R.I.P. to a decade of excess

[hypersonic]

How do you imagine the first decade of the 21st Century will be remembered?

Could it be that this has been one of the most excessive decades of all time? -- excessive in all regards -- "The Bling Era" -- when too much was never enough.

From Mcmansions to diamond-encrusted cellphones ....luxury lost its meaning, taste meant very little, and people went nuts with cheap credit.




For the love of God ...can somebody please explain to me how the hell this makes any sense?

Probably one of the most potent symbols of the decade. The Rolls-Royce Phantom saw the renaissance of an almost irrelevant legend minus the blue-blooded snobbery ...or much subtlety. It is all about wealth rather than social class and culture.

Jacob & Co ....at the very epicenter of the Bling culture. The owner was infamously arrested for money laundering drug money -- it all seems so fitting somehow.

The $63,000 titanium corkscrew by Sveid

Bernard Madoff haunts the dreams of bankers across the globe.

Bombardier Global: what CEO's ego could possibly be satisfied with anything less?

 

[Xericx]

the mid-late 90s were the peak of bling. bling hasn't been "in" for several years.

 

[Fuuma]

Vogue editors are now wearing the same shoes on two different days. Civilization has come to an end.

 

[hypersonic]

Hmm, well sure, it was big in the 90s ...but how else would you describe the culture of excess we have witnessed especially in the past 5 years?

I guess I am using the term "Bling" in a generic way

 

[freshcutgrass]

the mid-late 90s were the peak of bling. bling hasn't been "in" for several years.

Well, like all fashion, it's trickled down into school kids & Joe Lunchbox.

Could it be that this has been one of the most excessive decades of all time?

Not even close. Not even in this century.

Most "bling" would not qualify as "masterpieces", regardless of how many diamonds are on it. But it will be interesting to see what the future collectors will consider worthy.

 

[SField]

I have to say that this might actually be the best way to describe what happened. Even in the 90s, being frumpy was the norm for most people. It wasn't until very recently that cheaper brands tried to mimic high fashion. The lines between a 'rich' person and a 'poor' person have been blurred. Because of this culture of excess that makes the 80s look miserely, the luxury market has exploded, so much so that there are luxurious brands for rich people and luxury brands for poor people (I mean that very generally).

"poor" people luxury brands:

Louis Vuitton, BMW/Mercedes, Coach, Tag, Rolex, Frank Muller, Knoll, Herman Miller etc...

And then you have the really high market brands that few people know about and are generally small operations. It got to the point that even people in lower income brackets were buying and were aware of luxury products that before were only for 'rich' people.

It will be interesting to see how this recession affects fashion and tastes. In some ways I find it hard to believe that we can ever come back from it.

 

[hypersonic]

Originally Posted by freshcutgrass

Not even close. Not even in this century.

Most "bling" would not qualify as "masterpieces", regardless of how many diamonds are on it. But it will be interesting to see what the future collectors will consider worthy.


You are correct of course ....but I am really referring to the shear quantity of mass-produced luxury crap the world has been inundated with over the past decade.

I doubt that so much flashy bad taste has ever been available to so many before.

The era of massclusivity has often felt like a continual onslaught of vulgarity and tackiness.

 

[Xericx]

I have my own theories and it relates to the personification of extreme wealth, gaudy jewelry and a lifestyle of jets, platinum rings from hiphop/rap artists. Couple that with the young urban market desiring and objectifying that ideal, so they try at all lengths to one-up each other (including fakes, huge labels/brand whoring, etc). Then when the rappers see that normal people are getting what they have, they have to one-up it to a more ridiculous level. They always have to be above the consumer. Who had the biggest house, the bigger car, the bigger wheels, the more diamonds in their watch.

Started in the mid 90s with the "Mafioso" type of hiphop where all rappers were bragging about Versace. Corporate America jumped on this, coined the term "bling" and marketed it to america...only to attempt to get more and more ridiculous in order for the hordes of consumers to lust after artificially created markets.

This bled more and more into american culture as time went on and rap became more mainstream.


Add to that the sudden influx of Dot-Com wealth, then Real Estate wealth, who lusted after these lifestyles and material objects...then the huge McMansions of poorly constructed, uniform and compartmentalized lifestyles...you had a lot of Nuevo Riche who thought that buying "X" would buy them some class.

