We hear you buzzing, Beyhive, but please don’t shoot the messenger.
Yesterday afternoon, in an article for the New York Times, writer Vanessa Friedman boldly asserted the following: Beyoncé, Superstar but Not a Fashion Icon. Ring the alarm!
Friedman writes that after news came out that some of Queen Bey’s most memorable ensembles would be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame but she herself would not, it caused her to question Bey’s real style status – but not before affirming her accolades and accomplishments (see: Forbes’ most powerful celebrity in the world):
Beyoncé hasn’t moved, or influenced, the direction of fashion writ large in the way that, say, Rihanna, the winner of this year’s CFDA Fashion Icon award, has. (See, for example, the luxe athletic pieces peppering collections like Pucci, Balmain and Tom Ford.) She doesn’t wear things and spark a million trends, like Madonna once did with her jeweled crosses and lace minis, not to mention her bullet bra corsets. She doesn’t cause items to sell out overnight, like wee Prince George.
But, before the Beygency is summoned to her doorstep (if it hasn’t been already) hear her out. Friedman points out that by building the Beyoncé brand solely around Beyoncé and not attached to fashion folk and other influencers of the industry, being a fashion icon in that sense is trivial, as she is so much more:
It has become conventional wisdom that fashion is a platform that is increasingly crucial as either a springboard to stardom (see: Kerry Washington and Lupita Nyong’o, both of whom have discussed the red carpet as a key tool in an actress’s arsenal) or a way to sustain a career beyond stardom (see: Kate Hudson and Sharon Stone). But what the Beyoncé Paradox suggests is that this may not, in fact, be entirely true. Because lose the “fashion,” and what do you have left? Icon. No qualifier necessary.
And that, friends, is how she really runs the world.
SOURCE: New York Times | PHOTO CREDIT: Instagram