Discussion: The Givenchy Dilemma

[LadyJunon]

In the light of the appointement of Alessandro Valenti as CEO, I thought that it would be a good time for us to discuss the past and the potential future of the enigma that is Givenchy. Givenchy's heritage is very extensive, but its language is very abstract. Aside from Hepburn's iconic black dress, the brand doesn't have a core set of "Givenchy Design Elements" for designers to immediately refer to. This is mainly due to the fact that, throughout Hubert's 43 years at the brand, he was regularly modernising and reinventing his look.

Due to this extensive, but abstract heritage, Givenchy's work was been reinterpreted in radically different ways by his successors. Galliano, McQueen and MacDonald had quite a hyperbolic, dramatised vision, that often referenced the brand's designs from the 50s and 80s. Tisci's take on Givenchy was very liberal and abstract, focusing more on radical modernity than on reverence. Waight Keller's approach was much truer-to-form with the heavy Hubert-era references. Williams moved back to a basic, low-brow version of Tisci.

Alessandro Valenti has a very important decision to make in terms of what sort of brand Givenchy should be to stand out in LVMH and the industry. If Givenchy shifts to become a extremely refined couture house, that puts it in direct competition with much larger brands like Dior and Chanel. If Givenchy goes in the opposite direction, they'll have to compete with louder brands like Balenciaga and Loewe. Personally, I think they need a Ghesquiere/Tisci-type who can bring an element of cool to Givenchy without rejecting the aristocratic chicthat justifies the brand's hefty price point.

 

[DK92]

They should make a proposal to bring Tisci back... That would get more hype than any new designer they could hire!

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I think this has been said many times before here on The Fashion Spot, but Givenchy itself is a really boring house.

I love what he did in the '50s and '60s, and even maybe a little in the '70s, and the workmanship of the couture is AMAZING, but oh my god from the '70s on it was SO dry and stuffy.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

They should make a proposal to bring Tisci back... That would get more hype than any new designer they could hire!

I think you're absolutely right.

I guess the 20 million dollar question is: would Tisci want to go back?

 

[DK92]

I think you're absolutely right.

I guess the 20 million dollar question is: would Tisci want to go back?

For the right price, he will definitely come back.

 

[blueorchid]

I love what he did in the '50s and '60s, and even maybe a little in the '70s, and the workmanship of the couture is AMAZING, but oh my god from the '70s on it was SO dry and stuffy.

I've always been surprised by how little Givenchy's work was featured in the vintage fashion magazines I read/buy, compared to designers like... Marc Bohan for Dior, Gerard Pipart for Nina Ricci, etc. and when they were featured they didn't stand out that much, either!

Balenciaga was definitely right about him, lol:

 

[tourbillions]

I just know whatever burtons givenchy will be, i will be here to support it 😂

I dont know if it was her choice or kerings. But she just somehow didnt get the push from kering to go mainstream through heavy ads. And they always chose niche artists to be their ambassador. If i didnt follow the brand id know nothig about it.

Hopefully if she really goes to Givenchy, they go all out with marketing and ads.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I've always been surprised by how little Givenchy's work was featured in the vintage fashion magazines I read/buy, compared to designers like... Marc Bohan for Dior, Gerard Pipart for Nina Ricci, etc. and when they were featured they didn't stand out that much, either!

Balenciaga was definitely right about him, lol:

View attachment 1286390

From the '60s and on, Givenchy was definitely a major player in French fashion and was widely respected internationally until his death.

In WWD, W, Vogue, etc there is plenty of primary source documentation of this.

Givenchy was actually very close with Balenciaga. I'm not so sure I would take these comments as a denouncement of his abilities, more like tough love from a difficult mentor.

 

[blueorchid]

I didn't say he wasn't respected or a major player? I just said I was surprised by how his designs weren't featured at the same rate.

 

[thiago:)]

Lee's tenure wasn't necessarily successful, huh? I feel like Tisci did what JW's done for Loewe... Can lightning strike the same place twice?

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I didn't say he wasn't respected or a major player? I just said I was surprised by how his designs weren't featured at the same rate.

Yes, I read.

I'm just trying to infer what our point was. It sounds like you're saying that his work wasn't that good and that's why he wasn't covered in magazines?

I just think his work got really boring after the 1960s.

 

[PDFSD]

miss tweed.com

ALESSANDRO VALENTI BECOMES CEO OF GIVENCHY


Sometimes it takes the threat of separation to become closer. Alessandro Valenti, a top Louis Vuitton executive was about to join Gucci when LVMH came up with a job offer he could not refuse: CEO of Givenchy.
Valenti, Louis Vuitton's President of Europe, Middle East and Africa, was part of the LV minibus en route to Gucci when LVMH stopped him in the middle of the road and asked him to turn around and come run Givenchy. Valenti was going to look after the Italian brand's retail activities, sources close to Kering said.

Stefano Cantino, who was VP of communication and events at LV, became deputy CEO of Gucci in May after LVMH asked him to leave, as Miss Tweed reported. Cantino is being groomed to replace CEO Jean-François Palus who could leave as early as next year, people close to Gucci say.


