circularity will only bring you back to where you started

of the major fashion houses at the 2022 Met Gala, Louis Vuitton was undoubtedly the quietest. they dressed a rather plain assortment of celebrities in clothes that weren’t quite gala worthy, or at least not up to the extravagant standards that we’ve come to know and love/hate from the met. there was a kicker though — the clothes were reused Louis Vuitton clothes from past seasons. emma stone rewore her Louis Vuitton wedding dress from 2020. emma chamberlain wore pieces from fall 2016. gemma chan and cynthia erivo wore pieces from the spring 2022 collection (which, sidebar — is this archival? it sounds more like a promotion for the collection that’s currently releasing in stores). in total, 14 attendees rewore Louis Vuitton pieces. Louis Vuitton called it “a commitment to circular creativity.” but what’s the catch?

well, for starters, where is the sustainability?

a gala event, which is little more than a celebration of opulence, is hardly an avenue to showcase anything environmental. any “sustainability” you have from reusing garments is immediately cancelled out by the fact that each attendee flew into new york for the event, and that’s not even mentioning the rest of their makeup, hair, and design teams travelling, or the emissions just from shipping the garments themselves. is it nothing more than a do as i say, not as i do moment? i’ve always found that to be the hardest behavior to emulate. why should i commit to a mission you only seem halfheartedly dedicated to?

Hoyeon Jung in Louis Vuitton Cruise 2017.

the thing with each look is that none of them were particularly interesting or even on theme (although emma chamberlain’s was an honest attempt in my books), which only hinders the message, relegating “sustainability” to a second class status — making it seem that the best looks are the ones that are new, custom, and only to be worn once. how much more meaningful would this whole idea have been if the clothes were noteworthy on their own merit, outside of the sustainability aspect? most fatally, the looks weren’t particularly memorable; it’s been a week since the gala, and all i can remember is emma’s and the fact that hoyeon jung wasn’t in Miu Miu, which is what it looked like.

and it’s a huge missed opportunity too. emma chamberlain isn’t know to the world through Louis Vuitton and high fashion — she was on YouTube in her early days doing thrift hauls and putting outfits together. she’s the og Depop blueprint. oddly, even though it’s the Met Gala, there wasn’t that much fanfare about the look, or clarity about the message. there should’ve been videos ready, a discussion about her. there should be no doubt about her intent with the outfit or about where the looks are from and why they’re reusing them. what’s the point of bringing in a youtuber if they can’t document the process and show us behind the scenes?

Emma Chamberlain in Louis Vuitton Fall 2016 Ready-to-Wear.

the slight dark side comes in the specific wording of Louis Vuitton’s message. nicolas ghesquière’s quote highlights garments that are made to last, not necessarily made in the most sustainable way (and what’s more, he doesn’t actually mention the environment at all, but rather his own legacy as a designer. the only references to the environment come from Louis Vuitton’s instagram, and an explanation from emma chamberlain’s stylist.) that is one aspect of sustainability, undoubtedly, but it also clearly is a message that serves the brand. he isn’t telling you to buy less per se, just buy high quality stuff. and what does Louis Vuitton sell? luxury garments. fast fashion undeniably is public enemy number one when it comes to Sustainability, and ghesquière is attempting to harvest this disdain to power the LVMH greenwashing engine.

but i am conflicted. even the most marginal attempts at “sustainability” are better than nothing. and it still means something for one of the biggest fashion houses to promote that sort of message. but we aren’t going to babystep our way out of impending climate doom, and furthermore, i don’t think any profit maximizing corporation, nevertheless the whole fashion industry, will ever turn down the financial incentives at hand that come from constant expansion and consumption. because at the end of the day, Louis Vuitton’s goal is to get you to spend more money at Louis Vuitton, which they think will happen by making customers feel better about purchasing from a “green” company, all of which goes towards funding more Louis Vuitton expansion and production and resource use.

i know it sounds like i’m picking on Louis Vuitton, but this isn’t about them, or even the fashion industry. it happens everywhere, in everything, because capitalism is so pervasive, and it’s a battle that only the companies that try to do anything sustainable at all face. maybe Louis Vuitton has the right idea. there’s certainly more than enough garments in the world, even for a specialty occasion like the Met Gala. but this whole debacle is an important reminder that a brand will only make the “sustainable” decisions if they can market them and benefit financially,