White lines blowin' through my mind. 

A recent Washington Post article described the growing trend for discreetness in fashion, and how affluent shoppers are shying away from designs that promote a house's logo too prominently. 

Which is a choice I personally agree with. I've never been a fan of Louis Vuitton's "LV", Gucci and Chanel's inverted letters, or Prada's boldfaced name. That's not to say I won't drop a humblebrag about the Manolos or Miu Mius I'm wearing, but it'll more than likely be because I scored them for a baffling price through some ridiculous means. 

A well done logo is an absolute thing of beauty. Not that the logos for fashion houses aren't masterful, but in my opinion there is no need for an entire look to revolve around them. They represent fashion houses, institutions that create unprecedented fashion designs: the clothes and accessories speak for themselves. To brand them with a logo makes it feel like it were done for the purpose of one thing, and one thing alone: to inform the world that whatever is being donned is an exclusive product that cost a lot of money. But what about when the logo is the style? If I'm wearing Adidas or Nike, it's because of those three stripes or oversized check mark. That is the entire aesthetic. And something I appreciate. I see those icons and think not only of sportswear, but of overcoming unbelievable odds, of achieving feats a lot of us only dream about. While three stripes and a check mark seem commonplace and easy, they work to enhance the product they're selling. Besides, if there's one thing I've learned in my career as a designer, it's that if it looks like it was easy to come up with, it sure as hell wasn't

Adidas sweater; Zara tank and oxfords; Hei Hei shorts; Banana Republic, Noir, and Club Monaco bracelets; Claire's wood necklace; Mood Fabrics pom poms.