Alessandro Michele - Designer, Creative Director of Valentino

Stripped of the runway and styling theatrics, Piccioli's earlier solo work was quite similar to Michele's work: the lace and chiffon dresses, the trapezoid coats, the relaxed tailoring, the general "60s mod meets 70s bohemian" look. I think that the core difference is that Michele's interpretation came from a more personal place, while PPP's version was the result of a gradual shift away from MGC's aesthetics.

I agree that his work will need new eyes to differentiate itself from Gucci. A different approach to styling, casting and staging will definitely make his work look new again. A different photographer and art director for campaigns would definitely help too.

It wouldn't be smart for him to pull a "Hedi", because Hedi is very specific case. While a good chunk of the success of Dior Homme relied on consistently good industry reception, the strategy of Saint Laurent is more geared towards an end consumer. Celine takes it even further with the complete elimination of industry-first events, such as runway shows, wholesale accounts, magazine editorials, red carpet, etc. I don't think Michele would be ready for such a risk.
Michele was very good on the staging and set design, its one of his strength, his Arles, Cosmogonie, and Westminter show are memorable in that matter. I agree he will need different eyes for casting, styling, editing, at Valentino. Those are very important part of the storytelling too, but AM has this skill, PPP hasn't, and Valentino's image building was very weak. PPP Chantilly couture shows, the one in Place Vendôme, the womenswear at the Beaux-Arts and then the last one made very little sense in image-making... especially the last one, the FW all-black collection, would have deserved a much better showing, and not those gilded salons, models 2 feet away from the exhausted-looking front-row, imagine for a second he had the same collection but on the YSL set and music, it would have elevated his brand identity tenfold.
(and I just recall that godawful show under the Alexandre III bridge that my brain wanted to forget).
Michele alone will sweep away all that...
 
BoF's opinion on Michele's appointment at Valentino:
The Logic Behind Valentino’s Alessandro Michele Appointment
The Rome-based couture house’s bet on Rome’s most bankable design talent could help it punch above its weight.

By ROBERT WILLIAMS
28 March 2024

BoF PROFESSIONAL

Valentino has named star ex-Gucci designer Alessandro Michele its new creative director, the brand announced Thursday. Michele will show his first collection for the Roman couture house during Paris Fashion Week in September.

“I feel the immense joy and the huge responsibility to join a maison de couture that has the word ‘beauty’ carved on a collective story, made of distinctive elegance, refinement and extreme grace,” Michele said in a statement.

The announcement answers the question of where Michele, one of the industry’s biggest names, will end up after exiting Gucci in late 2022.

In the end, Michele won’t be headed to luxury’s biggest group LVMH, as many had speculated, but rather to Mayhoola for Investments, the fashion group backed by the Qatari royal family that owns Balmain and Pal Zileri, as well as Valentino.

Last week, designer Pierpaolo Piccioli exited Valentino after 25 years at the house, including 8 years as its sole creative director. The brand will not show menswear or haute couture in June.

Rome’s Most Bankable Design Talent
Michele spent years working behind-the-scenes in Gucci’s design studio before being selected for the top job in 2015. Alongside then-CEO Marco Bizzarri, the designer ushered in an era of explosive growth during which sales roughly tripled before stagnating during the pandemic.

Michele became known for his decadent, more-is-more aesthetic: items from hoodies to handbags were layered with brand signifiers, as well as flowers, totem animals like snakes and cicadas or astrological motifs. On the runway and red carpets, the vibe was often Italy meets Palm Springs: evoking the lives of Old Hollywood stars with campy ruffles as well as retro eyeglass chains and tracksuits.

In recent years, interest in Michele’s eye-catching maximalist aesthetic may have waned, but it was the creative force that pushed Gucci’s sales to around €10 billion per year. That’s an outcome Valentino would surely dream of: the brand reported operating profits of €350 million on a record €1.4 billion in revenue in 2022, before being hit by a slowdown in the luxury market during 2023 according to sources (the group still hasn’t announced last year’s results).

On-boarding Michele should be smooth: the designer is known to be deeply attached to his native Rome, where Valentino was founded in 1960 and still maintains its creative studio (although most head-office functions are based in Milan), and Michele’s team is said to have relocated in recent months. At Valentino, he’ll also work alongside CEO Jacopo Venturini, the chief merchandiser who, along with Michele and Bizzarri, formed the leadership tripod behind Gucci’s success.

