‘Chic’ is dead, says Vogue. Is it time to revive ‘jazzy’, ‘snazzy’ and ‘swish’? | Emma Beddington

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Vogue Declares 'Chic' Obsolete, Advocates for Reviving Alternative Fashion Terminology"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 8.4
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

Vogue has declared that the term 'chic' is no longer relevant, as it has been diluted by overuse and misapplication, particularly among influencers on platforms like TikTok. Lauren O'Neill argues that the word has lost its original essence, becoming synonymous with a narrow interpretation of affluent taste rather than the unique quality it once embodied. This perspective resonates with historical figures such as Baudelaire, who criticized the term as 'awful and bizarre.' The article suggests that the current usage of 'chic' fails to capture the depth and creativity that should accompany fashion and style discussions, leading to a call for a linguistic revival of more vibrant alternatives to describe aesthetics.

In light of this shift, the author expresses a desire to see a return of words like 'snazzy,' 'trendy,' and 'swish,' which could add a fresh perspective to contemporary style language. The author reflects on their personal usage of 'chic,' acknowledging its prevalence in their writing, often without conscious thought. Despite advocating for new descriptors, there is a recognition that 'chic' is deeply entrenched in modern vernacular and is likely to endure, even in a post-apocalyptic context where the last remnants of civilization might still find ways to appreciate its allure. The discussion raises questions about how language evolves in relation to culture and fashion, and whether it is possible to reclaim words that have been overused and commercialized.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article delves into the shifting meanings of the term "chic" as highlighted by Vogue, suggesting that the word has lost its original allure and has been diluted by overuse, particularly through social media. This commentary reflects a broader contemplation on language, societal trends, and the fashion industry's evolving lexicon.

Linguistic Evolution and Cultural Critique

The author, Emma Beddington, references the historical disdain for the word "chic," notably by figures like Baudelaire, to illustrate how language can evolve and be appropriated in ways that stray from their original meanings. The article posits that the term has been co-opted by influencers and consumer culture, leading to a loss of its distinctiveness. This critique is not just about fashion; it speaks to a larger issue of how language can reflect societal values and trends. The call for the revival of words like "snazzy" and "swish" suggests a desire for more authentic expressions of personal style that aren't tied to commercialized aesthetics.

Public Sentiment and Aspirations

Beddington's tone is somewhat playful and self-deprecating, which may resonate with readers who feel overwhelmed by current fashion trends and the pressure to conform to them. By sharing her own sartorial choices, she positions herself as relatable, effectively inviting readers to reflect on their own relationship with fashion and language. The article does not aim to incite outrage but rather to provoke thought about the authenticity of self-expression in a world increasingly dominated by social media.

Potential Hidden Agendas

While the article critiques the current fashion lexicon, it does not appear to conceal any ulterior motives. Instead, it seeks to engage readers in a dialogue about the evolution of language and its implications for individuality in a consumer-driven society. There is no indication that the article aims to distract from any pressing issues; rather, it focuses on a niche topic that invites reflection on broader cultural trends.

Manipulative Elements

The use of humor and relatable anecdotes softens the critique, making it more palatable and engaging for readers. However, one could argue that the article subtly nudges readers to feel a sense of loss over the "death" of chic, which could evoke nostalgia for a time when fashion felt more personal and less commercialized. This emotional manipulation serves to reinforce the article's message about the need for authenticity in fashion.

Overall Reliability and Trustworthiness

The article presents a thoughtful analysis of the term "chic" and its implications, supported by historical references and personal anecdotes. Its tone is conversational rather than sensational, which lends credibility to its observations. By inviting readers to consider the evolution of language and fashion, it fosters a critical dialogue without resorting to alarmist rhetoric.

In conclusion, the article is a reflective piece that engages with the intersection of language, fashion, and cultural identity, inviting readers to reassess their own perceptions of style in a rapidly changing world.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Vogue has spoken:chic is dead. Not being it, but the word. Chic has, Lauren O’Neill argues, lost its essence, co-opted to cover whatever glazed-doughnut-skinned influencers on TikTok decide it should, from monogrammed lip balm to iced matchas. “Chic has come to be mistaken for certain monied strains of taste, rather than the sort of uniqueje ne sais quoithat I think the word at its purest actually means.”

Baudelaire – the 19th century’s Nicky Haslam, given how many things he disapproved of: photography, Belgium, Victor Hugo – would have agreed. He called chic an “awful and bizarre word”. Are he and Vogue right?

I’m not that troubled by chic. Certainly not as an aspiration – I’m currently wearing the stained puffer jacket I share with my most eccentric hen, who lays eggs in the sleeve – but also as a word. I find it far less objectionable than “luxurious”, which has been similarly overused into vapid meaninglessness but takes longer and feels creepy to say – to me, it feels like one of those awful massages that is just feathery stroking. “Chic” is just a bit dull (unless used in conjunction with “le freak”, of course).

Still, I’m gratefully chastened when someone tries to hold us to higher creative standards. I tried to check how many times I had used “chic” in print and was appalled at the vast list of results, before realising most of them were actually the word “chickens”. I did, however, use it twice in something I wrote just yesterday without even realising.

To further linguistic plurality and make life more interesting, maybe we need to rehabilitate some alternatives. My suggestion: let’s start describing stuff like baffled elderly fathers opining on outfits. I’d love to see the return of “snazzy”, “trendy”, “swish”, and other dad-jectives; let’s have influencers calling their baby-blue crocodile Hermès handbags “jazzy”.

I fear, however, we’re too far gone – chic is so ingrained, so ubiquitous and so damn useful, it will outlive us. I fully anticipate the last mutated giant post-apocalyptic cockroaches will be complimenting each other on the way their shells glitter in the burning wasteland – so chic!

Emma Beddington is a Guardian columnist

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian