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.