It's wedding season, and the New York Times is doing their part by reporting on the latest wedding trend, the down-home wedding (Could this really be considered new? It seems too common to even be retro -- witness receptions that are being held and have been held in living rooms and church basements across the country, for as long as this country has been around). The gist of the article is that people like comfort food and homey environments, and they're willing to pay a pretty penny for it.
But authenticity, it seems, comes at a price.
Does this mean that people who don't get married outside and who serve haute cuisine are having inauthentic weddings? I thought the whole point of a wedding (the celebration, not the act of marrying) was to have a social event that reflects the tastes and interests of the bride and groom, their family, and their friends. Or am I naive? Why is the Times even documenting the elaborate stagecraft that some couples are manufacturing to appear of simple means and desires? Why not write about the very clever things couples are doing to fight against the Wedding Industrial Complex and live within their means?
I found the article pretty irritating, not least of which because we're working on having an unfussy wedding, with good food and a relaxed atmosphere---because that's a reflection of who we are and what we like. For the record, while it is possible to do faux casual and spend a fortune, our wedding budget is more Hyundai than Land Rover and I'm happy about that. And yes, I'm sure our wedding will be "authentic" and lovely.
Post a Comment