Designers Switching Houses & Moving to New Brands

[Lola701]

I would say this is a problem with most of the designers out there today who were born in the 90ies and that generation in general who grew up with the internet primarily as their source of 'research' (or lack of, if you will) - Having taught in fashion design courses, I noticed their interest in the history of fashion to be far limited from the students predecessing them. Compared to that, I remember how I went every month to that one shop in my home town that was selling print publications such as The Face or i-D with anticipation over the latest issue and to go to the shops that were carrying all the designers that were important in the late 90ies and early 2000s.

Growing up during the heydays of McQueen, Chalayan, Ghesquiere, Helmut Lang and Tom Ford, I agree with you that those were years of particular flourish in design with brands operating in particular niches whereas today, they have to cater to audiences so wide spanning that a point of view too 'distinct' it could be alienating in some parts of the world or to specific audiences is considered problematic, or else we wouldn't have designers like Maria Grazia Chiuri or Virginie Viard helming the top two high fashion brands right now.

It’s funny because I’m the same age as Olivier Rousteing but sometimes I feel like we aren’t from the same generation…Because ironically I grew up with the same references that the majority of the designers operating today but beyond the fact that I started to work really young in fashion, I always felt like I was almost a geek of fashion.

And it’s maybe what is lacking today. I realized that fashion opened the door for me to another world. My interest to some designers’s work allowed me to discover things in architecture, in Interior design, in movies, in music and even in other designers. I discovered Adrian through Alaia (because when watching his clothes on films you cannot always realize what you are looking at), I discovered the Memphis movement and the films of Luis Bunuel or Stephane Audran thanks to Karl, the Bauhaus movement thanks to Helmut Lang…etc.
The same way with designers, knowing that McQueen was an assistant for Gigli made me want to discover his work when I was younger.

And yes as you said, there’s a superficial approach to research and it is translated to references.
I remember when Helmut Lang and Margiela retired I must say in an almost total disregard. Internet existed already back then. Judging by how much they were revered and celebrated not so long after that, you kind of wonder where was all that love when they were around.
There’s a lot of « posture » and posers today and it is sad. It’s the same people who says they LOOOVE Yohji!

There’s almost a feeling that there’s a lack of nuance in designers today and it’s reflected in their work. De Saint Sernin approach to Ann’s work was very superficial. It was black and white, it had feathers and tailoring. No nuance…
We are very critical of Haider for Gaultier today but that collection showed nuances…From the references to Cardin to interesting interpretations of Gaultier’s DNA. It looked very Haider without looking like any of his previous eponymous collection…

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I agree with him that LdSS's Ann D debut wasn't that bad.

But give me a break, these people get paid a ton of money to parade clothes on a runway and all over social media.

Opinions and criticism are part of the package.

Designing good clothes is very difficult but that's the job.

 

[kasper!]

In : Dunhill - Simon Holloway ( in-house appointment since Simon was working for James Purdey & Sons which is a part of Richemont group, also he is former Agnona & Hogan creative director )

 

[Nimsay]

Dylan Mulvaney dresses VERY GIVENCHY (Isnt that a perfume name?) so its hard for me to believe there isnt a Givenchy look

I think the Givenchy look is too similar to Dior which is why Bernard doesnt know what to do with it. Its pretty much more austere dior with cropped lengths.

Givenchy has always been their incubator for Dior and an Also-Ran. they lucked up with Riccardo because Givenchy has really never been that girl.

 

[perhydrol]

Dylan Mulvaney dresses VERY GIVENCHY (Isnt that a perfume name?) so its hard for me to believe there isnt a Givenchy look

To be more specific, it's an Audrey Hepburn look and that's problematic because it's incredibly limiting. CWK tried to work with the archives to bring back the Givenchy look, but as we all know, the clients weren't really interested in that. That's why working for Givenchy is tricky, as there is a massive couture heritage, but at the same time, there's this feeling of a carte blanche which, as MMW has proven so far, may be toxic.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

In : Dunhill - Simon Holloway ( in-house appointment since Simon was working for James Purdey & Sons which is a part of Richemont group, also he is former Agnona & Hogan creative director )

I like Simon. He's a sweet man and a bit of a fox.

 

[Kimihiro]

To be more specific, it's an Audrey Hepburn look and that's problematic because it's incredibly limiting. CWK tried to work with the archives to bring back the Givenchy look, but as we all know, the clients weren't really interested in that. That's why working for Givenchy is tricky, as there is a massive couture heritage, but at the same time, there's this feeling of a carte blanche which, as MMW has proven so far, may be toxic.

I’m getting to a point where I question whether there’s a place for Givenchy in fashion right now. The brand’s essence is hard to pinpoint. Something good just like CWK won’t cut it. I’m sick of rebrands but I think this is that one brand that is in dire need of a complete revamp. From the logo to visuals. I kinda feel sorry for MMW that everyone’s already eulogizing his tenure but his work is sh*t.

 

[LadyJunon]

I think the Givenchy look is too similar to Dior which is why Bernard doesnt know what to do with it. Its pretty much more austere dior with cropped lengths.

Givenchy has always been their incubator for Dior and an Also-Ran. they lucked up with Riccardo because Givenchy has really never been that girl.

To be more specific, it's an Audrey Hepburn look and that's problematic because it's incredibly limiting. CWK tried to work with the archives to bring back the Givenchy look, but as we all know, the clients weren't really interested in that. That's why working for Givenchy is tricky, as there is a massive couture heritage, but at the same time, there's this feeling of a carte blanche which, as MMW has proven so far, may be toxic.

