Hedi Slimane : Life after Dior Homme

[BerlinRocks]

detail of Terence Koh's installation...

hedi slimane diary

 

[ilaughead]

Thanks for the interview!

 

[louis]

I love the way HEDI refers to MICHAEL JACKSON......

 

[BerlinRocks]

^He's actually referring to a Stanley Bradley piece about Michael Jackson...
Stanley Bradley is a New York based artist born in the 1970s (I think).

I think this will explain you better (than my bad english...)

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] Slater Bradley's Doppelganger Trilogy (2001–04) conjures up three pop icons from the collective unconscious of our mass-mediated culture. All fallen heroes—two by suicide and one by a protracted descent into disrepute—these figures are perceived through the distancing lens of desire and memory. Each of the three videos is fashioned as a recording of a faux concert performance, using a technique reminiscent of what would have been employed to capture the event when it purportedly took place.

Factory Archives imagines Ian Curtis, lead singer of the short-lived punk band Joy Division, through the grainy haze of aging video stock. As if retrieved from the vaults of Factory Records, this fragment depicts an elusive performer just before the dawn of MTV, when the choreographed music video would forever change how culture consumes its rock 'n' roll. Phantom Release rehearses this cultural phenomenon as well as the ubiquitousness of the personal camcorder, offering an ersatz, "amateur" recording of Kurt Cobain playing the guitar. Its studied casualness and raw ambience evoke the countless bootleg videos that can be downloaded from any number of Web sites devoted to all things Nirvana. In Recorded Yesterday Michael Jackson is seen performing his signature dance moves on an otherwise empty stage. The black-and-white, Super-8 film footage of this lone figure appears to be disintegrating as it plays, creating a ghostly, retro atmosphere that reflects the melancholic reality of a once brilliant career spiraling out of control. Each chapter of the trilogy appears worn and overexposed, as if distorted by age. The effect is one of a vaguely remembered image, a dream dimly recalled at the break of day.

Bradley's "restagings" of these imagined performances reference specific moments in his own life when he first encountered the work of Joy Division, Nirvana, and Michael Jackson, and through them, the seduction of abandonment, the lure of celebrity, and the erotics of fan worship. His trilogy—and its related photographs and collages—compellingly complicates the autobiographical element by the involvement of the artist's "doppelganger." Since 1999 Bradley has been collaborating with Benjamin Brock, his veritable double, in a series of works that explore the psychologically charged space between one's self and mirror image. In myth and literature, the doppelganger is an apparition that portends one's own death, but its form has mutated over time to include the notion of double identity. In the trilogy Brock performs as Bradley playing the roles of Curtis, Cobain, and Jackson. Transformed by costume and posture, and further masked by the deteriorating stock on which he is seen, the doppelganger is at once everyone and no one. What emerges is a triangulation of reflections, an endless hall of mirrors that leads nowhere but to the recesses of the unconscious mind.

—Nancy Spector, Curator of Contemporary Art[/FONT]

guggenheim.org

 

[louis]

Thank you Berlin, really a nice reading, still he loves Jackson, yay to Hedi for this,too.

 

[ilaughead]

More on the exhibit, from Artkrush

Ex-Dior designer Hedi Slimane's curatorial debut at Arndt & Partner, Sweet Bird of Youth features fashionable artists including Ryan McGinley, Dash Snow, and Matt Saunders, among others. Lust, insurrection, and glamour recur in black, white, neon, and mirrors, but the works' minimalist presentation communicates restraint. William Cordova's stacks of newspapers featuring photos of bound prisoners stand in the entry, and Slimane's glittering 17-meter carpet extends through the main space. The curator also contributed the exhibition's title piece, a simple black structure that supports the phrase "Sweet Bird of Youth" in white neon letters softly glowing across its length. Clippings of male sex symbols hang limply from the sign's electric cord, and innocence is long lost. (CR)

 

[JuiceMajor]

this will get me buying Wallpaper* again!!

 

[Dkammern]

bought a Dior bag yesterday, part of the FW07...

something to remember him by....

 

[nikousha]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NI_wQ1XRRZg

 

[birdofparadise]

His art installations rarely seem as poignant as the work he produced for Dior or Saint Laurent. It would be interesting to form a discussion about designers/artists which threatens to become as ubiquitous as the model/actress. I know there's lots of information about the 'goings on' of designers who've slid over, Slimane, Helmut Lang and Rick Owens to name but a few. Has anyone been able to see this installation in person?

