Designers Switching Houses & Moving to New Brands

[cheapthrills]

WHY WOULDNT THEY PUT HIM AT GUCCI? I don’t want to see his whimsy at Balenciaga and I sure as h*ll don’t want to see Eliza Douglas at Gucci. Why wouldn’t they just keep Demna at Balenciaga, or fire him, and put PPP at Gucci?????

 

[vogue22]

WHY WOULDNT THEY PUT HIM AT GUCCI? I don’t want to see his whimsy at Balenciaga and I sure as h*ll don’t want to see Eliza Douglas at Gucci. Why wouldn’t they just keep Demna at Balenciaga, or fire him, and put PPP at Gucci?????

This wouldn't make sense.

 

[cheapthrills]

This wouldn't make sense.

It actually makes complete sense to say that Demna should have stayed at Balenciaga and Pierpaolo Piccioli should have gone to Gucci—both aesthetically and strategically.

Demna’s work at Balenciaga was built on irony, deconstruction, and a deliberately abrasive relationship to fashion history and consumer culture. His version of luxury was intentionally disruptive. That approach was a perfect fit for Balenciaga’s repositioning under Kering—transforming it into a $2 billion brand known for provocation and cultural commentary. It worked because the house’s identity under Demna became explicitly about tension and subversion.

Gucci, on the other hand, is historically romantic, decorative, and referential. Its most successful recent era under Alessandro Michele was built around maximalism, vintage codes, and emotional fantasy. Pierpaolo Piccioli is one of the only designers today who works in that same aesthetic register—his work at Valentino was grounded in color, silhouette, and expressive beauty. He understands how to modernize traditional forms without stripping them of emotion or history.

Gucci doesn’t need to be rebranded through irony or dystopian minimalism. It needs a designer fluent in romanticism and visual storytelling. Piccioli fits that brief. Demna does not. The idea that Demna would make more sense at Gucci than Piccioli misunderstands both the brands and the designers’ core strengths. It’s not just about commercial success—it’s about aesthetic alignment, and Piccioli is much better positioned to revive Gucci’s narrative than Demna ever would have been.

 

[tourbillions]

It actually makes complete sense to say that Demna should have stayed at Balenciaga and Pierpaolo Piccioli should have gone to Gucci—both aesthetically and strategically.

Demna’s work at Balenciaga was built on irony, deconstruction, and a deliberately abrasive relationship to fashion history and consumer culture. His version of luxury was intentionally disruptive. That approach was a perfect fit for Balenciaga’s repositioning under Kering—transforming it into a $2 billion brand known for provocation and cultural commentary. It worked because the house’s identity under Demna became explicitly about tension and subversion.

Gucci, on the other hand, is historically romantic, decorative, and referential. Its most successful recent era under Alessandro Michele was built around maximalism, vintage codes, and emotional fantasy. Pierpaolo Piccioli is one of the only designers today who works in that same aesthetic register—his work at Valentino was grounded in color, silhouette, and expressive beauty. He understands how to modernize traditional forms without stripping them of emotion or history.

Gucci doesn’t need to be rebranded through irony or dystopian minimalism. It needs a designer fluent in romanticism and visual storytelling. Piccioli fits that brief. Demna does not. The idea that Demna would make more sense at Gucci than Piccioli misunderstands both the brands and the designers’ core strengths. It’s not just about commercial success—it’s about aesthetic alignment, and Piccioli is much better positioned to revive Gucci’s narrative than Demna ever would have been.

Too much time spent writing this. They are both tired.

 

[br3ncon1]

Thinking of the identity crisis the Balenciaga hypebeasts will have in the upcoming months.

 

[LadyJunon]

Thinking of the identity crisis the Balenciaga hypebeasts will have in the upcoming months.

They deserve it. They're all crying for Balenciaga when they know that they can literally just start buying Gucci when his first collection drops.

The funnier thing is that Kering has THREE debuts in the span of two weeks: Demna at GG, Louise at BV and Pierpaolo at BB. The suits must be going absolutely haywire right now.

 

[theshadedgaze]

It actually makes complete sense to say that Demna should have stayed at Balenciaga and Pierpaolo Piccioli should have gone to Gucci—both aesthetically and strategically.

Demna’s work at Balenciaga was built on irony, deconstruction, and a deliberately abrasive relationship to fashion history and consumer culture. His version of luxury was intentionally disruptive. That approach was a perfect fit for Balenciaga’s repositioning under Kering—transforming it into a $2 billion brand known for provocation and cultural commentary. It worked because the house’s identity under Demna became explicitly about tension and subversion.

Gucci, on the other hand, is historically romantic, decorative, and referential. Its most successful recent era under Alessandro Michele was built around maximalism, vintage codes, and emotional fantasy. Pierpaolo Piccioli is one of the only designers today who works in that same aesthetic register—his work at Valentino was grounded in color, silhouette, and expressive beauty. He understands how to modernize traditional forms without stripping them of emotion or history.

Gucci doesn’t need to be rebranded through irony or dystopian minimalism. It needs a designer fluent in romanticism and visual storytelling. Piccioli fits that brief. Demna does not. The idea that Demna would make more sense at Gucci than Piccioli misunderstands both the brands and the designers’ core strengths. It’s not just about commercial success—it’s about aesthetic alignment, and Piccioli is much better positioned to revive Gucci’s narrative than Demna ever would have been.

I have to slightly disagree here. First, Demna should be far removed from any of the established houses. If his work is so brilliant then Kering can sponsor his own label and let him dress the unwashed hobos who worship his wares.
I find it interesting how you describe Gucci as romantic, decorative and referential. That seems more to describe Valentino and Alessandro where he is now.
Gucci’s general reception is all flash, sexiness and money. I don’t think any of the current Kering favorites really fit the bill. The heavenly choice would be for Tom Ford to go back. But I also miss Frida. Now of the new crop of designers? None are coming to mind.
Pierpaolo will be good at Balenciaga I hope. They seemed to be better matched.
Gucci needs someone else, not someone whose idea of sexy commercialism is a celebrity wearing a trash bag and ridiculously oversized sneakers.

 

[Cocteau Stone]

Thinking of the identity crisis the Balenciaga hypebeasts will have in the upcoming months.

Well Balenciaga by Demna will go through the roof in the resale market as they manoeuvre themselves into what Demna will offer at Gucci. Plain and simple. After all there already was the “Hacked” collection between Gucci and Balenciaga.

The hypebeasts are like dumb livestock. Give them the feed from the same looking vehicle and they’ll follow. Kering just wants the money to flow back into Gucci the way it was when Michele had his thing working. And now Michele is at Valentino, people want the PPP couture to offset it. It’s fashion designer Stockholm Syndrome.