MARXIST CRITIQUE OF GUCCI X DAPPER DAN MADE IN HARLEM A/W ’18-19 BTS FOR NUMERO HOMME

 MARXIST CRITIQUE OF GUCCI X DAPPER DAN MADE IN HARLEM A/W ’18-19 BTS FOR NUMERO HOMME

 

The behind-the-scenes (BTS) video of the Gucci x Dapper Dan made in Harlem A/W 2018-19 shoot for Numero Homme offers a rich visual narrative that, when examined through a Marxist lens, reveals the complex interplay between capitalism, commodification of culture and class dynamics. Marxist theory (by Karl Marx) is a social, political, and economic theory that focuses on the struggle between classes in the society. It argues that history is shaped by conflicts between the ruling class(bourgeoise), who own the means of production, and the working class(proletariat), who sell their labor. Marx believed that capitalism exploits workers and would eventually be replaced by a classless, communist society where resources are shared equally.

 

At first glance, the video celebrates a collaboration between a global luxury fashion house (Gucci) and a legendary Harlem designer (Dapper Dan), suggesting cultural fusion and progress. However, Marxist theory urges us to look deeper, beyond aesthetics, to understand how the fashion industry often absorbs subversive or working-class cultural expressions and repackages them for profit. Dapper Dan’s earlier designs, which once challenges the exclusivity of high fashion by remixing designer logos for Harlem’s Black community, are now commodified and legitimized only when sanctioned by a major capitalist entity like Gucci. This reflects capitalism’s tendency to co-opt resistance for profit, diluting its original message and power. Looking into the cultural commodification and repackaging for profit: The central premise of this shoot, bringing Gucci to Harlem through Drapper Dan creates the illusion of inclusivity and empowerment. But when viewed through the Marxism, the moment is a textbook example of cultural commodification. Dapper Dan, once a fashion outlaw who subverted luxury branding for streetwear, is now “validates” by the same industry that once rejected and ligated against him. Capitalism, as Marx predicted, absorbs what is once resisted, transforming cultural into branded profit. Harlem too is commodified in this visual narrative. Once a site of rich black culture, resilience, and working-class identity, Harlem becomes a set, stylized and aestheticized, stripped of his social and political struggles to serve the branding of elite fashion.

 

The invisibility and alienation of labor is profound in this video. While the video glamorizes the models, fashion, and final images, it subtly marginalizes the labor of those who make the production possible. Stylists adjusting collars, photographers capturing shots, makeup artists brushing skin tones, assistants carrying equipment’s, their appearances are fleeting and silent. This is where Marx’s theory of alienation manifests clearly. Alienation from the product is also a sub unit of this alienation. The creative workers don’t own the work they produce. Their skills and effort serve the brand’s vision, not their personal expression. The final editorial doesn’t reflect their identity, even though it depends entirely on their labor. Alienation from others is another aspect. There’s a visible hierarchy, models and designers are the center of attention, while the support crew exists in the periphery. Labor is fragmented, with each person reduced to a function (hair, lighting, editing), not a creative equal. This separation of worker from product, from process, and from others is exactly what Marx descried in industrial labor under capitalism, just translated here as glossy world of fashion production. Additionally, the video centers around the glamour of models, designers, and branded aesthetics, while the labor behind the production, such as stylists, camera operators, lighting technicians, and editors remains largely invisible. From a Marxist perspective, this highlights the alienation of labor, creative workers become tools In a system where their value is measured by how well their work contributes to the profitability and prestige of the brand, not their own expression or well-being.

 

Furthermore, hierarchy and class representation are found in this video, despite the urban, culturally rich backdrop and the involvement of a Black designer, the production reinforces a bourgeois class narrative. The models wear extravagant Gucci ensembles, items priced well beyond the reach of the working-class Harlem community that surrounds them. These clothes aren’t made for Harlem but are temporarily worn in Harlem to give the illusion of cultural authenticity. There is also a visible hierarchy in who holds creative power: the director/cinematographer (Byrrah Visuals) directs the framing, angle, and pace, yet even they are working to serve the final campaign for Gucci, not for their own artistic narratives. The models are not excepted, the models are posted and instructed, becoming moving mannequins of brand expression, used to sell an image of status and exclusivity. The location becomes depersonalized. Harlem isn’t represented by its people but used as an aesthetic backdrop, erasing its socioeconomic realities. This performance od inclusion is, from a Marxist viewpoint, a façade of equality masking deep inequality, one where creative and cultural labor is exploited and glamorized in service of capital.

 

And lastly, the ideological state apparatus and aspirational messaging. Althusser’s idea of ideological state apparatuses helps explain the deeper impact of such videos. While not overly political, the video subtly teaches viewers to aspire to a certain class ideal. Luxury, fashion, and fame are framed as desirable, even necessary markers of success. The video says: tis is what power and status look like. If you want to succeed, join the system. Even the behind-the-scenes format, which promises transparency, actually masks the exploitative labor structure. It gives viewers a curated “look inside” while keeping class dynamics and creative hierarchies intact. The viewers are made to feel closer to the production process, but only as a spectator, not as someone empowered to change or participate in the system.

 

In conclusion, in sum, the Gucci x Dapper Dan BTS video, when broken down through a Marxist lens, reveals layers of capitalist ideology beneath its polished surface. It commodifies culture, glamorizes inequality, invisibilizes labor, and repackages resistance into profit. Even as it appears to uplift and celebrate Harlem and Black creativity, it ultimately serves the capitalist mode of production, using aesthetics and storytelling to reinforces the very systems of class division it seems to transcend. While the video may appear to celebrate collaboration and cultural recognition, a Marxist critique reveals it is a polished representation of capitalist power dynamics, one where culture is commodified, labor is obscured, and inequality is subtly glamorized in the name of fashion.