 

[belletrist]

Being a huge fan of contemporary art (from Klein to the most obscure hungarian painter), and being, maybe, a connoiseur (having spent monthes in the Centre Georges Pompidou), I can tell you that Hedis work is pure sh*t (not talking about the clothes). People should stick to what suits their right. As montherlant, which was also good at drawing, said, "I prefer perfecting myself in something I am good than trying to be so so at doin two different things" (very rough translation).

Some designers, however, have the "artistic" vibe (Rick, etc) but I do not see a single one who could be called an "artist". In fact, the only truly interesting work from someone which isn't a contemporary artist is David Lynch's. Perhaps it's easy since cinema is a genuine art, and fashion is not.

But in the pseudo-hype-circles, once you're famous for something, you can be sure whatever yiu'll be will be praised. I cann see Galliano doing trashy paintings and being featured in Vogue (hint: whatever "artistic" featured in Vogue/etc is likely to be not praiseworthy)

 

[mass]

i'm sorry but that is the most pretentious thing i have read in a long time. david lynch is more overrated than slimane is. fashion is not a genuine art? please. and this is coming from someone who does not like slimane's work outside of fashion (except for the f system).

 

[belletrist]

i'm sorry but that is the most pretentious thing i have read in a long time. david lynch is more overrated than slimane is. fashion is not a genuine art? please. and this is coming from someone who does not like slimane's work outside of fashion (except for the f system).

LOL

I said that Kynch was one of the few "non painters/etc" whose artistic work (I mean outside cinema: beaux arts) is interesting, not the contrary. I love Lynch's painting.

Concerning the rest, if you think that fashion is art (old debate, but still), then there's a problem. What is the essence of fashion? Of course, if you think that The Devil wears Prada or Ocean 11 are masterpieces... but if you give to fashion an "artistic" value, we'll have to search for another word to speak about the work of Bergman, Mann, Tallis, etc. Hedi is not a photographer, nor are Ellen Von Unwerth, Inezz & Vinoodh, David LaChapelle, etc etc. That doesn't mean that their work isn't interesting, but it's not art. Genuine photographers are Nan Goldin, J-P Witkin, etc

 

[mass]

LOL

I said that Kynch was one of the few "non painters/etc" whose artistic work (I mean outside cinema: beaux arts) is interesting, not the contrary. I love Lynch's painting.

Concerning the rest, if you think that fashion is art (old debate, but still), then there's a problem. What is the essence of fashion? Of course, if you think that The Devil wears Prada or Ocean 11 are masterpieces... but if you give to fashion an "artistic" value, we'll have to search for another word to speak about the work of Bergman, Mann, Tallis, etc. Hedi is not a photographer, nor are Ellen Von Unwerth, Inezz & Vinoodh, David LaChapelle, etc etc. That doesn't mean that their work isn't interesting, but it's not art. Genuine photographers are Nan Goldin, J-P Witkin, etc

i am not sure why you are attaching fashion to film when they are separate entities. who said anything about the devil wears prada or ocean's 11? i also don't understand why the artists who take photographs you listed aren't genuine photographers. under that context bergman is not a genuine filmmaker; or even someone like cassavetes because he's not errol morris. it sounds to me like both your tastes and undistinguished thoughts have been dicted by your time at the beaubourg.

 

[ysljunkie]

i miss him already ;0

 

[oceanharlot]

<-- MFA student & contemporary art obsessor as well..

I agree the exhibit isn't *that* good. it's not pure sh*t though.

It's kind of like when someone picks up Vogue and attempts to copy a runway outfit. It's not that the final outfit is bad or looks terrible, it's just a slightly diluted version of the original, similar elements in the same area. it isnt especially conceptual, theoretical or groundbreaking. it looks like undergrad work, a rich kid's BFA project. someone who hasnt quite broken into their mature body of work yet.

 

[MissMagAddict]

source | wwd
September 20, 2007

It looks like Hedi Slimane, who has shunned the media spotlight since parting ways with Dior Homme last March, is ready to talk. Word has it French daily Le Monde will publish an interview with Slimane this weekend. Journalist Florence Evin declined to discuss the article's content, but it is understood Slimane reiterates that he has maintained good relations with luxury giant LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton and its chairman, Bernard Arnault.

 

[ilaughead]

YES!!!

