Hedi Slimane - Designer

[Spike413]

Exactly, although I wouldn't be too sure that what Pierre Berge said went unheard. He was usually more of the mouthpiece, anyway, speaking for Yves. Berge didn't exactly have nice things to say when Pilati left, either. And all of this goes back to the fact that Yves's presence has and still does weigh very heavily on the house. Almost anybody who's ever experienced true success at an established house -- meaning their work is critically acclaimed, commercially successful and editorially prominent -- has largely had the freedom to do what they feel is right, regardless of what the originator would have done or thought about it. Karl takes Chanelisms and usually uses them pretty humorously, rather than reverently. The only trace of Gucci that Tom Ford kept was the horse bit, and turned the brand into a goldmine. John Galliano and Hedi Slimane both upended the Dior image and made the company relevant as a result. Cristophe Decarnin's clothes couldn't have possibly been farther from the Balmain image. Even Raf Simons' work didn't reach critical mass until he went in a completely different direction from what Jil Sander was all about. But because YSL is so protected and treated as such a sacred institution, nobody's been given the opportunity to do that, and I think it does need to be done in order for anyone to make the house their own while they're "in residence".

By changing the wording you separate the brand from the man, the present from the past, and that's the only way to really establish a "post-Yves" Saint Laurent.

 

[Zimdor]

Besides, the name of a house and it's legacy ultimately have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. You could call it absolutely nothing and the legacy wouldn't change as a result.

Well, guess that depends on what you define as "legacy".

Certainly, if you define it solely on what the original designer (and his/her successors) creates in fashion and nothing else, the house name has no bearing. If on the other hand you consider image as part of the legacy, the house's name/logo is a part of that.

As I mentioned, about the only consistency through never-ending fashion changes is a house's name. Regardless of how else they have changed them, the one thing the multitude of designers and/or owners of very top houses have never (or very rarely) done is change the names of those top houses to something new or little known. Whether for one line only or all of them.

Regarding YSL successors and the external pressures they faced, its up to them to let it affect them or not. No external pressure such as what faced immediate successors at YSL should have affected the work of a paid professional. There is no evidence that it negatively affected the work of Tom Ford there (as one example). So I don't buy that a house name change is needed and/or a good idea for Slimane to establish his own identity at the house. How you create a post-original-designer identity at top houses is how its normally always done: bring your own talent & skill to the designs you create for them. And/or the house's shops. And/or advertising. And/or accessories. And so on.

The name change smacks of disrespect here. If, of course, you consider the name part of the legacy. If it doesn't for you, cool. We'll respectfully disagree.

 

[Izreal]

..again how is it disrespectful to the legacy when the name change is the original name and vision of it's creator ? anyways all that was dropped is the first name, not that big of a sacrilege as you make it to be, also the public (at least here in France) always refer to labels by their last names anyways: (Christian) Dior, (Coco) Chanel, (Jeanne) Lanvin, (Pierre) Balmain.. and that includes (Yves) Saint Laurent, despite the full name being printed. Although it's obvious many YSL fanatics are upset, I think Hedi stroke a great balance in between marking a new era yet upholding the legacy. The name change is a lot more subtle then when he switched "Christian Dior Monsieur" to "Dior Homme" although there is a similarity in the process, going to the essential.. here is what Hedi had to say about the issue in vogue paris:

"(…) the Rive Gauche label in the past has disappeared, and reappeared many times. it seems intrinsic to the universe of Yves Saint Laurent, not that it is necessary to refer to it literally today. So we went to the essential, a name that is written as what we call it daily: Saint Laurent, unequivocally."

 

[Chanelcouture09]

I think regardless of what Slimane does with the brand I doubt Pierre will be happy for very long, I remember Yves was very content with PPR purchasing YSL until they started to make a success of the brand after its successor and then to try and shall we say 'get one up' on them he declared to Bernard Arnault that he wished that LVMH had of indeed purchased the brand after all, they both spat their dummies out at the success of YSL after its founder under the control of PPR, I don't think any opinion is derived for its creative director but merely the puppet master behind the scenes.

I see what Hedi is trying to achieve with the logo change but it's a very risky one at that, everyone knows it as 'YSL' or 'Yves Saint Laurent', does anyone know if this will be impacting on the cosmetics also ? I see that he's trying to achieve the same appeal and success as to what he did at Dior (Hommes), I think what he intends to do over time is to call the RTW 'Saint Laurent' and reserve 'Yves Saint Laurent' for couture, to perhaps give it an edge of exclusivity or as if it's the premium of the two ?

I also wonder if he'll do a complete overhaul of the YSL product line ? such as it's successful collection of bags and shoes ?

