2020's Streetwear Trend of the Year
As the year comes to an end, I reflected upon the biggest trends of the year in streetwear and sneaker culture. I debated whether to compile a list of trends that I came across but decided against it for two reasons. The first being, I wanted to give a detailed opinion about the trends and feared that I couldn't do that with a list of 10-15 items. Secondly, I figured that other publications would produce their own yearly round up and therefore the need for me to do so became less apparent. Instead, I will be focusing on possibly the most controversial trend of the year, the remaking and reimaging of iconic sneaker silhouettes.
The rise in popularity of the Air Jordan 1 in recent years, solidified by ‘The Last Dance’ documentary earlier on this year, provides a glimpse of what life was like in 1985 when Nike released Michael Jordan’s first signature shoe, the Air Jordan 1 Chicago. Since its introduction, the Jordan 1s are arguably the most relevant sneaker to streetwear culture. It's unique in the sense that almost every Jordan 1 has a story attached to the sneaker, i.e., ‘Banned’ Jordan 1: a black/red colourway of the sneaker introduced at 1985 All-Star Weekend Slam Dunk Contest. Jordan would later wear this colourway in an official N.B.A. game.
As a result, Nike received a letter from the N.B.A. commissioner's office reminding them that Jordan could not wear this sneaker during official N.B.A. games. This was the perfect marketing opportunity for Nike, and the allure of a banned sneaker generated massive hype in the market. The refusal from Nike and Jordan to listen to the N.B.A. changed the landscape of signature colourways for athletes going forward.
As a sneaker, the Air Jordan 1 seem to cross all facets of functionality and fashion. This sneaker was very popular amongst the underground skateboarding scene during the late 80s and early 90s. Adopted by skaters at the time because it was cheaper than the shoes specifically designed for skating during that era. It also proved to be more durable as it was a leather sneaker allowing it to deal with the wear and tear of skating better than the canvas skate shoe alternatives, later inspiring the creation of the Nike SB Dunks in 2002, a skate shoe built on similar motifs to the Air Jordan 1s. The flexibility of the shoe was made even more apparent with the highly anticipated 2020 collaboration with Dior, offering a luxury element to the iconic sneaker. Upon release, the Dior Jordan 1s retailed at £1800 (note, this is not the typical retail price for Jordan 1s) and are currently reselling anywhere between £6000 and £20000 depending on the size of the sneaker.
The legacy of the Air Jordan 1, combined with the scarcity of colourways makes it difficult, almost impossible, for the average consumer to get their hands on a pair at retail, leaving the resale market as the only alternative to acquire a pair. The streetwear market is currently valued at around $185 billion, which is equivalent to 10% of the entire apparel market, and the resell market is valued at around $2 billion. So, for many fans of Air Jordan 1s, it is not feasible to purchase a pair of sneakers on the resale market. For me, it is the main reason why remaking and reimaging of this iconic silhouette has been a huge trend this year.
Remade/reimagined sneakers follow a similar blueprint. They take an iconic sneaker like the Air Jordan 1, in a hyped colourway - usually the Chicago, and replace the Nike swoosh with their own interpretation that follows a similar shape. For me, the best reimagined sneaker to appear this year has to be the ‘Fugazi, One in the Chamber.’ Unlike other versions of remade/reimagined sneaker, I believe the fine details found in the Fugazi sneaker gives it an identity of its own. Everything from the bullet-shaped gold aglets to the revolver in place of the Air Jordan wings. Finer details like the bullet holes found on the top cap of the sneaker, all fit in with their gunslinger, old western theme. The execution of this sneaker makes it difficult for me to side with those who view this as a copy or a fake.
To me, it shows a great appreciation for the Air Jordan 1 while maintaining the designer’s personality. It is understandable that the demand for a sneaker designed and built to the standard of the ‘One in the Chambers,' is vast within the community, especially amongst the younger sneakerheads. The Air Jordan 1 Chicago currently resells for between £1300 and £2200, depending on the size of the sneaker. Remade sneakers (again executed to the standard displayed by Fugazi) offer an opportunity to fans of the Air Jordan 1 to purchase something similar that pays homage to the legacy of Jordan brand, but is also unique and much more affordable.