Thanks, MissMagAddict

 

[BerlinRocks]

Hedi Slimane, ancien directeur artistique de Dior Homme
Hedi Slimane, les jeunes, la mode et la mondialisation

LE MONDE | 22.09.07 | 13h34 • Mis à jour le 22.09.07 | 17h16

edi Slimane, vous incarnez la relève française, c'est vous qui avez réconcilié les jeunes avec l'idée de porter un costume. En février, vous avez quitté la maison Dior après sept ans et un dernier défilé Dior homme. Y a-t-il contradiction entre la création et la stratégie d'une grande marque ?

Il n'y a aucune contradiction, mais des ajustements en cours sur la création de mode, son périmètre d'expression, ses champs d'application. Un designer doit appréhender l'ensemble des paramètres. Avec l'évolution de la mode et la globalisation, la fabrication, la communication, comme la distribution, participent de la création, de l'image de la marque au sens large. Tout dans la mode est signifiant, et personne n'est dupe. Le public est à la fois averti, surinformé, et sursollicité.
Pour qu'il y ait adhésion, il faut préserver le "sens" de toute création, et s'engager sans réserve. De sorte que je n'ai jamais pu travailler autrement qu'avec la plus grande liberté d'expression et une totale indépendance. Quand, de Saint Laurent, j'ai rejoint Dior, en juillet 2000, j'avais en tête de poursuivre mon projet masculin auprès d'une maison de couture, une institution qui, curieusement, avait laissé en friche une partie de son développement. S'adresser au plus grand nombre allait de soi. Comme la plupart des designers de ma génération, je n'ai jamais songé à me barricader dans mon studio. J'ai créé Dior homme de toutes pièces, l'atelier de modèles, sorte de "laboratoire", l'ensemble des lignes, de nombreux parfums.
Jusqu'à présent, vous avez gardé le silence, sans donner d'explication sur votre départ. Pourquoi cette décision au faîte de votre succès ?
Au bout de sept ans, j'avais besoin de progresser, et souhaitais habiller les filles. Cela n'était pas possible chez Dior. En janvier 2006, j'ai donc annoncé mon intention de partir. Pour me convaincre de revenir sur ma décision, Dior m'a proposé de financer une maison de couture à mon nom. Entre un designer et une maison de mode, l'alchimie est subtile. Avec Dior, il y avait une sorte d'évidence. Je me suis, du reste, toujours bien entendu avec Bernard Arnault, pour qui j'ai la plus grande affection. Malheureusement, dans le cours des négociations, interminables, il y avait trop d'intervenants, et nous avons échoué sur les questions de propriété de mon nom et de son utilisation.
Je n'ai jamais souhaité vendre mon nom. C'est un concept qui m'échappe, que je trouve absurde à court et moyen terme, et contre-productif. J'avais en tête un trop grand nombre de designers qui, par le passé, ont perdu leur liberté de création, une certaine intégrité, et ont dilué leur image. Il m'a toujours semblé qu'un designer n'apportait pas son seul crédit, déclinable dans un studio, mais une création. Ce n'est pas interchangeable et il n'existe pas d'exemple de succès commercial après qu'un designer a perdu le contrôle créatif de sa propre marque. Helmut Lang est celui que je garde en tête. Il est plus que jamais irremplaçable.
Le costume, symbole d'un statut, du pouvoir, est-il devenu un élément ludique ?
L'envie, plutôt que le statut, tout ça est passé en filigrane, même dans les milieux conservateurs. J'ai tout entendu sur mes silhouettes, y compris qu'elles favorisaient l'anorexie chez les hommes. Il fallait retrouver le sens du corps, redéfinir l'aspect structurel, affiner la silhouette pour affirmer l'allure. Le costume n'avait pas bougé depuis les années 1980, et la révolution déstructurée d'Armani avait provoqué une avalanche de costumes "boîte". Tout devenait prétexte au confort, le meilleur moyen de planquer les kilos et de justifier l'indigence de la coupe. Quand un vêtement est bien construit, il est confortable. Le confort ne se voit pas. Replacer les épaules, retrouver une nervosité, un maintien, faire des choix plus marqués de matières, c'était induire une tradition hédoniste, à l'inverse de la notion de pouvoir. En inventant mes proportions, je me suis adressé par goût à un public plus jeune, je souhaitais replacer la veste au coeur de leur quotidien. En 2002, j'ai lancé le jeans "slim", raccourci mes vestes, changé la proportion des cravates.
Vous êtes à l'écoute des jeunes. Et vous êtes entendu de cette génération, qui vous idolâtre. Cela influence-t-il votre regard sur la mode ?
J'ai dû beaucoup m'expliquer sur le sujet d'une mode adolescente, mes castings, les campagnes publicitaires, etc. L'éternelle bataille des Anciens et des Modernes. La jeune garde a toujours raison, même lorsqu'elle a tort. Cette énergie vitale est indissociable de la mode. Une marque qui ne repose pas sur la jeunesse n'a aucune prise sur son temps. Le rapport entre les filles et les garçons, les jeux de rôles et de genres me semblent aussi déterminants. C'est en ce sens que j'ai travaillé sur une idée masculine plutôt qu'une mode masculine stricto sensu.
