Cherevichkiotvichki and the Loss of Personal Identity

Ads flash on our screens like flies, marketers invade our homes like burglars, content is pushed into our troughs like pigs, and corporate brands, well, brand our images like cowhide. There is little to no consideration for the consumer when it comes to media and its never-ending outpouring. Content needs to be created; products need to be bought. But what does this consumption mean for the consumer?

Acclaimed Argentinian writer Jorge Louis Borges is quoted:

“I am not sure that I exist, actually. I am all the writers that I have read, all the people that I have met, all the women that I have loved; all the cities I have visited.”

Here, Borges explains that his identity is a compilation of what he has experienced, or rather, what he has consumed. Borges is an amalgamation of his literature, his interactions, his lovers, his travels. So what does that make us? Is our identity the McDonalds we’ve eaten, the Netflix we’ve watched, the Nike we’ve worn, the Reels we’ve saved?. . . Well, yes.

Cherevichkiotvichki is a high-end fashion brand founded in 2011 by Victoria Andrejeva; Cherevichkiotvichki specializes in footwear. Andrejeva’s brand is Slavic for “a shoe by Victoria,” literally placing her name as the company’s title, yet, that is only for her personal use; she doesn’t want her consumers to be defined by her. 

In an interview with Cailin Smart, Andrejeva said:

“My vision doesn’t include branding. When I create something it doesn’t involve a label. We put small ones on because legally we have to in order to export the goods. We try to put them in non-invasive places.” 

Andrejeva then explains that with painters, the artists sign their works inconspicuously so as to not distract from the painting itself—with Cherevichkiotvichki, she wants the same. Her products are not merely just products, they are utilitarian, finely crafted with detail and care; they are operated on by exceptional artisans who still believe in beauty through functionality and form. And with that, Andrejeva does not want her brand to define the wearer, she believes that they should only support them. The ideal Cherevichkiotvichki woman could be anyone; the Cherevichkiotvichki man, also fluid.

During the same interview, and in regards to the over-abundant cynicism and self-reference in the fashion industry, Andrejeva said: 

“Cynicism is actually a close term to individualism, minus the distrust factor. I relate to being cynical insofar as individualism goes. It’s a matter of not caring about anything other than your personal vision. It’s like Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.”

Ayn Rand’s theory of Objectivism is in direct contrast to collectivism. Andrejeva, and ultimately Cherevichkiotvichki, doesn’t want to take identity from the individual consumer through branding, turning the wearer into walking monetization; she wants to support their intimate goals through her functional and long-lasting pieces. By doing so, the individual can remain themself, only assisted, not controlled.

But an argument can be made that even though the Cherevichkiotvichki brand name is not plastered all over the shoes, the bags, the clothes, that the individual has escaped from branding. The person is still wearing another brand’s items, they did not make the pieces themselves, so therefore the consumer is branded. So in theory, a pair of incognito Cherevichkiotvichki boots are no different than, for example, a pair of Off-White Jordan 1s. Yet there is an explicit difference between the two shoes. Although the two compared products have different ideologies in their brands, there is an inherent different level of trust applied to the individual consumer. 

I could spot a pair of Off-Whites from a mile away. I see the quotation marks, the iconic colors, the Jordan base, the bold typeface. And then I see the person wearing them. A shoe like a pair of Off-Whites would define the fit, define the wearer. Whereas a pair of Cherevichkiotvichki derbies are humble, earth-toned, flavored with wear while strong in form—and ultimately, timeless. They accent the person, not categorize them.

Cherevichkiotvichki respects its consumers in a way that is rare to encounter. Especially now, so much of living in a digital world is about elevating a persona. Social media platforms often define us, and at the very least, define others. Assumptions and judgments of character are made about another person through only a few swipes, and brands want to be a part of that. These corporations want their names to be seen; they want the recognition, the definition, the validation. And if this reception doesn’t come through a brand name, it's through colors and style and quirks, things that can quickly and definitively grab the attention of others. These are not necessarily bad things, I personally think having an individual voice in an oversaturated field, such as fashion, is phenomenal, but it is all outward. Many of these decisions are less for the consumer, and more for their branding; it is for others that see their pieces in the wild. 

Cherevichkiotvichki turns inward. Cherevichkiotvichki is for the individual. Cherevichkiotvichki is a name with minimal branding and timeless products, each made with attention, care, purpose. Andrejeva wants people to feel empowered, to use her products as vehicles to enable; her pieces exist to support an artist to define their signature. She, and her brand, do not want to take away from another’s image with her own name. Cherevichkiotvichki helps to build an identity, not steal it.