Search Results for: democratic luxury

Legal shield for luxury: is this the solution to ending luxury brands’ exploitation of workers?

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 7 minutes

Report Rai3: fashion sweatshops and the unbroken link between luxury and labour abuse


While Italy was in the midst of Men’s Fashion Week, Rai3’s Report aired a hard-hitting investigation into the labour exploitation behind the luxury brands now seeking a legal shield. Thetopic itself was not new: recently, media outlets have reported on sweatshops hidden behind the façade of Made in Italy. What Report did differently was to go further—attempting to speak directly with manufacturers, workers and brand owners.

Among the major figures contacted, only Diego Della Valle—chairman of Tod’s Group (Tod’s, Hogan, Fay and Roger Vivier)—agreed to appear on camera. His appearance, however, raised more questions than it answered. The investigation revealed that audits had been conducted within the supply chain, yet Tod’s disregarded their findings.

Some commentators accused Report of daring to criticise an industry that represents a significant share of Italy’s GDP. We strongly disagree. When an industry operates—directly or indirectly—through sweatshop conditions, exposing it is not only legitimate, it is necessary.

Judicial administration and labour abuse


Several luxury brands have been placed under judicial administration over failures to monitor labour exploitation in their supply chains.

Valentino Bags—a company controlled by Valentino and responsible for producing bags for the brand—was among them, alongside Loro Piana, Armani and Dior. In one of the Chinese workshops producing Valentino bags, the Carabinieri found a child playing among fabrics and industrial machinery.

In July 2025, the Milan court ordered judicial administration for Loro Piana, the Italian high‑end clothing brand controlled by LVMH. Investigators found that production had been entrusted to companies that subcontracted work to Chinese workshops where workers were exploited.

Unfinished leather handbags in a sparse workshop, representing the hidden production behind luxury brands seeking a legal shield.

Della Valle: “The Chinese workshops are not our concern”


In October, the Milan Prosecutor’s Office requested preventive judicial administration for Tod’s SpA. The investigation uncovered serious violations of workers’ rights across the subcontracting chain responsible for producing the brand’s goods. Prosecutors stated that the company was aware of these practices, leading to an investigation for caporalato (the gangmaster system).

Following similar measures against multiple fashion brands, Milan prosecutor Paolo Storari also requested a six‑month advertising ban for Tod’s. Through an exclusive interview with Diego Della Valle, Report reconstructed the luxury supply chain: production is outsourced to Italian firms with no manufacturing facilities, which then subcontract to Chinese workshops.

Della Valle argued that responsibility should not extend beyond the first level of the supply chain. This position is deeply problematic. If a brand entrusts production to intermediaries that do not manufacture anything themselves, what does it expect to happen? And why do brands choose this model in the first place?

In the Tod’s case, one of the most serious issues to emerge was the failure to act on clear audit findings. Problems were identified, yet deliberately overlooked.

The attempted legal shield for luxury brands


Against this backdrop, Article 30 of the Small and Medium Enterprises Bill—approved by the Senate and debated in the Chamber of Deputies—attempted to exempt major fashion brands from liability for crimes committed along their production chains.

Widely described as a legal shield for luxury brands, the amendment was eventually withdrawn following protests by trade unions, workers and the Clean Clothes Campaign. It will now return to the Senate.

During his interview with Report, Minister Adolfo Urso stated that caporalato in Italy had been “brought by the Chinese”. A staggering statement that shifts blame away from the structural drivers.

Shifting blame to the lowest—and weakest—links in the chain conveniently ignores who sets prices, who designs supply chains and who ultimately benefits from lower production costs.

Made in Chitaly: the testimony that explains everything


One of the most powerful moments in Report was the testimony of Andrea Parisi, owner of Spectre Srl, a company specialising in the finishing of heels for luxury footwear.

Until recently, Spectre employed 34–35 people and worked for all the major luxury brands. Today, only three workers remain.

Parisi explained how brands outsource work to companies that possess no machinery, which then subcontract—unofficially—to Chinese workshops capable of producing tens of thousands of units at prices that are economically impossible under legal conditions.

A heel paid €0.80 per piece (€1.60 per pair), he explained, should cost at least twice that amount. This pricing mechanism drives law-abiding Italian manufacturers out of the market, depriving them of contracts, revenue, and skilled labour.

“The most serious loss,” Parisi said, “is our workforce.” Competing, he explained, is impossible unless one is willing to break the law.