At Valentino, Venturini has sought to diversify the commercial offer (which still depends heavily on a few commercial signatures like metal studs and “Vlogo” hardware) as well as to draw clearer links between its couture image — suffused with poetry and high romance — and the on-the-ground reality of what the business actually sells.

A shake-up from Michele could speed up progress on that effort: he is a deft merchandiser who knows how to dig through the archives to find forgotten or under-used signatures, and to find a way to make them fresh and relevant today.

“The reinterpretation of the maison’s couture codes and the heritage created by Mr. Valentino Garavani, combined with Alessandro’s extraordinary vision, will bring us moments of great emotion and will translate into irresistibly desirable objects,” Venturini said.

Total Work of Fashion
The designer also knows how to harness fashion buzz to help a brand punch above its weight. His Gucci era came with a guns-blazing, holistic approach to fashion branding: the company rapidly extended his aesthetic from runways to entry-level products, from campaigns to social media posts and store decor. Michele rivalled creators like Celine creative director Hedi Slimane or late titan Karl Lagerfeld in his ability to impose his style on a brand, transforming a sprawling global fashion company into a Wagnerian gesamtkunstwerk or “total work of art.”

Still, the kitschy, off-kilter aesthetic Michele was known for at Gucci will largely be foreign to the brand. Although the brand won broad industry acclaim for predecessor Piccioli’s couture outings featuring dramatic headdresses, outsized ruffles and challenging jewel-tone hues, its codes (and its clients) still lean toward more straightforward notions of feminine beauty. And Valentino’s high-end merchandising, with many items priced in line with French couture giant Dior, and important couture operation of its own are at odds with some of Michele’s tactics at Gucci, such as driving buzz and sales through collaborations with the likes of Adidas and Disney.

Exit Strategy
That such a bankable talent wasn’t nabbed by a bigger brand or group may come as a surprise. But for deep-pocketed Mayhoola, reinvigorating growth is worth the cost of bringing on a star creative talent as it prepares to exit the brand: Gucci-owner Kering invested in Valentino last year, taking a 30 percent stake with the an option to acquire its remaining shares within 5 years.

Since acquiring Valentino in 2012, “We have been able to grow it in reputation and size over five folds, while gaining the loyalty and appreciation of our clients,” Mayhoola chairman Rachid Mohamed Rachid said. “Michele is an exceptional talent and his appointment underlines our great ambitions.”

“With his creativity, culture and versatile talent, [Michele] will be able to interpret masterfully the unique heritage of this magnificent house and make it flourish,” added Kering chairman François-Henri Pinault.
Source: BoF
 
Michele was very good on the staging and set design, its one of his strength, his Arles, Cosmogonie, and Westminter show are memorable in that matter. I agree he will need different eyes for casting, styling, editing, at Valentino. Those are very important part of the storytelling too, but AM has this skill, PPP hasn't, and Valentino's image building was very weak. PPP Chantilly couture shows, the one in Place Vendôme, the womenswear at the Beaux-Arts and then the last one made very little sense in image-making... especially the last one, the FW all-black collection, would have deserved a much better showing, and not those gilded salons, models 2 feet away from the exhausted-looking front-row, imagine for a second he had the same collection but on the YSL set and music, it would have elevated his brand identity tenfold.
(and I just recall that godawful show under the Alexandre III bridge that my brain wanted to forget).
Michele alone will sweep away all that...
Yes, PPP's Valentino suffered from very poor (and inconsistent) image building. He appeared to be unsure whether he wanted the Valentino woman to be an opulent socialite, an elevated everywoman or a party girl. His 2018-2020 era seemed to feign a sort of consistency, because the clothes themselves really held their own weight, but it became very messy after the pandemic.

PPP's approach to styling and casting gave the impression of Valentino wanting to appeal to as many people as possible. His shows also became hard to watch live because of the choice of multi-floor, multi-room locations, packed to the brim with seating, that the models struggled to navigate themselves around. Intimate staging can be done well, but simplicity and low seat count is key for it to not feel claustrophobic and tedious. Helmut Lang was a very good example of that. This was also the time when they also started to depend very heavily on celebrity campaigns, which is rarely a good sign for the long-term performance of a brand.

