Hedi Slimane - Designer

[Nimsay]

Imagine calling Hedi Slimane’s technically flawless compositions mediocre.

Ive said on here before Dior Homme has nothing to do with SLP and nothing to do with Celine. The philosophy informing them are wholly different… Celine was supple while DH was hard edge.

Im not even trying to be rude but you understand DH jeans revolutionized cut and fit of denim right? Like all the ease was pushed into the DH darts on the back of the shirts and pants. That is a feat of minimalism and shows Hedis mastery in craft.

At SLP he wasnt trying to put all the ease into two minimal darts. Fundamentally different.

At Celine he was using more darts than hes ever used all across the body.

Anyhoo that means haute couture influence

 

[Nimsay]

Before Hedi Slimane, designer jeans were mostly solid-colored with poor fits, like Versace’s 2026 style. Washed or whiskered jeans didn’t exist unless you wore the same pair for five years straight. Slimane changed all that.

Even Galliano’s denim fantasies were solid raw denim because nobody had washed denim until Hedi…

 

[fruitdots]

Imagine calling Hedi Slimane’s technically flawless compositions mediocre.

Ive said on here before Dior Homme has nothing to do with SLP and nothing to do with Celine. The philosophy informing them are wholly different… Celine was supple while DH was hard edge.

Im not even trying to be rude but you understand DH jeans revolutionized cut and fit of denim right? Like all the ease was pushed into the DH darts on the back of the shirts and pants. That is a feat of minimalism and shows Hedis mastery in craft.

That was in reference to his curation. But yes, he is not taken seriously in the art world by anyone other than collectors with more money than intelligence & the gallerists who prey upon them. Klaus Biesenbach, his main booster, is a thirsty clown who cares more about celebrity than serious art. It's not as if Helen Molesworth or Leah Dickerman (two serious, genuinely respected curators/scholars) is going to put together some sort of Slimane retrospective. It's not enough to have "flawless compositions" (whatever that means—that's not how photography works, at least fine art photography); his whole "art" career has been as a commercial novelty.

Beyond that there are some very clear threads running from DH to his SLP and his Céline—perhaps most notably his complete flat-footedness when it comes to colour or any pattern that isn't animal print. I don't buy at all this idea that these ventures weren't related. Everything comes back to a boring fetishism of youth and youth culture, whether the angle is "supple" or "hard edge."

And I also don't buy the supposed "revolutionary" impact of his denim; a few darts does not a master make. You can find similar jeans well before that point in time, and everything he was doing with raw denim is preceded by innovations in Japan. The great accomplishment of his Dior Homme was, to be frank, his synthesis of music and fashion—the way he made bands full of emaciated twinks feel like the second coming of rock and roll. But that was clever marketing and social placement more than it was design. Take a look at the Met Costume institute—they own 3 pieces designed by Slimane, and *53* by Nicholas Ghesquiere, because the former's contribution is, as posterity has come to reveal, more or less negligible.

 

[tricotineacetat]

That was in reference to his curation. But yes, he is not taken seriously in the art world by anyone other than collectors with more money than intelligence & the gallerists who prey upon them. Klaus Biesenbach, his main booster, is a thirsty clown who cares more about celebrity than serious art. It's not as if Helen Molesworth or Leah Dickerman (two serious, genuinely respected curators/scholars) is going to put together some sort of Slimane retrospective. It's not enough to have "flawless compositions" (whatever that means—that's not how photography works, at least fine art photography); his whole "art" career has been as a commercial novelty.

Beyond that there are some very clear threads running from DH to his SLP and his Céline—perhaps most notably his complete flat-footedness when it comes to colour or any pattern that isn't animal print. I don't buy at all this idea that these ventures weren't related. Everything comes back to a boring fetishism of youth and youth culture, whether the angle is "supple" or "hard edge."

And I also don't buy the supposed "revolutionary" impact of his denim; a few darts does not a master make. You can find similar jeans well before that point in time, and everything he was doing with raw denim is preceded by innovations in Japan. The great accomplishment of his Dior Homme was, to be frank, his synthesis of music and fashion—the way he made bands full of emaciated twinks feel like the second coming of rock and roll. But that was clever marketing and social placement more than it was design. Take a look at the Met Costume institute—they own 3 pieces designed by Slimane, and *53* by Nicholas Ghesquiere, because the former's contribution is, as posterity has come to reveal, more or less negligible.

Perhaps you should also question Helmut Lang's, Calvin Klein's, Jil Sander's and Raf Simons' contribution to fashion history as well while you're at it, since their fashion revolved around similarly 'banal' pieces of clothing… 🫠

 

[fruitdots]

Perhaps you should also question Helmut Lang's, Calvin Klein's, Jil Sander's and Raf Simons' contribution to fashion history as well while you're at it, since their fashion revolved around similarly 'banal' pieces of clothing… 🫠

When I say banal, I don't mean minimal—I mean derivative. Hedi just picks an era and a place and mines whatever youth were wearing (what was it last—twinks in an English country garden? twinks on the Venice Beach Boardwalk? 1950s rock and roll twinks?) The designers you mention, with the exception of Raf and adding Issey Miyake, were revolutionary because they took garments down to their barest, most formal properties. This was genius because it was resolutely anti-historicist, anti-ornamental, anti-narrative, etc. Nothing of Hedi's has ever veered that far from a sort of illustrative or referential mode—there's always an existing historical equivalent and he's tweaked it to fit his preferred proportions/silhouette.