Andrea Parisi’s most touching words:

“The fashion sector in Italy no longer exists. But at this moment we don’t even have the tools to fight anymore, how are we supposed to go forward? Must our workers be reduced to ‘Vietnam conditions’? What have we come to? Behind subcontracting, lies undeclared labour, lies precarious employment, exploitation. It must be abolished, full stop, and it must be done tomorrow morning. It’s Made in Italy if the workers’ ethics are respected. Otherwise, write on the products ‘Made in Italy 50%’, at least tell the truth.”

A structural system, not an anomaly


The idea of serving luxury products to everyone has generated this system. The so-called democratic luxury.

As Della Valle said: “We survive because people recognise in us an absolute quality. How many people buy a bag or a pair of shoes from me? Many have the money to do so, then there are those who love them, who perhaps don’t have the money, they make a sacrifice, and to those people you can’t say: ‘You’re working your arse off to buy this little thing, and these people are a bunch of wankers.’”

So brands serve entry price products while, at the same time, cut their costs as much as they can to maximise profits. Let’s clearly state this: the idea of democratic luxury is as contradictory as illiberal democracy: it does not exist. It is either one thing or the other.

As Luca Bertazzoni (Report) said: “The point is that those Chinese companies which President Meloni claims to be fighting are now an integral part of the system and continue to be sought by the major fashion brands to maximise profits. Take the case of Mr Yang, whom we had met a year ago after the Carabinieri found Dior bags inside his workshop in Opera, where workers were being exploited.”

Gian Gaetano Bellavia – expert in corporate criminal law, explained further: “The Italian who wins the contract always keeps his own margin, and it’s the Chinese contractor who has to cut his margin. So then the Chinese contractor perhaps goes to a Pakistani, right? Who is even more desperate than the Chinese.”

This system is not limited to handbags or footwear, nor is it an exception. Furthermore, it is not solely an Italian issue—is Dior an Italian brand? And doesn’t LVMH owns Loro Piana? The problem is structural and global. To be clear, it also exists beyond fashion. Yet, this breadth is not a mitigating factor but an aggravating one.

As Bellavia noted, it is a “war among the poor to serve the rich”. Those at the top remain silent, protected by distance, complexity and legal ambiguity.

Final thoughts


In conclusion, this operating system is not new. As young women working in fashion in the late 1990s, we witnessed its gradual consolidation. For over twenty years, opacity has prevailed. If we saw that, how did nobody question what was happening?

Today, instead of dismantling the system, the Italian government proposes a legal shield for luxury.

But when luxury products are made through exploitation, who is responsible? The last link in the chain? Really? Or those who decide to maximise profits by compressing production costs from the top down?

If Italian manufacturing has been decimated, responsibility lies with both political choices and brand strategies. Blaming labour exploitation solely on the weakest links in the chain is not only dishonest—it is shameful.

A legal shield is not the solution. These companies have money, power and structure. They must be responsible for workers’ conditions and for the reality behind their products. Choosing ignorance forfeits accountability.

Luca Bertazzoni offered a definitive direction:

“If high fashion were to abandon the subcontracting chain that allows it to make profits by producing at rock-bottom prices, Italian artisans could go back to work, with full respect for workers’ rights.”

So, forget a legal shield for luxury. The real solution is clear: dismantle the subcontracting chains that allow luxury brands to profit from cut‑price labour. Only then can Italian artisans return to work under conditions that respect dignity and rights.

Ethics. Fairness. A level playing field.

And hold the brands responsible.

Legal shield for luxury: is this the solution to ending luxury brands’ exploitation of workers? Read More »

The Decline Of Luxury

Reading Time: 2 minutes

What happened to the fashion industry?


If you want to understand the events that caused the decline of luxury, we suggest you read ‘Deluxe: How luxury lost its luster’ – a book written by Dana Thomas.

You will discover how fashion from being a family-owned business became a corporate battlefield based on overproduction.
The growth of the new markets – China, Russia, and India. The explosion of counterfeiting goods and labour exploitation.
Then, the rise of fast fashion, internet retailers and the development of a fast-paced globalised system. How luxury products abandoned exclusivity and shifted to the masses. Creating the so-called democratic luxury–which basically is nonsense. Indeed, it shows how far marketing rhetoric can go, playing with words to manipulate people.

The book is a brilliant analysis of the field, investigating the dynamics that led to an auto-implosion of a system. Also, it allowed us to relive the last 30 years of fashion. We assisted many of those events – not by accepting them but by shifting more and more towards niche designers. Finding a kind of refuge in a tiny universe. A thoughtful research in dissonance with the average fashion consumer.

