Exploring the notion of opulence, writer, filmmaker and artist Jovana Reisinger reflects on extravagance, abundance, and luxury. With a keen eye for the finer things in life, Reisinger looks at the convergence of wealth, class, and taste and the balance between indulgence and excess. From classism to the nouveau riche, from fake nails to missed out kisses on the balcony on a hot summer night the question remains: what is a life of luxury?
Opulence is a mellifluous word. Its synonyms: pomp, lavishness, richness, and abundance. Classically, and within the pop-cultural imaginary, it is served with lobster, oysters, caviar, exclusive meats, and elaborate chocolates alongside champagne or first-rate spirits – or ingeniously enriched juices or water. Its categories: haute cuisine and delicacies. To count as opulent, a dish must, aside from being expertly prepared using only the chicest ingredients, have a price that is hard to swallow. “Good and cheap” or “clever bargain” won’t do the trick; having said this, a hefty price is not necessarily either a conclusive or reliable sign of outstanding quality. It might just be the product of a high and lucrative profit margin. A hike in price can be triggered by hype or a trend, and in some cases to lasting effect. In such cases one pays for a name or image, but this can also be an aspect of opulence: to be fully conscious that the price is not justified and to pay it regardless – and to make a show of the expenditure. In other cases it will suffice to offer something at a steep price and in the right setting to consider its consumption as a form of opulence. Because opulence can function without an audience but not without symbols.
The things that represent an extravagant and pompous lifestyle have already lost some of their original glamour. At certain times of the year you will find lobster, oysters, and even caviar at the discount supermarket, not to mention champagne (even all year round). G. describes this development in terms of democratization because it makes culinary luxury available to people living more precariously. In contrast, P. considers it as yet another strategy of capitalist exploitation and neoliberal fabulation that only increases the likelihood of disillusionment and disappointment. Furthermore, it draws attention to goods whose consumption once symbolized the good life although its production required the exploitation of labor.
All oysters are not created equal.
Opulence also stands for excess and waste, which also holds true for capitalism: a lack of resources and food on the one hand, tons of unused goods in the garbage on the other. The crucial factor is who you compare yourself with, and in this sense it’s a matter of reality and perception. The question is for whom a dish is normal and for whom it is special. This also entails questions of socialization and class (and classism), as well as who recognizes (or is capable of recognizing) quality. All oysters are not created equal. M. points out that the participants of a study tend to consider themselves as belonging to a poorer class than is the case – but M. fails to mention which study it was. But this claim – that we understate our value or in this case our wealth – seems credible and true even without a source. Doing so makes us look more approachable, less snobbish, and also less vulnerable to criticism. In such cases it is a method, but there is also another option: to actually underestimate one’s worth because, of course, one could always have more. Both versions are compatible with the neoliberal gospel of performance and the contradiction of wanting to be but not seeming too rich. After all, if you don’t have anything, then you have nothing to lose.
Taxing the rich and inheritances are wonderful topics for breaking the ice; it will work at any party or first date.
The other thought might be that those who do not appear to be wealthy are not obliged to share as much – even though sharing is meant to be caring. Evidently the loss of wealth is particularly painful, as is the struggle for it. Taxing the rich and inheritances are wonderful topics for breaking the ice; it will work at any party or first date. It is rather interesting to know how people earn their money, be it through wages or an inheritance or renting out property. It ought to be acceptable and normal to raise these questions in everyday conversations. At a deeper level they involve the consideration of symbols, codes, and signifiers. Clothing can say a lot, but it is not a reliable source. To properly decode clothing and fashion one needs extensive knowledge of materials, references, and production, as well as, of course, brands.
What is interesting is that there are different stereotypes about wealth and fashion. The nouveau riche are those who have only recently acquired their wealth and have suddenly vaulted into high(er) society. But they lack knowledge of the concomitant social forms and norms, which makes them easy to identify. They reveal themselves in their desire to show off their newly acquired riches through external means. Those who were born into higher social strata, and who consequently feel justified and entitled to live this way, might think less of these newcomers for their behavior. Those who have been rich for generations are accused not only of maintaining certain forms of exclusivity and elitism, which takes the form of long-established networks, codes of manners, and gestures, as well as a noble etiquette, but also of trying to obfuscate their wealth. This also applies to the way they dress, with a preference for quiet but first-grade clothing.
