THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS ON THE CURRENT DESIGNERS' TANGO

Hi ZoNeRZ,

In the midst of the panic surrounding Coronavirus and political uncertainty (Hello weird flu, Goodbye the UK) I thought we could all use a little breather and question ourselves very seriously on rather futile topics - if you haven’t noticed yet, avoidance is my preferred way of coping with my problems.

I am currently reading Fashion Climbing, written by the amazing Bill Cunnigham (the inventor of street fashion photography, an absolute legend), and something he wrote really struck me. It fed into an idea I have been nourishing for a long time now. To paraphrase the master, he claimed that as a milliner (yes, before being a genius photographer he was designing hats) he felt his most creative self when he freed himself from all outside influence/ inspiration. This particularly struck me because being influenced and re-invent the already existing codes of a legacy luxury Maison is usually what is demanded from the designers when they get appointed at big brands creative direction. This asks thus the burning questions no huge conglomerate wants to be asked: are all the luxury powerhouses proposing real creation or a mere remash, the reworked ghost of what once was alive but has fallen out of “fashion” a while ago?

The double headed monsters

One cannot deny that the way luxury fashion works at the moment is that it creates double headed monsters. What I mean by that is, in the consolidated and competitive context of luxury fashion, it has become almost a requirement to hire star designers at the creative directions of big Maisons. This has given those companies a weird double identity that seemingly has to fit in the legacy brand container, which is, in the era of self consecration and individuality, more and more narrow. There is a clear tension between designers fully expressing their own creative selves versus becoming one with the Maison that they, in the end, have to portray. For example, is Céline (or CEline .. thanks Heidi) just a brand, or has it become Phoebe Philo and then Heidi Slimane? Well, considering the tough transition the brand went through after Philo’s departure and the fact that the bags designed under her creative direction were retailing on the second hand market at a higher price than the new designs from Slimane, the question is justified.

"If those brands remain true to what they always were, then are we supporting a rotten system that is restraining the creative juices of artists?"

Has Balenciaga become just Demna Gvasalia? Again, comparing the oversized Hoodies and chunky triple S to the “petite madame” look from Christobal Balanciaga, one can ask what the Balenciaga brand really stands for… And if the creative identity of the new designer has not completely taken over, if those brands remain true to what they always were, then are we supporting a rotten system that is restraining the creative juices of artists by forcing them to slightly modify tried and true recipes? What is the point of creating if something doesn’t really belong to you?

Live and let die

The underlying question is in fact, can, and should those iconic names preserve their full integrity while being passed in the hands of several different talented designers?

The limbo has been going on for a while and my question here is about the sustainability of this dance, both on the customer-end and on the designer-end. I once learnt that the value of a brand is the value of a promise consistently kept (read David Kincaid’s book: The value of a promise consistently kept), and it resonates with that tricky situation. I figured that, on my point of view as a consumer, I was increasingly less attracted to designer brands, especially after a change in creative direction because the message they convey isn’t clear, or rather is mixed: designers outshine the brand itself, they speak louder. Take Karl Lagerfeld for example, he WAS Chanel, or rather Chanel was him. I’d be very curious to study the shift in perception of the brand since Virginie Viard was appointed at its creative direction. Who are you buying now? the designer, the brand itself, a combination of both? Either way, when what you buy isn’t clear, and thus doesn’t clearly give you the status, cool factor, whatever high you want to get from the piece, is the latter really more than just a very expansive piece of fabric?

This brings the question, do legacy brands even make sense in a world where nothing matters more than a personal brand: can a brand outlive its original founder when its new face has more traction and influence than those Maisons or institutions that give their own code of conduct?

"The fashion sphere might be better off if we had the courage to grieve"

If we take this argument further, when designers get so popular that they outshine a brand, wouldn’t it be better to let a brand for stylists and not star designers, or even more radical shall we let legacies die in fashion, in favour of the REAL new thing? After all it would also be protecting the true creative essence of legacy brands. The fashion sphere might be better off if we had the courage to grieve and thus allow true creation, instead of sabotaging the heritage of a brand that keeps on living but has transformed too much to continue impersonating the vision of its original creator. Case in point, Yves Saint Laurent always felt too big to fit into a Dior box, so he founded his own Maison while Karl Lagerfeld always considered himself a stylist (a genius, but still a stylist). He considered his job was to capture the Zeitgeist and translate it into the language of Fendi, Chloé or Chanel, but has never advertised its own creative genius while doing so (read Beautiful People by Alicia Drake, you’ll understand).

It would take a weight out of the shoulders of designers as well : how frustrating can it be not to be able to express your fullest self, or at least, not on your own terms. How depleting of your creativity! If you want to be a creator, not a stylist, but you are assigned to an already existing brand with its own creative history, do you have any other option than asserting your power by shutting the voice of the brand behind yours?

"Are we just too afraid of letting go of what once was the spirit of an era, but has to stay grounded in that particular time to make sense? "

But again, if the problem is so obvious, why is nobody shaking the status quo? I’m not going to get into the obvious argument that big names are a safe way to make money for big conglomerates (Hello Bernard). Or at least they are less risky than betting on young designers trying to make a name for themselves. I am also well aware that for all those young creative minds, it is incredibly difficult to make a living and sell your ideas under your own name. But if we look beyond money, are we just too afraid of letting go of what once was the spirit of an era, but has to stay grounded in that particular time to make sense?

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it would just be killing carelessly legacies that are meant to convey timeless concepts. But here is some food for thoughts. Moncler has never been more popular, and it’s largely due to its Genius project. The latter is based on collaborations with designers and not complete assimilation of a unified creative direction. It leaves room for the creator's mind, who is also advertised with his own name, while preserving the legacy of the brand …

I don’t know. I’m confused. Thank god for the internet and the freedom it gives to be the container of my weird thoughts. Special shoutout to my fellow weirdo and fashion obsessed friend Eléonore for always fabulously inspiring me and giving me the idea to write this article. Ya'll wish you could be there to hear our philosophical conversations after a couple G&Ts.

Mad love