Though we agree with almost everything in Dana Thomas’ book, we do not align with the devotion to some brands. We are afraid they have lost their luster too, so far. Except for Hermes and Cadolle.

Indeed, looking back at the decline of luxury, it has become increasingly difficult to find meaning in fashion maisons. They seem like smoke and mirrors set up to sell perfumes, make-up and bags. Abundantly offered to masses that have no perception beyond the logo and the illusion of being considered rich.

If you still love fashion, you go beyond that fake facade and search for designers who dared to undertake an independent path, expressing an authentic creative vision. In this panorama, the ability to select the right clothing – from an aesthetic and ethical viewpoint – changes the game.

The Decline Of Luxury Read More »

Galliano for Zara: this isn’t a victory — it’s a verdict

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 5 minutes

A couturier, a fast-fashion giant, and an archive that doesn’t exist


Galliano for Zara. The news landed like a thunderclap in the fashion world: John Galliano, one of the last true couturiers on the scene, has signed a two-year contract with Zara. He will not simply design a collection; he will, in their words, “re-author” the brand’s archive.

On the surface, industry press has framed this as a moment of “fashion democracy”— a thrilling opportunity for the masses to own a fragment of a genius’s vision. But peel back the layers of the press release and something far more unsettling emerges. This is not a celebration of accessibility; it is one of the clearest absurdities of the modern fashion system. A signal of its complete destabilisation.

As we explored in a previous post, the idea of democratic luxury is as contradictory as illiberal democracy: it does not exist. It is either one thing or the other.

What makes this partnership truly fascinating is its jarring incongruity. We are watching John Galliano — a master of bias-cutting and elaborate construction — arrive at Zara’s doorstep. Meanwhile, across the industry, designers who built their reputations on more commercial ready-to-wear lines are now producing couture for heritage houses.

Today, the fashion industry doesn’t care about craft; it only cares about marketing.

Galliano for Zara: the “re-authoring” of nothing


Zara and Galliano describe this project as “re-authoring.” The word is carefully chosen. It sounds intimate, artistic, even sustainable. Galliano has spoken of working physically with garments from past seasons — deconstructing, reconfiguring, transforming. It evokes the atelier: scissors gliding through fabric, a master giving new life to forgotten pieces.

But does Zara really have an archive?

In fashion, the term archive is sacred. It implies a body of original work — pieces that defined eras, garments with a soul and a story, grounded in authorship, memory, and meaning. It suggests a point of view.

So we must ask: what, precisely, is the Zara archive?

Is it a catalogue of items subtly (and not so subtly) lifted from luxury runways as soon as they appear? A repository of trend-driven ephemera designed for a three-week lifecycle at best? Or is it the afterlife of these garments — the toxic mountains of textile waste piling up in Accra, the bleached remnants in the Atacama Desert?

Is the archive, in fact, the sum of garments made in the lowest quality polyester, worn twice, and discarded without ceremony?

To call this churn an archive is not just a marketing stretch. It is an erosion of meaning. An insult to the very concept of design history.

The pile-up we aren’t meant to see


When the strategists behind this campaign at Inditex approved it, did they assume we would ignore the elephant in the room — or rather, the mountains of textile waste?

The dissonance is staggering. Inditex remains one of the highest-emitting fashion companies in the world. Its business model is built on overproduction and planned obsolescence. And now, it seeks to cloak itself in the language of sustainability and high art, inviting a legend to “re-author” the very waste stream it has created.

From a sustainability perspective, “re-authoring” fashion waste only makes sense if the production of new items is significantly reduced. Otherwise, it is simply greenwashing.

This raises an uncomfortable question — not just about them, but about us, consumers.

When we applaud moves like this, when we rush to buy a “re-authored” piece of fast fashion, what exactly are we celebrating? Craft — or the permission to forget?

Brands are betting on our willingness to look away. They are betting that the word archive will blur the reality of the supply chain, and that Galliano’s name will function as a cultural absolution. 

But isn’t this simply a case of: This is greenwashing?

From our eBook, This is Greenwashing:

According to the British NGO Earthsight (2024), the fabric used by international giants H&M and Zara to produce their clothes is dirty cotton. The NGO alleges that the two European brands are complicit in large-scale illegal deforestation activities in Brazil, including land grabbing, human rights abuses, corruption, and violent land conflicts. “Earthsight’s year-long investigation reveals that corporations and consumers in Europe and North America are driving this destruction in a new way. Not by what they eat – but what they wear.” 