The preferred brands are not only beyond the financial reach of other social classes but also beyond their ken: upper-class businesses that produce understated clothing for a clientele which is exclusive and to which these businesses cater exclusively. Big fashion brands tend to offer a cheaper line to reach different social groups. Initially fast fashion was celebrated as a form of democratization because it allowed people living more precariously to dress themselves in style, but the lack of quality and the miserable working conditions resulted in a worrying short-livedness of the products and massive violations of human rights. Quiet fashion does not appear to concern the stars of pop culture as they are usually paid by brands to wear their clothes with logos clearly visible. Outlet businesses even collaborate with big designer brands on fashion that will never be seen on the runway or in an exclusive store but that allows customers to signal their ownership of brand clothing. After all, the label is tied up with the item of clothing, which was produced by a given brand. It’s a profitable deal.
Carelessness is a feature of privilege.
E. talks about how fashion is an important aspect of an opulent life. She makes a direct connection between dressing up and dressing down – methods with which to hide one’s class or perform belonging to another one. Sometimes it is a purposeful attempt to insert oneself into a higher class or to enjoy its privileges. Fake it till you make it. Some designers have brought street style onto the runway, after which it reappeared as a copy in the streets. This, too, is a development of opulence. E. understands fashion as a form of play and opportunity to break out of social constructs and constraints, at least to some extent. This requires either capital or the requisite know-how. A good copy presumably is still better than not having any style at all, F. concluded and went on to sew a designer dress and wore it out to a regular club. This certainly is an act of self-empowerment and appropriation. One aspect of opulence is value itself. Meaningful things, products, and objects are taken care of. You might not hesitate to party hard wearing a copy of a designer dress because it is not worth as much as it looks like. But opulence might also mean to be careless with particularly valuable things, products, and objects. Carelessness is a feature of privilege.
K. once asked if it was justified that a single person should live in a big apartment while there were no affordable living spaces for families. For this question it is not primarily important whether we are talking about renting or owning an apartment; the question is about a lack of living spaces period. If someone were to take out a loan to buy an apartment in order to rent it out at a high price, it is not out of solidarity for the rental market, even if it will be discussed as such on financial podcasts. This thought also implicates me to some extent because I find my apartment too small and often think about living in a bigger one. Unfortunately, I cannot afford one in this city.
For all to have more, some will have to refrain. Refraining might be the opposite of an opulent lifestyle. G. has long been saying that it is the only way to save humanity. Less is more. Others say that each and every one ought to save themselves and not the entirety of humanity, let alone the planet. This ambivalence can lead to personal and social crises. Refraining in the private realm is important. Less meat, less flying, less online shopping, less stuff. But it is more important to restrain the environmental damage caused by large corporations and businesses. Excess is a part of opulent life.
The other day J. refrained from kissing L., or the other way round, and afterwards both were wondering if it was worth it.
The other day J. refrained from kissing L., or the other way round, and afterwards both were wondering if it was worth it. They were getting to know each other on a balcony although they had only met at a dinner the night before. It went quickly. It was a hot summer night and shooting stars were lighting up the sky, which was romantic. The romantic is a good concept for thinking about opulence. The best season for watching shooting stars is early August, the best place is the eastern night sky. They did not share their wishes because they enjoyed the superstitious reason for not doing so, and they held each other a little more tightly with each shooting star that passed. In J.’s memory they were also always holding hands. Such a romantic encounter is too kitschy for some; it sounds overly pathetic, like a scene from a movie.
Opulence is aggressive, challenging, playful, cost- and labor-intensive, and you can find it anywhere.
Kitsch is also part of opulence, as is pathos presumably. Because opulence is also bloated, decorated, and adorned. It promises something big and sets the stage for something big to happen. Opulence means intricate patterns, decorations, passion, devotion, lust – and lots of it. Lots of color, or pieces of clothing casting unusual silhouettes, stucco, gold decorations, lavishly decorated tables, flower arrangements, space-consuming furniture. Opulence is aggressive, challenging, playful, cost- and labor-intensive, and you can find it anywhere. Opulent architecture is as overburdened as an overloaded fruit basket. Kitsch, says K. on a stage, is both beauty and ugliness at their extremes. Kitschy objects and products are considered sweetly, lovely, and only ostensibly serious. One talks of imitation and trash as well as of tastelessness.
One can very well debate taste.