Now that I've done an analysis on Valentino's image building under PPP, I'm starting to see a lot of parallels between PPP's Valentino and Sabato's Gucci. Both are very indecisive and unconfident in their image communication and they depend heavily on using celebrities or stunt casting to grab the attention of customers. The core difference here is that Gucci has to produce much more content in order to advertise their numerous product lines.
 
Yes, PPP's Valentino suffered from very poor (and inconsistent) image building. He appeared to be unsure whether he wanted the Valentino woman to be an opulent socialite, an elevated everywoman or a party girl. His 2018-2020 era seemed to feign a sort of consistency, because the clothes themselves really held their own weight, but it became very messy after the pandemic.

PPP's approach to styling and casting gave the impression of Valentino wanting to appeal to as many people as possible. His shows also became hard to watch live because of the choice of multi-floor, multi-room locations, packed to the brim with seating, that the models struggled to navigate themselves around. Intimate staging can be done well, but simplicity and low seat count is key for it to not feel claustrophobic and tedious. Helmut Lang was a very good example of that. This was also the time when they also started to depend very heavily on celebrity campaigns, which is rarely a good sign for the long-term performance of a brand.

Now that I've done an analysis on Valentino's image building under PPP, I'm starting to see a lot of parallels between PPP's Valentino and Sabato's Gucci. Both are very indecisive and unconfident in their image communication and they depend heavily on using celebrities or stunt casting to grab the attention of customers. The core difference here is that Gucci has to produce much more content in order to advertise their numerous product lines.

well, one can argue that the obnoxious Valentino Pink era was his (albeit forced) attempt at image-building. however, it came off more like an aggressive self-aggrandizing attempt to make himself and/or his aesthetic iconic in the same vein as the Valentino Red, which was more concomitant with the rise of Mr. Valentino and his brand than the Valentino Pink could ever be for Pier Paolo. it's understood the pink arose from his signature use of color, but it became a misnomer because his palette was a distraction, if not a mirage, for his limited design sense. the whole thing was so transparently gimmicky, made worst with the chunky shoes making people walk like daffy duck.

don't get me wrong, i don't think PPP is a terrible designer who should be excommunicated, but he is someone who needs a strong editor beside him to help center and focus his work or else he becomes a black hole sucking everything in his path in it. alessandro is the same. once these men run though every idea they have, they then dissolve into redundancy, self-indulgence for a single audience of one (themselves), and stunts. energizer bunnies whose batteries worn out. they suffer from hubris; if they put the house before themselves, not get lost into designing for sycophants, and truly design for the women these houses serve and represent, then they could've been more successful.

(i do give michele credit for his accessories. at least he knew to do something there)

from these two i have learned to have no expectation for their work. they are too seasoned to have these identity issues with their work, but i think it happened to them because of excessive, sometime undue, hype and shallow adulation, and the unchecked use of these houses as proxy vehicles for an eponymous brand. at some point, their reputation almost eclipsed the brand, where people were looking for them in the clothes and not the house itself through their eyes and interpretation.
 
well, one can argue that the obnoxious Valentino Pink era was his (albeit forced) attempt at image-building. however, it came off more like an aggressive self-aggrandizing attempt to make himself and/or his aesthetic iconic in the same vein as the Valentino Red, which was more concomitant with the rise of Mr. Valentino and his brand than the Valentino Pink could ever be for Pier Paolo. it's understood the pink arose from his signature use of color, but it became a misnomer because his palette was a distraction, if not a mirage, for his limited design sense. the whole thing was so transparently gimmicky, made worst with the chunky shoes making people walk like daffy duck.

don't get me wrong, i don't think PPP is a terrible designer who should be excommunicated, but he is someone who needs a strong editor beside him to help center and focus his work or else he becomes a black hole sucking everything in his path in it. alessandro is the same. once these men run though every idea they have, they then dissolve into redundancy, self-indulgence for a single audience of one (themselves), and stunts. energizer bunnies whose batteries worn out. they suffer from hubris; if they put the house before themselves, not get lost into designing for sycophants, and truly design for the women these houses serve and represent, then they could've been more successful.