Or consider this excerpt:

Fashion Group Inditex (Zara) has partnered with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Why is a multinational fast fashion corporation partnering with a foundation focused on protecting the animals whose habitats their manufacturing destroys?

On closer inspection, the answer seems less about transformation and more about optics.

And if we widen the lens further, another troubling dimension appears. In October 2022, ahead of the Israeli Knesset elections, Joey Schwebel — who holds the Zara franchise in Israel — hosted a campaign event for Itamar Ben-Gvir. The move sparked calls for a boycott, raising further questions about the political entanglements surrounding the brand.

Final reflections


Ultimately, the news about Galliano for Zara is not really about John Galliano or Zara. It is about an industry that has run out of ideas — and perhaps, out of direction. 

The fact that a designer like Galliano, a true couturier, has landed within a fast-fashion system is not a sign of creative evolution. It is a sign that the structures once capable of supporting such talent have eroded. The houses that should be courting his genius are too risk-averse, too driven by quarterly performance, to embrace a complex, demanding artist. 

So let’s call this what it is.

Not a meeting of minds.
A merger of convenience.

One side acquires cultural legitimacy—a halo of artistry.
The other secures a paycheck.

And still we are left with a question that no press release can convincingly answer: what does “fast fashion archive” really mean?

Galliano for Zara: this isn’t a victory — it’s a verdict Read More »

The Price of Quality

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The true value behind timeless craftsmanship and thoughtful pricing


The price of quality is an indicator that has fundamentally lost its sense. Quality is an asset that every brand wants to sell, but no one really understands its true meaning. There is a conflict between the marketed or perceived quality and its effective worth.

At the Uffizi in Florence, during a preview of Confindustria’s Future for Fashion, Maria Grazia Chiuri, Dior designer, said:

“Democratic luxury does not exist.”

“In Italy, we have to get the idea of democratic fashion out of our heads. If a garment is well made, why does it have to be democratic? Quality at a low price does not exist. If the price is low, it is because behind it, there is someone who has not been paid well.”

We agree with this statement – democratic luxury is nonsense. In fact, a product made respecting specific quality standards comes with a price. But what luxury brands call quality is questionable, and it’s not what it was in the past.

Quality & luxury brands


Undoubtedly, much of the confusion stems from various factors. Over time, the average quality of high-end products has significantly decreased. Driven by greed, luxury conglomerates shifted production to lower-cost sites, abandoning exclusivity in favor of the mass market. Quality has become inversely proportional to corporate greed.
In order to be able to have a attractive wholesale price while keeping profit safe, the quality of materials and craftsmanship are the first to be compromised.

In the second place, economic and cultural changes have induced consumers to believe that a cheap price tag corresponds to quality items and well-paid labourers. While the need for affordable clothes is understandable, it is obvious that low prices don’t correspond to quality materials and fair living wages.

Luxury brands contributed to devaluing the fashion system with poor productions, obsessive mass distributions and a wild discounting policy. Yet, they still want to be part of an Olympus disconnected from the masses.

Olympus is not democratic. So, to be credible again, luxury brands have to reverse the route, reducing the large quantities they produce. And stop heavy discounting.

This is a logical necessity for the return of true luxury.
Will it happen for real?

The Price of Quality Read More »

Dupe culture: Inside Gen Z’s aspirational shift 

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Is Gen Z’s hunt for the perfect knock-off a form of smart consumerism or a creative dead end?


The word dupe is everywhere—Gen Z seems to love it. Short for duplicate, it describes a copy, a replica, and, in essence, a fake. It implies a certain deception, a product that masquerades as the real thing. Yet, there is a crucial nuance: these are often “inspired” copies at a much lower price point.

Among younger generations, this has evolved into a full-blown “culture of the dupe”. The hunt for the super fake is also a form of resistance. Generation Z is clearly reacting against the social exclusion that luxury has long represented. They want to adopt the codes of high fashion without paying its symbolic price.

The spectrum of imitation


This trend exists on a spectrum. On one end, there is outright counterfeit—fake handbags, shirts, smartphones, and perfumes that violate trade rules and copyrights. This is a vast, illicit market that continues to thrive; in 2024 alone, EU authorities seized over 112 million counterfeit items, with an estimated retail value of €3.8 billion.

