Are Old Couture Houses Still Relevant Today?

[Beun]

I was looking at the reviews of last week's PFW and was really struck to see how practically everybody actively hated the shows of the storied French couture houses. It might just be related to poor designers' choices, but it led me to think about what they could still bring to fashion in the 21st century. The designers of Dior, Chanel, Saint Laurent or even Givenchy are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they remain too much within the houses' codes, they would be criticized for only rehashing the archives of the brand's founder. If they veer too much away from those same codes, they will be accused of ruining the brand's heritage.

In purely creative terms - not taking into account the fact that the livelihood of thousands of employees depend on these houses' financial success and that they employ fantastic craftspeople - is it really relevant to keep on producing clothes in 2022 under these monikers? Are there still new/interesting ways today to make a Chanel tailleur, a Bar jacket or a Saint-Laurent smoking?

 

[tigerrouge]

The first thing to consider is - how much of a full picture is provided by 'the reviews'? Do the reviews represent everyone's opinion, or are they the sounds of a selected few?

 

[Beun]

The first thing to consider is - how much of a full picture is provided by 'the reviews'? Do the reviews represent everyone's opinion, or are they the sounds of a selected few?

I thought mostly of how much people hated these shows on fashion forums, rather than in the media, which tend to be little critical in how they evaluate new collections.

 

[lucy92]

A great example of this is Harvey Weinstein's harebrained scheme to revive Charles James with Zac Posen at the helm.
It never came to fruition.
A revival made no sense and was likely a distraction tactic.

 

[blueorchid]

I don't have a "problem" with houses like Dior, Chanel, YSL, Givenchy, etc. continuing, because they've pretty much existed consistently since their founding.

What I do find weird is the revival of formerly shuttered houses like Patou, Schiaparelli, etc.

 

[Salvatore]

I think they are relevant today, but are choosing the wrong talent for creativity. Or maybe the right talent to create things that might reach their financial targets, but are low on design.

Furthermore if these houses close, someone else will just take up their design codes because there is a gap in that market. We see how other designers and companies can already copy the style of, let’s say, a Chanel tweed jacket. Will the quality be as good ? Maybe not, but it will have the look and that’s what some want. However, they only want that look because it is tied to a fashion house that comes with a history and certain connotations. These houses have resources that one could only dream of.

In the end, I think fashion and society are going through a rut where the balance of profit and business versus creativity, integrity, and heart are out of balance. I am not sure what or who it will take to rebalance these scales, but it must and will happen at some point. I think it will start with the consumer changing their habits and viewpoints and only then the business and creative sides will follow.

 

[Salvatore]

I don't have a "problem" with houses like Dior, Chanel, YSL, Givenchy, etc. continuing, because they've pretty much existed consistently since their founding.

What I do find weird is the revival of formerly shuttered houses like Patou, Schiaparelli, etc.

I don’t think it’s weird to revive a brand if they can add something to the conversation. In the case of Schiaparelli, it has such a rich history with iconic pieces the archive, but would take a talented designer to make it relevant today. Some of the big brands like Chanel went through a low period where maybe they should have closed, but didn’t because effort was put into keeping them alive. Not all brands need to be revived, but the ones with strong house codes and looks, sure.

 

[blueorchid]

I don’t think it’s weird to revive a brand if they can add something to the conversation. In the case of Schiaparelli, it has such a rich history with iconic pieces the archive, but would take a talented designer to make it relevant today. Some of the big brands like Chanel went through a low period where maybe they should have closed, but didn’t because effort was put into keeping them alive. Not all brands need to be revived, but the ones with strong house codes and looks, sure.

Actually, that reminds me of Balenciaga, which I completely forgot was only revived in the 80s and still took a while to find "relevancy" until Ghesquière's collections. You're right, I guess it all depends!

 

[Salvatore]

Actually, that reminds me of Balenciaga, which I completely forgot was only revived in the 80s and still took a while to find "relevancy" until Ghesquière's collections. You're right, I guess it all depends!

Yes, exactly. It takes a good vision, effort, and intention as well as proper financial support, but also right timing if they want to revive some of these brands.

 

[Riyac16]

Yes, exactly. It takes a good vision, effort, and intention as well as proper financial support, but also right timing if they want to revive some of these brands.