Taste also is an elitist category. There are things that are considered tasteful by the rich, but vulgar when displayed by the poor. This includes artificial fingernails, speaking multiple languages, and buying secondhand clothing. The concomitant differentiations and distinctions are part of classism. At the same time this complexity bears enormous potential for change. The subversion of dominant stereotypes or the acquisition of a particular status in spite of things considered vulgar, or the subversion of belonging to a certain class, creates an exciting rupture. Taste can be incorporated into and applied to every aspect of life: art, culture, architecture, work, interior design, cities, and vehicles can be judged according to canonized principles of taste. It is like judging something with a catalogue. The crucial point is always who and what you are comparing it to. Accordingly, there are different tastes in different social groups, strata, and loyalties. One can very well debate taste. Luxury cars make for a good example. As a showy status symbol and unnecessary expenditure, they stand in the street and take up a lot of space. And this although sustainability is the name of the current game. As is resource-friendly transportation. Morality and ethics enter into judgment and lead straight back to luxury. Because more is more.
Bad behavior is unstylish.
Kitsch and glamor are closely related with trash and camp. All four concepts have something to do with money, appearance, and performance, which all are part of an opulent lifestyle. They are susceptible to the charge of sentimentality, particularly kitsch, which also applies to opulence in its wastefulness and to pathos in its exaggeration. Emotional sentimentality is particularly beautiful in Italy or in old Italian movies. I do not know why, but presumably it has something to do with the props and the acting. A place of longing and la dolce vita. All four ways of understanding disturb dominant ways of understanding and canonization. Trivial art and luxury kitsch are often underestimated, says O. during a dinner before launching into a lecture on sexist history of literary reception. Literature by women was long considered trivial and overly kitschy, in particular texts that dealt with so-called feminine topics. Style is something you have, not something you acquire. Bad behavior is unstylish. O. invited us to a luxury restaurant for her birthday. The meal cost more than two months of my existence. Some had left without paying their share, which meant those remaining had to pay more, which bothered others. Such a dinner is reminiscent of a demonstration.
Art collections can also be tax-deductible if they are accumulated in the offices of the self-employed.
Obviously, it is not about quiet luxury but careless spending. It is about the open enjoyment of the pleasures of life and a particular sensuality, and a fascination with status and milieu. Wishes and desires are part of this. The desire of belonging and leaving behind one’s everyday reality or actual living situation is opulent. Buying on credit and on account. But the shine wears off – unlike wearing showy jewelry. Rocks, strass, and diamonds don’t sparkle equally, but they’re all sparkly. As is the glitter that goes well with them. One ought to understand designer wear and precious rocks as an investment. Art collections can also be tax-deductible if they are accumulated in the offices of the self-employed.
Opulence is closely tied to drawing attention to oneself. Decorations are also a matter of imitation or, rather, the ability to imitate. Camp is a playful, ironic approach to objects, gestures, and ideas that symbolize wealth. It can either be read as a rejection thereof or a desire for it; the sensual expression of excess and decadence. It is the aesthetics of exaggeration, over-extension, shimmering, and staging. Such a performance is also an act of emancipation and appropriation. Drag is camp and opulent. The desire for money, power, and possessions can also help to build one’s identity and meaning. It can satisfy desire. Material wealth does not satisfy completely. Money alone won’t make you happy. Money has no smell. Wealth of experience and memories instead of dwelling in luxury. The question is: what is luxury?
Each person has to answer this question for themselves. The iconography of luxury. The illustration of the so-called good life. The struggle and wish to be the envy of others. To feel better is not necessarily part of opulent life. Hedonism and escapism are also part of it. “Opulence” is a track by Brooke Candy. In the music video her outfits and body are plastered with bright, colorful stones. She had been working in a strip club before she made it. Here is a rupture. The kind of life many dream of: from dishwasher to millionaire; or from cleaner to millionaire; the stripper that made musical history.
Reality TV shows provide deep insights.
The list of the one hundred richest Austrians was recently published. At number eleven the Swarovski family. My last purchase at Swarovski cost me 500 Euros. The question is why their jewelry is so expensive if they are already this rich. The other question is what a life of abundance feels like. Boredom and the banalities of life in conjunction with lifestyle and the latest stuff. E. will be picked up by speedboat today and wonders what it would have been like to have been born into such a life. Reality TV shows provide deep insights. Exclusivity and refinement as well as rarity and high expectations are part of luxury. The question is who gets to live such a life. You have to be able to afford opulence, although nature also boasts opulence: sun sets, shooting stars, supermoons, and rare planetary constellations; the wealth of plants; the observation of all of the above; exploring all of it with your hands. In the end it is all about devotion. That’s what a life of luxury is.
