I came back to re-read this wonderful post and am intrigued to know what your thoughts on Brat green are? It’s a very different example but arguably succeeds because we’re so used to associating certain brands with certain colours?
Ooo love this question Mel, would love to hear more of your thoughts too! I agree with you, it plays into the idea that we are conditioned to associate certain colors with specific identities or feelings. It goes beyond traditional branding and while not trademarked in the legal sense, still stakes a claim on a particular visual space and it is still 'owned' in the cultural sense. It also speaks to how colours are increasingly becoming markers of identity and cultural capital.
I would say though that the fleeting nature of trends adds an interesting layer. They are so transient and so disposable that BRAT will probably fade as quickly as it rose. But really interesting to compare the more fluid associations created by artists and the more permanent, institutionalised ownership of colour by corporations.
Literally responding the day after Charli XCX declared Brat summer over lol and so many of her fans are rejecting this in the comments. I’m still mulling it over but I think my overall takeaway is why can’t brands just let us enjoy things?! While Charli’s definition of brat was very fluid and adaptable, more an ethos than owning any one thing, brands saw it as an opportunity to sell us brat green-coloured items which is entirely missing the point. Very reminiscent of Barbie summer and look how many of those items landed on depop… the only difference being that it was a very calculated move by Mattel to sell barbie in every conceivable form possible 🥴
Essential reading for anyone who still hangs on to the idea that capitalism is 'natural'. How can a corporation owning a colour be anything other than a vicious legal fiction?
I came back to re-read this wonderful post and am intrigued to know what your thoughts on Brat green are? It’s a very different example but arguably succeeds because we’re so used to associating certain brands with certain colours?
Ooo love this question Mel, would love to hear more of your thoughts too! I agree with you, it plays into the idea that we are conditioned to associate certain colors with specific identities or feelings. It goes beyond traditional branding and while not trademarked in the legal sense, still stakes a claim on a particular visual space and it is still 'owned' in the cultural sense. It also speaks to how colours are increasingly becoming markers of identity and cultural capital.
I would say though that the fleeting nature of trends adds an interesting layer. They are so transient and so disposable that BRAT will probably fade as quickly as it rose. But really interesting to compare the more fluid associations created by artists and the more permanent, institutionalised ownership of colour by corporations.
Literally responding the day after Charli XCX declared Brat summer over lol and so many of her fans are rejecting this in the comments. I’m still mulling it over but I think my overall takeaway is why can’t brands just let us enjoy things?! While Charli’s definition of brat was very fluid and adaptable, more an ethos than owning any one thing, brands saw it as an opportunity to sell us brat green-coloured items which is entirely missing the point. Very reminiscent of Barbie summer and look how many of those items landed on depop… the only difference being that it was a very calculated move by Mattel to sell barbie in every conceivable form possible 🥴
Essential reading for anyone who still hangs on to the idea that capitalism is 'natural'. How can a corporation owning a colour be anything other than a vicious legal fiction?
Exactly!! Just a playground for those at the top 🗑️
loved reading this, Yalda! ♥️
So glad you enjoyed it! 🫶🏽