I feel like we will witness this with Burberry soon now, though they aren't a French house, they have not been popular for the past couple years but still staying mostly true to their aesthetics. With a new creative director signing on I think they could be pushed into relevancy as well. I think what you were saying about a brands revival will apply to them in the near future.

 

[mepps]

I've always believed that a House should die, when it's founder dies. Christian Dior wouldn't recognize any of the sh*t, with his name on it today, neither would Balenciaga, or Chanel, tbh. People are buying names, not originality. It's especially egregious with a House like Schiaparelli, which was so singular, and original under it's founder. Fragrances, and accessories are fine, but couture? No.
Any designer worth anything, should be designing under his or her own name. Otherwise they're just an employee, that can, and eventually will be let go. LVMH is not your friend. They will throw millions at you, coax you into selling your name, work you like a dog, then dump you with nothing.

 

[Salvatore]

I feel like we will witness this with Burberry soon now, though they aren't a French house, they have not been popular for the past couple years but still staying mostly true to their aesthetics. With a new creative director signing on I think they could be pushed into relevancy as well. I think what you were saying about a brands revival will apply to them in the near future.

I am really interested to see where Burberry goes. To be honest, MGC would be good there considering her love of British things and consistent (boring) design perspective.

I've always believed that a House should die, when it's founder dies. Christian Dior wouldn't recognize any of the sh*t, with his name on it today, neither would Balenciaga, or Chanel, tbh. People are buying names, not originality. It's especially egregious with a House like Schiaparelli, which was so singular, and original under it's founder. Fragrances, and accessories are fine, but couture? No.
Any designer worth anything, should be designing under his or her own name. Otherwise they're just an employee, that can, and eventually will be let go. LVMH is not your friend. They will throw millions at you, coax you into selling your name, work you like a dog, then dump you with nothing.

But not all designers are privately wealthy enough to run a proper fashion business nor are there that many investors who would invest in a label with not much of a name because, let’s face it, name and brand recognition hold a lot of weight. Besides, most designers I’d imagine have some idea of what they are signing up for at a large fashion house.

I just guess I never really felt against house revivals and didn’t know there were such strong opinions about it. I value creativity and originality, but fashion is a business, a functional artform, that can be reinterpreted and therefore makes sense to keep legacy houses open as they are brands as much as Apple, Rolls-Royce, and further are. I think some designers, while not excited with some of the talent, would be ecstatic their name lives on. I know I’d love it.

 

[Drusilla_]

Frankly, it's not a full 'yes' or 'no' from me - of course Christian Dior wouldn't recognise some of the stuff with his name on because, well, he was designing in the 1940s-50s (he died in 1957) and fashions changed since then. Drastically! Same with Jeanne Lanvin, do we think she, from the 1800s, would recognise Alber Elbaz's 2000s designs under the Lanvin name as clothing? Doesn't make the AE era less significant in terms of fashion though, just that...things change.

The shift that's happened in the fashion industry over the last 40 years means that, as we all know, couture exists mainly to provide an 'image' to burnish more accessibly priced goods that people actually buy, clothes don't form the bulk of the sales of high-end fashion anymore. Still, as that 'spark' and instigator of trends, it was incredible.

 

[tboy34]

I don't have an issue with established couture houses thriving in modern times. But, what is concerning is that the corporations that own them do not usually find the right designers to carry on the legacy. Such as what is going on at Balenciaga. I have always felt that Ralph Rucci is better suited to that house. Demna Gvasalia isn't right for that house. I do have to give credit when credit is due. The previous Couture Collection that he did for Fall/Winter 2022 was stellar, but that was it. The runway shows are terrible and yes it's a different time than when Mr Balanciaga was living, but he still would not be showing clothes are are worthy of teenagers walking in the mudd. Everything now is about hype and creating an image that is based on some sort of association with a celebrity that cannot dress themselves without the help of a stylist. We really need to get back to talent and less hype and histrionics.

 

[whatdoyoumean]

Very much relevant, and I want to believe it will stay that way. Classics are classics and there will always be a market for them. There's a whole category of people who have their style established and formed around certain brands for many years. And they seem to appreciate the consistency in design offered by these labels.