My issue with remade sneakers comes from brands taking this as an opportunity to slap their own take on the Nike logo on a silhouette to exploit and benefit from the streetwear and sneaker community. These sorts of accusations were thrown at Warren Lotas. The first reimagined shoe that he released was a Jason Voorhees-inspired Nike SB Dunk which he revealed at the end of 2019, quickly turning the first pair into a series of sneakers, taking popular dunk colourways and re-releasing them as his own. The next pair he released was the 'Toxic Green' Dunks - a sneaker which very clearly references the Nike Heineken Dunks, followed by a Stüssy Nike SB-inspired dunk and then ended the series with a release of the Pigeon SB Dunk - one of the most coveted shoes in sneaker history. The latter was the most controversial release of them all, as Warren Lotas collaborated with the original designer of the Pigeon S.B. Dunks, Jeff Staple. This collaboration sent the sneakerhead community into a frenzy. It gained the attention of Nike's legal team, who sued Warren Lotas for:
1. Trademark infringement
2. False Designation
3. Trademark Dilution
4. Unfair competition
5. Common Law Trademark infringement
Remaking/reimagining isn’t something new to the world of street fashion. In 2002, Japanese streetwear brand, A Bathing Ape (Bape) released the ‘Bapesta’, sharing a lot of similarities with the very recognisable sneaker: the Nike Air Force 1. The ‘real’ differences between the shoe were the use of patent leather all over the upper of the Bape sneaker and the replacement of Nike branding for Bape branding. At the time, the Western sneaker community were outraged by the Bapesta, much like today’s environment. However, the Japanese sneaker community were more accepting of Bape’s offering. The practice of remaking, reimaging, and improving is ingrained within Japanese fashion culture. Combine this with the fact that the Air Force 1 is one of the most popular sneakers in Japan, so much so that Japan gets more colourways, more releases and more collaboration exclusives than anywhere else in the world, including America.
The non-discerning outlook that the Japanese sneaker community had towards the Bapesta allowed the silhouette to flourish. They saw it as an extension of the Air Force 1, and by the mid-2000s the Bapesta caught the attention of Pharrell Williams and Kanye West. The co-sign of these two artists, and the exclusivity of the sneaker generated great demand ensuring its popularity in the Western market. Since its acceptance in the West, the sneaker has collaborated with Kaws, Marvel, Daft Punk, SpongeBob SquarePants, N.E.R.D. and Kanye West. All of which are considered to be grails for sneakerheads. Perhaps the most significant success for Bape, in my opinion, was inspiring Nike to release a patent leather version of the Air Force 1.
As you read this, you may be wondering why Warren Lotas received a lawsuit, but Bape didn't. It could be argued that the design of the Bapesta was changed just enough that Nike didn’t have a claim. This is true to a degree. However, the simple answer is that U.S. patent law only protects any intellectual property for 20 years without renewal. As the Air Force 1 was released in 1982, and the Bapesta was released in 2002 this allowed Bape to dodge Nike's legal team. Warren, on the other hand, took a silhouette that Nike still owns the patent to, as the Nike SB Dunk was released in 2002. Had he waited two more years; his luck may have been different.
As someone who dreamt (and still dreams) of releasing their own sneaker, it has been interesting to see the response to reimagined sneakers. I personally don’t have any issues with people who have similar dreams as me. Releasing their own version of an iconic silhouette achieves that goal, and it's even better if there is a good story behind it that adds value to the sneaker overall. When I asked people on my Instagram whether reimagined sneakers were creative or copying, the most common answer I was given was ‘it’s like a remix of a song - if it adds value to the original song then it’s cool, if it doesn’t, then there’s no point for it to exist.’ For me, I think that’s the most apt analogy.
Written by SuNom Bawa
Hi, I'm SuNom. Born in Nigeria and raised in the UK. I studied Economics at undergrad and Political Economy at Masters level. My interests vary and I hope you like them as much as I do.