Must go beyond their predictable playing rules
The past year The fashion houses are characterized by an almost feverish activity in leadership changes. Matthieu Blazy Bladt Bottega Veneta for Chanel, Sarah Burton gets from Alexander McQueen to Givenchy, Dario Vitale Moved from Miu Miu to Versace. Glenn MartensAl creative manager at Diesel, also takes over Maison Margiela.
There is a function when replacing, contrasting, extracting, renewing. In an industry where change and renewal take place at a furious pace, we can wonder: which choices are we really ruled?
Kierkegaard Saw the human existence as a choice between three different alternatives, aesthetics, the ethical and the religious. A bit briefly explained to those who have forgotten their basic course in philosophy: the first phase is about subjective enjoyment, nihilism and practically zero moral responsibility. The second, as the name reveals, is a more moral line that includes responsibility and social awareness. The third and final phase is a total dedication for the Christian Dogma, a conviction in something outside the rational in the ambition to find a greater meaning.
There are various theories why the fashion houses replace their most important people on running bands. The most supporting is that about PR and marketing strategy. Naming a new creative leader is a very effective way to create headlines.
The industry also harvests Preferably from their own conglomerates. For example Demna Gvasalia Die Balenciaga leaves for Gucci, both fashion houses within Kering Group. During Demna’s time in Balenciaga, the house was defined by oversized silhouettes and deconstruction. He mixed streetwear with couture, waste with elegance. In the end it became very repetitive and mainstream. How should this be continued at Gucci? (Spoiler: The share fell immediately when the news was released). The whole thing can be seen as the fact that the industry is stuck in the aesthetic stage. No loyalty to his brand nor the audience. Just a pleasure in the form of commercial hype.
However, there may be a possible shift to the ethical phase if the election has some loyalty responsibility.
Duran Lantinks Access at Jean Paul Gaultier can become one. In recent years, Gaultier has a rotating model with guest designers every season, but now Lantink is taking place with its radical aesthetics: silicontors with bare breasts, lined hips and playful proportions. Here is a clear legacy of Gaultier, which in their provocative design was at the forefront of challenging social norms and symbols.
The ethical phase can also be seen in Jonathan Andnsons Sorti at Loewe. During his time at the brand he turned the house into a place for surrealism and Trompe l’OilA new kind of luxury arose. Instead of a classic show, the last collection was allowed to become an exhibition that was a clear touch of the design language of Anderson. The opposite is a serious fashion show that says nothing, it will only be filled. A clear sign of an economic machines.
But here there is a paradox somewhere. Because regardless of both variants, the different phases, a kind of vacuum can occur. A fragile emptiness. It takes a while to place their print as a designer, however based on the choice. And because of how the industry is structured, the pendulum often quickly beats the ethical stage to aesthetics. It’s about money.
Maybe there are In some creative choices a different possible direction. A kind of faith. If the industry could make choices outside of its sad playing rules. If we stop playing the entire sea storms with existing actors where there is clearly a risk that everything will eventually be the same. It is not rational from an economic point of view, it goes beyond that logic. Then we are in the religious stage and we would have some fun there.
Internship Art Pod: The Crit Circle Special
With Willem Dafoe in Venice
15:08
