Home » Opinion » Opinion Columns
A modest victory for those opposed to luxuries
By Wan Lixin |
May 25, 2011, Wednesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
I heartily salute the move to dismantle the enormous LV suitcase at Plaza 66 on Nanjing Road W. (May 19, Shanghai Daily).
Although the suitcase will be moved because it fails to meet outdoor advertising regulations, it can be condemned for other reasons more compelling and persuasive.
To say the least, to hold up a suitcase as a symbol of taste, sophistication, and high life is compatible neither with time-honored Chinese virtues, nor values stressed during the preliminary stage of socialism.
And simply removing one mammoth suitcase is not enough. The damage has already been done. The likes of that luxury suitcase have already trapped a huge number of impressionable youth.
For years exotic luxury brands have been making easy conquests in China, banishing traditional bookstores, corner shops and eateries, leaving behind standard streets glittering with standard luxury brands.
In Shanghai, both Nanjing Road and Huaihai Road are now reduced to little more than showcases of "top" foreign brands.
Consumption of luxuries is consumption in its extreme form, when the actual use of an item becomes insignificant.
An IMD branding expert, who worked for Evian, once told me that Evian perfectly exemplifies what branding hopes to achieve. In the case of Evian a substance that can be found anywhere in abundance and is pretty much the same everywhere is sublimated into something aspirational.
Contrary to classical capitalism that makes profane everything that is sacred, modern branding experts practice the art of sanctifying mundane items, be it a shoe, a handbag, a drink, or a flush toilet.
Leap in faith
For a nation that 30 years ago still viewed waste and nonessential expenditures as a cardinal sin, the ascendancy of luxury consumption as a national obsession is a great leap in faith.
When I was a boy, those of my classmates who were dressed in fancy clothes were generally an object of disdain, and not infrequently, open ridicule.
In that "flat structure" society (as characterized by some today), esteem was more due to those who contributed to production, rather than consumption. After the ideological inhibitions were overcome with the start of reforms in the early 1980s, consumption gradually came to its own, but purchases remained largely utilitarian.
But in recent years super wealthy Chinese began to snap up LV bags, jewels, and expensive watches in New York and Paris, astonishing shopkeepers who were wont to see wealth consumed with some discretion.
The example set by these big spenders further weakens traditional Chinese values that used to inspire our older generations.
Without saying so, politicians and economists - the distinction is vague today - believe this readiness to spend is progressive and lump it under the holy word of consumption.
But is an oversized LV suitcase more liberating and inspiring than a statue of a revolutionary figure?
To me one thing is sure: The ubiquitous adverts that invade practically every part of the city are more aggressive and ridiculous than the revolutionary slogans shouted in the politically extremist era.
Culture business
The recent theft of a few luxury items and the subsequent exposure of a club for the wealthy at the Palace Museum confirm how the luxury virus has attacked an organization sometimes seen as a symbol of Chinese culture.
No one asked why those fairly recent (since 1950s) Tiffany powder cases ended up being displayed in a museum supposed to be dedicated to China's imperial past.
One thing is sure: Overseas luxury brands all strive to be seen in that temple of Chinese antiquity.
Meanwhile, the exclusive club represents an extension of the luxury concept.
As some of the the super rich have grown somewhat wary of the stigma of crass accumulation, they begin to talk of "low-key" luxury. The palace club intended to purvey exactly this type of luxury.
But whatever the criticism directed towards the museum, it has certainly made strides along the road of "cultural industrialization."
In light of that mandate, any establishment, cultural or not, needs to justify its existence on the basis of rigorous cost-analysis in the marketplace.
As moral scruples tend to interfere with the working of market mechanisms, they are eminently expendable.
The Palace Museum is not an exception. Similar clubs can also be found in, say, a former imperial summer retreat in Chengde, Hebei Province.
A new paradigm
Obviously some overseas investors view the steady conquests of brands like LV as an ideal way of transferring wealth.
It's an open secret that most of these luxuries are first made in China, in Foxconn-like conditions where the workers are as a rule overworked and underpaid.
The finished products are labeled with overseas brands, and then sold back to customers in China at 1,000 percent mark up.
The suicidal leaps and fatal explosion at Foxconn should shed more light on a bizarre economic paradigm where a label can become much more valuable than the actual product. The by-products also include degradations of the environment.
