falsely understand themselves as consumers rather than producers. This is achieved through branding as experiences and emotional responses related to class hierarchy are attached to brands such as Louis Vuitton; thus we value ourselves and others through branding and consumption (Skeggs, 2005:173). This is illustrated through the Louis Vuitton logo which is famous for its cultural capital.

Culture becomes propertised as it becomes a commodity that can be bought and sold and becomes a ticket we can use to move through social space (Skeggs, 2005:173). Through commodity fetishism, the Louis Vuitton Company and and logo owns and defines the surplus value of its bags. This makes up the gap between its high price tag in comparison to the labour hours it costs to produce. Yet Marx explains that the consumer market is alluded to believe that properties of the product such as the price become inherent properties of the item (Edgar & Sedgwick, 2005: 72). This also contributes to further distancing production and consumption which re-affirms the class structure of those who are producers and consumers. By distancing production and consumption, the difference between the use and exchange value can grow along with class inequality (Edgar & Sedgwick, 2005:73).

The 'LV' logo has come to symbolise the 'Louis Vuitton Lifestyle' of high cultural class which is a desired possession for all individuals. The 'LV patterned monogram canvas' was originally designed in 1896 to prevent counterfeit however ironically only 1% of all items featuring the 'LV' monogram are authentic. Fake Louis Vuitton reproductions make up 18% of the world counterfeit market. This has become a challenge to the brand's image and profit. Skeggs states that “a valuable cultural practice for some groups becomes devalued when attached to others”. 'The Fake' contradicts everything that 'The Louis Vuitton Lifestyle' stands for as the authentic designs are produced only in limited numbers whilst the counterfeit bags are mass produced. By producing only a few hundred of each design to distribute globally, the brand constructs itself as exclusive and elite, yet the reproductions allow this culture which they strive to embody available to individuals or all economic classes. This blurs the lines between those with and without the economic cultural capital as reproductions are available at a fraction of the price of the authentic.

Walter Benjamin believes that technology plays a huge role in production of fakes and that without it, it would not be as easy to reproduce designs at such a huge scale (1999:224). The technology available allows reproductions to resemble authentic designs so closely that the difference is almost indistinguishable. This blurs the lines between the authentic and reproduced product and as a result the authentic loses its authority (Benjamin, 1999:226). Benjamin explains that the authentic has an 'aura' and possesses authority. “In the culture industry the notion of genuine style is seen to be the aesthetic equivalent of domination” (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1994:12). Being identified as one of high economic wealth, who possesses the disposable income to spend thousands of dollars on a bag is a desirable image to people of all classes, and is a main attraction to buying designer wears. However, because a fake Louis Vuitton bag is now so affordable through replicas, the image of the brand to the public becomes more accessible and thus less desirable. Therefore the cultural capital of the brand is threatened and the meaning of it has changed.

The Louis Vuitton Company inscribes cultural value to its products and trademark through a range of marketing tools including websites, advertisements and sponsorships. However, the brand invests most in building its image to the public through print advertising (Parnell, 2007:160). Jane Bennet of her book The Enchantment of Modern Life believes that advertisements hold their attention through colors, shapes, movement and affects and through these methods they enchant the audience to believe their message, and demystify the featured product to normalise them. Thus the messages implied through an advertised image appear as natural meanings (Bennett, 2005:125).

For many years the Louis Vuitton company has employed the new 'celebrity of the moment' to endorse the brand each season. However in September 2007, it released two separate campaign series aimed at different consumer markets. Both campaigns were designed in a three part series with one particular advertisment of each campaign leading the series. Whilst one campaign featured the fashionable movie star Scarlett Johanson, the sister campaign featured the unlikely star of Mikhail Gorbachev, former leader of the Soviet Union. Scarlett Johanson is a well known celebrity, known for her pale Victorian features and figure. Gorbachev however, was a political leader who's actions helped end the Cold War. He is admired by many as a liberator for his work in dissolving the Soviet Union (Seabrook, 2004:35). The two figures are used by the Louis Vuitton marketing campaign to relate to two separate consumer markets. Whilst the Johanson series is aimed at the female fashion conscious consumer, the Gorbachev series is designed to relate to consumers who are older, well educated, and perceive themselves as of higher cultural status. These two contrasting campaigns illustrate how Louis Vuitton is propertising separate elements of culture, creating different social meaning, and capitalizing upon this (Klien, 2000:64).

