Phoebe Philo - Designer

Can we make a thread on minimalism. Minimalism is like Modernism. People call any structure without a gabled roof modern. It seems the same with fashion and minimalism.

I personally would never describe PP Celine as minimal. I think that it was almost a 1970s art sort of maximalism…. I dont feel like linking the art pieces that remind me of Celine. Primarily Calder mobiles. Gaultier did a few collections inspired by mobiles the ideas I later saw distilled in Celine collections…i just think that poplin shirts with one side done in crochet is not minimal and possibly over the top.
 
Last edited:
Jil Sander used to have a boutique next to LV YSL Dior and Chanel on 57th St. That shows how huge JS used to be at-a-time. Now its a Miu Miu.
 
Yup, but let's also not forget that Phoebe actually stood her ground by designing for women with a genuine aim, unlike many male designers who merely had a 'vision' of women and often created absurd garments with their boobs hanging around
At the same time, what the article reveals is that she doesn’t try or feels the need to try clothes on herself. So she can have a distance with her work, detach herself from a pragmatism expected from a woman designer but also play and have fun with her imagination like a man would, by also designing absurd garments that are fun.

When she makes Yeti pants or honey comb lilac coats, it’s absurd but it works and it’s fun to some. And her lifestyle may probably be different from a woman who buys a lilac big coat, even if they probably have a similar bank account.

Jil Sander used to have a boutique next to LV YSL Dior and Chanel on 57th St. That shows how huge JS used to be at-a-time. Now its a Miu Miu.

But Chanel, YSL, Dior and LV were very different brands back then. The transition from fashion brands to luxury brands and from luxury brands to lifestyle brands started really after the 2008 crisis.
I’m sure the demographic of the customers has drastically changed overtime.

I think today it would be very difficult to determine a type-client for a brand like Jil Sander.
 
The male gaze in 2024? I mean the NYT has been trash for like over a decade atp. this is amusingly detached from reality. anything to do with fashion can never be dated or in an ivory tower. It has to be in the moment and relevant.
It's an issue of a generational divide.

The core of Philo's fans are in their late 30s to 40s. They spent their teens and early 20s dealing with the hyperfeminine, va-va-voom look of 00s. In the mid 10s, there was the rise of the "man-repeller" look, which which was heavily based off Philo's Celine, and the look resonated heavily with that audience.

Gen-Z seems to consistently veer towards a more overtly feminine look (Jacquemus, Miu Miu, Blumarine), so I imagine that they'll continue along that vein as they approach their 30s. If Zegna plays their cards right, Tom Ford could easily be a good candidate for Gen-Z's "Celine".
 
Can we make a thread on minimalism. Minimalism is like Modernism. People call any structure without a gabled roof modern. It seems the same with fashion and minimalism.

I personally would never describe PP Celine as minimal. I think that it was almost a 1970s art sort of maximalism…. I dont feel like linking the art pieces that remind me of Celine. Primarily Calder mobiles. Gaultier did a few collections inspired by mobiles the ideas I later saw distilled in Celine collections…i just think that poplin shirts with one side done in crochet is not minimal and possibly over the top.

I actually agree with you 100%: Minimalism is indeed like modernism and I have never read a more accurate description of the style, it's extremely educated and thoughtful, especially because both minimalism and modernism were international movements that attempted to build an international, atemporal style. And I'm all about Calder mobiles.

While PP has described herself in the past as a 'contemporary minimalist' (and that's what she is for most of the part, excepting her Chloé era), she is definitely not entirely that, even in her Céline. There is some maximalism to PP's Céline, something so hybrid, that is what is the most alluring part about her. I love eclecticism.
 
It's an issue of a generational divide.

The core of Philo's fans are in their late 30s to 40s. They spent their teens and early 20s dealing with the hyperfeminine, va-va-voom look of 00s. In the mid 10s, there was the rise of the "man-repeller" look, which which was heavily based off Philo's Celine, and the look resonated heavily with that audience.

Gen-Z seems to consistently veer towards a more overtly feminine look (Jacquemus, Miu Miu, Blumarine), so I imagine that they'll continue along that vein as they approach their 30s. If Zegna plays their cards right, Tom Ford could easily be a good candidate for Gen-Z's "Celine".

