[Zazie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fritze It would also be quite juicy and rather fun! Regarding the new logotype, the use of Helvetica bold is It's a beautiful font but it is also the brainless, go-to for any graphic designer looking for an easy way to achieve "modern, clean, simple". From a design perspective, I think it is a bit of a sin to replace the masterpiece that is A.M. Cassandre's YSL logo with this tumblr-esque one.

It'll be interesting, but I feel it'll be a lot easier for Slimane than Simons as YSL has a lot of design DNA that dovetail nicely with Heidi's own (eg. le Smoking), while both the style of M. Dior himself and Galliano do not offer an easy fit for Simons' own approach to his collections. Stray too much from those and the loyal fans will start howling, and he'll suffer the same fate as Paulo Melim Andersson's at Chloe.

It'll be a difficult challenge and I hope Raf Simons steps up to it.

The changes at YSL I'm fine with as long as he delivers a great collection. I think therein lies the test of the pudding!

[Spike413]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeatherAnne Everything is being so over-analyzed since Hedi went to YSL. Although, he isn't helping the matter with all the gimmicky changes and PR releases.

It's so true. Honestly very little of what he's done so far is all that different from what plenty of new creative directors do. Tags get changed, shopping bags are redesigned, stores are completely remodeled, locations change, staffs change, logos are altered...

None of this is THAT shocking. Hedi did it at Dior Homme. Tom Ford did it at Gucci. Pilati did it at YSL, to a lesser extent, but still.

I still think that all of this change, though jarring for some, is the smartest thing that Hedi could possibly do. It closes a chapter, ends an era and distances YSL the brand from YSL the man enough that people can stop treating them as one entity, which makes it that much easier for Slimane to do his own thing. Honestly were it not for the fact that Saint Laurent was still alive at the time, I wouldn't be surprised if Ford had done the same thing himself. It just makes sense when you're dealing with such an immense legacy and iconic creator that, while it should be respected, shouldn't be a burden.

[Excentrique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by neodeco uh? the original logo is the perfect trademark for the house

EXACTLY! I can´t imagine the "new" Saint Laurent, well I dont have to do that, now its real, a mess to me

[Zimdor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike413 I still think that all of this change, though jarring for some, is the smartest thing that Hedi could possibly do. It closes a chapter, ends an era and distances YSL the brand from YSL the man enough that people can stop treating them as one entity, which makes it that much easier for Slimane to do his own thing. Honestly were it not for the fact that Saint Laurent was still alive at the time, I wouldn't be surprised if Ford had done the same thing himself. It just makes sense when you're dealing with such an immense legacy and iconic creator that, while it should be respected, shouldn't be a burden.

I simply can't agree in reference to one part of "all of this change": the name change to "Saint Laurent Paris".

The first time I saw that, I went "no!". Then "no no!". Then "no no no!". Then I slapped myself .

If there is one general consistency in the ever-changing world of fashion, its the names of top houses. Its not just a personal stamp of a designer, its one consistency which helps build a perception of legacy with the public, the fashion press & otherwise.

When you are talking about one of the most brilliant & influential designers of the 20th century such as Yves Saint Laurent, changing the name of his house--whether or not its after he dies--is frankly a stake through the heart of that legacy. As has been mentioned by other people here.

None of what you mention in regards to possibly "distancing the brand from the original designer" seems to have much of a burden on Uncle Karl at Chanel, Alber Elbaz at Lanvin, Galliano when with Dior and so on. Its only a burden if a designer thinks its a burden. Which is apparently what has happened here .

Frankly, the name change makes me ill. I just hope Slimane's designs (couture or otherwise) can eventually compensate.

[Izreal]

^ you're acting as if the name was changed to "Hedi Saint Slimane" ?!

i think half of you that are upset over the name change forget that "Saint Laurent" was what the label was originally named so if anything it's reverting back to the essence of the house, not ruining the legacy like some of you imply.. besides he explained in the vogue interview that only the ready-to-wear will bare the new name, the company, perfume (and potential haute couture) will still be YSL...

a little trip down memory lane:


(YSL Spring 1976 campaign, photographer: alex chatelain)
source: styleregistry livejournal

you can already see here how back then the ready to wear was "Saint Laurent" yet the eyewear had the "YSL" logo

[Creative]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zimdor If there is one general consistency in the ever-changing world of fashion, its the names of top houses. Its not just a personal stamp of a designer, its one consistency which helps build a perception of legacy with the public, the fashion press & otherwise.

