Matthew M. Williams - Designer

[Drusilla_]

A true designer, like Galliano, as you mentioned, is concerned with cut, fabrication, balance and proportion. A true designer must be engaged in the actual make of their designs, inside and out. Once those skills have been honed, the sky is the limit.

As Picasso said, "learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist". And it is true in every area of design. It's also why, for instance, people used to get so excited about, to take one example, Meadham Kirchhoff - the OTT colourful style was just the surface, but they often came up with new patterns for their pieces and used materials and craftsmanship on par with much, much better-resourced labels of their era.

But the newer generation of creative directors at big houses seem to have dispensed with that, which is an odd way to operate for businesses supposedly at the highest end of the market, and probably has a lot to do with the prioritising of branding over everything else as a means to shift product.

I'm not saying that Williams' Givenchy can't produce clothes that are desirable, but there just seems to be no real direction for the house currently, design-wise. Ricardo was an early mover in many ways - when he first came in in 2005, he spent some seasons producing those pretty-but-forgettable 'ladylike' couture, it wasn't till 2008 (specifically, the A/W RTW and couture collections) that the look that was unmistakably Ricardo's Givenchy really landed. Right now, it's a bit like the Julien McDonald years up at Givenchy - a name that seemed good for "buzz" at first, but impact-wise, irrelevant.

It’s the same with McQueen…as iconic as his earlier work was, it wasn’t until after his time spent learning from the Givenchy ateliers did his work become infinitely more refined. It’s remarkable, really, to look at his first Couture collection in comparison to his last few, and then what his work for his own label looked like as soon as he left Givenchy. Night and day.

And McQueen was one of the small handful of designers who actually had years of technical training before he even went to fashion school - and even then, valued what he could learn from the atelier at Givenchy. That evolution in skills really launched him to the next level - and I could see it even in his own-label clothes when they were being exhibited at the V&A, in the clothes from the era before and coinciding with his time at Givenchy, I don't mean his earlier clothes were lacking, just that there's a clear difference.

 

[Drusilla_]

The clothes are all over the online shops, they are a special kind of vile. It was fun two years ago with Balenciaga x Simpsons, especially with the special episode and with Demna's background, an Eastern European fascinated by the Western pop culture growing up. But Disney's 101 Dalmantians x Givenchy, who the heck approved this ? It reeks of desperation.

I would honestly appreciate it if they did something design-wise with it, or used symbols like Mickey Mouse to actually say something (as Demna did with the Simpsons). But 101 DalmatiansxGivenchy? What.

That said, I don't think all the animation tie-upsare bad - I liked Loewe's Studio Ghibli special capsules in early 2021, and I think it's an appropriate match on the side of both label and Ghibli (imagine Studio GhiblixDior? Or Versace? A total mismatch). And I don't mind designers making their fanboy/fangirl sides known on the runway, it expresses something from their point of view, you know? But here I don't feel like there's any point of view at all.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

As Picasso said, "learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist". And it is true in every area of design. It's also why, for instance, people used to get so excited about, to take one example, Meadham Kirchhoff - the OTT colourful style was just the surface, but they often came up with new patterns for their pieces and used materials and craftsmanship on par with much, much better-resourced labels of their era.

But the newer generation of creative directors at big houses seem to have dispensed with that, which is an odd way to operate for businesses supposedly at the highest end of the market, and probably has a lot to do with the prioritising of branding over everything else as a means to shift product.

I'm not saying that Williams' Givenchy can't produce clothes that are desirable, but there just seems to be no real direction for the house currently, design-wise. Ricardo was an early mover in many ways - when he first came in in 2005, he spent some seasons producing those pretty-but-forgettable 'ladylike' couture, it wasn't till 2008 (specifically, the A/W RTW and couture collections) that the look that was unmistakably Ricardo's Givenchy really landed. Right now, it's a bit like the Julien McDonald years up at Givenchy - a name that seemed good for "buzz" at first, but impact-wise, irrelevant.



And McQueen was one of the small handful of designers who actually had years of technical training before he even went to fashion school - and even then, valued what he could learn from the atelier at Givenchy. That evolution in skills really launched him to the next level - and I could see it even in his own-label clothes when they were being exhibited at the V&A, in the clothes from the era before and coinciding with his time at Givenchy, I don't mean his earlier clothes were lacking, just that there's a clear difference.

There's a direction, it's just not a very good one. It's this mediocre mix of Michael Kors and Rick Owens. The next big thing for the customer who's ready to move on from Philipp Plein.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I would honestly appreciate it if they did something design-wise with it, or used symbols like Mickey Mouse to actually say something (as Demna did with the Simpsons). But 101 DalmatiansxGivenchy? What.