I think your comments are more often than not spot on, but I just can't agree with this one. I am the stereotypical Philo fan in her 40s, but I love the hyperfemine, va-va-voom era of the 00s, so I mix them both in my personal style (and I love Jacquemus since his beginnings). That is not to say that your comment is wrong, maybe I'm just an exception to the rule. I love understated minimalism, yet with that sexy, subversive, rebellious touch to it, it's a personal touch. I wish most people who endorsed minimalism would actually put a personal touch to it, even if it involves careful De Stijl color-blocking. Sadly, they mostly look like clones.
 
I think today it would be very difficult to determine a type-client for a brand like Jil Sander.
As an old Céline fan, I have 3 Jil Sander items on my wishlist (2 pairs of shoes and one bag, and I rarely buy anything every year), so that should tell you something :lol::innocent:
 
As an old Céline fan, I have 3 Jil Sander items on my wishlist (2 pairs of shoes and one bag, and I rarely buy anything every year), so that should tell you something :lol::innocent:
Im an old Celine fan, current Philo customer and while there are pieces that are appealing at Jil Sander, I wouldn’t say that I’m a type-client.

But my point about a type-client was about an idea of a specific client and clothes that fit that lifestyle. Now, it’s just people with money, people who are supposed to be « minimalists ».

I love Phoebe Philo but I’m not a minimalist for example. I’m not interested in The Row so I wouldn’t consider myself, as a Philo client, part of the « cliche of the type-client ».
 
But my point about a type-client was about an idea of a specific client and clothes that fit that lifestyle. Now, it’s just people with money, people who are supposed to be « minimalists ».
I totally get what you mean. Logically speaking, rich people don't need to be minimalists, it's all the opposite. They have hijacked a movement in the past few years that wasn't meant for them at all and that it wasn't even started by them. It's truly sad, infuriating to a degree. The OG minimalists are not people with money (Caroline Bessette aside), neither was Le Corbusier's idea of a minimalist Maison Citröhan meant for the upper class.

I'm a Jil Sander fan, because their shoe and bag designs are minimalist to the core with a twist and beautiful, practical. The 3 cm high heels of their summer sandals and winter boots fit to my lifestyle (and I could imagine to most people's).
 
Call me old-fashioned (or gatekeeping) if you want, but for me minimalism stopped after Helmut Lang and Jil Sander retired (and yes it may include 80s early 90 Calvin Klein and Donna Karan, when they were good). But it died in 1999.
What we saw with Phoebe 10 years later was imho a reaction, to the hypersexualized and or logomaniac Y2K fashion. It started as a rejection of the "Dior J'Adore" t-shirts and that's perfectly understandable.
I would not call Phoebe minimalism at all, at least not like Lang and Sander were... She has never been that severe.
Her approach is in many way similar to Miucca Prada, both are more interested in womens sensibilities than being purely minimalistic. For instance, both used silly/funny/artsy prints (Klein and Brassai, bandanas, for Phoebe, bananas and 50s prints for Miucca) which were definitely not minimalist but which adressed the moods, even the light-hearted moods sometimes, of their customers.
Imho, Phoebe is from the Miuccia's school of fashion, ofc they are 23 years apart so they are different, but I see more similarities than differences.
(small edit; that's the reason why I find the Row very different than Phoebe, the Olsens twins are much more in the line with the OG Jil Sander, imho they have more similarities with the OG Jil Sander than they ever had with Phoebe or Miuccia, I recall the Jil Sander stores in Paris and Zurich, and The Row would have perfectly fit in them).
 
Last edited:
I think your comments are more often than not spot on, but I just can't agree with this one. I am the stereotypical Philo fan in her 40s, but I love the hyperfemine, va-va-voom era of the 00s, so I mix them both in my personal style (and I love Jacquemus since his beginnings). That is not to say that your comment is wrong, maybe I'm just an exception to the rule. I love understated minimalism, yet with that sexy, subversive, rebellious touch to it, it's a personal touch. I wish most people who endorsed minimalism would actually put a personal touch to it, even if it involves careful De Stijl color-blocking. Sadly, they mostly look like clones.
That's actually quite intersesting to hear that from you of all people.