On the other end, however, are the perfectly legal ‘dupes’. These are low-cost versions of iconic products that promise similar effects without breaking the law. They are not brazen copies but inspirations, marketed as democratic shortcuts to luxury.

The allure of the dupe: Rebellion and savviness


For Gen Z, heavily influenced by social media platforms like TikTok, where the hashtag #dupe has amassed over 6 billion views, this is more than just shopping. It is a social activity. Young consumers proudly showcase their low-cost alternatives to iconic products.

This phenomenon is supported by academic research into the paradoxical relationship between counterfeits and luxury goods. Studies, including work from MIT Sloan, have suggested that widespread imitation does not diminish luxury brands but can, in fact, make them more desirable by serving as a form of free, ubiquitous advertising that reinforces their aspirational status. The dupe acts as a form of unofficial advertising, a common language that everyone learns to speak. Furthermore, buying a dupe carries another powerful appeal: it makes one feel clever. It is a shortcut that allows one to display a certain affiliation without paying the full price—a subtle deception that hints at belonging to a world that remains, in reality, financially out of reach.

This sentiment is captured by many in Gen Z, like Louana, a 24-year-old Parisian student (via Luxury Tribune). She explains that for her generation, dupes are a normalised response to a combination of factors: a perpetual hunt for a good deal, a perception of declining quality from established brands, and concerns over unethical production practices. For her, vintage is a first choice, but a good-quality, fairly-priced dupe is a completely satisfactory alternative. 

The educational gap and the way forward


Louana’s perspective points to a deeper issue: a breakdown in trust and education. When luxury brands are perceived to sell poor quality at ridiculous markups or engage in questionable production methods, they fuel the justification for the dupe market. This dynamic has left a vacuum. Young generations see luxury as an aspiration but often lack the foundational knowledge to discern intrinsic quality—the ability to distinguish superior wool from polyester, or to identify craftsmanship made to last.

This leads to a profound question: is the hunt for a dupe the only form of resistance?

Final thoughts: A resistance that raises questions


In conclusion, it is true that for young people, the dupe can represent a form of resistance, a way to react against the social exclusion perpetuated by luxury. It is a symptom of economic pragmatism and a rejection of elitism. And, above all, the refusal to be tricked by luxury brands.

However, this leads to a more profound question: why are young people not educating themselves towards something better? Rather than choosing between an unaffordable original or a dubious copy, why not champion brands that offer quality and good design, made to last, at more reasonable prices? These may not be as cheap as a dupe, but they represent a more sustainable and ethically conscious middle ground.

The culture of the dupe is a complex rebellion, but the ultimate act of resistance would be to educate one’s taste towards genuine value—investing in quality and enduring design over the fleeting thrill of a clever imitation.

Dupe culture: Inside Gen Z’s aspirational shift  Read More »

Fashion subcontracting: new measures to combat labour exploitation in Italy

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The government’s paradoxical solution: a magic trick that makes accountability disappear down the supply chain


Fashion subcontracting is a hot-button issue, posing significant reputational risks for luxury brands. In response to recent sweatshop scandals, Minister for Made in Italy, Urso, has proposed a controversial solution: exempting client companies from responsibility.

This approach was crystallised in an amendment—nicknamed the “Save Tod’s” clause—following a request for special administration of the Tod’s Group by the Milan prosecutor’s office. Approved last Tuesday as part of the annual law for SMEs, the amendment allows fashion companies to obtain a “supply chain legality” certification. In practice, it absolves top brands from accountability for labour conditions at the bottom of their supply chain.

The legislation, recently approved by the Senate Industry Committee, states that fashion groups are not liable if they had pre-existing “organisational models” designed to prevent crimes, overseen by an internal body with autonomous control powers. The consequence is clear: major fashion houses could soon be completely relieved of responsibility for exploitation within their own production networks.

Confindustria Moda & reputational advantage


Confindustria Moda, which helped draft the legislation, defends the measure: “The enormous pressure on brands creates sector-wide difficulties,” they state. “While it’s right that each leader organises work correctly, we can’t ask for more. Ongoing investigations send the wrong message to workers.”

For fashion brands under recent scrutiny, this voluntary supply chain certification offers a clear exit strategy. Companies can choose to undergo external audits with their suppliers. Once an implementing decree defines the parameters, compliant brands can display a “certified supply chain” mark.

This provides a reputational advantage and, crucially, legal protection. If a certified supplier is later found to have irregularities, the lead company would be shielded from judicial administration.

