Distribution of wealth
for contemporary culture, dorothy is one of the earliest examples of mixing high/low, marrying a simple country pinafore with magical ruby red slippers. just like today’s “It” items, the power was all in the wearer’s mind, but a lot of people are putting a lot of stock (and money) in the idea that one key accessory will make the whole outfit.
when the investment is made in the accessories, and they are then expected to elevate the clothing (this seems deceitful, in a way), then they cease to be accessories. an accessory is a subordinate item, something non-essential.
i wonder if this long-running trend is breeding a whole lot of people who don’t know how to dress themselves, because they don’t think they need to, because they’ve got the It, and It’s all they need.
on the other hand, h&m and other retailers of fast fashion* do make it possible to assemble an outfit with legitimate flair at a low cost, plus vintage or even a very keen eye can produce great style at reasonable costs.
is there any advantage (or disadvantage) to distributing the wealth to keep a look in proportion, value-wise?