I’ve been listening to David Bowie’s song “Andy Warhol” a lot lately. The chorus just won’t get out of my head (”Andy Warhol looks a scream…hang him on my wall”), and that’s fine because I quite like it. If it was something like “Nature”, that nostalgia-tinged piece of sound which has been used in countless New Zealand commercials - including a milk commercial for (what else) Nature’s Fresh - which still haunts me to this day, then that wouldn’t be fine. At Primary School we were forced to sing “Nature”, by a teacher who presumably had sadistic tendencies. (And that song stuck in my head for days because of her).

Of course, if you hear a song too many times it eventually loses its meaning (just ask Bob Dylan). It’s the same with repeating a single image ad nauseam (I’d say “just ask Andy Warhol” apart from he’s dead right now).
I’m seeing the same sort of repetition-for-meaninglessness with Mr. Marc Jacobs, the subject of my last review. Here’s this blue-haired forty-something year old, with a toned body and plenty of superficialness. He rains superficialness. The man designs for Louis Vuitton.

How can one design Louis Vuitton bags anyway? It’s like trying to redefine McDonald’s. The whole concept, the whole dream of Louis Vuitton and McDonald’s, is laid out for anyone to see.

I’m not saying I don’t like Marc Jacobs, the man. I’ve never met him. He likes Spongebob Squarepants, so he can’t be that bad.
I don’t know him. Maybe nobody does because Mr. Jacobs has created that blue-haired persona for the world to see. No person has blue hair; brands do. We’ve got Marc Jacobs: The Brand. That’s what the world sees. Trouble is, Brand Jacobs looks like a bit of a fuck up. It’s like Marc dug right to the bottom of the bargain basement bin at the largest superstore in the world, and picked out a brand that was tossed off by the marketing version of Jackson Pollock on a bad day. The brand is like those commercials that appear on late night TV, where the advertising slots are cheap enough that ma-and-pa funeral establishments can show their commercials made with Windows Movie Maker and a camcorder.

To answer the semi-question posed in the title: Marc Jacobs is not the new Andy Warhol, because his brand is too messy. He almost has the symptom that 90% of fashion design students have: trying too hard.
Karl Lagerfeld is the new Andy Warhol (apart from the fact that he’s only a few years younger than Warhol). More on that later.

Jacobs has become meaningless because he pops up in every 2nd magazine vaguely related to fashion. The clothes haven’t. Actually I don’t really see the main Jacobs line being worn much (readers: post in photos of non-models or Victoria Beckham wearing Marc Jacobs clothes! And I don’t mean Marc by Marc, either). I want to ask him how it feels to be him. How does it feel to be someone you’re not? How does it feel to design fast-fashion? (read: Louis Vuitton). You, Marc, are this creative, creative guy and you’re doing….all this? What drives you to do it?


“Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art.”

- Andy Warhol




And Louis Vuitton sure does make a lot of money. Maybe Marc is the new Andy Warhol. And Karl is Karl.

(Inspiration for article here: http://www.wwd.com/issue/article/125006?src=newsletter,