When I was researching topics to write about regarding fashion, one controversy from 2019 caught my eye. Most of us know of the brand Gucci for offering expensive, high-end products. If you are seen with the iconic G anywhere on your outfit or accessories, you would probably be perceived as wealthy and to some maybe even snobby.
The brand Gucci is associated with wealth, as can be seen in their iconic designs that are easily recognizable. However, the brand is also trying to branch out from this idea and step outside of the box of normal fashion, often to make a societal point.
This occurs more often at runway shows, which are typically to showcase the brands creativity, designers, and models, but not really to market the clothes that these models are wearing. This specific runway was a part of the Milan Fashion Week. Gucci decided to begin the show with models wearing white straitjackets. This specific style of straitjacket was what those living in mental institutions prior to the time mental health was really well understood wore. During this time patients in asylums were subject to cruel treatment because it wasn’t considered a health problem, and there was not much in terms of research to help those with mental health issues. Instead, they were treated almost as if they were animals, locked in cages and abused. The fact that Gucci used these outfits in their show was insensitive. This part of the show also featured the models coming out on a conveyor belt, which was also a poor touch by the designers.
One model, Ayesha Tan-Jones made a statement in protest of the show. When walking out onto the runway, they held up their palms, which read “Mental health is not fashion”. In an interview, they described how this hurt them because of their own struggles with mental health and those in their family and that “it is hurtful and insensitive for a major fashion house such as Gucci to use this imagery as a concept for a fleeting fashion moment” (Garrand).
The defense that Gucci had was that this was a statement on a societal issue and that the straitjacket style was included “as the most extreme version of a uniform dictated by society and those who control it” (Garrand). They also stated that since this was the opening part of the show and more vibrant styles followed they were trying to convey “fashion as a way to allow people to walk through fields of possibilities, cultivate beauty, make diversity sacrosanct and celebrate the self in expression and identity” (Garrand).
It’s understandable that brands are trying to make a societal point; we see this all the time in ads and other mediums. However, there must be a line that should not be crossed. Sometimes brands go too far and what may have originally been a harmless jab at institutions in society may turn into something harmful that hurts an already marginalized group of people. This is when fashion and other brands need to realize that getting involved in societies woes may just dig them into a much deeper hole.