I have a problem understanding the placement of the recent "Brand Name Must Haves" article inside The Eagle. I understand the authors were trying to highlight expensive brand names, but to have a whole article dedicated on high spending may be out of line.
Usually, fashionistas understand that brand names do not equate to style. Fashion, especially in the 21st century, is a form of communication and expression. It is a creative outlet in which the wearer represents themselves through clothes, as opposed to letting the clothes represent the wearer. Fashion is also about being a conscious consumer, aware of the economical impacts caused by buying high-priced items. A few expensive base pieces, as highlighted in the past article, are understandable; but to spend obscene amounts of money on a wardrobe is tawdry. Think of situations outside of the AU bubble, such as what the money spent on a pair of Ugg boots could do for a child living in a Third World country, or how it could help a low-income family in Anacostia. As being part of the most "politically active" student body in the country, should fashion not transcend the modern ideals of reciprocity and limitations?
Style is not just copycatting trends, or senseless name brand spending based on what is sold by over-capitalized, over-marketed brands or stores. True advocates of style associate price tags to finances, not to legitimacy of fashion. With this latest article, a title like "Brand-Name Must Haves," The Eagle put out an inaccurate message of modern fashion.
Louise Brask Freshman, School of International Service
