In Gibson’s book, Pattern Recognition, the main character Cayce, suffers from a psychological hypersensitivity. This causes Cayce to have allergic reactions to brands and corporate logos. An example of her hate towards large brand names in today’s fashion industry would be the Tommy Hilfiger clothing company. In the Book, Cayce describes Tommy Hilfiger as the “simulacra of simulacra of simulacra. A diluted tincture of Ralph Lauren, who had himself diluted the glory days of Brooks Brothers, who had themselves stepped on the product of Jermyn Street and Savil Row, flavoring their ready-to-wear with liberal lashings of polo knit and regimental stripes.” This section basically states that Tommy Hilfiger is the product of a long line of company after company copying each others products. It’s obvious that Cayce views simulacra as one of the most negative aspects of the fashion industry today. This quote shows her belief that simulacra only detracts from the aura of the original, an idea, we‘ve learned about in the works of Walter Benjamin. Cayce then goes on to say, “But Tommy is surely the null point, the black hole. There must be some Tommy Hilfiger event horizon, beyond which it is impossible to be more derivative, more removed from the source, more devoid of soul.” Is this true? Is Tommy Hilfiger the event horizon, or does this horizon only exist in theory? In these progressions, as each company adds there subtle changes, the shirt itself becomes more and more distant from the original product, maybe even to the point that one can no longer connect the most recent to the original. Is this a problem, or just the nature of fashion? How can this be connected to Warhol’s work. What would he have to say about fashion simulacra, and how does this compare to Cayce‘s thoughts?
Jeff Boone