Givenchy needed a new CEO and designer. It has been without a creative director since Matthew Williams left at the beginning of the year. It's usually better to start with the CEO since he or she is going to be one crafting the strategy for the brand with LVMH. Once the roadmap is clear, they know what kind of designer they are looking for.


The French fashion brand has interviewed many people but up until now, no one seems to fit the bill. Hiring the right designer is Valenti's No. 1 priority. Alessandro's "extensive knowledge of the luxury industry, including more than ten years at Louis Vuitton, coupled with his retail expertise and managerial skills, will be key assets in taking Givenchy to reach new milestones," Sidney Toledano said in the LVMH press release about Valenti's nomination.


Toledano? LVMH still refuses to confirm Toledano is back as CEO of Fashion Group, replacing Michael Burke who left abruptly a few months ago, as Miss Tweed and many other media reported. Yet, Toledano signs off press releases! The group described Toledano as "chairman of the Givenchy board."


Valenti will need to decide what kind of Givenchy LVMH wants: a couture or a more rock-chic brand. This is a debate on which Miss Tweed has written extensively. Founded by Hubert de Givenchy in 1952, Givenchy embodies a mission impossible for any CEO: making a historic brand relevant again when it does not have much in terms of heritage but a little black dress, once advertised by Audrey Hepburn. Good luck Alessandro!

 

[jeanclaude]

They need a miracle, not a new CEO...

gstatic.com

 

[Olaffo]

Let’s please stop romanticising Tisci, he is completely different designer now than when he was leaving Givenchy.

IMHO there’s not much of Givenchy dilemma, they ended up low with Williams so the only one thing would be to appoint any designer with strong pov which would take this poor black dress and turned it into something relevant and sellable. That’s the bottom line they need to get to be able to even think about proper revival. I’d stay away from HC, focused on strong accessories and decent rtw. That being said I no longer believe Burton would be the best fit but then who else could. I’d give Givenchy to KVA and keep it medium size for now.

 

[lookatme]

The only designer out there right now who actually could give Givenchy what it needs is Olivier Theyskens. Everyone else would be too concerned with making it “modern.” Olivier could give it identity. And that’s what it needs.

But I don't wish this house or LVMH on him.

 

[jeremydante]

The only designer out there right now who actually could give Givenchy what it needs is Olivier Theyskens. Everyone else would be too concerned with making it “modern.” Olivier could give it identity. And that’s what it needs.

But I don't wish this house or LVMH on him.

After what happened at Nina Ricci with Theyskens, I feel like the glory jobs at the bigger houses became off putting for him.


With what Pierpaolo was able to do at Valentino had a french sensibility, I think he's an easy fit but- wouldn't he have been appointed already? What's the hold up? Wish all these houses would appoint already.

 

[tricotineacetat]

I've always been surprised by how little Givenchy's work was featured in the vintage fashion magazines I read/buy, compared to designers like... Marc Bohan for Dior, Gerard Pipart for Nina Ricci, etc. and when they were featured they didn't stand out that much, either!

Balenciaga was definitely right about him, lol:

View attachment 1286390

In Hubert de Givenchy's defense - Cristobal Balenciaga (as well as Madeleine Vionnet and Madame Grès) always remained in a league of their own when it came to their technical prowess. It doesn't take away from the imprint Givenchy, Dior, Balmain or Chanel made to the image of french couture, but in terms of virtuosity of cut and innovation, it's without doubt these three surpassed the others.

 

[PDFSD]

They need a miracle, not a new CEO...

gstatic.com

also god started somewhere before to rest on day 7 :-)

 

[Kennnnn]

Apart from all the Hepburn stuff, I think one of the Givenchy signatures was the Bettina sleeve, but that's not very well known today. Unfortunately there wasn't as much myth-making with Givenchy, unlike the other couture houses. It's hard to think of a resonant and compelling Givenchy "image". But that didn't stop Tisci from making the brand a success, in the same way that Phoebe Philo created a unique identity for Céline (although a very different kind of fashion house than Givenchy). So I hope this great brand finds its way again.

 

[tricotineacetat]

Sometimes it doesn't need a huge archive to build a compelling story or create new house codes. That's what I enjoyed about Theyskens working for storied houses, like Rochas - Marcel Rochas being remembered only for the corseted 'guepière' underpinnings of his dresses as well as the lace-covered box of his 'Femme' fragrance, his legacy forgotten about for decades prior. Theyskens took those two recurring motifs and build a solid identity for Rochas, juxtapozing these new 'codes' with witty inside-out constructions that served as all but a subtle reminder of Belgian deconstruction. At Ricci, a good portion of his design was conceived around spiraling bias seams and drapery he took from the perfume bottle of the Air du Temps bottle.

I think with Givenchy, there was a stronger emphasize on separates all along, most importantly as the house is widely remembered as being one of the first ones to introduce ready-to-wear. Aside from the tiered sleeves of the Bettina blouse, simplicity is widely accredited as a recurring motif in his design - This would make me think of a designer like Martin Grant as a contemporary successor of his style and a direction that could stand as an exemplar as to how a modern day Givenchy (true to the identity of the house) could look like.