In defense of luxury

Fashion Inc's Laura Goldstein Crowe is my new hero. She's ably articulated what I've been thinking about ever since I read stories about Dana Thomas's book Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster. In her second post about defending conspicuous consumption, she says:

I'm going to read Dana's book sooner or later (she gave me a copy), but so far I can't see exactly what her point is. "Luxury has lost its luster"... for whom? Luxury goods now attract a greater audience than ever. Does that make them less appealing? I am all for luxury goods. I want to see more and more people buying nicer and nicer things and spending more and more money on them. If an average teenage girl saves her money to buy a pair of Donna Karan sunglasses does that make them less luxurious? Dana might say they're not luxurious because they're made by the same company that makes Ray Bans, therefore not worth the bigger mark-up. But Donna Karan sunglasses aren't Ray Bans. They're Donna Karan's. They've got a different design, they, yes, come in a better case. Who are we to say they're not luxury if the girl in question thinks they are? Shouldn't everybody have the right to define for themselves what luxury is?

I couldn't agree more!