No. 7 (2026): The Languages of Fashion. Critical Reflections on Fashion Discourses
Fashion Mythologies

The Kimono Cover Up

Maria Delifoti
Mediterranean College Greece

Published 30-06-2026

Keywords

  • cultural appropriation,
  • fashion copywriting,
  • semiotics,
  • kimono,
  • luxury e-commerce

How to Cite

Delifoti, M. (2026). The Kimono Cover Up. Fashion Highlight, (7), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.36253/fh-3962

Abstract

Fashion does not merely reflect history; it actively rewrites it through the language of style, desire, and consumption. In contemporary fashion copywriting, garments are not only described but transformed into desirable narratives that attach style, lifestyle, and value to consumption. This article explores how the kimono, historically embedded in systems of cultural practice and social meaning, is reconfigured within luxury e-commerce language as a fashionable “coverup.” Through close reading, the analysis demonstrates how terms such as “kimono-inspired,” “certified,” and “enhances” detach the kimono from its original cultural context and reposition it within systems of leisure, lifestyle, and aesthetic consumption. The article argues that fashion language operates not simply descriptively, but semiotically, producing meaning through connotation and transforming cultural specificity into marketable value. In this process, the ambiguity between inspiration and appropriation becomes structurally embedded within fashion discourse itself.

References

  1. Barthes, R. (1990). The Fashion System. University of California Press.
  2. Barthes, R. (1991). Mythologies. The Noonday Press.
  3. Climer, G., & Almond, K. (2023). Pattern-Cutting without cultural appropriation. Fashion Education: The Systemic Revolution, 148–181.
  4. Hall J. (2020). Japan Beyong the Kimono: Innovation and Tradition in the Kyoto Textile Industry, Bloomsbury Publishing.
  5. He, Y. (2025). Exploring the role and impact of cultural appropriation in the fashion industry. Transactions on Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 14, 227–232. https://doi.org/10.62051/1cmqdh17