 

[alwaysademo]

Some twisted rhetorics in this thread and find themselves greatly comforted by their beta cohort. Good, those who can't think for themselves always need a consensus.
It's not hard to see though that skinny people with big energy often gravitate towards Hedi Slimane.
I'd stand by his down phase in hope of a new chapter in the near future. At least he's not giving in to this PC culture we're in.

 

[mepps]

That was in reference to his curation. But yes, he is not taken seriously in the art world by anyone other than collectors with more money than intelligence & the gallerists who prey upon them. Klaus Biesenbach, his main booster, is a thirsty clown who cares more about celebrity than serious art. It's not as if Helen Molesworth or Leah Dickerman (two serious, genuinely respected curators/scholars) is going to put together some sort of Slimane retrospective. It's not enough to have "flawless compositions" (whatever that means—that's not how photography works, at least fine art photography); his whole "art" career has been as a commercial novelty.

Beyond that there are some very clear threads running from DH to his SLP and his Céline—perhaps most notably his complete flat-footedness when it comes to colour or any pattern that isn't animal print. I don't buy at all this idea that these ventures weren't related. Everything comes back to a boring fetishism of youth and youth culture, whether the angle is "supple" or "hard edge."

And I also don't buy the supposed "revolutionary" impact of his denim; a few darts does not a master make. You can find similar jeans well before that point in time, and everything he was doing with raw denim is preceded by innovations in Japan. The great accomplishment of his Dior Homme was, to be frank, his synthesis of music and fashion—the way he made bands full of emaciated twinks feel like the second coming of rock and roll. But that was clever marketing and social placement more than it was design. Take a look at the Met Costume institute—they own 3 pieces designed by Slimane, and *53* by Nicholas Ghesquiere, because the former's contribution is, as posterity has come to reveal, more or less negligible.

All of this. 💯
I really can't stand that man, or his equally insufferable followers.

 

[alwaysademo]

^All of what? You like Luigi & Iango for god's sake. You have nothing to do with the art world to understand that post, much less agree or disagree.
Hate us all you want.

 

[fruitdots]

^All of what? You like Luigi & Iango for god's sake. You have nothing to do with the art world to understand that post, much less agree or disagree.
Hate us all you want.

Why so irate? This isn't personal; we're discussing fashion.

 

[alwaysademo]

Sorry if I come across as such.
Fashion is a personal matter and I count myself as one of "his insufferable followers" hence the reply. For all I know, my visual literacy has been greatly enhanced by his photographic outputs, I look especially good in my Hedi's (regardless of who he happened to design for) and I find many opinions here uncalled for.
I respect everyone's opinions though. and yours. I just don't agree with it.

 

[tricotineacetat]

When I say banal, I don't mean minimal—I mean derivative. Hedi just picks an era and a place and mines whatever youth were wearing (what was it last—twinks in an English country garden? twinks on the Venice Beach Boardwalk? 1950s rock and roll twinks?) The designers you mention, with the exception of Raf and adding Issey Miyake, were revolutionary because they took garments down to their barest, most formal properties. This was genius because it was resolutely anti-historicist, anti-ornamental, anti-narrative, etc. Nothing of Hedi's has ever veered that far from a sort of illustrative or referential mode—there's always an existing historical equivalent and he's tweaked it to fit his preferred proportions/silhouette.

I don’t think there is any more design involved in adorning a perfectly classical peacoat with a rubberized horizontal stripe (Helmut Lang) than it is to design a contemporary riff on a tailcoat (Hedi Slimane) - There are many more parallels between the work of Lang and Slimane, particularly how their work touched upon architecture, art direction, music and art curation - In a way that was more thoroughly involved than when any other designer would consult with Michel Gaubert, Studio Betac or M/M.

Both of them have greatly contributed to modern men’s fashion, just as much as the oversized bomber jackets and cut-off hooded sweatshirts by Raf Simons have.

 

[tourbillions]

people are so passionate about this guy over nothing. he like everyone else who improved sales the past few years had success in Celine due to all the logo t-shirts. Even his chanel dupe bags looked more coach than anything.

In my eyes no matter how well made his rtw was, it did not push anything. It was always just him cosplaying/applying for the Chanel job doing what he thinks Chanel should be. Let's not even talk about his celine couture.

 

[tricotineacetat]

people are so passionate about this guy over nothing. he like everyone else who improved sales the past few years had success in Celine due to all the logo t-shirts. Even his chanel dupe bags looked more coach than anything.

In my eyes no matter how well made his rtw was, it did not push anything. It was always just him cosplaying/applying for the Chanel job doing what he thinks Chanel should be. Let's not even talk about his celine couture.

And yet people are praising Ralph Lauren for the old-school glamour of his fashion on this very forum, or praising the tailoring of MaxMara’s classical outerwear.

