As a statement against today's consumer society I fully get it. However, could he not give the stuff to charity? I mean... as the stuff works and is in good nick... is it not worse to burn it instead of giving it a second and possibly more meaningful life?
I don't know... but I suggest you read his blog and make up your own mind.
Thanks to Coolhunting for the heads-up.
The manner in which we spend our money defines who we are. This theory isn't exactly new. Thorstein Veblen conjured the phrase "conspicuous consumption" back in 1899 in his book the Theory of the Leisure Class. In this secular society of ours, where family and church once gave us a sense of belonging, identity and meaning, there is now Apple, Mercedes and Coke../Neil Boorman :: ((BBC News))
Paula has left a valid and valuable comment... but one I don't quite agree with. I totally agree that he is making a great and powerful statement and there is a sense of giving away porn mags ((love that analogy)) about passing his stuff to others but I still think burning this stuff is a waste. At the end of the day, his clothes are simply that clothes - give then to charities who could benefit from them... recycle them... give them away to people who need them (not want them).
If brands are evil (and I agree that they can be) then usurp them... resist them... by buying from charity shops where the profits actually make a difference... or by buying from small, local and independent producers;
What do you think? Leave a comment and join the conversation ((Thanks Paula for your contribution!))