Welcome to the 194th insertion of DEMUR®, an analytical series highlighting the intricacies of the artistic world and the minutiae lying within. In this episode, we approach the duality of fashion’s biggest scandal, understanding the implications of replica products and their history.
Counterfeiting has been a lucrative industry since the days of Ancient Rome. Over 2000 years ago, artisans were replicating luxury goods and selling them at a fraction of their marginal cost. From artwork to togas, creatives were shameless in stealing designs, so much so that the Roman government passed a series of laws prohibiting the practice. While illegal, the trade would only continue to thrive, leveraged as the social hierarchy formed and ultimately developed.
As centuries passed, counterfeiting would predominately grow on the backs of monarchs and nobility. In hopes of demonstrating wealth, aspiring royalty would commission workers to create ‘copycat’ iterations of trending wear, using lower-quality substitutes to mitigate the cost. Yet, textile manufacturing wasn’t advanced enough to support high-volume trade at the time, making the industrial revolution an incredibly profitable era.
At the foot of the 19th century, designer and luxury fashion had become a staple of wealth. Soon after, illegitimate products under namesakes like Louis Vuitton, Gucci and Chanel would begin to circulate, marking the beginning of the counterfeit trade we’re familiar with today. While nowhere near the heights of e-com-centred operations, bootleggers and counterfeit sellers were easily accessible, amassing widespread notoriety.
In the modern day, we’ve seen a new revolution in this illicit marketplace. Predominately sourced from the Eastern hemisphere, websites like Alibaba, PandaBuy and Taobao have made it easier than ever to source the most unknown products. Written off as a harmless practice, this desire for illegitimate pieces affects the designer at hand and the label’s surrounding narrative. Disregarding the federal offence, purchasing fake items promotes unethical sweatshops, devoids creatives of monetary gain and damages the industry’s integrity.
댓글