Lanvin-Castillo was one of the most successful times for the brand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zimdor When you are talking about one of the most brilliant & influential designers of the 20th century such as Yves Saint Laurent, changing the name of his house--whether or not its after he dies--is frankly a stake through the heart of that legacy. As has been mentioned by other people here.

The new name is not new; it's part of his legacy.

[Zimdor]

OK fine, I did not realize that at one time, his pret-a-porter line was labeled as "Saint Laurent (rive gauche)". It wasn't done in later PaP collections, however (although he did stop designing PaP in the '80s). And I don't see "Paris" in that .

The point I was making is that the names YSL/Yves Saint Laurent and the iconic logo is what the vast majority of the public (& otherwise) associate with that house and consequently, his legacy. The 70's PaP/rive gauche name certainly has less of an impact currently, whether its a part of his legacy or not.

I don't appreciate the change, whether its (re)applied (+ "Paris") to PaP only or the whole house. Some of you might appreciate it. No problem; people have different preferences.

[Marc10]

Quote:

Hedi Responds HEDI SLIMANE has hit back at criticism over his decision to rebrand Yves Saint Laurent, changing the name to Saint Laurent Paris - the same nomenclature that the label's eponymous founder used when he first set up the brand in 1966. "It is interesting to see how much reaction this retro branding has created," Slimane told Vanity Fair. "Clearly, this period of the history of the house was not well-known, which I trust was a surprise for Pierre Bergé [Saint Laurent's long-term partner]. I went back to 1966 - just before the events of 1968 [when 11 million workers revolted against the conservative politics of then-President Charles de Gaulle - the biggest general strike in history], but the awakening of youth was in the air, and Yves Saint Laurent wanted to dissociate himself from the clientele of haute couture and embrace this new generation." The iconic French fashion house unveiled its new logo on its Facebook page last month, incurring backlash from fans - with some labeling it "boring and genuinely disappointing". Slimane will present his first show for the label this autumn during Paris Fashion Week.

vogue.uk

[Spike413]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zimdor I simply can't agree in reference to one part of "all of this change": the name change to "Saint Laurent Paris". The first time I saw that, I went "no!". Then "no no!". Then "no no no!". Then I slapped myself . If there is one general consistency in the ever-changing world of fashion, its the names of top houses. Its not just a personal stamp of a designer, its one consistency which helps build a perception of legacy with the public, the fashion press & otherwise. When you are talking about one of the most brilliant & influential designers of the 20th century such as Yves Saint Laurent, changing the name of his house--whether or not its after he dies--is frankly a stake through the heart of that legacy. As has been mentioned by other people here. None of what you mention in regards to possibly "distancing the brand from the original designer" seems to have much of a burden on Uncle Karl at Chanel, Alber Elbaz at Lanvin, Galliano when with Dior and so on. Its only a burden if a designer thinks its a burden. Which is apparently what has happened here . Frankly, the name change makes me ill. I just hope Slimane's designs (couture or otherwise) can eventually compensate.

Coco Chanel, Jeanne Lanvin and Christian Dior were all LONG dead before Lagerfeld, Elbaz or Galliano came on board. None of them were faced with the potential problem of either a living designer or said designer's very vocal business and life partner having any opinion on their work. Each of Saint Laurent's successors has had that very issue staring them in the face while heading a house that, more than Chanel, Dior or Lanvin, is so strongly revered, so protected, to the point that people take news regarding how the house identifies itself and spin it into some opera-level tragedy. Sure, the melodrama is perfectly fitting given the nature of this house's founder, but it's taken to an extreme.

Besides, the name of a house and it's legacy ultimately have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. You could call it absolutely nothing and the legacy wouldn't change as a result.

[Chanelcouture09]

^If you remember Tom Ford even had Yves write to him to tell him how displeased he was with his collections, telling him in 20 minutes he ruined 20 years of Yves' career (or something like that), I always felt Yves wasn't happy that he was making a better attempt at the company than he did himself, I think whatever Pierre has to say means nothing, because many people back when Yves was at the helm always felt he was dazed and out dated, there was quite a frank interview on the BBC in the 90's with several reporters who attended his show(s).