Scarlett Johanson has featured in Louis Vuitton advertisements over 2006 and 2007; each campaign following roughly the same concept of a feminine haute couture style. The leading ad of the Scarlett Johanson series was run as a double page spread in most commercial female fashion magazines throughout Western societies. It depicts the well known celebrity, laying on a velvet red chaise-lounge, draped in expensive royal red fur, staring dreamily into the sky. She has voluminous 'sex bomb' hair, smoky eyes and peachy plump lips making her appear alluring and desirable. Her fur coat is fastened at her waist opening up widely across her chest, hips, and thighs in a suggestive manner. The rich red hues of her coat and chaise-lounge tie in with the detail of the bag creating a focus point and making her appear glamorous and stylish. Her fur coat along with the royal red colors implies themes of wealth and affluence whilst her pale white skin, curly hair and peachy lips relate to the look of the Victorian upper classes of the late nineteenth century, or the 'Blue Bloods'. The ad features no text, only the image and brand name in the bottom right corner. The bag swings daintily from her hand and is pushed to the left corner of the picture. The bag is thus not the focus of the advertisement, and the celebrity stands in for the lifestyle and culture the brand wishes to embody and promote (Williamson, 1978:60). By combining these symbols the Louis Vuitton Company and their advertising agency imply themes of wealth, luxury, glamor, sex appeal and beauty and thus attaches these qualities to their brands (Klein, 2000:54). Each of these qualities are presented as middle or upper class attributes.

These qualities have become extensions and properties of the brand, thus the consumer market is lead to believe that by purchasing a Louis Vuitton product, they can possess these attributes and own the cultural capital move up in social space (Klien, 2000:29, Skeggs, 2005:66). The bag featured in the ad is made of their signature 'LV monogram canvas' which Klien states “serves the same social function as keeping the price tab on: everyone knows precisely what premium the wearer is willing to pay for style” (2000:28). Thus the bag becomes a cultural symbol of wealth and status, and the owner believes they can experience the inscribed qualities if they own a product of the Louis Vuitton brand.

Further more, through commodity fetishism, the cultural properties of the brand allow the owner to fit into ideologies of class and gender which re-enforces class structure (Skeggs, 2005:56). Dyer further explains that “Advertisements do not simply manipulate us, inoculate us or reduce us to the status of objects, they create structures of meaning which sell commodities not for themselves but in terms of ourselves as social beings in our different social relationships” (Dyer quoted in McFall, 2004:9). Marx argues that this marketing and branding of products erases the labour value taken to create them, and alternatively emphasizes consumption as opposed to the conditions of its production (Marx, 1890:128).

The brands sister campaign was named “Exceptional People: Emotional Journeys”, and followed the theme of journeys, self discovery, traveling and identity. The series of three images features Mikhail Gorbachev, Andre Agassi and Catherine Deneuve was only published in the reputable magazines Marie Claire and The Financial Review. However the ad featuring Gorbachev was predominantly published over the others. Gorbachev is pictured sitting in a black luxurious classic car, looking out the window as it drives past the remaining stretch of the Berlin Wall. He is wearing a black suit, and awkwardly holds the door handle, appearing somewhat uneasy. The Louis Vuitton bag sits casually beside him and is highlighted by the light from the window whilst the rest of the car remains in shadow. The light grey concrete of the Berlin Wall showing through the window contrasts with the dark car creating both the bag and th wall as focal points. Small text below the image states “A journey brings us face to face with ourselves”. Gorbachev is known by many as a man of liberation and freedom, and is pictured here embodying respect and wisdom.

In the window of the car there is a faint image of the Gorbachevs own reflection contrasted with the speed and blur of the outside world. He leans on the bag as the eerie outside stands against the comfort zone of the car. He appears unsure, almost grasping for help or strength as he passes a great symbol of his life. Perhaps he is struggling with what he was, and his past actions, in comparison to what he has become and how society has changed. This message when incorporated with the text can be interpreted as a journey for true identity, however as implied by the speed of the car; it is not the destination which is important but the journey itself. As he leans against the warm colors of the Louis Vuitton bag, it appears as a form of support. The contrast between the luxurious car and bag against the degraded graffitied wall poses the questions of wealth and poverty. This image can be interpreted in regards to Gorbachev that the higher one's economic or cultural status, the higher the scrutiny by others and difficulty to maintain such a lifestyle because of the nature of capitalism. To remain on top one must be equipped with the right tools to successfully achieve objectives. The Louis Vuitton bag can thus be interpreted as representing capital as resilient and dependable. On the contrary, Louis Vuitton spent many years proposing Gorbachev to promote their product which he repeatedly refused until he resolved to use donate the large fee to his charity 'Green House International'. Perhaps he seems uncomfortable being attached to such strong themes of capitalism and commodified culture.

Through this image, the ownership of a Louis Vuitton bag is constructed as a cultural practice by those of great achievements and respect, who are high up in economic and cultural class. The brand is therefore propertising symbols of culture to capitalise upon social space (Skeggs, 2000:66).

This advertisement symbolically juxtapositions the Louis Vuitton bag against the Berlin Wall which contrasts capitalism against communism. This can be read through many different views. Through the logo, price and promotion; a Louis Vuitton bag is constructed to symbolise wealth, style, sophistication and social and cultural values of the higher classes. The advertisement contrasts the dark grey Berlin Wall against the warm colors of the Louis Vuitton bag, presenting it as more inviting and thus praising capitalism. The bag represents inequality of capitalist class structure and one's status as their own fault or responsibility (Skeggs, 2000:58 & Marx, 1844:69). Marx explains that “a being only considers himself independent when he stands on his own feet when he owes his existence to himself” (1844:45).