If I was Arnault, my first instinct would be to put a distance between Dior and Givenchy in terms of where they stand in terms of aesthetic and brand positioning.

Since Dior has firmly decided to join the ranks of houses that celebrate traditional conservative luxury, Givenchy could go in the opposite direction with a more cool, radically "high fashion" image, similar to that of Loewe, which will allow it become part of the fashion conservation again.

Of course to execute this properly, we'd need a creative director who is capable of producing and directing visually strong collections, shows and campaigns, while knowing how to develop and merchandise products, especially when it comes to menswear, bags and accessories.

I have absolutely no idea as to who today would be willing or capable of doing such a thing.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I don't see any similarities between Dior and Givenchy right now.

MW's Givenchy looks like Alexander Wang.

And Givenchy is plenty more than Audrey Hepburn. He designed from 1952 until 1995 and did more than dress Audrey Hepburn in that time.

Their main issue is finding a strong designer with a compelling vision. The last two haven't worked out but who among us truly believed they would?

They need to choose more wisely.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Since Dior has firmly decided to join the ranks of houses that celebrate traditional conservative luxury, Givenchy could go in the opposite direction with a more cool, radically "high fashion" image, similar to that of Loewe, which will allow it become part of the fashion conservation again.

Since? You mean since it was founded, right? Dior has ALWAYS celebrated traditional conservative luxury. Galliano may have had his youthful moments and plenty of theater and drag on the runway but the bulk of the actual clothes he sold was rich old lady fare---which is what it always was.

 

[Nimsay]

Givenchy really needs to just hire Riccardo back and give him free reign.

 

[LadyJunon]

Since? You mean since it was founded, right? Dior has ALWAYS celebrated traditional conservative luxury. Galliano may have had his youthful moments and plenty of theater and drag on the runway but the bulk of the actual clothes he sold was rich old lady fare---which is what it always was.

I mean that as in through the whole image of the the brand. We have the obvious theatrical runway shows, but also the decadent glamour of the campaign and advertisements and the accessories linked to pop-culture. Dior is the 2000s had a very hardcore fashion image that sold those "old lady clothes". Dior was deeply entrenched in fashion as a creative force to be reckoned with.

Now that Dior is explicitly not that anymore, I was proposing that Givenchy could take that place.

 

[Nimsay]

A big Issue is the Givenchy licensed jewelry available at dept stores. Im shook that license wasnt bought back because it has nothing to do with any givenchy and the price point is very low.

https://www.macys.com/shop/product/...nd-flex-bracelet?ID=15035017&CategoryID=78232

 

[Nimsay]

Ill never forget that Balmain documentary or whatever and olivier didnt design the skirt with a slit so that the models could walk. The doc where they colored the white rope dress with ink pens to be yellow. Followed up by that collection with the stiff unmoving capes.

I think whomever owns Balmain treats it as their own clothing shop that just happens to sell to other people. I really dont get it nor think Olivier understands fabrics or construction well. Extremely complicated embroidery done by Lesage doesnt count as construction Olivier ….

 

[Lola701]

I recently learned that Givenchy actually don’t have a lot of archives from Hubert because he often destroyed things because of the fear of copy.

They needs Haider. They needs someone with a strong vision and great execution skills.

And while Haider can do a great bomber and all, it’s also good for the house to explore something else.

Anyway, it’s basically a glorified Streetwear brand so, the person that comes after won’t have too much pressure.

Givenchy really needs to just hire Riccardo back and give him free reign.

He already had that. Time to let it in the past…

 

[Nimsay]

If LVMH didnt run thru designers they would be in a better position. Thats what they get. A bunch of nobodies running their biggest houses.

theyll prob screw Nicolas at LV up as well.

 

[Nimsay]

givenchy should be the boring ladies who lunch brand. Dior should have always remained shocking exotic french fashion. It was the perfect counter point to Chanel. Now its just as dull as chanel.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I mean that as in through the whole image of the the brand. We have the obvious theatrical runway shows, but also the decadent glamour of the campaign and advertisements and the accessories linked to pop-culture. Dior is the 2000s had a very hardcore fashion image that sold those "old lady clothes". Dior was deeply entrenched in fashion as a creative force to be reckoned with.

Now that Dior is explicitly not that anymore, I was proposing that Givenchy could take that place.

Are you sure you're not confusing loudness and spectacle with quality and creativity?

And I think Galliano sold more cosmetics than clothes.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I recently learned that Givenchy actually don’t have a lot of archives from Hubert because he often destroyed things because of the fear of copy.

They needs Haider. They needs someone with a strong vision and great execution skills.

And while Haider can do a great bomber and all, it’s also good for the house to explore something else.

Anyway, it’s basically a glorified Streetwear brand so, the person that comes after won’t have too much pressure.


He already had that. Time to let it in the past…

Haider is such an obvious no brainer to me.

I must assume there is a good reason if he isn't picked to replace MW.

 

[Deleted member 116957]

givenchy should be the boring ladies who lunch brand. Dior should have always remained shocking exotic french fashion. It was the perfect counter point to Chanel. Now its just as dull as chanel.

Huh? Dior... shocking exotic French fashion? I dunno, like @Mutterlein said Galliano's years on the runway, but come on... Dior's always been very "Lily of the Valley."