My comment was based from my observation of the general online discourse around Philophiles, how their tastes seem to align with the rise of comfort-focused, normcore, "anti-sexy" aesthetics throughout the 10s (Philo's Celine accidentally contributed to that movement), and their general dislike of the typically sexy/pretty/girly fashion of the 00s. I remember one of the main critiques of Philo's eponymous collection (pricing and customer service aside) being that it was too male-gaze-y and sexy.

Of course, your approach to "Philophilia" is also 100% valid and real, because you're an individual who tailors their style to their personal tastes and lifestyle, instead of strict following the "rules" of an aesthetic The way you describe your approach to fashion here actually recalled a "old" comment of mine:
This is why I often find myself at odds with most Philophiles and most fashion minimalists. They have this slightly elitist mindset with their obsession with being the epitome their quiet narrow and homogeneous idea of "good taste", when Philo's work was often everything but. This extends to Margiela and Jil Sander too.

Philo is almost like Miuccia with how she explores and plays with the concept of womanhood. Her approach may be intellectual, but she often plays with concepts and themes that one might consider "basal", "savage" or even "frivolous" such as feminine beauty, female sexuality, nature, life and death.

Of course, we seldom hear about that very relevant side of her work. I feel that it's a common occurrence for fashion journalists to strip female designers of their artistic or conceptual integrity. Outside of Schiaparelli, Kawakubo and Miuccia, it's always the same reductive "She was a woman designing for women." praise their predecessors get.
You seem to understand Philo on a deeper level than most fashion people do.
 
That's actually quite intersesting to hear that from you of all people.

My comment was based from my observation of the general online discourse around Philophiles, how their tastes seem to align with the rise of comfort-focused, normcore, "anti-sexy" aesthetics throughout the 10s (Philo's Celine accidentally contributed to that movement), and their general dislike of the typically sexy/pretty/girly fashion of the 00s. I remember one of the main critiques of Philo's eponymous collection (pricing and customer service aside) being that it was too male-gaze-y and sexy.

Of course, your approach to "Philophilia" is also 100% valid and real, because you're an individual who tailors their style to their personal tastes and lifestyle, instead of strict following the "rules" of an aesthetic The way you describe your approach to fashion here actually recalled a "old" comment of mine:

You seem to understand Philo on a deeper level than most fashion people do.
I see that as a huge compliment, thank you.

Your Miuccia analysis is spot on and 100% applicable to Philo. The difference between Miuccia and Phoebe is that Miuccia refuses to see fashion an art form (she insists that she is a business woman and her mission is to sell, that artists develop concepts that are deeper than fashion) and the latter is inspired by it and has made pieces that are art in their own right. Of course, what Miuccia has done over decades has a lot of artistic value to it, even if she refuses to see it like that.

I guess Philo is, after all, not quite a minimalist, which is why I'm probably attracted to her designs. If I think of brands like Fforme, Co, Róhe Frames and to a certain extent The Row (I am mostly attracted by their special pieces that are not exactly 'quiet luxury'), Lemaire and other minimalist fashion brands, I find them too sterile , lacking allure and a unique identity. Ironically, as much as it sounds like a paradox, creating minimalist fashion is not simple, because it's all about precision.
 
PS: If I think of one single contemporary brand that has to an extent the allure that PP's Céline had it's A.W.A.K.E. Mode. It's probably the closest to its true heir. You'll find there a very defined identity flirting with minimalism, but with tons of humor, statement silhouettes, loud volumes, and artistic touches. Natalia Alaverdian was inspired by Blade Runner in her FW2023 collection and she didn't hesitate in showing how. It's such a fun brand, I love it to bits.
 
Guys i'm cringe whenever people consider Martin Margiela and Miuccia Prada to be minimalists, Haider too. Their works have always been being on a spectrum to me, great designers know how to fuse many different aesthetics and schools of art into their strong vision. Why do they have to be strict and die hard for one aesthetic?

