A Marxist Critique of the Gucci × Dapper Dan Harlem Ad

 

23BE033067

 MIXING LUXURY WITH LOCAL CULTURE

The Gucci × Dapper Dan collaboration is framed in the promo as a celebration of Harlem’s iconic style and craftsmanship. But through a Marxist lens, this isn’t just about appreciation—it’s about how capitalist brands capitalize on subculture. Filming in Dapper Dan’s old neighborhood vibes with authenticity, but ultimately Gucci controls the profits and intellectual property. This setup shows how valuable local culture gets turned into products, reinforcing corporate power even while appearing to celebrate creative communities.

Honestly, while watching the video, I was impressed at first. It looked like a positive collaboration Gucci embracing Harlem culture. But when I started thinking about it through what we learned in class about Marxism, it became clear there’s more going on under the surface. Throughout the video, Gucci’s luxury branding is front and center high-end fabrics, polished logos, and a sleek studio feel. Meanwhile, Dapper Dan, who once worked independently, now appears under Gucci’s umbrella. Marxists would call this the bourgeoisie (Gucci) absorbing the proletariat (local talent) to boost profits. Although the ad suggests a partnership, real control like copyright and big marketing budgets stays with Gucci. It’s a classic story, authentic creators handed a small victory while the big brand keeps the wealth.

Dapper Dan originally flipped designer logos into something rebellious and street-level. But now that energy is packaged as couture, sold at high prices to rich customers. Marx says capitalism turns real culture into exchangeable products. The ad glosses over this transformation, packaging it as a cultural celebration rather than profit-driven marketing. This really made me think about how easily real culture can be taken and flipped into something that’s just there to sell a product. It’s kind of disappointing, especially knowing that Dapper Dan originally did all this as a form of rebellion.

The ad portrays an uplifting story a local legend gets recognition, joins forces with Gucci, and elevates Harlem. But from a Marxist view, this can serve as a disguise. It suggests that the fashion world is  welcoming just look, they’ve embraced Dapper Dan! Meanwhile, the bigger issue of wealth inequality and brand dominance is untouched.  You see Dapper Dan cutting, stitching, choosing fabrics but that hands-on labour is filtered through Gucci’s brand. Marx noted that workers often do the real work, but bosses keep the payoff. Here, Dapper Dan’s creative skills are essential, yet online  and marketing wise the focus is on the brand logo, not the person behind it. His cultural value is used visually, but the economic value mostly flows sideways to Gucci.

On screen, Dapper Dan is the hero, but off-screen, Gucci holds the real cultural power control over who sees these designs, at what price, and under what brand name. What seems like cultural empowerment ends up reinforcing corporate dominance. It’s a temporary boost for Dan, but Gucci bags the prestige and the bigger slice of the  profit.From a personal perspective, it’s hard not to admire Dapper Dan and feel happy for him. But I also couldn’t shake the feeling that Gucci gained a lot more from this than he did, especially in terms of brand reputation. Was Dapper Dan’s fashion act ever truly a rebellion? As soon as his designs are co-signed by Gucci, the subversive energy gets absorbed. The ad insists this is progress, but Marx would point out that true subculture resists being absorbed it tries to stay grassroots.

 The Big Question

So, what we’re left with is a partnership that feels good to look at: a win for Harlem creatives, and a PR moment for Gucci. But when you dig deeper, you realize that the structures of class and profit haven’t really changed. The artwork is still controlled by the corporation; the creativity still lives in a box owned by someone else.So yeah, while the collab looks great on camera, it definitely raises some questions about who’s really benefiting and whether true creative freedom exists when big money is involved.

IN CONCLUSION

This critique offers more than just a reading of a fashion ad it shows how capitalism often reshapes culture to serve its own goals. Even when it seems like progress is happening, it’s important to ask at what cost, and who really wins? At first glance, the Gucci and Dapper Dan collaboration looks like a big win for recognition and culture. A Harlem fashion icon teaming up with one of the biggest names in luxury fashion seems like a step in the right direction. But when you look at it through a Marxist lens, it becomes clear that the campaign isn’t just about celebrating creativity  it’s also about using culture as a business tool.

To be fair, Dapper Dan has played a huge role in shaping fashion, especially in Black communities. It’s exciting to see him finally being acknowledged by the same industry that once ignored and even shut him out. But this sudden recognition from Gucci comes with strings attached. Marxist theory teaches us that under capitalism, the ruling class or in this case, a major brand can absorb cultural movements to maintain their own power. What looks like inclusion can sometimes be a way of staying in control.

The ad campaign positions Gucci as a forward-thinking brand that’s giving credit where it’s due. But who really gains the most from this partnership? Gucci expands its audience, repairs its image after past controversies, and boosts sales. Meanwhile, Dapper Dan, while visible and praised, still operates under the Gucci name, not his own. This shows how the system hasn’t really changed  it’s just been rebranded. It reflects Marx’s idea of commodification, where even resistance and culture can be turned into something that’s bought and sold.

 

There’s also the issue of control. In the video, Dapper Dan is shown selecting materials, designing clothes, and being celebrated as a creative force. But Gucci owns the resources, the platform, and the profits. Dan’s talent is used to sell an image of inclusivity, but he doesn’t hold the same power in the business side of things. This ties directly to alienation, a concept Marx used to describe how workers or creatives  can be disconnected from the value of their own labour under capitalism.

 

The campaign also creates a narrative that feels good. It tells a story of redemption, progress, and representation. But according to Marxist theory, that feel good story can be a form of false consciousness. It makes viewers believe that justice has been served, that fashion has evolved, and that success is finally being shared. But in reality, the system of profit, ownership, and control remains largely untouched. The emotions the ad creates can distract us from asking harder questions about fairness and real change. When I watched the ad, I could see what Gucci was going for, and I honestly liked the way it highlighted Harlem and Dapper Dan’s story but I still had mixed feelings about how genuine the message was.

 

Another major point is how the ad shows culture being used to market luxury. Dapper Dan’s earlier work was rooted in rebellion  he used brand logos in ways that weren’t legal but reflected real style and identity in Harlem. Now, those same logos are part of a high-end campaign. What once challenged the fashion world is now used to help it grow. This is what Marx would describe as the absorption of subculture  turning real community expression into something that serves capitalism.Even though the campaign looks inspiring, the power dynamics haven’t changed much. Gucci still decides what gets shown, how it gets marketed, and who gets the credit. It may appear that Dapper Dan is being lifted up, but the truth is he’s being folded into a larger system that still profits more from his work than he does. Marxist critics would say this is how capitalism works  it takes culture and turns it into capital while keeping control.

That said, it’s still possible to feel proud of Dapper Dan’s visibility. Representation does matter, and his legacy deserves attention. But we can celebrate that and still be critical of the system that allowed this recognition only after it could be turned into profit. The key is not to take the surface message at face value, but to think deeper about what it means and who it really benefits. In the end, the Gucci × Dapper Dan campaign is a good example of how capitalism adjusts to criticism. It doesn’t necessarily fix inequality  it just changes how it presents itself. Luxury brands like Gucci are learning how to look inclusive without giving up much control. They tell meaningful stories, but those stories are still told on their terms.

 

So, while the collaboration is visually impressive and symbolically important, it also reminds us that real empowerment means more than visibility, it means ownership, access, and lasting change. Until creators like Dapper Dan have equal say in the structure, not just the style, collaborations like this will remain more brand strategy than revolution.