Marxist Critique of "Gucci x Dapper Dan Made in Harlem A/W '18–'19 BTS"

 

The intersection of Gucci and Dapper Dan's partnership, which is highlighted in 'Made in Harlem,' A/W '18–'19, offers a glimpse into the dynamic world of cultural appropriation, commodification, and their intersection with class relations. The video reveals the immense craftsmanship and creativity of the Harlem culture, but from a Marxist standpoint, it captures the exploitative essence of ‘collaborations’ that mask the underlying issue of labor exploitation. This is captured in the all emcompassing term ‘exploitation’ which explains why Harlem, and their craftsmanship, continues to be ossified and lacking true identity. Gucci's exploitation of Harlem's culture marks a shift where cultural artifacts lose their socio-economic roots, only to be prited twelve bucks to incase flawlessly placed, highlighting structural violence reigned upon them.

“Commodity fetishism,” as Karl Marx coined it, is useful in examining this partnership. As described in the video, the clothes manufactured are marketed as luxury goods, filled with power and prestige, masking the associated work and cultural meaning of their development. The narrative changes from the workers and their cultural roots to the products themselves, concealing the sense of exploitation and appropriation. This divorce of the commodity from its production cycle and its cultural anchors is precisely what Marx criticized about capitalist societies, which assign worth to goods without consideration of the labor and culture that birthe them. The video serves this perverse purpose: portraying the fetishization of cultural commodities which characteristically underlines capitalism’s disregard for the actual tangible edges of the production and cultural raw materials.  

Further more, Looking at the collaboration through the prism of “cultural hegemony,” one that was forged by Antonio Gramsci is useful here too. Dapper Dan’s partnership with Gucci can be interpreted as a way of perpetuating the existing narratives in culture. Gucci’s appropriation of elements of Harlem street culture does not only present its appealing aesthetic as a high fashion cut but also creates validation and marketability for it in the world.This process, by which the dominant class captures and reshapes the cultures of the subservient class as resale value items, contributes to the perpetuation of cultural appropriation. Handles such as these that are placed inelegantly on deep cultural phenomena can, through a different lens, prove useful in understanding why some people reclaim such videos and fetishize them as a sophisticated ‘stretched out marketing scheme.’ 

In conclusion, the CTRL + Gucci x Dapper Dan Made in Harlem A/W '18–'19 BTS video is a Marxist case study of capitalism’s exploitative cultural commodification, appropriation—and in this case, squash-ification—performed by capitalistic ‘collaborations’ of preexisting brands. Capitalistic enterprises strive to accent the collective identity of the working class not only because it is cost-effective, but also because it features the glaring tone of ‘syndicate disguised as society.’ This serves as a social awareness initiative while cultivating a new level of exposing boundless culture wars leveraged to serve sight and forceful impacts. The societies emerge as consumers who violently acquire images of culture that exceed their shared power… This power will form the pattern of thinking that will support the mechanism. As much as defiant such collaborations appear at first sight, [actually celebrating them in disguise][festively tolling them under festive bells] shows us the depth to design forces that structure routine oppression and exploitation.