Fashion subcontracting — critical voices: “A shield for exploiters”


The government’s move has drawn sharp criticism from unions and opposition parties, who accuse it of effectively legalising labour exploitation.

Alessandro Genovesi of the CGIL union called the amendment “a very serious precedent.” He stated, “Faced with judicial allegations of criminal exploitation, the government is erasing the crime. From a tax shield for evaders, we have moved to a criminal shield for those who exploit.”

The CGIL, excluded from government talks with industry representatives, is demanding stricter measures, including verification of worker-to-production ratios, application of collective labour agreements, and limits on subcontracting.

Echoing this outrage, Democratic Party Labour Representative Maria Cecilia Guerra denounced the policy as “a coup that weakens the fight against labour exploitation.” She explained the practical effect: “A company can sell €500 shoes from a contractor paying workers €2.50 an hour, yet face no audit. The client’s responsibility is swept away by a certificate.” She and colleague Arturo Scotto condemned it as “a step backwards by a right-wing party with no interest in protecting job quality or ethical businesses.”

Final thoughts


In conclusion, we must ask: who seeks subcontracting to get the lowest possible production prices? And in that pursuit, what do luxury company owners expect? Can the cheapest labour cost ever correspond to the highest labour standards?

Fashion subcontracting and sweatshop conditions are a critical yet systemic issue. The fundamental paradox of the government’s new measures is that they legalise the very conditions that lead to labour exploitation. The complex subcontracting chains, driven by the luxury sector’s pursuit of the lowest costs, are now being fortified with a legal shield. The proposed “solution” does not raise labour standards, verify fair wages, or limit outsourcing. Instead, it offers brands a path to waive liability, ensuring that the highest standards of luxury can continue to rest on the lowest standards for workers’ rights.

Italy is not solving the crisis; it is guaranteeing impunity for the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable.

In short, the Italian government is offering a false solution. Protection for brands—not for people.

Fashion subcontracting: new measures to combat labour exploitation in Italy Read More »

The Rise of the No-Phones Trend

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Has social media democratized fashion? Or our lives?


The no-phones trend is gaining momentum, extending its reach from fashion shows to theaters. Also, it prompts a critical examination of whether social media has truly democratized fashion.

The no-phones trend in fashion


At the recent Paris Fashion Week, The Row took a bold stance by banning phones, aiming to encourage attendees to fully engage with the runway spectacle without the distraction of screens. This move not only allowed spectators to immerse themselves in the live experience but also disrupted the instantaneous sharing of images on social media. Instead, attendees could reflect on and digest the show before sharing their experiences.

Critics argue that such restrictions, stating that social media has democratised fashion. But does merely observing luxury clothing on screens equate to affording luxury those items? So, can we define “democratic” a product we can only see but cannot afford to purchase?

The no-phones trend in theaters


Yesterday, we attended “Jesus Christ Superstar” -a glorious show at the “Teatro Sistina Chapiteau.” It reinforced the growing prevalence of the no-phones trend beyond fashion events. The announcer urged the audience to power down their devices and refrain from taking photos to fully appreciate the performance. Only during the grand finale, featuring the iconic Ted Neely, were attendees permitted to capture the moment on their phones. The show, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the film and the 30th anniversary of the production by Massimo Romeo Piparo, showcased remarkable talent and creativity, demonstrating the effectiveness of the no-phones policy.

Prof. Paolo Ercolani quotes Guy Debord: “The society of spectacle”


However, Professor Paolo Ercolani referenced a quote from Guy Debord’s “The Society of the Spectacle,” highlighting the danger of life becoming a mere accumulation of spectacles detached from genuine experiences.

“In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation.”

Furthermore: “The images detached from every aspect of life merge into a common stream in which the unity of that life can no longer be recovered. Fragmented views of reality regroup themselves into a new unity as a separate pseudo-world that can only be looked at. The specialisation of images of the world has culminated in a world of autonomised images where even the deceivers are deceived. The spectacle is a concrete inversion of life, an autonomous movement ofthe non living.”

Social media: democratizing fashion or dictating our lives?


Indeed, this raises the question of whether social media’s proliferation of images has truly democratised fashion or merely inundated us with unattainable ideals. Has social media democratised fashion? Or our lives?

In conclusion, the no-phones trend signifies a desire for genuine engagement and connection. But it also prompts reflection on the impact of social media on our perception of fashion and life itself.

The Rise of the No-Phones Trend Read More »