Although there exists ample reason for an artist to exaggerate the terrors of his own culture’s vacuity in order to enhance his own heroism, this is not what I suspect Coupland of here, nor is it what I take issue with. I agree with Coupland’s basic observation that an unholy blend of historical references has typified consumer goods designed in the last decade, and I agree with his accusation that a basic failure to produce a definitive aesthetic has occurred. I am surprised, however, by Coupland’s facile choice of “the Internet” as the prime mover.

Moreover, his argument that we resolve these problems with “fresh strategies” from artists reminds me of Marx’s bilious words to the German critical establishment set forth in The German Ideology: “When they themselves construct historic systems,” he wrote, “they forget all other nations, all real events, and the theatrum mundi is confined to the Leipzig book fair.” Forgetting the now international system of producers that brings fashion to us in America via Bangladesh, China, India, Cambodia, and Honduras, and ignoring the evaporation of entire American textile and garment industries which occurred definitively in the same decade to which Coupland refers seemed a little remiss.

In other words, Coupland’s theory dissatisfied me. I decided to go on my own search for who killed our aura, castrated our form, and allowed American style to fall into epoch-less paralysis. Leaving to future scholars the grave questions of de-aurafication in the hairstyling and automotive industries, I would confine myself to the question of clothing. I would begin where Coupland began.

When the trade towers came down I was in art class in high school and, honestly, New York was at that time an imaginary place, and the Hollywood explosions on the television meant that school was temporarily suspended. “Day of Terror” my friend wrote on the dust of my rear window.