"[W]ith the lower face covered and, often, eyes shaded by sunglasses, the usual signposts of character are hidden. The mask becomes the first signifier of the individual."

"And that means it will also become a sign of aspiration, achievement — and inequality....  [I]t is hard to avoid the nagging sense that designers are exploiting fear born during a pandemic for their own ends (and profit), and that consumers are using what is a medical necessity, one that is the most visible representation of the pain and isolation currently shared by so many, in a decorative way. Capitalist opportunities often emerge from times of trauma. This may be one of them. But that doesn’t make the origin story any less uncomfortable.... Yet you can’t argue with the need for masks, or that many of the companies making them are doing so because there is little other option: No one is buying the clothes they make, and to create something — anything — for sale is to create a lifeline for employees and suppliers...."

Writes the NYT fashion critic Vanessa Friedman in "Should Masks Be a Fashion Statement?/Capitalist opportunities often emerge from times of trauma. That doesn’t make the origin stories any less uncomfortable."

The usual topics for the fashion critic are also not happening right now, and she too must create something — anything — for sale. Here, she addresses masks and veers into the critique of capitalism. Anyone want to buy that?

I'm more interested in the loss of the "usual signposts of character" — that is, the human facial features — and the psychological effect this has on us as we venture out in public. I don't see how anything about a mask can do much good as a substitute "signifier of the individual." We're really just talking about the pattern on the fabric. Where's the income inequality in that? Brand names like "Gucci" over your mouth? Why is Friedman worried about such lame inequality signaling when what we are losing is the ability to see human faces?

And let me argue with "you can’t argue with the need for masks." When did that become beyond argument?! Just a few weeks ago, the authorities were telling us we didn't need masks at all. Now, we're supposed to accept the necessity and not even talk about it?! Maybe in NYC the need to cover up is too plain to discuss, but out here in the heartland, there are places where you can go out and walk around for miles and keep 10+ feet between yourself and anyone else. I do it every day, and I'm living in a city.

To answer the question in Friedman's title, masks — if you've got to wear one or choose to wear one — should be any kind of statement you want to make. It's bad enough to have to cover your mouth and to lose the ability to smile and frown and snarl and purse.