High fashion sneakers deemed ‘poverty chic’
Balenciaga’s $1,850 shoes come ripped up, frayed
Balenciaga’s latest release is a luxury shoe that’s seen better days — and it’s receiving backlash fresh out of the box.
The European fashion house recently released a “retooled” version of its Paris sneaker that includes ripped and decaying canvas material, frayed shoestrings and dirty scratched-up leather with Balenciaga written across the sole in what looks to be permanent marker. An adulteration to Balenciaga’s unsoiled $625 (U.S.) Paris sneaker, the distressed version costs more than double: $1,850.
With the high price tag, some on social media are calling the label’s target audience the “ultra rich cosplaying poor.”
“A dedicated campaign shows the shoes extremely worn, marked up and dirtied. These still life portraits, by photographer Leopold Duchemin, suggest that Paris Sneakers are meant to be worn for a lifetime,” Balenciaga wrote on its website announcing the new footwear.
“I’m sure Balenciaga and their shoes is (sic) a social experiment to see how far humans will go just to buy something for the brands (sic) name,” @camwild wrote on Twitter.
Balenciaga has a history of making a commodity out of clothes and style choices that have been historically criticized and considered lesser than when they don’t carry a designer label. In 2021, fashion watchers called out the release of Balenciaga’s Trompe-L’Oeil pants (a $1,190 pair of sweatpants with green boxers sewn in the top to mimic a sagging look) for cultural appropriation. The style of dress has been made popular in Black communities and by some hip-hop artists but, at the same time, has been used as an identifier to police young, Black men.
However, Balenciaga isn’t alone in the “poverty chic” trend. In 2018, shoppers scratched their heads at the celebrity-loved, faux-distressed Golden Goose sneakers before some shelled out $530 for their own taped-up pair, a version of the shoes that others described as “awful” and “insensitive.”
Gucci put out their own less-than-luxury-looking dirty sneakers in 2019.
Experts say people embrace this esthetic for a variety of reasons, but a big one is to exhibit relatability.
“(It) is a little bit misguided,” Susan Scafidi, author of “Who Owns Culture: Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law” said in September. “Because it erases the reality of why someone might be wearing clothes that are dirty or ripped or ill-fitting.”
Some make the argument that these distressed styles celebrate communities, Darnell-Jamal Lisby, fashion historian and assistant curator for the Cleveland Museum of Art, said in September, adding that there is a disconnect when brands cherry-pick from communities that have been historically neglected.
“They’re not actually using these collections as teaching moments, educational moments for people to really understand the history of our world, the history of all these other communities that they’re taking inspiration from,” Lisby said.
“It erases the reality of why someone might be wearing clothes that are dirty or ripped or ill-fitting. SUSAN SCAFIDI AUTHOR, “WHO OWNS CULTURE: APPROPRIATION AND AUTHENTICITY IN AMERICAN LAW”