J'ai exploré cette voie, depuis plus de vingt ans, à travers la photographie. Je tiens un journal, sur mon site Internet, qui repose sur l'appropriation. Chacun peut prendre mes images. Mon sujet de mode s'est toujours confondu avec le sujet photographique. Je décris toujours le même personnage, à travers une composition, un cadre, et une profondeur de champ, comme chez Caspar David Friedrich (peintre allemand 1774-1840), la vulnérabilité du personnage dans une nature très construite. J'ai toujours été dans ce paradoxe, dans la contradiction entre vulnérabilité et force, emblématique de cette génération intégrée dans l'univers du digital. D'où une mode très près du corps, presque affective, dans la froideur du virtuel.
Puisez-vous toujours beaucoup dans l'univers rock ?
C'est sans doute ma culture, et une sorte de raccourci de mon enfance. C'est peut-être aussi une affaire de génération. En mode, les cycles sont artificiels, tout relève de l'épiphénomène, de l'improbable "tendance". Il y a néanmoins des grands courants qui s'inscrivent sur la durée. C'est le cas avec l'omniprésence du rock. Je vis à Saint-Germain-des-Prés, et l'évolution dans mon quartier est frappante. Au début des années 2000, j'ai commencé à photographier une scène rock émergente. Après avoir habillé Bowie et Jagger, je me suis retrouvé impliqué auprès de jeunes groupes, les Libertines et les Franz Ferdinand. Très vite une nouvelle génération de fans est née. Mon style a été adopté, relayé par les musiciens de la nouvelle scène londonienne que j'ai habillés, en particulier Doherty. En juillet, au festival rock de Benicassim, en Espagne, j'ai photographié des centaines de fans. Je suis toujours frappé par la joie, l'innocence et l'optimisme de cette génération. Ce n'est pas l'engagement, ou la contestation du punk-rock de la fin des années 1970. Plutôt une sorte d'aspiration néoromantique. Les Français, les Russes, les Japonais, ou les Argentins, tous sont au diapason des Anglais. Il n'y a pas de mode véritable qui ne soit adoptée par la rue. Aujourd'hui, la propagation et l'appropriation des signes d'appartenance sont planétaires et instantanées. La nouveauté, c'est l'échelle digitale globale, et l'immédiateté. Le rock, relayé par Internet, a permis à une génération entière de s'affirmer, dans son périmètre de création, en inventant ses signes distinctifs, et un style.
Cette passion des jeunes de jongler avec le virtuel et la réalité n'est-elle pas qu'une utopie ?
Je suis très optimiste vis-à-vis d'une génération qui prend le dessus. Hyperinformée, née sur un clavier informatique, elle a su se reconstituer et numériser son propre univers poétique, entouré de représentations d'écorchés vifs, de Lautréamont à Doherty. En revanche, il me semble que les autres générations, hermétiques, parfois conservatrices, souvent terrorisées, n'ont sans doute pas résolu un problème de positionnement dans un monde en mutation. Tout, finalement, est à réinventer, et sans doute faut-il respecter une maturité dans les goûts et les aspirations du monde qui nous entoure. Internet est la réalité. Devant une telle mutation, il est souhaitable de prendre la tangente, de se prémunir contre l'immobilisme, la réaction, le conformisme. On est dans un temps réel. Ce n'est pas l'espace sidéral, mais une autre perception poétique, en bref : 2007.
Dans vos propos, il y a beaucoup d'optimisme. Quid du rapport mondialisation, création et performance ?
Il semble illusoire aujourd'hui de se cloîtrer dans un espace protégé. La mondialisation est factuelle. Il est indispensable d'y voir la possibilité de développer un point de vue, un lien, des affinités électives à l'échelle planétaire. Parce que la dimension est globale, il est de plus en plus nécessaire d'être vigilant sur le sens. Le sens, l'idée, et l'engagement avant toute chose. Je suis très sceptique sur les outils de marketing. On n'avance pas en regardant dans un rétroviseur, à moins d'être un suiveur. L'idée d'abord, le marketing ensuite. Le marketing ne peut que favoriser l'adhésion, et non pas se substituer à la création. Le formatage n'est pas la performance ; la performance, c'est de savoir penser autrement. Je pense à YouTube, mais les exemples sont légion. Il faut l'intuition, avant la raison. La déraison peut aussi être performante.
En matière de mode, il s'agit de réconcilier le fond et la forme, dans un contexte saturé de marques improbables et de propositions de style. Les collections saisonnières - présentées un an à l'avance - ne correspondent plus à rien, puisque tout est sur le Web dans la seconde. Avec l'impossibilité d'adapter sa logistique, la mode est en ****** sur la mode, et se défend à coups de pré-collections, et de post-collections. Tout ça avait un sens, mais n'en a plus. C'est, pour moi, la vraie question du redéveloppement d'une marque à l'avenir.

