Sorry it took me so long to get back!
A lot of really insightful comments, thank you all.
I will start with Diana (with Denise), because I think she hit the nail of what is bothering me. I know just what you mean about the rockstars - they were a very identifiable look that suddenly appeared on everything from our beloved Okalas and up and back down again. My pseu-Koris are like that. When I bought them I thought they were more inspired by as in the quilted bag or Angie's Trouve vs. Miu Miu sneaker example. But when I checked them at home I realized they are pretty much a straight out copy (Vicki I am not sure I don't get as much pleasure from researching clothing as I do from wearing them). Granted the generic pointy toed bootie is not original, but the addition of the cut out is. Nontheless I have made my peace. If I were Angie (meaning a fashion professional) though, I don't know that I would wear them.
As Echo says, and I agree strongly with this. It is kind of ridiculous for a designer to claim ownership of any design element. There is truly nothing new under the sun, and that was said long before their was mass production. I fully agree with Suz, Gaylene, Lisa, Thistle, Joy, Deb and Sterling that a clear fake, with fake logoing is not of interest. I think many of us have a visceral reaction against the idea we are buying a name rather than a thing - although, and here I am speaking only for myself, I do get undeniable pleasure from uncovering certain designers in second hand travels, and the label, if authentic is added value to me.
Which leads me to approprio - Yes! I recently read that certain stratas of American preppydom are dismayed with Lilly Pulitzer's Target collection. I like your attitude toward luxury and exclusivity, which is really stemming from some of the same impulses that leads people to wear obvious fakes. And me taking pleasure from finding "authentic" designer pieces. Hope you expand on this in a post one day! (By the way, the booties I mention are of Turkish descent.)
Suz this is related to your relation to the designer as artist. Now there could be a fake book I supposed - one illegally copied and distributed, but the enjoyment would be the contents. It is wrong to rob from the author of course, but it is somehow very different than fake fashion. With fashion, some people, including myself, get enjoyment out of owning an authentic whatever - even if the contents are identical to the fake. Books are of course not the same as art - I am thinking about Gaylene's point about a print (legitimate) vs. a fake here. Interesting.
Karie - spreading out one's fakes does sound obscene now that you mention it :-)!
gradfashionista - The tricky one for me is the case with my booties - highly recognizable to a few, not recognizable to most, the distinct design element is a nice touch, but not the main point for me.
kkards How about My Fair Lady/Pygmalion vs. the original Greek myth? That George Bernard Shaw - not an original bone in his body :-)!
kirstjen I also find this bemusing and amusing. The haute birkie thing is an excellent example. Back to Echo's point.
Jackiec I loved your story! And the ubiquitous Burberry plaid is a great example. If you liked the look of it, would you wear a scarf in that pattern? No logo but very recognizable among some groups (but not many other people, and younger me is among them).
Rachy, but if you did do ghetto fab? Are you ruling that out?
That was fun thank you again!