[Spike413]

Exactly, although I wouldn't be too sure that what Pierre Berge said went unheard. He was usually more of the mouthpiece, anyway, speaking for Yves. Berge didn't exactly have nice things to say when Pilati left, either. And all of this goes back to the fact that Yves's presence has and still does weigh very heavily on the house. Almost anybody who's ever experienced true success at an established house -- meaning their work is critically acclaimed, commercially successful and editorially prominent -- has largely had the freedom to do what they feel is right, regardless of what the originator would have done or thought about it. Karl takes Chanelisms and usually uses them pretty humorously, rather than reverently. The only trace of Gucci that Tom Ford kept was the horse bit, and turned the brand into a goldmine. John Galliano and Hedi Slimane both upended the Dior image and made the company relevant as a result. Cristophe Decarnin's clothes couldn't have possibly been farther from the Balmain image. Even Raf Simons' work didn't reach critical mass until he went in a completely different direction from what Jil Sander was all about. But because YSL is so protected and treated as such a sacred institution, nobody's been given the opportunity to do that, and I think it does need to be done in order for anyone to make the house their own while they're "in residence".

By changing the wording you separate the brand from the man, the present from the past, and that's the only way to really establish a "post-Yves" Saint Laurent.

[Zimdor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike413 Besides, the name of a house and it's legacy ultimately have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. You could call it absolutely nothing and the legacy wouldn't change as a result.

Well, guess that depends on what you define as "legacy".

Certainly, if you define it solely on what the original designer (and his/her successors) creates in fashion and nothing else, the house name has no bearing. If on the other hand you consider image as part of the legacy, the house's name/logo is a part of that.

As I mentioned, about the only consistency through never-ending fashion changes is a house's name. Regardless of how else they have changed them, the one thing the multitude of designers and/or owners of very top houses have never (or very rarely) done is change the names of those top houses to something new or little known. Whether for one line only or all of them.

Regarding YSL successors and the external pressures they faced, its up to them to let it affect them or not. No external pressure such as what faced immediate successors at YSL should have affected the work of a paid professional. There is no evidence that it negatively affected the work of Tom Ford there (as one example). So I don't buy that a house name change is needed and/or a good idea for Slimane to establish his own identity at the house. How you create a post-original-designer identity at top houses is how its normally always done: bring your own talent & skill to the designs you create for them. And/or the house's shops. And/or advertising. And/or accessories. And so on.

The name change smacks of disrespect here. If, of course, you consider the name part of the legacy. If it doesn't for you, cool. We'll respectfully disagree.

[Izreal]

..again how is it disrespectful to the legacy when the name change is the original name and vision of it's creator ? anyways all that was dropped is the first name, not that big of a sacrilege as you make it to be, also the public (at least here in France) always refer to labels by their last names anyways: (Christian) Dior, (Coco) Chanel, (Jeanne) Lanvin, (Pierre) Balmain.. and that includes (Yves) Saint Laurent, despite the full name being printed. Although it's obvious many YSL fanatics are upset, I think Hedi stroke a great balance in between marking a new era yet upholding the legacy. The name change is a lot more subtle then when he switched "Christian Dior Monsieur" to "Dior Homme" although there is a similarity in the process, going to the essential.. here is what Hedi had to say about the issue in vogue paris:

"(…) the Rive Gauche label in the past has disappeared, and reappeared many times. it seems intrinsic to the universe of Yves Saint Laurent, not that it is necessary to refer to it literally today. So we went to the essential, a name that is written as what we call it daily: Saint Laurent, unequivocally."

[Chanelcouture09]

I think regardless of what Slimane does with the brand I doubt Pierre will be happy for very long, I remember Yves was very content with PPR purchasing YSL until they started to make a success of the brand after its successor and then to try and shall we say 'get one up' on them he declared to Bernard Arnault that he wished that LVMH had of indeed purchased the brand after all, they both spat their dummies out at the success of YSL after its founder under the control of PPR, I don't think any opinion is derived for its creative director but merely the puppet master behind the scenes.

I see what Hedi is trying to achieve with the logo change but it's a very risky one at that, everyone knows it as 'YSL' or 'Yves Saint Laurent', does anyone know if this will be impacting on the cosmetics also ? I see that he's trying to achieve the same appeal and success as to what he did at Dior (Hommes), I think what he intends to do over time is to call the RTW 'Saint Laurent' and reserve 'Yves Saint Laurent' for couture, to perhaps give it an edge of exclusivity or as if it's the premium of the two ?

I also wonder if he'll do a complete overhaul of the YSL product line ? such as it's successful collection of bags and shoes ?

[Izreal]

At this point Hedi will only be taking over RTW, which i'm pretty sure includes footwear & bags (not sure about eyewear). He'll also be in charge of the advertising campaigns (photography obviously), but he won't meddle with the cosmetics line although he does mention in Vogue Paris that l'Oreal kindly briefs him on all their developments for the brand… back to the logo, i think those obsessing over the name change are those purchasing the clothing for the wrong reasons, ultimately the collection will speak for itself..