When Ugliness Prevails: How Gen-Z’s attention economy influences the trend of unconventional designs
By Dina Pasha
One of the oftly mentioned cliches about Gen Z is that they have an incredibly short attention span. They can hardly finish a movie, let alone read a book and the constant buzz of phone notifications distracts them at any given moment. The misfortune of this overwhelming amount of information was summed up by psychologist Herbert A. Simon who noted that “a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention”. Simon also coined the term “attention economy” positing that human attention is a scarce commodity; one that must be intentionally targeted to acquire.
While this attention deficiency is often discussed in the context of microtargetted algorithms and unique marketing tactics, creative designers too — specifically in fashion — have altered their approach accordingly. To capture this intangible commodity, there has been an uptick in over-the-top, attention seeking designs. But a side effect of overcompensating for visual excitement is outright ugliness, something pervading many of fashion’s most prestigious brands today.
Take Balenciaga for example. While the Triple S sneaker, a streetwear staple that’s an over dramatized riff on a chunky “dad sneaker”, initially raised some eyebrows due to its excessively oversized look, the brand reached peak ugliness with its infamous 2017 Crocs collab. These $850 brightly colored platform sandals adorned with kitschy jibbitz sold out instantly. Surely enough they caught the attention of customers, the media and anybody walking down the street.
Other brands are even more overt in their attempts to raise eyebrows and create heinous designs. MSCHF, a hard to categorize company founded in 2016, has built its brand around regularly dropping click-bait products, going viral, and generally poking fun at everything around them. Gabriel Whaley, founder and CEO of the company, notably said “We're not here to make the world a better place. We're making light of how much everything sucks."
This I-dont-give-a-f**k ethos has led to them dropping products like their “Jesus shoes”, a pair of Nike Air Max 97s but with “holy water” that was sourced straight from the River Jordan—and blessed by a priest—in the soles. Air Max 97s typically retail for $160, but these holy shoes sold for an ungodly price of $1,425. The brand then carried this absurd mentality into a profoundly ugly t-shirt collaboration: the “Impossible” tee is a collection of patchwork shirts constructed from destroyed graphics from ten of streetwear’s biggest brands. These stylistically haphazard tees are an unsightly combination of shirts from brands like Nike, North Face, Off-White, KITH, and the like.
What MSCHF has done here though is fully understand and capitalize upon the attention economy’s effect on fashion.
For one, the brands they’ve synthesized already have dedicated followings and recognizable logos. Second, the shirt is ugly: it abandons any predispositions of fashion needing to be chic and embraces its own chaos, and like most other MSCHF releases, the product knowingly went viral, with people discussing the cleverly expensive price ($1010.10 for the 10 brand collaborations in each tee) and anti-establishment principle it embraced. Ultimately, virality is rooted in attention gathering, hence why MSCHF has found so much success among Gen-Z.
While MSCHF is a distinctly modern company, the attention economy’s effect on fashion is seen in the resurgence of well-established brands too and Birkenstock is a brand that emerges time and time again in the conversation regarding ugly fashion. Even though some are still puzzled at the fact that the brand charges upwards of $100 for its notorious Jesus sandal, various luxury brand collaborations have taken the shoe to another level. Rick Owens, a designer known for aggressive simplicity and subtle overstatements, collaborated with Birkenstock and designed an all black sandal with a furry cowhide strap. The intentionally extended straps almost brush the ground, resulting in what they describe as a “subtly theatrical” look.
Owen’s Birkenstock bears similarities to another staple ugly-luxury item: Gucci’s lambs wool Princetown slip on loafer. This synthesis of a slipper style shoe and stuffed animals is a frumpy attention seeking design under the guise of a nostalgic child-like comfort.
But ultimately, these designs sell. And because of this Birkenstock has drawn attention from some of fashion’s biggest investors. In February, Birkenstock sold a majority stake in Birkenstock Group to L Catterton, the largest global consumer-focused private equity firm.
Although, they are inarguably a high-fashion brand today, for centuries Birkenstock has been an underdog in the industry. They were founded in 1774 and built their brand around its orthopedic support and flexible footbed. The sandals were appealing to World War II veterans for their comfort, then to 1960s hippies for its granola aesthetic. It wasn't until the 1990s that Birkenstocks were photographed in a high-fashion context, and it took a couple decades after that, nearly 250 years after their founding, for them to become a legitimate threat to fashion’s biggest groups.
So what changed? Their classic two-strap Arizona sandal was introduced in the 1970s and most of their designs have stayed consistent since then. When asked about the recent acquisition, luxury goods strategist and advisor Mario Ortellio said “It’s a brand with a very well-defined identity and a product that’s highly recognisable”.
