Consumption operates different parts of our senses. First is the vision is affected, as it’s driven by our personal interests. Then the affectional memories that will lead us to many other sensations and will determinate if we’re going to buy it, or not.
If we feel that the clothing item is perfect, desire is fulfilled and influences our purchasing choice. Buying things that are related to our personality, that shapes our identity, are not just simply shopping. The feeling of going to a grocery store and a clothes store is different.
We have to be concerned about the fact that we live in a society driven by images and they’re kept in our memories, coming back to our minds when they’re triggered by an instant.
Models, as their definition says, are an impulse to consumption. Their images are constructed on expectations we have in our lives, an idealization that was present in Greek-Roman culture, revived in Renaissance and captured by the fashion industry, which was impulsed by the post-modern imagining society. Now that we’re constantly and hiper connected, we get in touch with those images even in unconscious moments. How many “likes” we give on social networks that we rarely observe the image per se.
When a model is wearing that outfit we’re wishing, at the moment we dress that outfit it’s like we’re embodying that personality. Like in an ancient ritual, when shamans wore clothes related to divinity, we were representing that person that had an special meaning for us.
Advertisements today are diluted in our social media and it’s not a problem to buy things for us as well. But we have to reckon those relations between products and consumers and think if that’s a real need. Many people are rethinking the consumption standards and seeing them from a sustainable perspective. It’s in our hand the power to choose if those goods will benefit us and the others around us.
