nuance

You read correctly: I want to write a brief apologetic on behalf of the hippest clothing manufacturer/retailer on planet earth, American Apparel. I want to do this because American Apparel is in Burlington and I like them, especially their zip hoodies (with the bit of white on the zipper) which are absolutely the best feeling, fitting, and looking that I have ever worn. (My wife agrees and wears her hoody dress on a near-daily basis.)

The challenge is this: American Apparel is widely known for its provocative ads. It does not toe the line when it comes to sexually suggestive stuff - it takes a long, tight-pantsed step over that line. While some of their ads could qualify as off-beat, fashion-forward, artistic, hip, and attractive, others have been a wee bit too close to pornographic.

So the question is, why am I, a Christian dude who really likes leading Bible studies, defending such a company of degenerate fashionistas?

It’s the zip hoody mainly, and the fact that American Apparel happens to be a rare brand with a thoughtful mission and message.

First, the message.

Most of the time when Christians talk about something having a “good message” they mean a Christian message hidden underneath a non-Christian exterior - like, “I really think the movie Cars has a great message!” That’s not really what I’m getting at here. Dudes in colorful briefs do not really communicate, even in a hidden way, any aspects of the gospel for me. But as a Christian I appreciate not only a good message in that other sense, but a thoughtful message in an industry (like fashion/clothing) that is often message-less or at least played out, conformist, and thoughtless in its cultural messaging.

As a case-in-point, I offer to you the Gap. The Gap sucks. It has no message. It is bland, not just because its clothes are plain-looking but because it does not provide any relevant edge in either its design or its marketing. There is no deep aesthetic behind it except perhaps that aesthetics don’t matter that much if you’re wearing khakis. It is the store for married guys who have a couple little kids, a growing midsection, and whose criteria for good clothes amounts to looseness, relative cheapness, a funny TV actor wearing the clothes in some of the ads, and easy access (a store that’s in every mall in America). And as a married guy who will probably fit that description in a couple years, I hope to rebel against such fashion-numbness. Don’t get me wrong: a creative person can buy Gap and make it look good, but the company itself seems to have nearly given up on the idea.

By contrast, AA’s message is firstly an undeniable infatuation with fashion. It has established a clear manufacturing template - simple wholesale-type pieces, label/logo-free, classic American materials (cottons, polys, nylons), etc. - upon which to build a truly impressive aesthetic; and the aesthetic is magnified by the simplicity of the manufacturing approach. That is, you might be able to buy a zip hoody for $10 at Wal-Mart (and there’s nothin’ wrong with that, btw), but AA’s aesthetic is so powerful that the shopper knows there is something different about the AA piece, even though the two look similar.

And this is due, in part to the ads; the message is wrapped up in the advertising approach and would not exist without it. I am not saying that the explicit stuff is good - it is not - but the off-beat and artistic stuff is. The real-film grain of the photos, the late 70’s polyester flair, the daringness of roller-rink short shorts and little-league high socks all communicate the message of individualism, newness (or new oldness), freedom, and rockstar scenesterism. Further, the simplicity (not blandness - the designs are edgy, unique, thoughtful) of the clothing demands that the buyer take the AA aesthetic and run with it into their own corners of creativity.

But a quick interjection here: There are many aspects of the American Apparel aesthetic that I, Zach, do not get or support and will never really get or support. The aforementioned briefs are one such aspect; I’m not really down with briefs, no matter how colorful they are. Some of the dudes and dudettes in the ads or on the site or manning the counter at the store are are geared up kinda freaky, and some look downright inappropriate. So don’t misunderstand my perspective here; I hesitated going to the store in Burlington at first because of some of the stuff posted on the walls (it’s since toned down quite a bit). There is weirdness in this aesthetic for sure, not least because the founder of the company, Dov Charney, seems to be pretty dang weird. And the reality is that there is sin interwoven with this aesthetic too, because in the attempt to be free and unique people usually end up sinning. But my contention is that even the weirdness factors into the creation of an artistic message that we can find some value in - that the company pushes the envelope creatively and encourages creativity in the consumer, is different, is individualistic, and is truly fashionable (as the weirdness of most runway shows would confirm) - even if we don’t embrace it or imitate it in full. Such may summarize our interaction with (sinful) human culture in general.

Which leads us to the mission. I know that Gap has the (Product)Red thing going on, and it’s noble, but it is also only a side project, a charitable venture attached to an existing enterprise. And who really buys that stuff? Yet AA seems to have a mission that has stuck, and this is the most valuable thing about the company’s contribution to American culture. Just browse the About page on the site and you’ll find out about Vertically Integrated Manufacturing, the idea that one company manufactures the product and sells the product, doing everything from the bottom - knitting and sewing - up. This stands against the cheap-as-possible manufacturing mentality of most clothing companies, who outsource by and large to Chinese textile makers or third-world sweatshops. Dov may not be entirely anti-globalisation, but he is anti-sweatshop and claims his clothing is sweatshop-free.

To emphasize the point, he is opening up a retail store in China, and all of the clothing sold there will be manufactured right in L.A.

You’ll also find out about the fair wages paid to his factory workers. Or the affordable benefits. Or the “Legalize L.A.” campaign that, in lieu of said factory workers, is calling for open, easier immigration and a process for recognizing currently illegal immigrants as legal. When combined with the fair wages AA pays these folks, it makes for a powerful argument (i.e., they don’t want open immigration just for the sake of cheap labor).

And all of this is bound up in a philosophy that values conservative, free-market economic principles without abusing them. It again poses a powerful argument that could potentially balance the communistic, socialistic, anti-capitalistic sentiments which abound among progressive folks these days. AA is identifiable as progressive, and yet generously and responsibly capitalistic. This Economist article on Dov is insightful.

We ought not assume that this mission is pristine or without flaw or even all it claims to be. It is doubtless imperfect and flawed, but it is an attempt to change the way things are for the better. Taken together, the mission and message of American Apparel are valuable; and while we ought not support the offensive and inappropriate aspects of the enterprise, we may well gain something from it nonetheless.

Such as a radical hoody.