That said, I don't think all the animation tie-upsare bad - I liked Loewe's Studio Ghibli special capsules in early 2021, and I think it's an appropriate match on the side of both label and Ghibli (imagine Studio GhiblixDior? Or Versace? A total mismatch). And I don't mind designers making their fanboy/fangirl sides known on the runway, it expresses something from their point of view, you know? But here I don't feel like there's any point of view at all.

Someone in Givenchy marketing totally saw Loewe's Ghibli collab and Balenciaga's Simpson thing and started chasing the bandwagon.

It's hard to judge it without seeing the goods, but if they HAD to work with some kind of Disney property, to me Star Wars would seem more like thing.

 

[susseinmcswanny]

Terrible answer and logomania must die.

lmfao he probably NEVER thought he would have to answer for that

 

[GoldenTribe]

etro - kung fu panda

I'm surprised I never heard a peep about this until now. As they say, ignorance is bliss.

I would honestly appreciate it if they did something design-wise with it, or used symbols like Mickey Mouse to actually say something (as Demna did with the Simpsons). But 101 DalmatiansxGivenchy? What.

That said, I don't think all the animation tie-upsare bad - I liked Loewe's Studio Ghibli special capsules in early 2021, and I think it's an appropriate match on the side of both label and Ghibli [...]

Do people actually think the Simpsons collab was meaningful or substantial in some way? I hated it, but Vetements and Demnaciaga have both rubbed me the wrong way since day one so I don't cut them any slack at all and I can't even pretend to be objective about it. I thought the clothes were terrible and the animated side to it was to me a bigger cringe than anything Matthew Williamson has ever done.

That said, I am totally with you about the Ghibli collabs (both Totoro and Spirited Away). I love the movies, I mostly like Loewe, and if the pieces weren't so staggeringly expensive I would have bought some. The t-shirt with the vivid garden & sky and the two little Totoros embroidered in the middle was right up my alley but over $800 CAD.

It's hard to judge it without seeing the goods, but if they HAD to work with some kind of Disney property, to me Star Wars would seem more like thing.

Guess who did that for Spring/Summer 2020! Etro (menswear at least) :

(GQ)
(GQ)

 

[Norden]

Oh wow. He’s truly the definition of basic.

 

[caioherrero]

When does his contract expire?

 

[LadyJunon]

When does his contract expire?

Around this time next year, unless sales skyrocket...

 

[caioherrero]

Around this time next year, unless sales skyrocket...

I hope they fire him.

 

[LadyJunon]

I hope they fire him.

They probably will, since the house has even less coverage than when CWK was at the helm.

 

[perhydrol]

There are some rumours about him being relegated to Louis Vuitton menswear this winter, but I honestly don't think they're true. That being said, at this point he must be on his way out of Givenchy.

 

[GivenchyHomme]

lmfao he probably NEVER thought he would have to answer for that

My god, what a clown! A very childish and unknowledgeable response.

 

[Frederic01]

Seriously, Givenchy is so irrelevant in terms of the current fashion landscape. Even contemporary brands like Jacquemus, Marine Serre, Richard Quinn, etc etc, have more cultural impact than Givenchy at the moment. It just goes to show how weak MW is as both a designer and an artistic director.

And besides MW, the entire brand is completely mismanaged from the top. It astonishes me the lack of finesse and vision that these people who work for Givenchy HQ have. Renaud de Lesquen needs to go. And whoever else came up with stupid ideas like adding baby and childrenswear. In what context is it relevant to a house like Givenchy?

What is also surprising about Givenchy is the lack of references to the heritage/to the founder and to the history/culture that surrounds the brand. Total missed opportunity to create stories and emotional links between the client base and the rich history of the house. Their website has no/little mention to any of that, which is such a powerful technique for these brands. CHANEL and Dior do it so well. They know how to leverage the heritage of their respective founders to their audience and how to use it as a marketing and selling tool.

Givenchy on the other hand has more digital space dedicated to 101 Dalmatians than they do to their heritage. LOL.

Thirdly, why are they providing a direct email address to the Haute Couture salon in the enquiries section? So cheap and vulgar and completely missing the entire ethos of Haute Couture. Again, these people have no idea what they're doing. Worse than that actually, they are destroying the brand value with their collective "strategies".



What Givenchy needs right now is someone with a really strong artistic vision to come in and rebrand the entire image of the house, and in the opposite direction of the whole Riccardo Tisci aesthetic, which is still weighing down heavily on the brand even years after his departure.