from Le Monde... itw by Florence Evin

 

[BerlinRocks]

Yahoo BabelFish's translation :

Hedi Slimane, old director artistic of Dior Man
Hedi Slimane, young people, fashion and universalization
THE WORLD | 22.09.07 | Updated • 13h34 22.09.07 | 17h16

EDI Slimane, you incarnate the French changing, it is you who reconciled the young people with the idea to carry a costume. In February, you left the Dior house after seven years and a last procession Dior man. Is there contradiction between the creation and the strategy of a large mark?

There is no contradiction, but adjustments in progress on the creation of mode, its perimeter of expression, its fields of application. A designer must apprehend the whole of the parameters. With the evolution of the mode and the globalisation, manufacture, the communication, like the distribution, take part of creation, the public image in the broad sense. All in the fashion is meaning, and nobody is easily deceived. The public at the same time is informed, surinformé, and sursollicity.
So that there is adhesion, it is necessary to preserve the "direction" of any creation, and to engage without reserve. So that I never could work differently than with the greatest freedom of expression and a total independence. When, of SAINT LAURENT, I joined Dior, in July 2000, I had at the head to continue my male project near a couture house, an institution which, curiously, had left in waste land a part of its development. To address itself to the greatest number went from oneself. Like the majority of the designers of my generation, I never thought of barricading me in my studio. I created Dior man of all parts, the workshop of models, left "laboratory", the whole of the lines, many perfumes.
Until now, you kept silence, without giving explanation on your departure. Why this decision with the ridge of your success?
At the end of seven years, I needed to progress, and wished to equip the girls. That was not possible at Dior. In January 2006, I thus announced my intention to leave. To convince to me to reconsider my decision, Dior proposed to me to finance a couture house to my name. Between a designer and a house of mode, alchemy is subtle. With Dior, there was an obvious kind. I am, of the remainder, always of course with Bernard Arnault, for whom I have the greatest affection. Unfortunately, in the course of the negotiations, interminable, there were too many speakers, and we failed on the questions of property of my name and its use.
I never wished to sell my name. It is a concept which escapes to me, that I find absurd in the short and medium term, and against-productive. I had at the head a too great number of designers which, in the past, lost their freedom of creation, a certain integrity, and diluted their image. It always seemed to to me that a designer did not bring its only credit, déclinable in a studio, but a creation. It is not interchangeable and there is not example of commercial success after a designer lost the creative control of its own mark. Helmut Lang is that which I keep at the head. It is more than ever irreplaceable.
Did the costume, symbol of a statute, capacity, become a ludic element?
The desire, rather than the statute, all that passed in filigree, even in the preserving mediums. I very heard on my silhouettes, including they supported the anorexia at the men. It was necessary to find the direction of the body, to redefine the structural aspect, to refine the silhouette to affirm the pace. The costume had not moved since the years 1980, and the déstructurée revolution of Armani had caused an avalanche of costumes "box". All became pretext with comfort, the best means of planquer the kilos and to justify the indigence of the cut. When a clothing is well built, it is comfortable. Comfort is not seen. To replace the shoulders, to find a nervousness, a maintenance, to make more marked choices of matters, it was to induce a tradition hedonist, contrary to the concept of being able. By inventing my proportions, I addressed by taste to a younger public, I wished to replace the jacket in the heart of their daily newspaper. In 2002, I launched the jean "slim", shortened my jackets, changed the proportion of the ties.
You are with the listening of the young people. And you are heard of this generation, which you idolâtre. Does that influence your glance on the fashion?
I had much to explain me on the subject of a teenager fashion, my castings, the campaigns advertising, etc. The eternal battle of Old and the Modern ones. The young guard is right always, even when it is wrong. This vital energy is indissociable fashion. A mark which does not rest on youth does not have any catch over its time. The relationship between the girls and the boys, the kind and role plaies seem to me also determining. It is in the sense that I worked on a male idea rather than a male fashion strictly speaking.