 

[Izreal]

At this point Hedi will only be taking over RTW, which i'm pretty sure includes footwear & bags (not sure about eyewear). He'll also be in charge of the advertising campaigns (photography obviously), but he won't meddle with the cosmetics line although he does mention in Vogue Paris that l'Oreal kindly briefs him on all their developments for the brand… back to the logo, i think those obsessing over the name change are those purchasing the clothing for the wrong reasons, ultimately the collection will speak for itself..

 

[Spike413]

Well, guess that depends on what you define as "legacy".

Certainly, if you define it solely on what the original designer (and his/her successors) creates in fashion and nothing else, the house name has no bearing. If on the other hand you consider image as part of the legacy, the house's name/logo is a part of that.

As I mentioned, about the only consistency through never-ending fashion changes is a house's name. Regardless of how else they have changed them, the one thing the multitude of designers and/or owners of very top houses have never (or very rarely) done is change the names of those top houses to something new or little known. Whether for one line only or all of them.

Regarding YSL successors and the external pressures they faced, its up to them to let it affect them or not. No external pressure such as what faced immediate successors at YSL should have affected the work of a paid professional. There is no evidence that it negatively affected the work of Tom Ford there (as one example). So I don't buy that a house name change is needed and/or a good idea for Slimane to establish his own identity at the house. How you create a post-original-designer identity at top houses is how its normally always done: bring your own talent & skill to the designs you create for them. And/or the house's shops. And/or advertising. And/or accessories. And so on.

The name change smacks of disrespect here. If, of course, you consider the name part of the legacy. If it doesn't for you, cool. We'll respectfully disagree.

Logo, perhaps. Name, not so much. The legacy or image or whatever you choose to call it does not, in my eyes at least, have anything at all to do with the house's overall image whatsoever. An image is something that's ultimately intangible, and certainly not something that can be summed up as simply as name + clothes + branding = image.

And of course it's easy to say that external pressure and the expectation that you do something in keeping with what a living designer, or simply the public, want from you is something that should simply be ignored when you're not the one facing that kind of scrutiny. Like I pointed out, Saint Laurent is, more than any other house I'd say, closely guarded by people (you're a prime example of that, not that I'm saying that's a bad thing) so the attempt Slimane is making to mark his own territory is probably smart on his part. It's a statement that says "This is still Saint Laurent, but it's my Saint Laurent" and that's kind of the whole point of a new designer taking over an established house, isn't it?

Besides, as others have pointed out, where is the disrespect in re-branding a house using a name that was previously used by the originator? Nobody blinked when Pilati and Gucci group dropped the Rive Gauche from the RTW and accessory labels, so why is this such a slap in the face?

 

[Zimdor]

Guess you can't respectfully disagree . Its getting into "I'll take quibbling over semantics for $100, Alex" .

Besides, as others have pointed out, where is the disrespect in re-branding a house using a name that was previously used by the originator? Nobody blinked when Pilati and Gucci group dropped the Rive Gauche from the RTW and accessory labels, so why is this such a slap in the face?

As others have pointed out, the issue is removing the world-famous, truly iconic name + logo from ready to wear (& potentially other lines in the future) and replacing it with something the designer "may have used", but is virtually unknown. Along with using that ultra-common logo font. Name + logo are integral, you can't have one without the other, of course.

The second point is...pointless. Rive gauche (ready to wear, pret-a-porter) has nothing specific to do with any house, its a general term used by many for RTW. There would have been more of a justification if the Gucci group (or Pilati or Ford) changed the actual house name into something else, which they didn't.

And of course it's easy to say that external pressure and the expectation that you do something in keeping with what a living designer, or simply the public, want from you is something that should simply be ignored when you're not the one facing that kind of scrutiny.

Of course, its easy to dismiss criticism of a move like this when you both agree with the move and you are not the one involved with it .

There is no living designer providing feedback about changes to his house in this case anymore. Only Pierre. As mentioned, the dual-pronged external pressure when Ford was there didn't seem to affect his designs there. His designs were often such a departure from what YSL himself did that they were often controversial, especially the "Gucci-sexy" ones. One could say that was a clear establishment of Ford's "this is my YSL", no?

But live interviews from then (that I saw on Fashion Television) showed him referring to the respect he had for the house and its legacy, as well as the research he often did on its prior designs. He also expressed regret that YSL & himself did not get on well personally. He did not change the house name. Pilati had a somewhat more traditional approach in his designs. He didn't change the house name either.

It's a statement that says "This is still Saint Laurent, but it's my Saint Laurent" and that's kind of the whole point of a new designer taking over an established house, isn't it?

