I have seen a lot of designers having to parrot the lingo of executives and marketing honchos, as a sort of survival mechanism, I guess. But I haven't seen many CEO's being as respectful of the rhythms and dynamics of the creative mind. Maybe because to do so, it takes a lot of emotional intelligence that, as a whole, they lack in spades.
I agree with you and others here on one thing: we are not in the 90's anymore, designers who embark on a job like directing a major fashion house at this point know - or should know - the rules of the game, however unfair they may seem. There is little use in complaining that the suits are too demanding, once you have accepted the role. And I guess the same pressure to perform is on suits as well.
About the lingo, that’s what came with Tom Ford fortunately/unfortunately. You know designers who build their success through their own houses always had that luxury of being protected by their business partners who were most the time their lovers. It’s the Giancarlo Giammetti, the Gaultier of the world.
Tom was really the first one to be everywhere and who wanted to prove his credibility everywhere. I think he liked that but for a lot of designers even of his generation, words like marketing, merchandising and other stuff were like rude words because they always felt like they minimises their creativity.
If you hear Isabel Marant, it’s almost shocking because she has that real business knowledge. She did a business school so she can throw you those words.
Business people are rational, creative are emotional. But fashion unlike Art has a commercial purpose first. So it’s not so much about adopting lingos than showing your rationality.
Sometimes in my comments, it may seems like I’m so much for the suits but it’s also that I understand their positions sometimes. I respect talent, I respond to creativity and I consider myself creative but when you have to meet people who don’t have the same perspective you need to be able to switch mode.
In fashion, more than in any type of art/cultural form, business and creativity are co-dependent.
I often talk about Bernard Arnault and the Arnault as a whole as examples in that management thing. Arnault took over Dior in 1984 under Marc Bohan. Bohan was a diva, much like designers of his time and he is someone who didn’t have to prove himself. I think Arnault learned a lot from that time. Bohan was fired in the least elegant way possible. But, Arnault wanted Dior and understood the power of fashion. And I was always surprised to see how fairly well he has maintained relationships with the designers of the group. Their jobs were demanding. Sometimes he created mini-monsters (we saw it with Galliano) but he is someone who, in his environment has always been surrounded by people who respected the power of fashion.
About the rythmn of fashion, unfortunately, I think that it’s on designers’s hands. I’ve said it, executives aren’t not creative or inventive most of the time. It’s unfortunate but designers have to find ways to manage the amount of work expectations.
I think that it’s maybe time for designers to be designers again. When you aren’t working for your own brand, I find it ridiculous to be able to change the stores, the logo and all the stuff.
The problem is that the suits wanted mini-Karls without the ressources of Karl. They wanted the implication of a Hedi Slimane/ Phoebe Philo/ Tom Ford without the rewards of a Lagerfeld.
And for me, that’s the biggest issue. Because you can respect the rythmns of dynamics of a creative mind buy you have to give the ressources. What are the ressources? Total creative control! I’m a designer, let me do my job. You are the business person? Do your thing! Don’t expect me to do everything for you to get the praises…
That’s what happened with Nicolas.
The commercial success of Balenciaga wasn’t enough for Pinault to give him
total creative control. The commercial success of his Vuitton gives him the luxury to do what he wants.
So yes, today he doesn’t have to care about store designs, the budgets of a campaign for a fragrance, the space to show his collections or even sometimes the commercial viability of his runway propositions. But that’s how you keep a designer happy.
The discussion has went beyond Daniel Lee at this point. He was the new darling of KERING. Sometimes that’s what happen when you are surprised by the success. Michele worked for years before getting his shine. He is similar to MGC or PPP. They experienced the ups and downs and maybe were more prepared for any type of situation.
. It's already embarrassing to be called Phoebe-wannabe, even more embarrassing to take over a job from another Phoebe-wannabe. I am not again Peter but just to mock Mr Pinault. And last no least, I am all for an Asian creative director for a major fashion house.
