Contemporary luxury has three contradictory economic and destructive dimensions.

Evidence

A careful study of the history of what is considered “luxurious” at a particular time, John Armitage and Joanne Roberts argue, “offers productive grounds for a discussion of minds turned toward extravagance—the conscious pleasure in and enjoyment of rich, comfortable, and sumptuous living—and toward things considered luxuries rather than necessities.” Not all historical contexts share the same definition of luxury, and, for Armitage and Roberts, contemporary luxury is characterized by at least three contradictory dimensions that, as we see it, also characterize the contradictory dimensions of the market as a background on YouTube. First is the growth of a global “super-rich,” whose wealth is often concentrated in royal families (those of Brunei, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, and Swaziland, among others) and the families of billionaires. This class of “super-rich” use their wealth to invest in hotels and contemporary art, among other “luxury” goods and services (Maybachs, McLarens, and Lambos, ornate and gaudy mansions, makeup and wellness products). Second, contemporary luxury finds everyday consumer goods branded as “luxury” items to indicate their commitment to “social responsibility” and “community.” Third, contemporary luxury embraces the collapse and destruction of the world, reveling in excessive spending and waste, embracing the finitude of all life, with existence as such framed as a resource to use up and annihilate. — Grant Bollmer, Katherine Guinness, The Influencer Factory, 246

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the three contradictory dimensions of contemporary luxury that the authors map onto the influencer market.