Poor people are simply poor, but you have to be able to afford understatement. In this respect, thanks go to the actor Lars Eidinger: he managed to re-emphasize the term in text and image, as presumption of poverty by people who are not entitled to poverty because they are the opposite of poor. It becomes clear that understatement was always more difficult than its completely respectful use for inconspicuous and withdrawn super-rich people (for example, the Aldi founders Karl and Theo Albrecht) hinted up to this point.
Together with the designer Philipp Bree, Eidinger has designed a bag, the design of which is based on the iconic Aldi Nord bag design by Günter Fruhtrunk. But: muted colors, high-quality leather, limited edition, 550 euros. To this end, Eidinger had photos of himself taken in pseudo-precarious poses, including homeless people sleeping in front of the night camp, and gave the Tagesspiegel an interview with Bree in which he said sentences like this: "If I'm honest with myself, I'll take a bag. That found I've always had an attractive aesthetic and I like this understatement. " You can imagine what is currently on Twitterlos.
The question is, of course, natural whether one can exonerate Eidinger from the charge of decadent thoughtlessness or thoughtless decadence, which lies in the exploitation and aestheticization of other people's misery. Ultimately, one might argue with the art character, with the fact that its action - quite provocatively - raises questions about poverty and wealth, and how independently they come together in the big city. The designer as an artist, therefore, who makes himself part of a larger context of interpretation. That would suit jazu Eidinger's original professional actor.
The answer, of course, is: No way! A design object is not art as it should be, it carries its skin to the market and receives a commodity value there (and not through the detour of the art market), so it is neither monadic-autonomous nor negative against the context of identification in this world earning money with his bag in the first place, and if he doesn't want to do it, it's actually all the worse, because then he only creates this cynical unworthiness out of boredom or a provocative desire or - as the interview quoted above suggests - out of lack of care. A bit angular alienation of a commodity associated with rather meager material living conditions is valued here higher than moral-empathic residual integrity. It's bad.
Of course, none of this is great for excitement, because of course that is also true: Eidinger only emphasizes the inequality and injustice of this world, they create completely different ones - those that, like the Aldi founders, usually avoid any proximity to the indirect victims of their profit-maximizing business practices. But you can think about what better art would be with Aldi bags.
Maybe it would be nice, instead of selling 250 luxury Aldi bags with homeless support, to simply lead a corona of 250 homeless people into the Adlon foyer with normal Aldi bags. Or, even simpler, to give away the luxury bags to homeless people (which, by the way, are very beautiful, according to the early morning model). A good product has proven itself in wind and weather. What, cynical? Well, Lars Eidinger started.