Controversial Opinions on Fashion

[fashman]

...i don't think D&G or any big company needs more people defending their missteps , because i can confirm you they don't care.

They don't actually care about criticism, unless it finds a way to hurt their profit. Practically, they are not emotionally affected by being called out or being defended. So, it makes no sense seeing more people defend these big companies.
What matters most to them is their brand and image which they have PR teams and lawyers who are equipped with billion resources to do that.

 

[Avonlea]

As @Creative said, there weren’t many people in the room in the first place lol.

And another thing. As most controversies comes from the US, sometimes it does also feel like American imperialism has had so much impact that American expect the world or at least Europe to function on their agenda, with their codes and their sensibilities.

And even behind that idea of « multiple people in the room » is a very « Corporate America ». It’s something that I always see when there are controversies.
Because corporatism is very different in Europe, even more in fashion, any creative director would by-pass a suggestion made by the marketing team.
When you do a campaign, it’s about the designer, his stylist and Art Director. Ok, sometimes the head of communication.

When it’s a brand where the founder is the CD, nobody will talk. It’s their campaign and concept. And they rightfully apologized in that clip, as they should.

I will never not advocate for more diversity in offices (I don’t know if that said diversity would actually enjoy working in fashion and living in Italy but that’s another thing) and more voices being allowed to share opinion in studios (fashion is not a democracy) but some controversies we have seen this past decade were really puzzling to me.

I understand the creative process and the dynamics, but I think there's a difference between a main campaign and a project targeting a specific demographic. You don't necessarily need to have someone in the studio, but it's more than reasonable to have local consultants who can evaluate the material from the perspective of someone belonging to that culture and understanding the nuances of it.

 

[Creative]

As @Creative said, there weren’t many people in the room in the first place lol.

And another thing. As most controversies comes from the US, sometimes it does also feel like American imperialism has had so much impact that American expect the world or at least Europe to function on their agenda, with their codes and their sensibilities.

And even behind that idea of « multiple people in the room » is a very « Corporate America ». It’s something that I always see when there are controversies.
Because corporatism is very different in Europe, even more in fashion, any creative director would by-pass a suggestion made by the marketing team.
When you do a campaign, it’s about the designer, his stylist and Art Director. Ok, sometimes the head of communication.

When it’s a brand where the founder is the CD, nobody will talk. It’s their campaign and concept. And they rightfully apologized in that clip, as they should.

I will never not advocate for more diversity in offices (I don’t know if that said diversity would actually enjoy working in fashion and living in Italy but that’s another thing) and more voices being allowed to share opinion in studios (fashion is not a democracy) but some controversies we have seen this past decade were really puzzling to me.

Bravo!!

People think that brands are huge companies with lot of people approving things, and that is certainly the case with finance issues. But, in reality, the creative side of the companies is really small. And even more in the Italian ones (Gucci aside).

 

[Lola701]

I understand the creative process and the dynamics, but I think there's a difference between a main campaign and a project targeting a specific demographic. You don't necessarily need to have someone in the studio, but it's more than reasonable to have local consultants who can evaluate the material from the perspective of someone belonging to that culture and understanding the nuances of it.

On paper, you are right but again, this is corporatism.
And in Europe and in fashion, particularly HF, there’s a culture of suspicion from the creative side to the « outside consultant who can evaluate ». As stupid as it sound: you don’t evaluate creativity.

It’s a culture. It’s tough for that culture to change.

It’s very difficult to have « local consultants » when every decision is empiric. The creative mind is in the studio for a strategy that is global.

However, things can be changed in a more informal way. I think some designers should be sensible enough to ask models, make-up artists and people in the crew. When you are working on a campaign or on a project and you are either a protagonist or BTS talent, the collaborative aspect should go beyond the execution.

I’ll go on another route but for example the diversity question that was raised when after more than a decade, people realized that there were no black models (among others) on the runway and campaigns.
It’s insane to think that Pat McGrath was the make-up artist of all the Prada campaigns and shows, the same for Dior and others and was never asked about her opinion on set regarding the castings she had to do make-up for everytime.