No actually, the whole point of a new designer taking over an established house is so the house can continue to survive and/or flourish .

In regards to changing from a truly iconic name & logo to something a new designer personally wants, it seem to me & several others more of a statement of disrespect (& ego). You make a house "your own" through your designs, advertising, etc., as previously mentioned.

We could go back and forth forever with you trying to justify why this name + logo change is the greatest thing since sliced bread and me trying to justify why its more like moldy bread, but nothing will change . I just hope Slimane's first public womenswear shows (ever) this fall & continuing later for Slop...er, "SLP"...are so ultra fabulous that it minimizes the mold.

 

[savvysearch]

Does anyone remember YSL before Tom Ford? When they were wh*ring their license to more retailers than Geoffrey Beene? The reputation was destroyed. Ford bought it back from the brink but only recently. We're not talking about something like Louis Vuitton whose reputation has remained untainted throughout the times. I just don't see the big deal with a Slimane's changes at a brand that just 12 years ago, no one would have been caught dead wearing.

 

[Izreal]

The second point is...pointless. Rive gauche (ready to wear, pret-a-porter) has nothing specific to do with any house, its a general term used by many for RTW.

FYI, "Rive Gauche" means "Left Bank". Paris is commonly divided in two, the right bank and the left bank. It has indeed nothing to do with fashion, it merely points out a location. This misknown fact outside France legitimates even further Hedi's switching the YSL "rive gauche" to "paris" imo..

 

[Izreal]

As others have pointed out, the issue is removing the world-famous, truly iconic name + logo from ready to wear (& potentially other lines in the future) and replacing it with something the designer "may have used", but is virtually unknown.

That is the whole point. reintroducing to the public what YSL was originally about, and not necessarily what it has now become. What better way to re-boot a line then going back to it's creators original design? Because the "Saint Laurent rive gauche" moniker is no mere detail or fantasy, it was the name given to the RTW line by Yves in 1966 and it lasted until about 1989, a major era of the brands history and arguably Yves best years. Finally, the "iconic" YSL logo by Cassandre will not completely disappear (Hedi has confirmed) and will for sure make it's way onto garments & accessories, logo heads be reassured & hopefully putting the moaning over this issue to a rest

Betty, YSL & Loulou 1969 (source: www.fondation-pb-ysl.net)

original store design at YSL expo in Paris 2011 (source uk.privateoutlet-blog.com)

2012 RTW box design (source: vogue paris)

 

[GERGIN]

I don't know how many times I roll my eyes looking at this thread. I mean honestly, it's not like he called it "Hedi Saint Laurent". He may or may not have wanted to spark controversy but for the people who seem to think they understand what the house of Saint Laurent is seem to be making a big deal over nothing. I compare some of the comments on here to the comments of friends I have on facebook who's favorite designers are LV, Chanel, Gucci & Prada and they only know the names of the houses and not even the designer. And then they post up a rude message saying how they dissaprove the name change. Apparently this is a decade where nothing in fashion can't seem to be accepted for it's simple changes, Hedi isn't trying to rebel on us. Hedi, like Raf, is cleaning up the house of Saint Laurent, rebirthing the brand. I know this is what Mr. Laurent would approve of if he were still around.

 

[disco54]

As long as they keep the YSL logo on merchandise thats fine by me. I don't mind the Saint Laurent label, in the early mid 70s, when I use to go to their boutiques, they used this lettering. IF Hedi can channel those looks into something very modern it would be wonderful.
If it is just a rehash of skinny boy suits and pants all in black but for ladies, I will be very dissappointed.

 

[karina_zb]

Just my two cents

Does anyone remember YSL before Tom Ford? When they were wh*ring their license to more retailers than Geoffrey Beene? The reputation was destroyed. Ford bought it back from the brink but only recently. We're not talking about something like Louis Vuitton whose reputation has remained untainted throughout the times. I just don't see the big deal with a Slimane's changes at a brand that just 12 years ago, no one would have been caught dead wearing.

I think it's odd for you to say that LV's reputation has remained untainted thoughout the times especially since many people highly dislike marc jacob's work for vuitton, most of the time myself included. Also, it's completely irrelevant to argue that people shouldn't make a big deal out of Slimane changing a brand that they loved under Pilati's direction just because 12 years ago when Pilati WASN'T IN CHARGE, they didn't particularly care for it.

Also, all the Stefano fangirls keep going on and on questioning if Hedi Slimane is the right one to take the job, and talk about the house as if they had a huge respect and love for Saint Laurent when Yves himself sometimes disapproved of the things Pilati did as director.