The nation's leadership must look beyond crude (increasingly aggressive) economic boosterism, and view themselves as a sort of priesthood obliged to minister to the spiritual welfare of the nation. We have been playing down the debate of "isms", for too long.
Although the suitcase will be moved because it fails to meet outdoor advertising regulations, it can be condemned for other reasons more compelling and persuasive.
To say the least, to hold up a suitcase as a symbol of taste, sophistication, and high life is compatible neither with time-honored Chinese virtues, nor values stressed during the preliminary stage of socialism.
And simply removing one mammoth suitcase is not enough. The damage has already been done. The likes of that luxury suitcase have already trapped a huge number of impressionable youth.
For years exotic luxury brands have been making easy conquests in China, banishing traditional bookstores, corner shops and eateries, leaving behind standard streets glittering with standard luxury brands.
In Shanghai, both Nanjing Road and Huaihai Road are now reduced to little more than showcases of "top" foreign brands.
Consumption of luxuries is consumption in its extreme form, when the actual use of an item becomes insignificant.
An IMD branding expert, who worked for Evian, once told me that Evian perfectly exemplifies what branding hopes to achieve. In the case of Evian a substance that can be found anywhere in abundance and is pretty much the same everywhere is sublimated into something aspirational.
Contrary to classical capitalism that makes profane everything that is sacred, modern branding experts practice the art of sanctifying mundane items, be it a shoe, a handbag, a drink, or a flush toilet.
Leap in faith
For a nation that 30 years ago still viewed waste and nonessential expenditures as a cardinal sin, the ascendancy of luxury consumption as a national obsession is a great leap in faith.
When I was a boy, those of my classmates who were dressed in fancy clothes were generally an object of disdain, and not infrequently, open ridicule.
In that "flat structure" society (as characterized by some today), esteem was more due to those who contributed to production, rather than consumption. After the ideological inhibitions were overcome with the start of reforms in the early 1980s, consumption gradually came to its own, but purchases remained largely utilitarian.
But in recent years super wealthy Chinese began to snap up LV bags, jewels, and expensive watches in New York and Paris, astonishing shopkeepers who were wont to see wealth consumed with some discretion.
The example set by these big spenders further weakens traditional Chinese values that used to inspire our older generations.
Without saying so, politicians and economists - the distinction is vague today - believe this readiness to spend is progressive and lump it under the holy word of consumption.
But is an oversized LV suitcase more liberating and inspiring than a statue of a revolutionary figure?
To me one thing is sure: The ubiquitous adverts that invade practically every part of the city are more aggressive and ridiculous than the revolutionary slogans shouted in the politically extremist era.
Culture business
The recent theft of a few luxury items and the subsequent exposure of a club for the wealthy at the Palace Museum confirm how the luxury virus has attacked an organization sometimes seen as a symbol of Chinese culture.
No one asked why those fairly recent (since 1950s) Tiffany powder cases ended up being displayed in a museum supposed to be dedicated to China's imperial past.
One thing is sure: Overseas luxury brands all strive to be seen in that temple of Chinese antiquity.
Meanwhile, the exclusive club represents an extension of the luxury concept.
As some of the the super rich have grown somewhat wary of the stigma of crass accumulation, they begin to talk of "low-key" luxury. The palace club intended to purvey exactly this type of luxury.
But whatever the criticism directed towards the museum, it has certainly made strides along the road of "cultural industrialization."
In light of that mandate, any establishment, cultural or not, needs to justify its existence on the basis of rigorous cost-analysis in the marketplace.
As moral scruples tend to interfere with the working of market mechanisms, they are eminently expendable.
The Palace Museum is not an exception. Similar clubs can also be found in, say, a former imperial summer retreat in Chengde, Hebei Province.
A new paradigm
Obviously some overseas investors view the steady conquests of brands like LV as an ideal way of transferring wealth.
It's an open secret that most of these luxuries are first made in China, in Foxconn-like conditions where the workers are as a rule overworked and underpaid.
The finished products are labeled with overseas brands, and then sold back to customers in China at 1,000 percent mark up.
The suicidal leaps and fatal explosion at Foxconn should shed more light on a bizarre economic paradigm where a label can become much more valuable than the actual product. The by-products also include degradations of the environment.
The nation's leadership must look beyond crude (increasingly aggressive) economic boosterism, and view themselves as a sort of priesthood obliged to minister to the spiritual welfare of the nation. We have been playing down the debate of "isms", for too long.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