 

[hypersonic]

Originally Posted by SField

I have to say that this might actually be the best way to describe what happened. Even in the 90s, being frumpy was the norm for most people. It wasn't until very recently that cheaper brands tried to mimic high fashion. The lines between a 'rich' person and a 'poor' person have been blurred. Because of this culture of excess that makes the 80s look miserely, the luxury market has exploded, so much so that there are luxurious brands for rich people and luxury brands for poor people (I mean that very generally).

"poor" people luxury brands:

Louis Vuitton, BMW/Mercedes, Coach, Tag, Rolex, Frank Muller, Knoll, Herman Miller etc...

And then you have the really high market brands that few people know about and are generally small operations. It got to the point that even people in lower income brackets were buying and were aware of luxury products that before were only for 'rich' people.

It will be interesting to see how this recession affects fashion and tastes. In some ways I find it hard to believe that we can ever come back from it.
aha ...you are definately understanding what I was getting at.

The marketting people use the terms "Massclusive" (mass exclusivity) and "Ãœber Premium".

 

[Hany]

It's not a decade of excess but a decade of apparent (ie fake) excess...

 

[Xericx]

Its gotten so ridiculous that throwing your money around in a club (makin' it rain) to flaunt your wealth is not only a status symbol, they write songs about it. People copy it trying to emulate the rappers, and the cycle continues.

 

[hypersonic]

Originally Posted by Xericx

I have my own theories and it relates to the personification of extreme wealth, gaudy jewelry and a lifestyle of jets, platinum rings from hiphop/rap artists. Couple that with the young urban market desiring and objectifying that ideal, so they try at all lengths to one-up each other (including fakes, huge labels/brand whoring, etc). Then when the rappers see that normal people are getting what they have, they have to one-up it to a more ridiculous level. They always have to be above the consumer. Who had the biggest house, the bigger car, the bigger wheels, the more diamonds in their watch.

Started in the mid 90s with the "Mafioso" type of hiphop where all rappers were bragging about Versace. Corporate America jumped on this, coined the term "bling" and marketed it to america...only to attempt to get more and more ridiculous in order for the hordes of consumers to lust after artificially created markets.

This bled more and more into american culture as time went on and rap became more mainstream.


Add to that the sudden influx of Dot-Com wealth, then Real Estate wealth, who lusted after these lifestyles and material objects...then the huge McMansions of poorly constructed, uniform and compartmentalized lifestyles...you had a lot of Nuevo Riche who thought that buying "X" would buy them some class.

I think you are absolutely correct ....some super rich individuals display little or no taste at all.

The art market has gone insane with new collectors paying many times the estimated values for artwork of questionable historic or cultural significance.

 

[Xericx]

Originally Posted by hypersonic

I think you are absolutely correct ....some super rich individuals display little or no taste at all. The art market has gone insane with new collectors paying many times the estimated values for artwork of questionable historic or cultural significance.
The advent of bloggers and Web 2.0 also contribute to everyday people thinking they are god's gift to society (this board included). All of a sudden, every hipster is talking about how Murakami's art has changed their views on politics or whatever the hell. As an example, I mean food blogging is cool and all, now everyone brags about the pros and cons of molecular gastronomy, whether or not they eat at Bobby Flay's restaurant or what not. In a show of one upmanship, we have to endure flashing lights at nice restaurants so some loser can blog about it and their yelp friends can give them "thumbs up" and be jealous about it. What has happened is a shortcut to information and knowledge about products without actually going through the trials and tribulations. Hype is built up from nothing, then people..like sheep flock to the hype. there are so many angles of this. from every industry. the end result is a superficial society that fakes taste and class because they see it somewhere, whether it be through TV "reality" shows, internet blogs, or through pop culture. its quite sickening.

 

[suited]

I see it like a mob bust-out.

A large number of individuals in positions of power exploited the system for their own personal benefit until there was nothing left and it all collapsed. This contributed greatly to the situation we are in now. Combine this with the greed of the average joe, and you have a sure fire combination for disaster.

 

[chrome_dout]

All that $$$ people spent to get really expensive goods, only to be fake and shallow on the inside. I wonder how all the gold diggers out there will fare on their own.