Patronising Prada

In my opinion Prada are ultra-modern and forward thinking, I do not think their consumers are being patronised as all. I think they are very aware of what they are being confronted with and probably enjoy wearing a brand that can provide good conversational pieces. The movement of political or controversial art and high fashion is a natural progression. Designing a blur between fashion and other models whether it is political, historical or cultural need to be formed in order to create a new archetype and therefore keep innovation going. For Prada, it maybe a very good strategy as there are so many designers and new competitive luxury brands hitting the market, they have to seek more innovative ways to cause differentiation. Just causing enough controversy so that people visit the store to see the art is indeed excellent marketing.

There is probably a strong argument for those whom buy Prada and others within that arena; that they are very culturally aware and opinionated themselves, therefore they would capitalise on the strong visual statements being made. Their consumers will continue to decode and embrace Prada’s innovative stance for many years to come.

/Hayley Solomon 12/06/2006

“I think they are very aware of what they are being confronted with and probably enjoy wearing a brand that can provide good conversational pieces.”

I think we have to be careful. But, we have to start thinking about what kind of conversations these pieces start. I’d prefer it if this sort of thing created discomfort and promted questions, not simply ‘good conversation’. I already cringe to think what sort of conversation one might overhear…

Right now, there is a lot of work out there that brings difficult topics into the living room/dressing room - Phillipe Stark’s Kalashnikov up-stand lamps for starters to quote a ‘high-end’/'branded’ example. I think this is fine - as I don’t think today that we should suggest that the gallery - a branded, rarified, commerical entity if ever there was one - is more ‘appropriate’ for instigating thoughfulness about these topics than other spaces. Bringing these discussions into the realm of the everyday is important

However, no one would suggest that Stark and Prada are ‘everyday’ and maybe therein lies people’s problem with this whole issue. It’s about a group of elite people re-affirming a sense of themselves as culturally sophisticated, clever decoders. The Death Camp piece isn’t meant to be ironic I imagine, but in this particular milieu, it’s hard to ‘read’ it in any other way. None of this strikes me as in the least bit innovative.

/Anonymous 13/06/2006

Prada’s recent campaign has lead us to question the boundaries of fashion and art.Prada have taken an extreme approach to gaining publicity which is obtained sometimes more efficiently through making a controversial gesture. Admittedly aware the content would strike outrage, and upset a large audience, Prada knew wether good or bad outcome it would still inevitably gain a reaction and in turn publicity.

Fashion and art are flirting, both modes of expression, reflecting attitude. They are becoming a fusion of different cultural realms. Art and fashion continue to work within different value systems and this may be the only reason why art-fashion is so fashionable. Prada have used this conflict of values to represent their innovation as a brand, and in my oppinion it has worked effectively wether the content is higly inappropriate or not, for me is not the question. Prada may have hung themselves in the eyes of those effected by the content but an equal population of spectators will not have taken offence and will continue respect brand.

Glen Luchford’s famous campaign for Prada had a more discreet hidden narrative. His photographs are noted for the tongue in cheek sexuality and again, violence that was inspired by french photographer Bourdin. Prada bought into this controversial approach knowing the reader will be instantly drawn into a disturbing slice of narrative, thus arousing the readers impulse to become one of the characters in the scenerio. The campaign was a success as at the time society’s personal expression became more important than the clothes they wore. The published images were imbued with mystery of film noir and addressed concearns beyond the synthetic surface of fashion.

Prada want their consumers to be left in a complex psycological and emotional state after viewing a campaign. By always having a deep and complex narrative to their schemes they are guaranteed reaction and are noted as a meaningful brand that consumers will continue to buy into. They have created an expectation that consumers hold allowing them to come back with attitude in consequetive campaigns that ignites excitement or furiosity with society. After all bad publicity still drives sales!!

/jade adams-wood 14/06/2006

“It’s about a group of elite people re-affirming a sense of themselves as culturally sophisticated, clever decoders.” That’s nicely observed. And the emphasis has to be on ‘re-affirming a sense of themselves’, because it is hard to imagine that any of these items - or the conversations they initiate - make any real difference to the issues they are supposed to be about. Ethnic cleansing continues in Darfur and elsewhere, child soldiers and others across the globe are slugging it out with Kalashnikovs, and the things that will stop this are not overpriced handbags or up-stand lamps. Dressing up fashion accessories to proclaim ‘I have a conscience, I am aware of what’s happening in the world’ may be good marketing to a group of ‘cash rich, time poor’ people who don’t have the time or inclination to do any more about their consciences. But we shouldn’t confuse “re-affirming a sense of oneself as a conscientious person’ - which is all about how we want other people see us - with actually being conscientious.