P/S: Phoebe Philo menswear would be cool
 
Call me old-fashioned (or gatekeeping) if you want, but for me minimalism stopped after Helmut Lang and Jil Sander retired (and yes it may include 80s early 90 Calvin Klein and Donna Karan, when they were good). But it died in 1999.
What we saw with Phoebe 10 years later was imho a reaction, to the hypersexualized and or logomaniac Y2K fashion. It started as a rejection of the "Dior J'Adore" t-shirts and that's perfectly understandable.
I would not call Phoebe minimalism at all, at least not like Lang and Sander were... She has never been that severe.
Her approach is in many way similar to Miucca Prada, both are more interested in womens sensibilities than being purely minimalistic. For instance, both used silly/funny/artsy prints (Klein and Brassai, bandanas, for Phoebe, bananas and 50s prints for Miucca) which were definitely not minimalist but which adressed the moods, even the light-hearted moods sometimes, of their customers.
Imho, Phoebe is from the Miuccia's school of fashion, ofc they are 23 years apart so they are different, but I see more similarities than differences.
(small edit; that's the reason why I find the Row very different than Phoebe, the Olsens twins are much more in the line with the OG Jil Sander, imho they have more similarities with the OG Jil Sander than they ever had with Phoebe or Miuccia, I recall the Jil Sander stores in Paris and Zurich, and The Row would have perfectly fit in them).
I agree!
We sometimes forget that minimalism at it core was a reaction to the excess of the 80’s. And Jil Sander and Helmut Lang became the throne of that style because they were probably the most radical in that approach.

And because their approach was radical, it was extended to every part of their vision, which turned out to be a lifestyle.

And what I have always found interesting was that their clothes were about active people. They were clothes, styles meant to serve a purpose which I think it’s different than just do it as part of a creative expression. I hate the use of the word intellectual in fashion. I prefer the word cerebral.

I think at the time, people who bought Helmut Lang or Jil Sander embraced their lifestyle. They probably bought stuff from brands that were somehow related like Costume National. It was more than a fashion proposition.

The Japanese were the first ones to come with that concept of kind of empty stores and that radical stuff but I’m not sure that, except people from the Art world, the fans of CDG transformed their interior. It was still a fashion proposition.

Prada, much like the work of Phoebe is a fashion proposition. I think that Phoebe is maybe more instinctive than Prada.
The act of minimalism in Phoebe’s work is probably the fact that she removed all the excess details from the clothes from the 2000’s. There’s a purity and a pragmatism in her clothes but it’s still playful and frivolous.

I wasn’t an instant fan of Phoebe’s Celine. Tbh, her work reminded me too much of what Stefano was doing at YSL. If we look at what Stefani’s work was about 2007/2008, which are the season around the time Phoebe came back into fashion, the foundation of what will become Celine were there imo: the neutral color palette, the boxy shapes, the monochromatic looks, the oversized silhouettes.

When I looked at Phoebe’s first collection (resort), it was the baby of YSL’s FW07 and SS08 collections. Or at least, it was the same language with a different accent.

Stefano was maybe less radical or too precious however. His work, his life had still that glossy filter of luxury.

What Phoebe did was to pair her fashion proposition with a more raw, probably down to the ground approach. I remember the first few Celine stores were kind of brutalists in their architecture and her therefore her work became more eclectic.

Her ecclectism spoke to me because I love Nicolas and his work is the epitome of that. Balenciaga stores were a mess in a good way. It’s really about that idea of not being a monolith.

And part of the reason I can’t connect with The Row is that. It’s a very monolithic approach. We see it, you wears The Row, you live in a beige space. For me it was glorified loungewear.
And suddenly with The Row, Taste is ruled by the absence of expression.
 
I agree!
We sometimes forget that minimalism at it core was a reaction to the excess of the 80’s. And Jil Sander and Helmut Lang became the throne of that style because they were probably the most radical in that approach.
While I mostly strongly agree with almost your entire post, minimalism didn't die in the 90s (and I guess I was attracted to it since then, because I detested the excess of the 80's seeing it mostly in my Mom). It came back after the 2008 financial crisis and it is a movement that is a counterreaction to hyperconsumerism, colorful and messy ads, and it continued through the 2010s and even now as a very needed option to be more sustainable in the era of climate change. In this regard, I find it as something benefitial, but I do worry about a giant problem it poses: The extinction of personal style in favor of looking like clones, the glorification of sameness, which are the ultimate enemies of diversity and individuality. This is why, even though I am not a fan of maximalism, I do think it is important that it remains and becomes endorsed by more people, there needs to be plenty of spaces in our world for being different.

