There is a subsection of heroin chic culture known as “Poor Chic” (Halnon, 501). Poor chic refers to fashion trends that appropriate the clothing of the impoverished (Halnon, 501). This style of clothing is associated with the white upper class, who have continuously adopted the fashion trends of other cultures and classes. Think of the white suburban boys adopting a hip hop style, but from the safety of their gated community (Halnon, 503). The white California suburban girls are adopting a false Spanish accent and deciding to identify as ‘cholita’ or Mexican ‘gangsta girls’, once again, from the comfort of their community (Halnon, 504). This is nothing new; Marie Antoinette even famously constructed a 15-cottage farm community dedicated to cosplaying as poor. Reducing poverty to a commodity allows the upper class to maintain control by consuming it (Halnon, 508). This power allows these individuals to set up structures to preserve their wealth. The wealthy can take a vacation as an impoverished person, but still have the privilege to go home to their multi-million dollar mansion. To get to experience the ‘thrill’ of being poor without consequences. By keeping the impoverished in subservient positions, leeching off their culture, the wealthy can maintain their control.
The appropriation of poverty has always been connected to racism and capitalism. Think of the act of tattooing, the sport of weight lifting, and the new thrifting craze; all of these activities came from non-Western cultures or the lower class (Halnon, 503). Tattoos used to be considered trashy, weight lifting used to be considered a criminal activity, and thrifting was out of necessity. Now that the white upper class has appropriated these activities, they are considered to be popular culture (Halnon, 504). Simply changing the perspective on a certain activity alters the perception of this activity. The thrifting craze was something that was initially seen as environmentally friendly and economically conscious, but over time, this activity inadvertently denied the impoverished with affordable clothing. The lower class has been priced out of their own culture (Halnon, 502). At this level of capitalism, the rich continue to get richer off the backs of the poor, while the poor continue to live impoverished.
The decline of the 90s poor/heroin chic trend can be traced to the publicized death of photographer Davide Sorrenti (Halnon, 509). When the privileged class understand the truth of poverty, it becomes less desirable. They appropriate the look without embodying the structures that make people look this way.
In the photograph by Day, we have Moss in a swimsuit holding hands with a child. The background has children and deteriorating buildings surrounded by dead grass. I used the setting and children to evoke the aesthetic of poverty. I used Moss to represent the ideal of Western beauty standards. Her thin figure evokes the feeling of emaciation, which further contributes to the poor chic aesthetic.
I created a monochromatic version of the image and pasted it down, then I took a second monochromatic version, but with a slightly cooler tone. After tearing out Kate Moss, I burned the edges to show her presence as an unwelcome outsider. I pasted on torn pieces of the children from the original brown-toned image. I wanted the children to stand out, undamaged. These children represent the generations of Borneo inhabitants who the global north has victimized.
I printed out the original image with one that had a copper filter. First, I cut out King from the monochromatic image so her features become the focus. I wanted her chest and head to be clear to see her blonde hair and white skin. I cut out her stomach and hips to show how thin she was. She is not just skinny, but emaciated.
King is lounging on a couch, holding what appears to be a blade. She may appear to be carelessly dressed, but she was actually styled by Sorrenti’s sister, Vanina (Blanch, 2020). This is a very controlled image, but it was made to look effortless. The tattered clothing invokes the feeling of poverty and suffering. At this point, King was an established model, and the Sorrenti’s come from a family of artists; these are not underprivileged people (Blanch, 2020). They use setting and styling to emulate poverty without experiencing it.