Simply Divine

  Introduction to Stuart Hall's Theory and the Gucci x Dapper Dan Collaboration     By applying Stuart Hall's oppositional reading framework to the Gucci x Dapper Dan Made in Harlem A/W '18–'19 collection, we explore the complex relationships between identity, power, and cultural appropriation. Fashion is a form of cultural expression that can be both a site of resistance and a mechanism of dominance. Hall's concept of encoding and decoding in media texts offers a lens through which to view this phenomenon. This partnership, which paired Harlem's own Dapper Dan with the luxury label Gucci, is a moving illustration of these relationships. In the 1980s, Dapper Dan, who was renowned for his avant-garde designs that reinvented luxury logos, was sued by companies such as Gucci for using their trademarks without permission.    Gucci, however, recognised his impact in 2018 by reopening his Harlem atelier and launching a capsule collection as part of their partnership. ...

  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, t...

David Fincher’s rhythm in the Social Network dances to the volatility of Mark Zuckerberg, its protagonist. The flow of editing and pacing which was the work of Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall does not only create narrative forward thrusts, but sophisticated psychological frameworks. Zuckerberg’s Harvard dorms and the deposition rooms pulsating with mechanical precision like a metronome emphasizes scene leaps, reminiscent of Zuckerberg’s mind. Conversational exchanges delivered at a rapid pace are timed to not only Mark’s thinking emotionally detached but his emotional state. Amputation happens within three layers of time, trying to balance being present with the body's feelings, and balancing goals with what might happen as a result. Zuckerberg’s social inadequacies are reflected in the narrative’s rigid structure: recursive, cold and calculated. With every moment of stillness, distance increases, and we are vehemently pushed away into his psyche with every cut. The dissection is elabor...

INTRODUCTION     Stuart Halls lens comprises on the {dominant, negotiated and oppositional}, the; Dominant- they are the people that agree fully with the way the writer portrayed a character and or the  series of events in the film. they agree on the view the creator had while creating or rather encoding the film. Negotiated: These are the people that can agree but also have some complains about the point of view of the writer/creator, the way they made some certain things seem or even the way they portrayed a certain character. they just don't fully agree. Oppositional- they are very clear about their disagreement with the encoder of the film, they do not share the same view and they believe their view to be right and are solely against that of the creator/writer. These are the various lenses i will use to carefully critique this film.       Looking at the cultural context of the film, it was around the early 21st century (it reflects the rise of social me...