I wonder if Alessandra ever thought of opening her own label. That woman did if not a remarkable, a decent job at Valentino to be so unfairly fired even though her approach at Valentino was more 'bourgeois' than 'glamourous'.
Fashion House Musical Chairs: Designers Going From House to House
- Thread starter KhaoticKharma
- Start date
fashionista-ta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 17,329
- Reaction score
- 840
Something Alessandra does really well is having a clear and coherent vision. I suspect that, feminine though she clearly is, she might do much better as a man (I frequently have this feeling my own self 
). People expect (even now, hello 21st century) women to be all cuddly and compliant. At both Gucci and Valentino she was taking over from a man ... I don't know, I suspect sexism may be all over this 'problem' she has.
I had a boss once who gave me some very good advice, which is that I couldn't win every battle ... if I did, I would lose the war. He told me to plan to lose some, and I could even plan which to lose. Great, great advice ...
). People expect (even now, hello 21st century) women to be all cuddly and compliant. At both Gucci and Valentino she was taking over from a man ... I don't know, I suspect sexism may be all over this 'problem' she has.I had a boss once who gave me some very good advice, which is that I couldn't win every battle ... if I did, I would lose the war. He told me to plan to lose some, and I could even plan which to lose. Great, great advice ...
mikeijames
no tom ford, no thanks.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2003
- Messages
- 5,879
- Reaction score
- 5
we must consider personalities as well when contemplating why designers come and go. sometimes talented people have attitudes or personalities that simply do not work with management or the team of underlings in place.
also, sometimes people really work better in the number two role executing the vision of someone else. it's one thing to have talent in spades, but it's another entirely to have vision.
also, sometimes people really work better in the number two role executing the vision of someone else. it's one thing to have talent in spades, but it's another entirely to have vision.
fashionista-ta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 17,329
- Reaction score
- 840
Agree completely ... just saying that what 'doesn't work' as a woman is far different than what doesn't work as a man. What it works out to is that if you come with certain equipment, you get cut a huge amount of slack. I suspect that with just a little of that slack, Alessandra would be fine ... just a theory
softgrey
flaunt the imperfection
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Messages
- 52,893
- Reaction score
- 320
that wouldn't explain all the men who are losing their positions as well...
in fact...it's way more men...so i don't think gender is an issue here...
i think mike is on to something...
when you have your own design house, YOU set the tone...
but when you are an employee...
you have to FIT IN...
be a team player...
something that is hard for a lot of these folks to do...
by nature...a designer is an independent thinker...
which makes it difficult for them to fall into step with the management and the team that is already there...
i think they should be able to bring in their own creative teams...
it sucks for the people that will lose their positions...
but it's way more for likely the head designer (and thus, the brand) to succeed that way...
it happens at magazines all the time...
a new creative director or editor-in-chief comes in and systematically 'cleans house'...
out with the old and in with the new...
because it's a creative team and so, there has to be a certain chemistry for it to work...
it has to be the right fit...
get it...?
'fit'...like in fashion...
*i know...that was lame...
...
i just couldn't help myself...
in fact...it's way more men...so i don't think gender is an issue here...
i think mike is on to something...
when you have your own design house, YOU set the tone...
but when you are an employee...
you have to FIT IN...
be a team player...
something that is hard for a lot of these folks to do...
by nature...a designer is an independent thinker...
which makes it difficult for them to fall into step with the management and the team that is already there...
i think they should be able to bring in their own creative teams...
it sucks for the people that will lose their positions...
but it's way more for likely the head designer (and thus, the brand) to succeed that way...
it happens at magazines all the time...
a new creative director or editor-in-chief comes in and systematically 'cleans house'...
out with the old and in with the new...
because it's a creative team and so, there has to be a certain chemistry for it to work...
it has to be the right fit...
get it...?
'fit'...like in fashion...
*i know...that was lame...
...i just couldn't help myself...
kimair
frozen
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 14,463
- Reaction score
- 1
i think the "fitting in" was the issue with alessandra...
i'm sure with the way the tom ford thing went down, the gucci group wanted more control of the label (as spike mentioned), and she had other ideas, having worked with ford (who liked to be in control himself)...
same as valentino...he all but said he wanted the new designer(s) to come in and continue what he had been doing, and her collections, while stunning, veered far off from the valentino aesthetic...
she is clearly very talented and would be great for her own line or working with ford again...
there was an interesting article in the nytimes a few months back about lars nilsson, and it mentioned that the main reason he hasn't lasted at most houses is that he is a control freak...
at ferre in particular, he criticized management for making him design a denim collection when he felt he should have been working on the main line...
here is a quote from that article that's very telling:
but it's not easy...you have to have the right stylist, the right ad campaign, the right editorial placement, oh and the clothes have to sell...
and the houses that are doing well have to keep the good thing going, which means more pressure...
mr-dale already started a thread about dior's challenges over the past few seasons...
i'm sure with the way the tom ford thing went down, the gucci group wanted more control of the label (as spike mentioned), and she had other ideas, having worked with ford (who liked to be in control himself)...
same as valentino...he all but said he wanted the new designer(s) to come in and continue what he had been doing, and her collections, while stunning, veered far off from the valentino aesthetic...
she is clearly very talented and would be great for her own line or working with ford again...
there was an interesting article in the nytimes a few months back about lars nilsson, and it mentioned that the main reason he hasn't lasted at most houses is that he is a control freak...
at ferre in particular, he criticized management for making him design a denim collection when he felt he should have been working on the main line...
