This is an interesting thread! The comments about how the Freer (the blogger) restyled her bags and it looks like some of the professional runway's styles in a certain past season is very ironic.
Having said that, I feel kind of sad how she defaced the LV the cleaning lady gave her. I know it's a fake, but I wonder how the cleaning lady felt that she wrote on it and post it on the internet. Cleaners don't usually earn much, and the cleaning lady must have thought it was a gift Freer would have appreciate it. It just made me sad.
I'd feel dissed for spending fifty dollars on a purse that I thought a person I work for would like and value regardless of authenticity. Even if Freer didn't want to use it, that is just being unnecessarily hurtful.
As for her competitor for the Bal. bag, I suppose if she was easily swayed into putting the bag down and not buying it after a stranger gives an opinion, she must not really have liked it in the first place. I'm just surprised at the unnecessary dishonesty. I feel like it's just a power-over and control display.
What I don't understand is that if she really wanted to make a statement about not buying into the image of high-status among the Hollywood culture, why didn't she just not buy the bag? It didn't matter if she defaced them after they were newly bought, the rich company (be it the Bal. or Gucci) already took her money. She already is supporting them by buying those bags. If anything, by posting them on her public blog, she is promoting them. Perhaps in her own trend, but promoting them none the less.
I doubt Gucci or Bal cares what she does to her bags afterwards. It's not sticking it to the 'big man' or the faceless "1 percent". This isn't logical.
I suppose it might appeal to Freer's sense of heroism by finding the oppressor (being hollywood culture, status culture, and luxury goods companies) and casting herself as a a rebellious character. And then making a rebellious statement through the symbol of a defaced bag. Sounds quite poetic and can even be romanticized. It appeals to one's sense of being 'empowered' and 'different' and being a 'non-conformist' and how others are more like sheep among the herd who buy into the Hollywood culture and status symbols.
If she didn't like how Hollywood culture is, why not save up the money she earns and then change to a different career that aligns more with her values? Or move somewhere less Hollywood-esque? Now, that would be a truly noble statement. Perhaps the comfort of earning more money still remains something she values or the change is overwhelming to do.
People have been defacing bags before the blog was made... I honestly think she just defaced them angrily. That's pretty much the only difference. She had to acknowledge the bags as a status symbols before writing or dirtying up the bags, because if they were not, she probably would not have bought them to begin with just to make a statement. So, in that sense, she does agree - bags are a status symbol.
There's just a lot of irony in the name "Freer", if you know what I mean. This is not the behavior of a person at mental peace.
Having said that, I feel kind of sad how she defaced the LV the cleaning lady gave her. I know it's a fake, but I wonder how the cleaning lady felt that she wrote on it and post it on the internet. Cleaners don't usually earn much, and the cleaning lady must have thought it was a gift Freer would have appreciate it. It just made me sad.
I'd feel dissed for spending fifty dollars on a purse that I thought a person I work for would like and value regardless of authenticity. Even if Freer didn't want to use it, that is just being unnecessarily hurtful. As for her competitor for the Bal. bag, I suppose if she was easily swayed into putting the bag down and not buying it after a stranger gives an opinion, she must not really have liked it in the first place. I'm just surprised at the unnecessary dishonesty. I feel like it's just a power-over and control display.
What I don't understand is that if she really wanted to make a statement about not buying into the image of high-status among the Hollywood culture, why didn't she just not buy the bag? It didn't matter if she defaced them after they were newly bought, the rich company (be it the Bal. or Gucci) already took her money. She already is supporting them by buying those bags. If anything, by posting them on her public blog, she is promoting them. Perhaps in her own trend, but promoting them none the less.
I doubt Gucci or Bal cares what she does to her bags afterwards. It's not sticking it to the 'big man' or the faceless "1 percent". This isn't logical.
I suppose it might appeal to Freer's sense of heroism by finding the oppressor (being hollywood culture, status culture, and luxury goods companies) and casting herself as a a rebellious character. And then making a rebellious statement through the symbol of a defaced bag. Sounds quite poetic and can even be romanticized. It appeals to one's sense of being 'empowered' and 'different' and being a 'non-conformist' and how others are more like sheep among the herd who buy into the Hollywood culture and status symbols.
If she didn't like how Hollywood culture is, why not save up the money she earns and then change to a different career that aligns more with her values? Or move somewhere less Hollywood-esque? Now, that would be a truly noble statement. Perhaps the comfort of earning more money still remains something she values or the change is overwhelming to do.
People have been defacing bags before the blog was made... I honestly think she just defaced them angrily. That's pretty much the only difference. She had to acknowledge the bags as a status symbols before writing or dirtying up the bags, because if they were not, she probably would not have bought them to begin with just to make a statement. So, in that sense, she does agree - bags are a status symbol.
There's just a lot of irony in the name "Freer", if you know what I mean. This is not the behavior of a person at mental peace.
Last edited: