Luxury is a social marker, which is why there is such a need for brands.With luxury recreating some degree of social stratification, people in a democracy are therefore free - within the limit of their financial means - to use any of its components to define themselves socially as they wish.
A luxury item that extraordinary people would consider ordinary is at the same time an extraordinary item to ordinary people.
The DNA of luxury, therefore, is the symbolic desire (albeit often repressed) to belong to a superior class, which everyone will have chosen according to their dreams, because anything that can be a social signifier can become a luxury . By the same token, anything that ceases to be a social signifier loses its luxury status. Once, a swimming pool was a luxury, but it is no longer so. A private elevator still is one, for it harks back to the multi-story private hotel.
The codes of luxury are cultural, in as much as the luxury brand lies at the confluence between culture and social success. Money (high price of products) is not enough to define luxury goods: it only measures the wealth of the buyer. But money is not a measure of taste. This is why the luxury brand must first encode social distinction. Luxury converts the raw material that is money into a culturally sophisticated product that is social stratification.
這是我讀ㄉㄧ篇論文寫ㄉ!!我覺ㄉ寫ㄉ很好!!a luxury item contains 很多意義ㄉ產物!價錢並不是唯一使人有品味ㄉfactor. 全身名牌只能代表你有錢但不代表有taste or cilture. 常常看到很多暴發戶！或是沒錢裝富ㄉ人！這些人拿名牌都無法打上名牌ㄉ品味！盲目ㄉ追求名牌只會讓能打從心底歧視！一ㄍ人想配上名牌ㄉtaste and culture除ㄌ在經濟上要qualified, 也要enhance自己ㄉ內在, 不然真ㄉ別一昧ㄉ追求luxury brands...
But conspicuous consumption is a really interesting and researchable consumption pattern. 似乎很多人穿戴名牌就會覺ㄉ更自信或更特別！也很希望讓別人知道自己身上ㄉ是名牌（不怕被搶ㄇ？）～像我來美國後！就不敢再用名牌包ㄌ（因為很多黑人）！但我從來沒花過自己ㄉ錢買名牌喔！！
住戶編號:363435
檢舉原因
心情: 
上一頁