Unpopular opinion but IMO somebody like Daniel Lee could be perfect at Givenchy. He has the vision and necessary integrity to be an artistic director. We don't need more hype beast streetwear designers.

 

[blueorchid]

What is also surprising about Givenchy is the lack of references to the heritage/to the founder and to the history/culture that surrounds the brand. Total missed opportunity to create stories and emotional links between the client base and the rich history of the house. Their website has no/little mention to any of that, which is such a powerful technique for these brands. CHANEL and Dior do it so well. They know how to leverage the heritage of their respective founders to their audience and how to use it as a marketing and selling tool.

Givenchy on the other hand has more digital space dedicated to 101 Dalmatians than they do to their heritage. LOL.

Okay, wow, that's interesting. I went to the Givenchy website to investigate myself, which I've actually never done (lmao). First of all, I got a good cackle at the subtitle being "Reinterpreting the codes of elegance" THEN on the home page is a picture of those god-awful sneakers. Am I crazy or is there literally *no mention* of Hubert anywhere on the main Givenchy site? I had to go to the Givenchy Beauty site to get ANY information about the history of the house.

Even businesses like Starbucks and McDonald's have sections on their sites for that "historical" information.

 

[Frederic01]

Okay, wow, that's interesting. I went to the Givenchy website to investigate myself, which I've actually never done (lmao). First of all, I got a good cackle at the subtitle being "Reinterpreting the codes of elegance" THEN on the home page is a picture of those god-awful sneakers. Am I crazy or is there literally *no mention* of Hubert anywhere on the main Givenchy site? I had to go to the Givenchy Beauty site to get ANY information about the history of the house.

Even businesses like Starbucks and McDonald's have sections on their sites for that "historical" information.

Right? The digital platform for the beauty division has more about the history of the Maison than the fashion division. How does that make sense?

It shocks me to think that the people that get hired to work in these marketing and public relations departments have gone to some of the best schools in France/all over the world, are supposedly hired for their digital expertise and marketing extraordinaire, and yet somehow can't even master such basic and rudimentary digital branding strategies.

Givenchy could be as big as Dior, but whoever is in charge lacks the innovative and creative thinking and vision needed to lead it that way. So sad to see this brand wither away in influence and importance because of a few people at the top who don't know what they're doing.

 

[THD96]

It's not strange for couture houses to publish their inquiries, few houses do that like Alexandre Vauthier or RVDK, or JPG. Couture may be exclusive but it is not like reaching for the stars. I see nothing wrong with that, these houses need to attract more clients and they suddenly wouldn't say no to any new rich potential clients.
What I'm wondering is what exactly they are selling with couture now. A modern update of Hubert's original designs, Ricardo and Clare's pieces? Nothing from Matthew because this man can even do proper tailoring let alone couture.

On a different note, I suddenly don't want Givenchy or any brand to be as big as Dior. What's the point of being that big only to sell logos flip-flops to make a few billionaires get richer?

 

[Lola701]

It's not strange for couture houses to publish their inquiries, few houses do that like Alexandre Vauthier or RVDK, or JPG. Couture may be exclusive but it is not like reaching for the stars. I see nothing wrong with that, these houses need to attract more clients and they suddenly wouldn't say no to any new rich potential clients.
What I'm wondering is what exactly they are selling with couture now. A modern update of Hubert's original designs, Ricardo and Clare's pieces? Nothing from Matthew because this man can even do proper tailoring let alone couture.

On a different note, I suddenly don't want Givenchy or any brand to be as big as Dior. What's the point of being that big only to sell logos flip-flops to make a few billionaires get richer?

The Inquiries doesn’t shock me either considering that the HC activities of Givenchy has been very much limited to celebrity dressing…Maybe some die hard clients are getting some dresses done from archives collections tho…

I must add that Alexandre Vauthier or even JPG doesn’t have stores/retail spaces so to have the inquiries on their websites makes more sense for any new client to book an appointment. For Dior and Chanel or Valentino, it’s obvious.

 

[jeanclaude]

A new designer could create a narrative at Givenchy just by mixing Audrey Hepburn films, with the master/pupil relationship between Balenciaga and Hubert...but it is more easy just tossing out t-shirts with the logo all over it.

 

[reese06]

A new designer could create a narrative at Givenchy just by mixing Audrey Hepburn films, with the master/pupil relationship between Balenciaga and Hubert...but it is more easy just tossing out t-shirts with the logo all over it.

Easy, but it can't last when the brand has lost its luxury cache and street cred.

I skip his stuff and buy Tisci tee's, which actually sell higher on the secondary market than Matthew's stuff. lol

I only see people who are die hard Alyx fans talking about Givenchy.