here is a quote from that article that's very telling:
not every designer can capture the magic in a bottle the way marc jacobs (with vuitton), alber elbaz and nicolas ghesquiere can, but companies want that, which is why we get houses like vionnet, balmain, nina ricci, rochas, etc. being revived...
but it's not easy...you have to have the right stylist, the right ad campaign, the right editorial placement, oh and the clothes have to sell...
and the houses that are doing well have to keep the good thing going, which means more pressure...
mr-dale already started a thread about dior's challenges over the past few seasons...
jeremydante
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,106
- Reaction score
- 583
i dont think there is any real answer to this question; regarding circumstance & coportation it all really depends on what the brand is willing to do to defend & support the vision of the designer. coporations of large fashion houses & empire lines dictate, to a certain degree, to fit into what they value as profitable from season to season. even at great heights of success & grand opportunities are even greater limitations. your creativity becomes not only challenged but compromised & its a tough call- either you obey or run the risk of termination & becoming black listed. we all know that the designers named have an incredible amount of talent. its all a matter of finding the right fit. even karl lagerfeld has said, if coco were alive today she would hate what he has done with the house of chanel. which, in many cases, says a lot.
t-rex
everything sucks!
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,583
- Reaction score
- 25
Fashion house musical chairs
Why do fashion houses in the 2010s so quickly switch in and out their designers? (Or have they always been doing it this feverishly?)
Has the rise and widespread use of the internet and social media had an impact?
What indicates - if anything - that a designer will remain at the house more than a few years?
Was there a 'starting point'? It seems like the game of musical chairs really amped up after John Galliano left Dior.
Houses changing their designers certainly keeps the house in the news and on people's minds - admit, you look forward to seeing what the new designer will show! Is this one of the reasons why houses play musical chairs?
Why do fashion houses in the 2010s so quickly switch in and out their designers? (Or have they always been doing it this feverishly?)
Has the rise and widespread use of the internet and social media had an impact?
What indicates - if anything - that a designer will remain at the house more than a few years?
Was there a 'starting point'? It seems like the game of musical chairs really amped up after John Galliano left Dior.
Houses changing their designers certainly keeps the house in the news and on people's minds - admit, you look forward to seeing what the new designer will show! Is this one of the reasons why houses play musical chairs?
Just a few major houses changing it up after a few seasons
Dior:
John Galliano (...-2011) - Bill Gaytten (2011-2012) - Raf Simons (2012-2015) - ... (2016-...)
YSL:
Stefano Pilati (...-2012) - Hedi Slimane (2012-2016) - Anthony Vaccarello (2016-...)
Balenciaga:
Nicolas Ghesquire (...-2012) - Alexander Wang (2013-2015) - Demna Gvasalia (2016-...)
Jil Sander:
Raf Simons (...-2012) - Jil Sander (2012-2014) - Rodolfo Paglalungia (2014-...)
Quite at an alarming rate and, except at Jil Sander maybe, I feel like the customers of these brands feel rather "betrayed" cause these new designers have also brought different aesthetics with them.
Customers come and go but in the end every brand has it's loyal customers but by changing the direction of the brand so suddenly and so soon after each other you'll eventually loose this core group and you'll rely solely on bags and perfumes.
Dior:
John Galliano (...-2011) - Bill Gaytten (2011-2012) - Raf Simons (2012-2015) - ... (2016-...)
YSL:
Stefano Pilati (...-2012) - Hedi Slimane (2012-2016) - Anthony Vaccarello (2016-...)
Balenciaga:
Nicolas Ghesquire (...-2012) - Alexander Wang (2013-2015) - Demna Gvasalia (2016-...)
Jil Sander:
Raf Simons (...-2012) - Jil Sander (2012-2014) - Rodolfo Paglalungia (2014-...)
Quite at an alarming rate and, except at Jil Sander maybe, I feel like the customers of these brands feel rather "betrayed" cause these new designers have also brought different aesthetics with them.
Customers come and go but in the end every brand has it's loyal customers but by changing the direction of the brand so suddenly and so soon after each other you'll eventually loose this core group and you'll rely solely on bags and perfumes.
perhydrol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2014
- Messages
- 1,639
- Reaction score
- 2,390
To me it all started with Ungaro- they fired Valli, Dundas, Cortazar and hired Lindsay Lohan in like 4 of 5 years. The revival of Paco Rabanne was a fail at first, too. They hired Arora and Maurer and they both stayed there for one year.
Is it good? Of course not because it means really big changes, with brands losing their identity and confused customers. In my opinion it's the sign of our times, nowadays everything expires really quickly and the CEOs can't give a second chance to designers because every bad collection (in terms of business) means financial loss. And money is the most important thing, not only for the fashion industry.
The whole musical chairs thing makes some brands irrelevant. Just look at Ungaro- they won't recover after that mistake. Even the mega-brand-zillas can't feel safe, because they can easily turn into Dior. And we all know that the house of Dior won't recover, too. But it's not Galliano's or Simons's fault, it's the commercialization that kills everything (and everyone) there.
Is it good? Of course not because it means really big changes, with brands losing their identity and confused customers. In my opinion it's the sign of our times, nowadays everything expires really quickly and the CEOs can't give a second chance to designers because every bad collection (in terms of business) means financial loss. And money is the most important thing, not only for the fashion industry.
The whole musical chairs thing makes some brands irrelevant. Just look at Ungaro- they won't recover after that mistake. Even the mega-brand-zillas can't feel safe, because they can easily turn into Dior. And we all know that the house of Dior won't recover, too. But it's not Galliano's or Simons's fault, it's the commercialization that kills everything (and everyone) there.