(i do give michele credit for his accessories. at least he knew to do something there)

from these two i have learned to have no expectation for their work. they are too seasoned to have these identity issues with their work, but i think it happened to them because of excessive, sometime undue, hype and shallow adulation, and the unchecked use of these houses as proxy vehicles for an eponymous brand. at some point, their reputation almost eclipsed the brand, where people were looking for them in the clothes and not the house itself through their eyes and interpretation.
I just have to say your word prowess and vocabulary scratched a deep itch in my brain. I loved it !
 
well, one can argue that the obnoxious Valentino Pink era was his (albeit forced) attempt at image-building. however, it came off more like an aggressive self-aggrandizing attempt to make himself and/or his aesthetic iconic in the same vein as the Valentino Red, which was more concomitant with the rise of Mr. Valentino and his brand than the Valentino Pink could ever be for Pier Paolo. it's understood the pink arose from his signature use of color, but it became a misnomer because his palette was a distraction, if not a mirage, for his limited design sense. the whole thing was so transparently gimmicky, made worst with the chunky shoes making people walk like daffy duck.

don't get me wrong, i don't think PPP is a terrible designer who should be excommunicated, but he is someone who needs a strong editor beside him to help center and focus his work or else he becomes a black hole sucking everything in his path in it. alessandro is the same. once these men run though every idea they have, they then dissolve into redundancy, self-indulgence for a single audience of one (themselves), and stunts. energizer bunnies whose batteries worn out. they suffer from hubris; if they put the house before themselves, not get lost into designing for sycophants, and truly design for the women these houses serve and represent, then they could've been more successful.

(i do give michele credit for his accessories. at least he knew to do something there)

from these two i have learned to have no expectation for their work. they are too seasoned to have these identity issues with their work, but i think it happened to them because of excessive, sometime undue, hype and shallow adulation, and the unchecked use of these houses as proxy vehicles for an eponymous brand. at some point, their reputation almost eclipsed the brand, where people were looking for them in the clothes and not the house itself through their eyes and interpretation.
lets not forget the obnoxious Valentino Pink era he had people like Alessio Vannetti as Chief Brand Officer , that is now at Gucci and with Ancora red being pushed in similar vein with Sabatto again another attempt to make the CD /or his aesthetic iconic....... history repeating .....so i think the supporting act around PPP was /is also to blame for this obnoxious era...
 
don't get me wrong, i don't think PPP is a terrible designer who should be excommunicated, but he is someone who needs a strong editor beside him to help center and focus his work or else he becomes a black hole sucking everything in his path in it. alessandro is the same. once these men run though every idea they have, they then dissolve into redundancy, self-indulgence for a single audience of one (themselves), and stunts. energizer bunnies whose batteries worn out. they suffer from hubris; if they put the house before themselves, not get lost into designing for sycophants, and truly design for the women these houses serve and represent, then they could've been more successful.

from these two i have learned to have no expectation for their work. they are too seasoned to have these identity issues with their work, but i think it happened to them because of excessive, sometime undue, hype and shallow adulation, and the unchecked use of these houses as proxy vehicles for an eponymous brand. at some point, their reputation almost eclipsed the brand, where people were looking for them in the clothes and not the house itself through their eyes and interpretation.
This. While, I think that the act of refreshing, tweaking and recontextualising brand codes is essential for a brand's survival, it's so important for the designer to learn when to rein in their ego for the sake of an institution that is bigger than them.

I feel that Michele did that well for his first 2-3 years at Gucci. He made Gucci feel new and interesting again, but after his AW'18 and RE'19 blockbusters, he obviously didn't know how to evolve. That's why his collections became more and more contrived following his one-off show in Paris. If he knew how to evolve or broaden his aesthetic, he would've been fine.

On the other hand, PPP never had a consistent vision for Valentino. That said, he was saved by his capability to design beautiful clothes that appealed to a wide audience. His downfall came because he decided to focus Valentino on an extremely young clientele, who doesn't neccessarily have the funds or lifestyle for such opulence. That's why so many brands place so much importance on desirable accessories.
 
This. While, I think that the act of refreshing, tweaking and recontextualising brand codes is essential for a brand's survival, it's so important for the designer to learn when to rein in their ego for the sake of an institution that is bigger than them.