That said, I think it is so silly to get your panties up in a bunch over a name change. The fact is , you can't really hate on Slimane and what he's doing at YSL until you see his collection. He might change it for better or for worse but up to right now all he's done is spark lame arguments over changing the name of a RTW collection when in reality we should all be excited to see what he DOES with that RTW collection. I for one am rooting for Hedi and can't wait to see how he does womenswear!

 

[lemeray]

Everyone is still talking about the logo?! I can't wait till the collection comes out so everyone can get over it...

 

[LostInNJ]

^^ Then the conversation can shift to how un-YSL the clothes are

 

[Spike413]

Guess you can't respectfully disagree . Its getting into "I'll take quibbling over semantics for $100, Alex" .



As others have pointed out, the issue is removing the world-famous, truly iconic name + logo from ready to wear (& potentially other lines in the future) and replacing it with something the designer "may have used", but is virtually unknown. Along with using that ultra-common logo font. Name + logo are integral, you can't have one without the other, of course.

The second point is...pointless. Rive gauche (ready to wear, pret-a-porter) has nothing specific to do with any house, its a general term used by many for RTW. There would have been more of a justification if the Gucci group (or Pilati or Ford) changed the actual house name into something else, which they didn't.



Of course, its easy to dismiss criticism of a move like this when you both agree with the move and you are not the one involved with it .

There is no living designer providing feedback about changes to his house in this case anymore. Only Pierre. As mentioned, the dual-pronged external pressure when Ford was there didn't seem to affect his designs there. His designs were often such a departure from what YSL himself did that they were often controversial, especially the "Gucci-sexy" ones. One could say that was a clear establishment of Ford's "this is my YSL", no?

But live interviews from then (that I saw on Fashion Television) showed him referring to the respect he had for the house and its legacy, as well as the research he often did on its prior designs. He also expressed regret that YSL & himself did not get on well personally. He did not change the house name. Pilati had a somewhat more traditional approach in his designs. He didn't change the house name either.



No actually, the whole point of a new designer taking over an established house is so the house can continue to survive and/or flourish .

In regards to changing from a truly iconic name & logo to something a new designer personally wants, it seem to me & several others more of a statement of disrespect (& ego). You make a house "your own" through your designs, advertising, etc., as previously mentioned.

We could go back and forth forever with you trying to justify why this name + logo change is the greatest thing since sliced bread and me trying to justify why its more like moldy bread, but nothing will change . I just hope Slimane's first public womenswear shows (ever) this fall & continuing later for Slop...er, "SLP"...are so ultra fabulous that it minimizes the mold.

So nice of you to write off my opinion as mere quibbling. I always appreciate having my opinion devalued by someone who simply doesn't agree with me. And FYI, respectfully disagreeing doesn't mean that I stop trying to make my point understood. I'm certainly not telling you your opinions are wrong or meaningless.

And as Izreal so kindly pointed out, the phrase Rive Gauche has nothing to do with fashion terminology, and does not mean RTW. It was a name that Saint Laurent used to brand his RTW, as a way of signifying that stylistically it had more in common with the more artistic, liberal and edgy "Left Bank" of Paris as opposed to the stuffy, traditional and "couture-y" Right. You may feel very passionately about the YSL name, but it seems you might need to re-familiarize yourself with it's history before you go around using words like pointless.

 

[GERGIN]

I don't know if he was a model back then but this is him from a 1990 issue of Details Magazine, HOW CUTE IS THAT FACE?!?!

style.com

 

[savvysearch]

I think it's odd for you to say that LV's reputation has remained untainted thoughout the times especially since many people highly dislike marc jacob's work for vuitton, most of the time myself included. Also, it's completely irrelevant to argue that people shouldn't make a big deal out of Slimane changing a brand that they loved under Pilati's direction just because 12 years ago when Pilati WASN'T IN CHARGE, they didn't particularly care for it.

What's odd about it? Even if people hated Marc Jacob's work for Louis Vuitton, they weren't selling it at TJ Maxx or Ross at 5 for $20 dollars, which is more than I can say for how YSL was run.

It's okay to defend Pilati's direction, it's another to argue that Slimane is ruining YSL's heritage. You can argue he's ruining Pilati's groundwork at YSL , but let's not make out the heritage of the overall brand as a one without a history of deep flaws, which is what most of the critics are arguing with no memory of it's recent history.

 

[Egoiste]

i won't be surprised if he ad to ysl "h", "a" and out "y". So we get HSLA - Hedi Slimane Los Angeles !

 

[Spike413]

^ Don't you think that, given how much of a critical and commercial darling he's always been and how badly people have wanted him to return to design, that if he wanted to put his own name on a house he would've just done that?