Logomania is . . .dead? To me?

I'm over it. I'm over it! Listen, haters will say I contradict myself, and they are right. A few months ago, I wrote a post reacting to a NYT article about the rise of logomania, citing my obvious fascination with consumer habits and motivation. But now it is 2019, and I swear if I see one more Fendi logo I'll go insane.

What I originally loved about it was the maximalism that goes hand in hand with it; an outfit covered in logos is anything but subtle. But its flashy opulence has faded to obnoxiousness, a way for clout chasers with no awareness of fashion history or good design to be seen with a Dior saddlebag or a Gucci belt.

Because after a year or so of the logo craze, its become a design crutch and hinderance. A white blouse with a giant "CHANEL" across the breast in no way tells a story, makes a statement or advances design in any way. I don't think it's a coincidence that some of the more innovative and interesting designers of the time like Iris van Herpen, Guo Pei or Issey Miyake are not throwing their name on every shirt or bag they send down the runway. They don't need the hype to compensate for a lack of design. No need to put "Miyake" on a pleated bag and broadcast your sartorial superiority across town; if you're in the know, you recognize it when you see it. And it makes for a more subtle, interesting wardrobe. Isn't that so much more fun?

My beef with the logo boils down to the fact that its become so disingenuous--when I see someone covered in that stupid Fendi logo that Karl Lagerfeld (who I lowkey blame for all of this) drew in five seconds, I see no personality or taste. And it turns fashion, one of the most provocative forms of art there is, into the shallow, frivolous thing that it's made out to be in so many cliches.