“Cheap chic” is not so cheap — or chic

Economic uncertainty has a way of forcing our most beloved high-end designers into a fierce survival mode.

Our current economic downturn has resulted in business actions that have fortunately placed high fashion within the reach of the broke (but incredibly fashionable) college girl without sacrificing brand image, but it has also resulted in concerning business decisions that have only functioned to betray the creative philosophies and aesthetic virtues of high-end designers, serving no other real purpose.

Some brands, such as Yves Saint Laurent, have been tackling falling sales by investing more heavily in the recession-proof beauty industry. This direction has been successful in extending relatively inexpensive YSL beauty products to a wide range of income segments, essentially creating “accessible fashion,” while keeping brand image and the element of “luxury” intact. Others have been reevaluating company strategies (such as firing creative director Marc Jacobs, à la Louis Vuitton), and expanding into international markets.

However, what is truly concerning about the aggressive approaches high-end fashion brands have been employing to stay financially afloat is their willingness to abandon the artistic philosophies that have guided them since their inceptions in favor of short-term financial gains.

Since the onset of our most recent financial disaster, we have witnessed high-end fashion brands create low-end clothing lines for retailers, in the hopes of targeting the new uncharted middle class market segment. Lanvin, Versace, Isabel Marant and Karl Lagerfeld have each collaborated with H&M; Missoni and Phillip Lim have partnered with Target; and Vera Wang has created a new line, Simply Vera, sold exclusively at Kohl’s.

Ostensibly, it may seem as though these collaborations have finally made high fashion accessible to those who cannot afford to splurge on a $350 sheer ruffled blouse.  But the real question is: are we really purchasing designer garments at Target, or is the tag on our new blouse reading “3.1 Phillip Lim” just a deceptive selling point for a common (and overpriced) floral blouse?

The answer becomes obvious when we consider why in the world we sartorial maniacs would ever invest in an $800 noir black Céline blazer in the first place. When we make purchases like these, we are essentially investing in a thoughtful artistic design, an unparalleled cut and a superior combination of fabrics, which come together to form a piece that will be part of our wardrobes for a lifetime.  When we make “designer” purchases at H&M, we are committing ourselves to a piece that has undergone virtually no artistic oversight and which is constructed of fabrics and cuts comparable to any other piece at H&M.

Although there is no evidence that these “cheap chic” clothes are superior in quality or design to any other clothes at these retailers, they are certainly priced as such. Phillip Lim for Target A-line dresses are priced at $50-$80, and Simply Vera for Kohl’s jackets and blazers are priced in the $70 range. At H&M, sweaters from the recently launched Isabel Marant collection are priced above $60, while a black wool-blend coat is priced at an astonishing $299! Target dresses that are comparable in terms of design and quality — but not in name brand — are priced at around $30, while H&M sweaters comparable to those of Isabel Marant for H&M are an affordable $35.

By purchasing overpriced “designer” clothes, it seems as though we’ve forgotten the very reasons we adore authentic designer garments in the first place: craftsmanship, artistic philosophy and quality. And by placing their names — which have come to be associated with the highest quality goods constructed by what we regard as superior tenants of design — on mass-produced, low-end garments, high-fashion designers have essentially abandoned the aesthetic virtues that have made them so well regarded in the fashion industry.

Only time will tell whether consumers will proceed to revel in “affordable designer” goods or whether they’ll soon realize that throwing on a $25 H&M oxford shirt underneath a well-tailored blazer beats spending a fortune on faux designer duds.

Could it be that “cheap chic” is not so cheap and not so chic?