And that’s largely the appeal of ugly fashion. The Balenciaga Triple S, Gucci Princetown loafers, and a simple pair of Birkenstocks are instantly recognisable. Our eyes gravitate towards them and we have clear and distinct affiliations with what they are. In today’s world of plenty, the ugliest of products are the ones that stand out. They get your attention and are unwilling to be distracted by something more subtle.
While this attention deficiency is often discussed in the context of microtargetted algorithms and unique marketing tactics, creative designers too — specifically in fashion — have altered their approach accordingly. To capture this intangible commodity, there has been an uptick in over-the-top, attention seeking designs. But a side effect of overcompensating for visual excitement is outright ugliness, something pervading many of fashion’s most prestigious brands today.
Take Balenciaga for example. While the Triple S sneaker, a streetwear staple that’s an over dramatized riff on a chunky “dad sneaker”, initially raised some eyebrows due to its excessively oversized look, the brand reached peak ugliness with its infamous 2017 Crocs collab. These $850 brightly colored platform sandals adorned with kitschy jibbitz sold out instantly. Surely enough they caught the attention of customers, the media and anybody walking down the street.
Other brands are even more overt in their attempts to raise eyebrows and create heinous designs. MSCHF, a hard to categorize company founded in 2016, has built its brand around regularly dropping click-bait products, going viral, and generally poking fun at everything around them. Gabriel Whaley, founder and CEO of the company, notably said “We're not here to make the world a better place. We're making light of how much everything sucks."
This I-dont-give-a-f**k ethos has led to them dropping products like their “Jesus shoes”, a pair of Nike Air Max 97s but with “holy water” that was sourced straight from the River Jordan—and blessed by a priest—in the soles. Air Max 97s typically retail for $160, but these holy shoes sold for an ungodly price of $1,425. The brand then carried this absurd mentality into a profoundly ugly t-shirt collaboration: the “Impossible” tee is a collection of patchwork shirts constructed from destroyed graphics from ten of streetwear’s biggest brands. These stylistically haphazard tees are an unsightly combination of shirts from brands like Nike, North Face, Off-White, KITH, and the like.
What MSCHF has done here though is fully understand and capitalize upon the attention economy’s effect on fashion.
For one, the brands they’ve synthesized already have dedicated followings and recognizable logos. Second, the shirt is ugly: it abandons any predispositions of fashion needing to be chic and embraces its own chaos, and like most other MSCHF releases, the product knowingly went viral, with people discussing the cleverly expensive price ($1010.10 for the 10 brand collaborations in each tee) and anti-establishment principle it embraced. Ultimately, virality is rooted in attention gathering, hence why MSCHF has found so much success among Gen-Z.
While MSCHF is a distinctly modern company, the attention economy’s effect on fashion is seen in the resurgence of well-established brands too and Birkenstock is a brand that emerges time and time again in the conversation regarding ugly fashion. Even though some are still puzzled at the fact that the brand charges upwards of $100 for its notorious Jesus sandal, various luxury brand collaborations have taken the shoe to another level. Rick Owens, a designer known for aggressive simplicity and subtle overstatements, collaborated with Birkenstock and designed an all black sandal with a furry cowhide strap. The intentionally extended straps almost brush the ground, resulting in what they describe as a “subtly theatrical” look.
Owen’s Birkenstock bears similarities to another staple ugly-luxury item: Gucci’s lambs wool Princetown slip on loafer. This synthesis of a slipper style shoe and stuffed animals is a frumpy attention seeking design under the guise of a nostalgic child-like comfort.
But ultimately, these designs sell. And because of this Birkenstock has drawn attention from some of fashion’s biggest investors. In February, Birkenstock sold a majority stake in Birkenstock Group to L Catterton, the largest global consumer-focused private equity firm.
Although, they are inarguably a high-fashion brand today, for centuries Birkenstock has been an underdog in the industry. They were founded in 1774 and built their brand around its orthopedic support and flexible footbed. The sandals were appealing to World War II veterans for their comfort, then to 1960s hippies for its granola aesthetic. It wasn't until the 1990s that Birkenstocks were photographed in a high-fashion context, and it took a couple decades after that, nearly 250 years after their founding, for them to become a legitimate threat to fashion’s biggest groups.
So what changed? Their classic two-strap Arizona sandal was introduced in the 1970s and most of their designs have stayed consistent since then. When asked about the recent acquisition, luxury goods strategist and advisor Mario Ortellio said “It’s a brand with a very well-defined identity and a product that’s highly recognisable”.
And that’s largely the appeal of ugly fashion. The Balenciaga Triple S, Gucci Princetown loafers, and a simple pair of Birkenstocks are instantly recognisable. Our eyes gravitate towards them and we have clear and distinct affiliations with what they are. In today’s world of plenty, the ugliest of products are the ones that stand out. They get your attention and are unwilling to be distracted by something more subtle.