Recently, Urban Outfitters began selling a faux vintage Kent State University sweatshirt. Ordinarily, this would be no big deal- just a sweatshirt with some random college's seal on it. However, the sweatshirt is not only of the college well-known for the shootings of thirteen students (four of whom were killed) protesting the Vietnam War, but on it is flickers of red dye that look very similar to splatters of blood. It received much negative feedback on social media including what Chris Rowan wrote, "Profoundly depressed to live in a reality where campus shootings get turned into a fashion statement" as well as what Candace Allen said, "taking post mod 'irony' to a disgusting peak." UO issued a statement on TwitLonger that they "sincerely apologize for any offense our Vintage Kent State Sweatshirt may have caused. It was never our intention to allude to the tragic events that took place at Kent State in 1970 and we are extremely saddened that this item was perceived as such."
What I really don't understand about this article is how Urban Outfitters didn't even suspect that maybe having splatters of red dye on a sweatshirt of a college made famous for a shooting wasn't the best idea ever. The design of the sweatshirt probably went through so many people who had to approve and then begin manufacturing it, and nobody even thought to turn it down? That just doesn't make any sense to me.
Link: https://www.yahoo.com/style/urban-outfitters-kent-state-sweatshirt-97567818463.html
i think they should just be more careful and relating to the sweatshirts all they can do now if get them off the market.
ReplyDeleteI would assume that most many of the people who approved the sweatshirt are just ignorant and didn't know about the shootings or didn't make the connection but i am curious about wether the designer knew what he was doing or not
ReplyDelete-Julian Smith
One person may think it's a good idea and pitch the idea, but how can that idea get approval from a group of people? You would think that at least one person would raise a concern and convince the others that profiting off of such a tragic event like this is wrong.
ReplyDelete(Myles Bennett)
Urban Outfitters has made and sold a number of offensive products, including this one. How could they not see that it was a terrible choice to go through with, why not design a fake college or choose a different dye?
ReplyDeleteI also find it quite strange that the sweatshirt design probably went through several people before being approved. Urban Outfitters has since taken action and apologized for offending many people, but how many times is the public going to blindly accept that apology? The company keeps glamourizing eating disorders, mental illness, and now a tragedy like the shooting at Kent University? Something obviously isn't right.
ReplyDeleteI find this really surprising that the sweatshirt was able to be made. I don't think it was designed to offend people, but obviously it has. This is a outrage and hopefully they have some remorse for what they have created.
ReplyDeleteBlythe Taylor 3rd period
Well we could all just be taking this the wrong way. It is possible that the designers of the shirt just wanted to bring attention to the tragedy of the event.
ReplyDelete-Trevor Haueisen 6th
It stands out to me that they apologize for people's wrong perception of the shirt instead of apologizing for making the shirt. I really don't think they realized what they were referencing in the clothing article, but it is bizarre that they did not pick up on it. We really should show them grace, because Im sure it was an innocent mistake.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to hear from the person who actually designed the shirt not the higher ups of the Urban outfitters chains. I can't think of anyway he/she did not know what they were doing with this design.
ReplyDelete