I think Prada are also reacting to the perception that - in today’s world - anyone can simply buy ‘taste’. A luxury fashion label now simply says: “I have a lot of disposable cash’. It requires no specialist knowledge, no ‘breeding’ or ‘cultivation’, no aesthetic discrimination to choose the ‘right’ things. If you have enough money, you can pay someone to tell you what you should have (and if you don’t approach them, they will surely approach you). Fortunately - thanks to the obsession with celebrity - we all know this. No doubt, even Jade Goody now wears Prada. So, at the risk of their precious ‘brands’ being seen simply as shallow and flashy, manufacturers have to make them a bit ’spiky’ - throw in something to make the unsophisticated nouveau riche uncomfortable, to keep up the cachet of the product. Enter the likes of Tom Sachs and Philippe Starck to help put some boundaries around the brand, to put off the ‘wrong’ people…

Well, at least until we all come to realise that this is no less shallow, and that anyway David and Victoria Beckham are being schooled in how to decode supposedly sophisticated references. (Excellent career opportunities here, by the way, for disgruntled Cultural Studies lecturers… ;-)

james

/james souttar 14/06/2006

Nicky’s comment is interesting “…but aren’t they also just a little bit too cynical and worldly-wise to enjoy being patronised in this way?” she is talking about Prada consumers. This presumably also includes people who have been affected by the issues discussed above - holocaust etc. Sometimes these two coincide. Sometimes they are the former only, maybe in a retail scenario. Sometimes the latter only - at the Jewish museum? I note that the Jewish complaints mentioned were by email. This is quite a distant medium - delete, reply ‘thanks for your email, we are taking your comments into consideration…’

I am quite interested in these differences of audience. - Particularly how we come into contact with them and, if ever, face to face. Once I saw a lecture on photography, war and Baudrillard’s ideas about simulation and that ‘the gulf war never happened’. At question time, one of the audience said they had served in Iraq. This was interesting because one could sense a collective holding in of breath. Would theory cosily discussed in the ‘ivory tower’ speak meaningfully to, or patronisingly for, someone it spoke about? As it happens, a lot was learnt by ‘both sides’.

I’m not necessarily saying that ‘art’ should make links between content and audience in such a direct way. But was there a discussion, with Tom Sachs, hosted by the gallery at all?

/Robert Blythe 03/07/2006

‘Excellent career opportunities here, by the way, for disgruntled Cultural Studies lecturers… ;-’ (James)

Need not apply…I blame the cultural studies lot for turning out a generation who use those tools to create ‘clever’ and ‘radical’ layered messages for commerce - ready-to-decode in 2 minutes like so many microwave meals… I pointed this out in the Maziar Raien/Judith Williamson spat back in August 2005 on this blog but not being part of the elite group of people re-affirming a sense of themselves as culturally sophisticated, clever decoders, was totally ignored. :(

/Anonymous 03/07/2006

Prada owner and creative director Miuccia Prada and LVMH chairman Bernard Arnault are often referred to as ‘the new Medici’s’, underlining the fact that patronage of the arts by private companies has a long history. Nor is the relationship between retail and the arts a new phenomenon as the spectacular promotions of the early department stores reveal, so I can’t really agree with Hayley that what Prada is doing is particularly innovative.

As Anon (13/6) points out there is no reason why gallery spaces should be more appropriate for showing art than any other. As shopping becomes an increasingly popular leisure activity there have been attempts by museums to take art to the public as demonstrated by the National Gallery exhibiting some of its works (albeit reproductions) in Bluewater Shopping Mall. However, unlike public institutions, the gallery spaces owned by luxury brands are not subject to government targets relating to inclusivity, and a ‘White Cube’ elitist aesthetic tends to prevail.

Jade’s point about publicity is certainly true. The careful mediation of the company’s image is apparent in the range of publications produced not only by the Prada Foundation to accompany its annual exhibitions but in mapping the design process of its ‘epicenter stores’. Press releases almost always refer to Miuccia Prada’s academic and iconoclastic credentials, thereby constructing a particular image of the designer, which by extrapolation is conferred on to her labelled merchandise.

By incorporating or editorialising an artist’s critique of its own working practices as in the case of Tom Sachs, Prada renders the artist’s work harmless at the same time as permitting the sensation of it being radical to exist. This helps to attract a particular taste community, and equally important as James suggests, it helps to make the brand a bit ‘spiky’ and discourages the ‘wrong’ people from buying into the brand.

Robert asked if there was a discussion about Tom Sachs’ work hosted by the gallery. Sachs took part in an ‘open encounter’ dedicated to the theme of ‘Art and Terror’ where he ‘explores in his work the relationship between consumer imperialism and terror’ (Fondazione Prada website), and he also met the public at an event prior to the opening of his exhibition.

I’m particularly interested (if anyone has any views on this) in the complexities and contradictions that occur at the interface between art and business. As ‘art follows the money’, senior executives of luxury brands amass significant art collections and become major players in the international art market. What happens when private businesses become cultural producers in their own right commissioning work and hosting exhibitions? What impact does this have on the kind of art produced by artists and architects and on the reception of that work? In the case of Vanessa Beecroft for Louis Vuitton, and Barbara Kruger for Selfridges, there were accusations that the boundaries between patronage and promotion had dissolved into marketing strategy. Should we be concerned about the way in which business is reshaping the cultural landscape or should we see private capital as a natural ally of cultural production?

Nicky Ryan 28/7

/Nicky Ryan 27/07/2006

In November 2009 we released the book ‘Limited Language: Rewriting Design: Responding to a feedback culture’ which re-engaged with this original post.

For more on the book as a whole: http://bit.ly/bookcomments

…

/Colin + Monika 15/11/2009

write a comment

we encourage people to recycle your comments in their own research as we may collage them into our own writing with the aim to publish the resulting articles (any post eventually used will be credited). We encourage comments to be 200 words or more.

line and paragraph breaks automatic. e-mail address will never be displayed. html allowed: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>