Sadly, there is a lack of options for the ones of us who love minimalism with a personal touch or eclecticism, like PP, Margiela, or Lang, designers that endorsed to a certain extent a less is more approach but still managing to have a strong identity (sadly, Peter Do used to offer this). I was never a true fan of old Jil Sander or Calvin Klein or Margiela's Hermes and co, because they were too sterile for my taste.

And indeed, the Japanese influence in the Western World is unmeasurable. The whole modernist movement was inspired by traditional Japanese reduction.

We definitely need more authentic self-expression in fashion.
 
While I mostly strongly agree with almost your entire post, minimalism didn't die in the 90s (and I guess I was attracted to it since then, because I detested the excess of the 80's seeing it mostly in my Mom). It came back after the 2008 financial crisis and it is a movement that is a counterreaction to hyperconsumerism, colorful and messy ads, and it continued through the 2010s and even now as a very needed option to be more sustainable in the era of climate change. In this regard, I find it as something benefitial, but I do worry about a giant problem it poses: The extinction of personal style in favor of looking like clones, the glorification of sameness, which are the ultimate enemies of diversity and individuality. This is why, even though I am not a fan of maximalism, I do think it is important that it remains and becomes endorsed by more people, there needs to be plenty of spaces in our world for being different.

Sadly, there is a lack of options for the ones of us who love minimalism with a personal touch or eclecticism, like PP, Margiela, or Lang, designers that endorsed to a certain extent a less is more approach but still managing to have a strong identity (sadly, Peter Do used to offer this). I was never a true fan of old Jil Sander or Calvin Klein or Margiela's Hermes and co, because they were too sterile for my taste.

And indeed, the Japanese influence in the Western World is unmeasurable. The whole modernist movement was inspired by traditional Japanese reduction.

We definitely need more authentic self-expression in fashion.
But to bounce back on @yslforever comment, maybe a certain idea of minimalism died in 1999.
Ultimately, the minimalism of the 2000’s was purely aesthetic. The minimalism of the 90’s was very radical in the sense that the clothes informed the environment. It was fashion, interior design, even music…Minimalism in the 90’s in the desire to break from the 80’s was radical in every creative approach.

And you what, for me, Margiela by Hermes was even remove from that minimalist movement. He went to the essential, removed the excess but they were clothes that were supposed to integrate a lifestyle and not inform one.

Hermes was mostly worn by bourgeoise who went to Faubourg to buy essentials. And the range of essentials went from the very lady like bags, ornate carrés de soie, bling chic Medor cuffs or classic and timeless Margiela clothes.
Margiela’s clothes allowed the women to disappear behind their clothes a little bit. A bit like his own clothes in a different aspect.

There was something very body-conscious about Helmut and Jil. Their clothes were also about sexuality, power and things like that. After all, Jil provided a wardrobe for professionals to help them « perform » in their environment.

I had access to fashion in the 2000’s even if I was informed by the past. The 2000’s were quite an era of self expression. In the 2000´s those kind of aesthetic boxes exploded. Suddenly, a Cavalli client could be a Dior one too. A Gucci woman could be Prada woman too and you could have been a CDG woman and an Alaia woman at the same time.

So those brands who were kind of imperious in their aesthetic approach like Jil, Helmut, Costume National, Calvin Klein and others kind of disappeared, lost in influence or were replaced by evolved versions. I think a lot of people who used to buy Helmut Lang or Jil went either to Margiela, Balenciaga by NG or Dior Homme.
A brand like Calvin Klein lost in influence but their minimalism remained purely aesthetic, almost detached from it wearers despite the talent of Francisco Costa.
 
Interesting and at the same time quite predictable to launch at Bergdorf's.
Beyond the initial hype, I wonder how well her e-commerce strategy has been doing so far.
Presence in brick and mortar retail will definitely help her performance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Statistics

Threads
210,730
Messages
15,125,637
Members
84,437
Latest member
ze bicho
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->