Member Since: 8/16/2011
Posts: 19,718
|
NYT: Beyoncé is an ICON. No qualifier necessary.
Quote:
So how is it that all ages of women want to be like her, but that does not include, for any of them, what is normally the easiest way into the fantasy: dressing like her? How is it she drives audiences into stadiums but not clients into stores? It looks like a paradox.
If fact, let’s call it the Beyoncé Paradox. And here’s the thing: I think it is actually a construct. One that has been strategically made.
After all, by opting to build her celebrity on a carefully chosen set of proprietary symbols — in this case, smile and hair and body (and voice, of course) — as opposed to a carefully constructed, apparel-related look, Beyoncé & Company have ensured that the only brand that really has any real staying power is brand Beyoncé; that everything she is selling comes back to her. Spreading the wealth, so to speak, among so many designers, which at first looks like an effort to woo the fashion world, actually works to create a situation in which no one name is permanently associated with her other than her own. It’s a question, as it always is, of power and cui bono. And cui bono here is her.
It has become conventional wisdom that fashion is a platform that is increasingly crucial as either a springboard to stardom (see: Kerry Washington and Lupita Nyong’o, both of whom have discussed the red carpet as a key tool in an actress’s arsenal) or a way to sustain a career beyond stardom (see: Kate Hudson and Sharon Stone). But what the Beyoncé Paradox suggests is that this may not, in fact, be entirely true. Because lose the “fashion,” and what do you have left?
Icon. No qualifier necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