It’s insane to also imagine that Dolce & Gabbana had that Asian model (we don’t even know if she is Chinese or not) play that spoof with the chopsticks without asking her if she found it stupid or not.

But then again, maybe it’s the entire Italian fashion community who has to change.

I don’t want to be necessarily chauvinistic but I think French people are enough confronted by people from everywhere and also quite sensitive to those questions to change and evolve. You make a mistake, you switch up the culture in a informal way within the company.

Having external voices always sound like a commitee. And it’s always superficial and performative.

 

[Avonlea]

On paper, you are right but again, this is corporatism.
And in Europe and in fashion, particularly HF, there’s a culture of suspicion from the creative side to the « outside consultant who can evaluate ». As stupid as it sound: you don’t evaluate creativity.

I don’t see it as evaluating creativity. A social media campaign like the D&G one must have had an objective, it’s not an artistic project meant to exist in a vacuum. An image or video can be analyzed for its potential reception by the target audience. Perhaps this should be addressed during the conception phase.

If you decide to operate on a global scale and play in the social media circus, you have to adapt your way of thinking, even if that entails losing some creative freedom. It can feel ridiculous and sometimes verge on tiptoeing around, but you can’t enjoy the privileges of globalization without accepting the responsibilities that come with it.

Having external voices always sound like a commitee. And it’s always superficial and performative.

But isn't what Italian brands do equally superficial and performative? That DG apology video was a definition of it. Same with Prada and the sandal thing. They only sent someone to India after the call out.
I don't know, but it's easy to dismiss something as superficial and performative.

 

[JPineapple]

a random opininion: I think Anna’s Vogue feels more genuine in terms of inclusion than Edward’s British Vogue years. Don’t get me wrong, he did a great job in the magazine, great covers but the “everybody wanted to be in his vogue” felt a little bit forced and tired. Also, I think he did a better job in W than Vogue. Also I hate his last cover, it has nothing legendary (with a few exceptions).

 

[Monsieur Cristobal]

Fire everybody who has a name in fashion and start from scratch.

The reigning mediocrity needs to stop ASAP.

 

[dessertstealer]

I liked Rafs collections at Calvin Klein, I like Sarah at Givenchy and I liked some of Virgil's designs (but not most)
I liked what Edward did at British Vogue

 

[KoV]

time for a true controversial hot take:



Kendall Jenner > Angelina Kendall

 

[MulletProof]

^ had this come 2 weeks ago, I would've agreed.. but when I saw her GRWM, I started to warm up and then her VS appearance kind of sold me, I don't know! I do think Kendall has the best lipo in the business and whoever made her eyes go from small to big is a true artist.

I've been wanting to say this and today feels like a good time to troll post it: the body that made you famous, that IS the body you need to commit to. No ozempic transformations in modeling. It's disingenuous especially if you have been fighting people left and right for years on how big is healthy and not AT ALL against the advice of every doctor out there. If you're big, stay big. Also, same as tiny models who are like 'oh no, I can't believe I can't eat', how you presented yourself, that's literally why you got hired. So, in the case of Paloma, what's the point now? she's even more average than before, and short. Doesn't make sense.

 

[KoV]

I was reading your post and thinking I was going to comment "tag Paloma" and then you mentioned her 😭


As for Angelina, I didn't see the VS show or any GRWM videos. She could change my mind. But her meteoric rise to near-Supermodel status, seemingly, has me a bit puzzled. I just don't get it.

 

[likeahurricane]

Kendall Jenner > Angelina Kendall

Lila Moss > Kendall Jenner > Angelina Kendall

 

[KoV]

Well now. There are controversial opinions and then there are harebrained opinions.... 😜

 

[Avonlea]

Kendall Jenner = Angelina Kendall = Loli Bahia

 

[KoV]

She = Onika
Ate = Burgers