I feel that Michele did that well for his first 2-3 years at Gucci. He made Gucci feel new and interesting again, but after his AW'18 and RE'19 blockbusters, he obviously didn't know how to evolve. That's why his collections became more and more contrived following his one-off show in Paris. If he knew how to evolve or broaden his aesthetic, he would've been fine.

On the other hand, PPP never had a consistent vision for Valentino. That said, he was saved by his capability to design beautiful clothes that appealed to a wide audience. His downfall came because he decided to focus Valentino on an extremely young clientele, who doesn't neccessarily have the funds or lifestyle for such opulence. That's why so many brands place so much importance on desirable accessories.

it's funny you say that because chasing youth is the downfall of many of these designers. younger clientele don't keep the lights the on - that's why they're best utilized as advertisement and accessories are entry points for them to become acquainted with the brand. it is the established older clientele who should be prioritized and when you make them look desirable and glamorous, those younger customers then want to aspire to become that person and be able to afford more than a wallet, charm, eye palette, perfume, bag, or shoe. they eventually want the lifestyle and status imbued in the clothes. if that appeal to the future you or the "you" one can become isn't there, then the claim is hallow and ephemeral.

tom ford's gucci did this well with a modern approach: although it was for a youthful woman, it was a confident, sensual, sexy, established woman (on her second or third wealthy husband), who lived life free and on her terms. she wasn't some twenty year old still finding her way and herself, living in the moment until what she wants out of life hits her like an 'aha' moment'. she knew who she was - same for the Valentino woman: high brow, domina, socialite, regal, a little flirty, but cleverly seductive. she was still established with a strong sense of self. all they have to do is see who people want to be and envision how that specific woman will look in near future, like you said, how she evolves. this is why imagination in fashion is important. you're creating a new world through clothes and you can't do that without a clear and direct vision for a specific profile of woman.

these types of leading luxury brands also have to focus on legacy cycles. chanel is one who does this well with grandmothers and mothers inducting their offspring and great offspring into the world of chanel. one iconic piece be it the chanel tweed jacket or classic flap purse to bring them into chanel's world. yes, it's more of a long term strategy, but it's steady and it works because of consistency. For Valentino, they sort of have a multi-generational approach, but leaning into it more would do wonders for them, in my opinion. unlike chanel it would start with the children: a child's first baptism outfit, first holiday outfit, and build from there. however, they need to know who they are designing for and stick to it. it's not some fly by night customer. those accessories have to seduce customers further into the world of Valentino and unlike alice in wonderland, treat them well enough with little chaotic disruption for them to stay, michele can surely do this as long as he focuses on a future component of the client Valentino wants and designs for. if he gets too lost into his aesthetic again, Valentino will tank.
 
