Hey people , I have done alot of thinking over the past few months on the topic of whether or not there exists an advantage for those creators who have access to a heritage house’s archival records when compared to their peers operating on an original, more fundamental level of creation. Of course it is obvious that having a starting point in anything in life makes carving and achieving a goal much easier. But I find it increasingly frustrating how much praise and celebration has accompanied designers in this day who continue to pull from and revive their houses archive! I think of designers today leading the current fashion landscape including people such as Hedi Slimane, Anthony Vaccarello, M.G.C., Raf Simons (womenswear), Virginie Viard, Karl Lagerfeld, John Galliano, Bruno Sialelli, Kris Van Assche, N.G (Balenciaga) who have truly beneifit from their predecesours work. Vaccarello, for instance is extremely talented, yet his work continuously looks and feels to YSL or HS for my taste. Where is the branching out, the carving of one’s own path? When compared to designers like Marc Jacobs, Miuccia Prada, Martin Margiela, Helmut etc. in my honest opinion they have a much more difficult time gaining and maintaining a line due their indepdent nature. I remember reading about how Martin Margiela and Jenny Meirens were happy just to breakeven each year while operating the MM label (hence the atelier having second hand furniture and the act of covering models faces because they couldn’t afford to hire them) and it seems slightly unrealistic and increasingly difficult for the modern day artisan to compete with those holding positions at Dior, for instance. M.G.C for example, continues to be adorded by the press and the houses accessories are literally everywhere. I just can’t imagine anyone believing her work to be at this high of a level. I enjoy her collections for their taste, femininity, and how pretty they are. But I would be hard pressed to believe that she is truly one of the fashion greats of this present day. It is just illogical given the results. For Kris Van Assche, his inability to sustain his eponymous label evidence’s how overrated he was. While at Dior Homme and more recently at Berluti he had a platform to build on that was pre-established and extremely deep and successful. Even Anthony Vaccarello’s label was quite boring when compared to his work at Saint Laurent at this given moment. Tomas Mair’s time at Bottega Veneta is further evidence of a designer who when given the proper resources can succeed and last. Mair’s label is no where to be found at this given moment, and truthfully I can see why. I believe he is a good designer I actually love how sporty and comfortable his clothing is! It is really fascinating to analyze designer’s who have unsubstantiated labels on there own, but happen to achieve great success upon their arrival at a legacy house. For individual designers of great talent- such as Tomas Tait- how could one even concieve operating in the European market without having LVMH or Kering funding? I know there are outliers such as Simone Rocha and Molly Goddard who have sustainied business operations while mainting indepdent. Dries Van Noten, up until recently, had been known for indepdence and thrived without the need for financial backing or any archive to influence his work. So from an operations perspective, it is quite realistic. I do believe many a designer in this day and age who lead the “luxury” fashion houses would not be as neary relevant or herolded as they are without the major influence of their founders and previous designers creations. Of course this is just my honest opinion, I don’t know if I am looking for accountability or if I am just sick of reading writers gush over these designers when in all reality, their ideas are hardly their own.