Fashion's Historic Shake-up

[Monsieur Cristobal]

It's been already days since the fashion month finished, and I wanted to ask you what is your feeling about it (all these debuts were presented as a "historic shake-up" by The NY Times).

Do you think this is a new beginning for a businness that has been losing steam in the last years?

Were you excited about the creativity displayed?

Do you think that all was a big make-up operation on the surface, and that "everything must change, so that everything can stay the same" like Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa wrote?

Do you think it is too early to make a judgement?

Have a lovely day you all !

 

[MulletProof]

Can we see the article?

I missed the ‘historic shake-up’ lol, all I saw were the suits updating their roster. And I’m indifferent about it.

 

[Avonlea]

I don't think this season was a "historic shake-up", not even close to that. There's a lot of talk from the press and industry people, but the collections speak for themselves. Neither Blazy nor Anderson showed something truly spectacular or particularly creative that would be a sign of deeper changes. It's still the usual approach, spending millions on presentations and inviting everyone and their mother just to show something people will forget in a few days.

Things will eventually need to change, but I doubt it will be a change for the better. At this point it's more than reasonable to be pessimistic.

 

[GivenchyHomme]

Most or all of them will be out after their contracts expire in 3 years. These people aren't shaking the earth; it's just another shallow game of designer musical chairs, which has already become the norm.

 

[Norden]

I think for the amount of changes we’ve seen in leadership and creative direction, the results have been lackluster. Many of these newly appointed creative directors are doing very similar work to their previous houses, resulting in an even soupier fashion month.
I find jw Anderson quite interesting at Dior, and out of all debuts his showed an interesting blueprint and spirit for the house.
What perhaps is the most unsettling is the lack of new talent influx. New names are often number 2s with their extensive knowledge in translating visionary ideas into merchandise. And this now has become the status quo.

I don’t think this historic shake up will create the numbers the c suite is looking after. Spending is down and consumers aren’t stupid anymore and feel fooled by prices. Also the lack of novelty and adopting a new look is a bit passe it seems, which is bad news for fashion. The only designer who made me feel like I should get some new things was Haider at tom.

I think it’s time for smaller brands to step up again and lead the fashion conversation. It’s glaringly obvious these big houses have lost the plot.

 

[Creative]

Calling a historic shake up to what happened last weeks is just pure click bait and let me say, a pure lie.

It was a season with many debuts. That’s it. They are all still doing Phoebe Philo (Loewe, BV, Chanel) so there’s no shake up anywhere. Just people that had a job and got a new one, and are still doing the same thing they have been doing for 10 years already.

🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[Kennnnn]

I think it was historic in the very narrow sense that two of the most important fashion houses (Dior and Chanel) replaced their designers. (But of course, this has happened at both houses before, and within the last decade.) There was a lot of anticipation about what their respective visions would be. I think many people were hoping for something that would "change" fashion, or at least make everything that came before look outdated. I don't think that happened.

I can only think of 2 changes in my recent memory that maybe had that kind of impact on fashion. The first is Tom Ford's Gucci for fall 1995, and the second is Phoebe Philo's Celine for spring 2010. I think those two collections drew a very, very clear line in the sand, and set fashion on a totally different course.