it's funny you say that because chasing youth is the downfall of many of these designers. younger clientele don't keep the lights the on - that's why they're best utilized as advertisement and accessories are entry points for them to become acquainted with the brand. it is the established older clientele who should be prioritized and when you make them look desirable and glamorous, those younger customers then want to aspire to become that person and be able to afford more than a wallet, charm, eye palette, perfume, bag, or shoe. they eventually want the lifestyle and status imbued in the clothes. if that appeal to the future you or the "you" one can become isn't there, then the claim is hallow and ephemeral.
Often times, the brands that do the best with young clienteles are the ones with a certain level of accessibility. They either have a lower price point or a huge range of accessibly priced product. Valentino has neither with its business model being closer to a legacy brand (Dior, Chanel) than an aspiration brand (LV, Gucci). This is perfectly fine (I actually prefer this model), but they need to design their ranges accordingly.
tom ford's gucci did this well with a modern approach: although it was for a youthful woman, it was a confident, sensual, sexy, established woman (on her second or third wealthy husband), who lived life free and on her terms. she wasn't some twenty year old still finding her way and herself, living in the moment until what she wants out of life hits her like an 'aha' moment'. she knew who she was - same for the Valentino woman: high brow, domina, socialite, regal, a little flirty, but cleverly seductive. she was still established with a strong sense of self. all they have to do is see who people want to be and envision how that specific woman will look in near future, like you said, how she evolves. this is why imagination in fashion is important. you're creating a new world through clothes and you can't do that without a clear and direct vision for a specific profile of woman.
I think that brands in the 90s had a very interesting approach, when it came to appealing to young audiences. They would target these audiences as they approached working age by using the sartorial codes of their youth to create adult grown-up clothes one could live adult grown-up lives in. I believe Helmut Lang was the first to do that, but it really rose in the 90s with Ford's Gucci. The customer was old enough to know who they were, but young enough to retain an experimental edge to their way of dressing.
these types of leading luxury brands also have to focus on legacy cycles. chanel is one who does this well with grandmothers and mothers inducting their offspring and great offspring into the world of chanel. one iconic piece be it the chanel tweed jacket or classic flap purse to bring them into chanel's world. yes, it's more of a long term strategy, but it's steady and it works because of consistency. For Valentino, they sort of have a multi-generational approach, but leaning into it more would do wonders for them, in my opinion. unlike chanel it would start with the children: a child's first baptism outfit, first holiday outfit, and build from there. however, they need to know who they are designing for and stick to it. it's not some fly by night customer. those accessories have to seduce customers further into the world of Valentino and unlike alice in wonderland, treat them well enough with little chaotic disruption for them to stay, michele can surely do this as long as he focuses on a future component of the client Valentino wants and designs for. if he gets too lost into his aesthetic again, Valentino will tank.
A multi-generational legacy approach could work very well for Valentino, not neccesarily through childrenswear (maybe in the future), but incorporating a "maiden, mother and crone" concept into their vision. Of course, they'd need to develop a recognisable product that requires miminal tweaking as years go on. As for Michele, his first step will be to create an distinct identity that incites desire for Valentino the brand. His second step will be to feed said desire with products that will serve their customers in their life. His third step will be to periodically renew that desire to keep them coming back.
 
I just spent some time revisiting some of Michele’s Gucci collections, campaigns and campaign videos - and I feel as though I have a new appreciation for his tenure. I didn’t always love what he did during the time, but in retrospect, I think it was really a spectacular job.

What he managed to do was create an entire mythology for Gucci that now seems as inseparable as Tom Ford’s tenure does with what Gucci means.

I look forward to his Valentino.
 
I just spent some time revisiting some of Michele’s Gucci collections, campaigns and campaign videos - and I feel as though I have a new appreciation for his tenure. I didn’t always love what he did during the time, but in retrospect, I think it was really a spectacular job.

What he managed to do was create an entire mythology for Gucci that now seems as inseparable as Tom Ford’s tenure does with what Gucci means.

I look forward to his Valentino.
I did too, he really created a complete universe and fantasy-land around a brand, and very few managed that, then and I stumbled on the SS 20 campaign :

It's an incredible imagery, and I can't help but compare it with the current Hermès SS/ 24, or all the other brands with equestrian imagery and I do think AM beat them all.
 
I did too, he really created a complete universe and fantasy-land around a brand, and very few managed that, then and I stumbled on the SS 20 campaign :

It's an incredible imagery, and I can't help but compare it with the current Hermès SS/ 24, or all the other brands with equestrian imagery and I do think AM beat them all.

His campaigns were amazing…… he created so much fantasy, even if it was tacky
 
Either this will be really good or really bad. Valentino has STRONG house codes and Valentino had its hey day in the 60s/70s so thats AM's alley. But he has to tone down the thrift shop aesthetic and the crazy flora/fauna prints. I don't want to see shoes or purses with bugs on them. I wish AM was at Fendi tho, One thing about AM he may put out tacky collections but they were never boring.
 
Michele is a good designer. I liked several of his gucci collections. But I really can't expect him reinventing his aesthetic at this point. It's gonna be 70's grandma fashions worn by strange looking models. I wish I was wrong but...
 
I did too, he really created a complete universe and fantasy-land around a brand, and very few managed that, then and I stumbled on the SS 20 campaign :

It's an incredible imagery, and I can't help but compare it with the current Hermès SS/ 24, or all the other brands with equestrian imagery and I do think AM beat them all.

If he carries this cinematic glamour to Valentino , it will help quite a bit. This was my fav campaign

 
Right. That gucci ad frustrated me because it seeming like clothes from the 1950s is not a good thing. Seamlessly fitting in where I cant even tell what is RTW and what is Costume sounds like a horrible horrible way to sell clothes.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,697
Messages
15,196,421
Members
86,680
Latest member
fmlb45
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->