I thoroughly disagree that fashion design can only be considered as such when it pushes the novelty factor, especially at a time when no designer in the nearest past has really re-invented the wheel; the last thing that last pushed such a conversation was deconstruction in the 80s/90s…

 

[Creative]

^Absolutely!

There’s nothing new anywhere. People saying MB is a breath of fresh air… and he is literally doing what Phoebe did 7 years ago.

Hedi is more unique. MB is Phoebe Philo 2.0 but less chic and less original and less sophisticated.

Hedi is indeed, like you all said, like Ralph Lauren, Armani… he has his style. He is repetitive but he’s a legend with an incredible personal world and that’s super valuable.

Hedi we love you 🥰

 

[fruitdots]

And yet people are praising Ralph Lauren for the old-school glamour of his fashion on this very forum, or praising the tailoring of MaxMara’s classical outerwear.

I thoroughly disagree that fashion design can only be considered as such when it pushes the novelty factor, especially at a time when no designer in the nearest past has really re-invented the wheel; the last thing that last pushed such a conversation was deconstruction in the 80s/90s…

I don't think it has to be about novelty, especially novelty as progression, so much as strength & seriousness of proposition. My opinions of McQueen and Galliano as high as they are of the minimalists, even though they were coming from the opposite direction. That's because they take everything that is excised in minimalism—again, something like historicism, narrative, ornament, perhaps fantasy—and push it to the other limit. History is everywhere in their work, but there's an estrangement effect because neither is as literal as Hedi; the source material is refigured in relation to the present, and in a way that isn't as simple as adding a few darts. And there's also such a complex play between ornament and structure in the work too, insofar as ornament often seems to become structure rather than mere embellishment (and to be a wanker, this is the sort of relation Derrida is talking about when he's talking about the supplement or the parergon). I think it's also why Galliano's work is at times overtaken or dominated by ornament, or why McQueen fixated on bodily constraint and silhouettes that appeared exoskeletal. They were thinking very seriously about the extent to which clothing can restrain or extend bodies, and how this took different forms across history (or in relation to the non-human world). So if we compare a McQueen collection to one of Hedi's, we're comparing something like an aquatic asylum (Voss, in 2000) with what, twinks in bands? It's just night and day.

The best I can say about Hedi is that he made very high quality, desirable clothes. That's great, but I don't think it's interesting or worthy of much acclaim.

 

[Creative]

I don't think it has to be about novelty—especially novelty as progression—so much as strength & seriousness of proposition. My opinions of McQueen and Galliano as high as they are of the minimalists, even though they were coming from the opposite direction. That's because they take everything that is excised in minimalism—again, something like historicism, narrative, ornament, perhaps fantasy—and push it to the other limit. History is everywhere in their work, but there's an estrangement effect because neither is as literal as Hedi; the source material is refigured in relation to the present, and in a way that isn't as simple as adding a few darts. And there's also such a complex play between ornament and structure in the work too, insofar as ornament often seems to become structure rather than mere embellishment (and to be a wanker, this is the sort of relation Derrida is talking about when he's talking about the supplement or the parergon). I think it's also why Galliano's work is at times overtaken or dominated by ornament, or why McQueen fixated on bodily constraint and silhouettes that appeared as exoskeletal. They were thinking very seriously about the extent to which clothing can restrain or extend bodies, and how this took different forms across history (or in relation to the non-human world). So if we compare a McQueen collection to one of Hedi's, we're comparing something like an aquatic asylum (Voss, in 2000) with what, twinks in bands? It's just night and day.

The best I can say about Hedi is that he made very high quality, desirable clothes. That's great, but I don't think it's interesting or worthy of much acclaim.

He has been the most relevant male designer in the XXI century. I’d even say his influence has been even wider than Armani’s.

He literally dictated the men’s wardrobe for nearly 14 years. Only Phoebe has been that relevant in the XXI century.

If that’s not acclaim worthy… to shape the easthetics of a generation I don’t know what is lol

 

[fruitdots]

He has been the most relevant male designer in the XXI century. I’d even say his influence has been even wider than Armani’s.

He literally dictated the men’s wardrobe for nearly 14 years. Only Phoebe has been that relevant in the XXI century.

If that’s not acclaim worthy… to shape the easthetics of a generation I don’t know what is lol

You're making a decade of skinny jeans seem like a historical accomplishment. Should we anoint Demna now because he reversed the trend and got everyone to dress like a homeless teenager?

 

[NoInvite]

Without a collection for about a year, he manages to come up on TFS every few weeks.
Now that's relevancy!

 

[Kanzai]

And yet people are praising Ralph Lauren for the old-school glamour of his fashion on this very forum, or praising the tailoring of MaxMara’s classical outerwear.

I don’t think tFS members praise them, their clothes r just inoffensive so they’re safe from the critiques. Hedi is just influential as f*ck and nobody denies that fact.

 

[Creative]

You're making a decade of skinny jeans seem like a historical accomplishment. Should we anoint Demna now because he reversed the trend and got everyone to dress like a homeless teenager?

Yes, of course. Being that influential is a big acomplishment. But I don’t think Demna’s been so widely influential, he has been way more niche.