This symbolism can further be interpreted as the self versus the community. The capitalism represented by the bag embodies working for the self to attain as much economic capital possible to gain mobility to move up in class and work toward luxury (Marx, 1845, 69). However the communism represented by the wall embodies community and collective identity. The light from the window is shining down onto the bag which illuminates warm colors thus creating favorable symbolism of capitalim and further communicates themes of entrapment versus freedom.

Naomi Klein explains that branding is not just a matter of adding value to the product but soaking up cultural ideas and connecting their products to personal and cultural lifestyle. By marketing their products and trademark as elements of the lifestyle, meaning is added, altering social perception of that lifestyle to include that brand or product (2000:43). Czitrom states that “the term lifestyle best captures the essence of the current version of the ideology of consumerism... It reduced all life to a style, equating how one lives with what one consumes (Czitrom, 1982 quoted in Goldman, 1992:54). Whilst Louis Vuitton designs shoes, scarves, jewelery, prestigious travel guides and watches, their travel luggage continues to be its most popular range (louisevuitton.com 10/11/07). The Louis Vuitton brand has traded on this concept of travel and 're-branded' it so as to give new meaning to the idea. Klien states that the concept of the brand or advertisement is 'everything' and actually replaces the product. Through their “Exceptional People: Emotional Journeys” campaign The Louis Vuitton Company presents the journey as the travels towards self discovery; however it is not just the destination but the adventure itself which is more important. This is illustrated through the images of the journeys advertisement campaign featuring Gorbachev. The Louis Vuitton company extends their relation with this concept as it sponsors sporting events such as the yacht race named “The Louis Vuitton Cup” (louisvuitton.com 10/11/07). Klein states that “it is not to sponsor the culture; but to be the culture” (2000:30). Further more, the brand publishes an annual travel guide to Paris and New York with information on only the most prestigious hotels, restaurants and galleries. Through these marketing tools the brand strives to embody the essence of traveling and give it new meaning. A 'Louis Vuitton Journey' is one of exploring the world luxury and they wish for their luggage to be the symbol of what the owner has accomplished in life, and what other life goals they will fulfill with a Louis Vuitton bag by their side. The brand presents journeys (and thus itself) as liberating, creating feelings of self worth and fulfillment. As Skeggs believes – these experiences are propertised so they become commodities which can be purchased through buying a Louis Vuitton bag (2005:63).

However traveling for leisure is an elitist activity which can only be practiced by those with enough economic capital. Through traveling, the individual can experience freedom and liberation and can educate one's self. Of course this also aids in attaining cultural capital as education and knowledge are a quality of middle and upper classes. Advertisement are a cultural construct yet they do not only reflect culture but influence it by promoting social concepts which are consumed by the public (Bennett, 2005:118). Therefore the Louis Vuitton Lifestyle is re-affirming and encouraging capitalist lifestyle and class structure.

Klein's studies of branding explain that as well as capitalising upon a lifestyle “most manufacturers and retailers begin by seeking out authentic scenes, important causes and cherished public events so that these things will infuse their brands with meaning” (2000:36). The Louis Vuitton Company uses this marketing tool by supporting 'Green Charities' working to stop global warming (Parnell, 2007:160). Rather than paying Gorbachev for this appearance in their 'Journeys' campaign, he requested that his fee be donated to his charity 'Green House International'. The other celebrities featured in the series followed Gorbachev and donated their fee to Al Gore's organization 'The Climate Project' (Parnell, 2007:160). However Louis Vuitton claims the charitable intentions as their own and proudly boasts this at the bottom of every poster. The company also reminded the consumer market of this contribution by paying Marie Clair to feature a story on their efforts in the Fashion Icons section of the magazine. The brand is attempting to ad meaning to its image and capitalize upon the recent trend in environmental concern.

Further more, it is encouraging the customer to justify such an expensive possession through the notion that their purchase is fixing global warming when really it is our excessive consumption which has caused global warming. Thus it is encouraging us to focus on the excess value and the consumption over the production. This again values the self over the community, capitalism over communism. More over, the temporal nature of fashion encourages waste and a disposal nature towards commodities which contradicts the concept of being environmentally conscious. These points prove that The Louis Vuitton brand is using the charitable acts to ad social value to their products to encourage higher profits.

The method brands such as Louis Vuitton distancing the use value of their products from the exchange value has pushed the role of production and consumption in society further away from each other putting the focus on consumption. By enchanting the consumer market our society has been manipulated on a value system which is no longer based on culture but on the acquirement of commodities. By inflating the exchange value the consumer market is led to believe that the high price possesses cultural properties attached to the brand which will benefit them socially rather than only for necessity. This promotes the growth of capitalism and further distances the hierarchal gap between the classes and encourages society to construct its individual and collective identities through commodities.