I have explored this way, for more than twenty years, through photography. I hold a newspaper, on my Internet site, which rests on the appropriation. Each one can take my images. My subject of mode always merged with the photographic subject. I always describe the same character, through a composition, a framework, and a depth of field, as at Caspar David Friedrich (painter German 1774-1840), the vulnerability of the character in a very built nature. I always was in this paradox, in contradiction between vulnerability and force, emblematic of this generation integrated in the universe of the digital one. From where a fashion very close to the body, almost emotional, in the coldness of the virtual one.
Do you draw always much in the universe rock'n'roll?
It is undoubtedly my culture, and a kind of short cut of my childhood. It is perhaps also a business of generation. In mode, the cycles are artificial, any changing of epiphenomene, improbable "the tendency". There are nevertheless large currents which are registered over the duration. It is the case with the omnipresence of the rock'n'roll. I live in Saint-Germain-des-Prés, and the evolution in my district is striking. At the beginning of the years 2000, I started to photograph an emergent scene rock'n'roll. After having equipped Bowie and Jagger, I found myself implied near young groups, the Libertines and Franz Ferdinand. Very quickly a new generation of fans was born. My style was adopted, relayed by the musicians of the new London scene which I equipped, in particular Doherty. In July, with the festival rock'n'roll of Benicassim, in Spain, I photographed hundreds of fans. I am always struck by the joy, the innocence and the optimism of this generation. It is not engagement, or the dispute of the punk-rock'n'roll of the end of 1970. Rather a kind of neoromantic aspiration. The French, the Russians, Japanese, or the Argentinian ones, are with the tuning fork of the English. There is no true mode which is not adopted by the street. Today, the propagation and the appropriation of the signs of membership are planetary and instantaneous. The innovation, it is the total digital scale, and it. The rock'n'roll, relayed by Internet, made it possible a whole generation to continue, in its perimeter of creation, by inventing its distinctive signs, and a style.
Isn't this passion of the young people to juggle with the virtual one and reality only one Utopia?
I am very optimistic with respect to a generation which takes the top. Hyperinformée, born about a data-processing keyboard, it knew to reconstitute and digitize its own poetic universe, surrounded of representations of sharp sectional views, of Lautréamont with Doherty. On the other hand, it seems to to me that the other generations, hermetic, sometimes preserving, often terrorized, undoubtedly did not solve a problem of positioning in a world in change. All, finally, is to be reinvented, and undoubtedly is necessary it to respect a maturity in the tastes and aspirations of the world who surrounds us. Internet is reality. In front of such a change, it is desirable to take the tangent, to be guarded against the opposition to progress, the reaction, conformism. One is in a real time. It is not sidereal space, but another poetic perception, in short: 2007.
In your remarks, there is much optimism. Quid of the universalization report/ratio, creation and performance?
It seems illusory today of cloîtrer in a protected space. Universalization is factual. It is essential to see the possibility there of developing a point of view of, a bond, elective affinitieses on a planetary scale. Because dimension is total, it is increasingly necessary to be vigilant on the direction. The direction, the idea, and engagement first of all. I am very skeptic on the tools of marketing. One does not advance while looking in a rear view mirror, unless being a follower. The idea initially, marketing then. Marketing can only support adhesion, and not replace creation. The formatting is not the performance; the performance, it is to know to think differently. I think of YouTube, but the examples are legion. One needs the intuition, before the reason. The insanity can also be powerful.
As regards mode, it is a question of reconciling the bottom and the form, in a context saturated with improbable marks and proposals for a style. The seasonal collections - presented one year in advance - do not correspond any more to nothing, since all is on the Web in the second. With impossibility of adapting its logistics, the fashion is late on the fashion, and is defended with blows of pre-collections, and post-collections. All that had a direction, but does not have any any more. It is, for me, the true question of redéveloppement of a mark in the future.