The ‘Guccification’ of Dapper Dan
By A.B. Gregory
May 28th — Gucci is set to show their 2018 Cruise collection. 12:28 PM — the first look goes down the runway: look 2, look 3, look 110, and by 12:45 PM the final look has had its moment. Michele Alessandro had put on yet another whimsical show as Creative Director of the storied house to much fanfare. However, by 12:55PM social media had erupted and Gucci had been accused of knocking-off a look and style created by legendary tailor and hip-hop fashion icon, Daniel ‘Dapper Dan’ Day.
Dapper Dan pioneered the concept of taking fabrics and materials from luxury items and repurposing them to create custom garments. His clients have included Rakim, Salt-N-Pepa and Floyd Mayweather Jr. His designs bridged the gap between luxury and street and everyone wanted a piece.
The look in question was a plush fur jacket featuring puff-sleeves monogrammed in Gucci’s iconic double GG motif. I felt the familiarity of look 33; it was immediately recognizable as one of Dapper Dan’s original creations. Dapper Dan's design, also a fur jacket, featured puff-sleeves emblazoned with the Louis Vuitton monogram motif. It had been worn by Olympic Gold Medalist Diane Dixon in the 1980’s.
The question that followed next was simple: Did Gucci knock-off ‘Dapper Dan’? Or had the fashion house paid homage?
The answer would ultimately be far more complex. Understating what led to the rise of Dapper Dan is paramount. Luxury designers turned him away, the industry pushed him out. Dapper Dan took the symbols of rejection and luxury and made them his own. This isn’t about the theft of one design; it’s the continued theft and appropriation of a people and a culture that has long asked for their dues, their credit, and acceptance.
The racial undertones run deep and they are hard to ignore. Simply dismissing this as Gucci paying homage to Dapper Dan would be siding with a system that has perpetually discriminated against people of color. Black and brown boys and girls know this feeling all too well. The feeling of being robbed and having their culture sold back to them at a price they could not afford. It seems as though our culture has not been ours to have and especially not ours to keep. Dapper Dan is our icon, and he was ours to have and to keep. Gucci decided his designs and his legacy were in fact up for grabs. It had been theirs to take and to sell uncredited and unpaid. Every time Gucci has tried to position itself in proximity to our culture, black culture, it has been for its own gain. Even after toting a campaign featuring black models exclusively as the house's much needed step towards inclusivity and diversity, Gucci would go on to hold their Fall 2017 RTW show which was still predominantly white — as were their ad campaigns. The show featured 10 black models out of a total of 118 looks. Gucci’s Cruise 2018 show didn't fare any better. The show consisted of 115 looks and again only featured 10 black models. Is this the version of inclusivity Gucci is selling? One where black bodies are used as commodities for their look, their art, and their culture?
May 31st — In a statement, the company said, “Gucci’s ‘new Renaissance’ cruise 2018 fashion show included references to periods of revitalization spanning many different eras, in particular the European Renaissance, the ’70s and the ’80s. The collection also saw a continuation of Alessandro Michele’s exploration of faux-real culture with a series of pieces playing on the Gucci logo and monogram, including a puff-sleeved bomber jacket from the 1980s in an homage to the work of the renowned Harlem tailor Daniel ‘Dapper Dan’ Day and in celebration of the culture of that era in Harlem.”
Up until then there had been no mention of Dapper Dan. They were paying homage to Dapper Dan 72 hours later after numerous calls for the house to make a statement. Like faux-fur this is faux-homage. Something about it just doesn't feel right and if you look close enough you'll see that it's not real.
It has taken fashion far longer to show support to black designers and address the issues we unfortunately have to discuss every season. Why can't black designers profit off their own culture how everyone else seems to? Why is it ok for a fashion house to use another designers work and call it “homage” after 72 hours when there had been no mention of him at all? Why can't black designers get their due? How does fashion keep getting it so wrong?
Fashion has appropriated and profited off black culture and has done so unapologetically and many times without backlash or furor. But when the backlash does come it is as unrelenting as it is necessary. According to a Gucci spokesman, Michele is interested in collaborating with Dapper Dan — now, post-show. It's easy for one to think Michele's interest in doing a collaboration is to save face amongst public outcry. It took Gucci 72 hours to show support and credit Dapper Dan for his work and the legacy he had created. For me, it’s 72 hours too late.
Our look, our art and our culture are not for sale.
romaincrisis
baratheonpilled
discoholicmusic
prguitarman
andulkaphoto
areudirty
dededos