Behind the luxury scene of Gucci x Dapper Dan Harlem Autumn/Winter 2018–19 collection

 

The behind-the-scenes advertisement of Gucci x Dapper Dan Harlem Autumn/Winter 2018–19 collection tells us of a mirrored narrative of fashion, legacy, and remaking of culture in style. The ad took place in the cultural heart of Harlem where the video documents a collaboration between Gucci, a powerhouse in luxury fashion, and Dapper Dan, the Harlem-based designer who once operated outside the boundaries of institutional fashion due to racial and economic marginalization. While the visual tone of the video suggests collaboration, celebration and cultural recognition, a closer look using Marxist lens critique deeper contradictions. This collaboration although branded as progressive by the powerhouse, Gucci illustrates capitalism through modes of production, labour exploitation, and the reification of Black identity, all while reinforcing class hierarchies under the guise of inclusion.

Let take a look on our first theme, reification, where human labour and identity are reduced to commodities. The models and Harlem which are cultural symbol itself became visual product curated and packaged for elite consumption. The very act of making the behind-the-scenes video of their shoot becomes part of the commodification: the labour of fashion production is transformed into marketable content. Alienation emerges as the workers’ connection to their labour is replaced by their function as images which does not own the meaning or value to their work but is extracted and rebranded by the luxury brand. When you look deeply at collaboration you notice that it is not directed at Harlem residents, but at luxury consumers, those who can afford to buy/purchase their brand through the portrayed image of “urban authenticity.” Marx’s question remains: “Who defines value in a capitalist society? is it the poor or the rich without using Marx lens”. Here, value is not linked to labour or community identity but is decided by elite market demand. Consumers who buy into this brand story may believe they are supporting inclusivity, yet they also participate in reproducing class distinctions—where working-class labour and cultural narratives serve upper-class aesthetics and the working class can’t fit into their upper-class society.

The transformation of Dapper Dan from fashion outlaw to Gucci collaborator encapsulates a broader capitalist tendency to assimilate what it once rejected. In the late 20th century, Dapper Dan’s unauthorized use of luxury logos led to lawsuits and raids, culminating in the closure of his boutique. Yet decades later, Gucci co-opted one of his original jacket designs in a runway show, sparking backlash. Instead of facing reputational damage, Gucci leveraged the moment to rebrand itself as inclusive—inviting Dapper Dan into an official partnership and opening a Harlem atelier under its banner. This shift raises a critical Marxist question: is Gucci engaging in homage, or is this an example of cultural appropriation being absorbed into the capitalist machinery of commodification? When a global luxury brand selectively extracts aesthetics from historically marginalized cultures to expand its market, the act is not neutral. It transforms resistance into commodity. By re-contextualizing Harlem’s underground style as luxury fashion, Gucci elevates it to a space where only the elite can access it—erasing the socio-political roots that birthed the aesthetic in the first place.

Ideologically, the video promotes a narrative of redemption and collaboration, but beneath that narrative lies a familiar logic: the assimilation of dissent into capital. The Harlem aesthetic, once a form of cultural defiance, is now sanitized and rebranded for consumption. In Marxist terms, this is a reproduction of capitalist ideology where even acts of resistance become profitable ventures for the ruling class.

One of the most striking omissions in the video is a critical look at labour. We see glimpses of stylists adjusting clothing, models posing in constructed sets, assistants moving equipment, and local residents occasionally appearing in the background. However, the video does not offer credit, voice, or narrative to these workers. They remain part of the visual environment—like props enhancing the brand story. This invisibility reflects a fundamental feature of capitalist production: the separation of the product from the labour that produced it. In classical Marxist terms, the means of production—the actual labour that brings fashion to life—is concealed in favour of the end product and its association with elite culture. Gucci, as the corporate entity, retains full control of the narrative, aesthetic, and profits, while laborers—whether models, designers, or assistants—function within a rigid hierarchy. Even Dapper Dan, ostensibly a central figure, operates within the framework and limitations established by Gucci’s global brand strategy. The asymmetry is especially notable considering Harlem’s economic history. While the video draws on Harlem’s cultural richness, the labour power of its community is not highlighted or compensated proportionally.

A Marxist reading forces us to look past the visual aesthetics and ask questions that will let us look past the performance or display of luxury by asking: who benefits, who labours, and who is silenced? The answers lie not in the brand itself but on the streets of Harlem, the workers, artists, and community whose creative power is endlessly mined, rebranded, and resold. Until the means of cultural production are returned to those black communities as a form of respect or tribute such collaborations will remain trapped within the logic of capital where the rich dominate the poor because of they have the means to afford such items no matter how inclusive they try to portray.

In conclusion, the Gucci x Dapper Dan behind-the-scenes video is a masterclass in capitalist ideology dressed as cultural progress. While it gestures toward inclusivity and innovation, it ultimately reinforces class structures and capitalist ideology which conceals labour, class difference and commodities identity. While, Harlem becomes a brand, Labour becomes invisible and Culture becomes content. What appears as a celebration of creativity is, in fact masked systemic inequalities with the covering of collaboration. A truly transformative representation which forego the workers but contextualize Harlem’s history beyond branding, and challenge the logic of capital spectacle designed to generate profit from the appropriation of well calculated income of their branded aesthetics.