Phoebe Philo - Designer

[velvetandsilk]

US/UK journalists are great at over-intellectualizing simple stuff and create that whole mystification around something so simple and organic.

I'm reminded of how I discovered that Rei Kawakubo considers herself a businesswoman and the press turns her into a mystical feminist manifesto. haha

 

[Frederic01]

So looking forward to seeing the store design! Interesting that the first one will be in New York?

And a show! Perhaps for Spring Summer 2025?

 

[Lola701]

The part about online shopping is interesting, but I'm a little shocked at how amateurish it is. This return policy is also suspect, I don't know the UK law in this regard, but in Europe it's probably illegal to refuse to return goods....
In fact, if she wants to keep the company liquid then let her come up with some perfume. In fact, such high prices are not due to quality just an attempt to keep the company stable. It's likely that the data they collected shows that the clients are very wealthy. I wonder what databases they compared their data to. This is the most intriguing point of the interview, but of course Vanessa prefers to ask about silly things.

Now that you point it out, it’s in intriguing part because Alexandra Van House statement is weird.
I bought 3 pieces: the oversized popelin tshirt, a miniskirt with the honeycomb and a pair of sunglasses. Returns were possible but exchange wasn’t. I had no size issue so no need to worry about that but I wonder if Alexandra’s statement is more about being upset than the accuracy of the fact that it’s impossible.

I’m pretty sure that the comparison of the datas was between the people who signed up and those who actually purchased. And therefore they will be able to have a POV regarding the average client basket, where the customers are and things like that. I wouldn’t be surprised that the decision to open a retail space first in NYC is motivated by the early result of datas, that may have placed the US as her first market.
It makes sense also to have a physical space in London. I guess in Paris, an exclusivity at Le Bon Marché or La Samaritaine would make more sense.

I don’t think she needs perfumes now. She has sunglasses and can extend her range of footwear (the footwear at Celine was great).

Logistic will be her biggest issue. It was an issue for Jacquemus for a longtime. His customer service was horrible apparently and they were probably overwhelmed by the demand.

I think having retail spaces will help Phoebe in that aspect. But she will to really beef up her logistic because eventually, she will be open to the Asian market and it comes with a lot of challenges.

 

[FashionFanatico]

Here's the full article for those of you without a NYT subscription:

Source: NY Times

Quote from the article: «(She is) the fashion unicorn whose work was an answer to questions you didn’t even realize you had.»

Really? Another one?

«She sipped black tea from a plain white mug.»

After this i stopped reading the article.

Yes, we get you Vanessa. we really do. And it's really annoying and tiring what you want to evoke here.
This piece is more about Vanessa Friedman than Phoebe Philo.

This style of journalism comes very close to Sledgehammer literature as a phenomenon in modern publications to over-the-top manipulate the character painted in very heavy bushstroke of your opinion - and not the facts.

Which is very common in (fashion) journalism these days. That's why i stopped reading warmed up attention seeking trash like this. it's even worse than the level of People Magazine, haha, because there you don't expect anything other that just gossip and trash - and they don't want to sell it to you as an intellectutal coup.

 

[GivenchyAddict]

^Vanessa Friedman is just terrible. It would have been better to have a ´ In the studio’ video like NYT used to do truly.

This article felt very empty to me.

 

[GoldenTribe]

Quote from the article: «(She is) the fashion unicorn whose work was an answer to questions you didn’t even realize you had.»

Really? Another one?

«She sipped black tea from a plain white mug.»

After this i stopped reading the article.

You got farther than I did! After encountering "the male gaze" in the first forty words, I knew I had better things to do, like clean cat litter bare-handed.

 

[nonfatgoddess]

“Her black nylon bomber, rounded in the shoulders and cropped above the waist, looked sort of like a small turtle shell into which she could withdraw and emerge at will. Under the bomber she wore gray pinstripe trousers and a matching oversize shirt. Her brown hair was pulled into a casual ponytail, and she wasn’t wearing any makeup. She is as disinterested in artifice as she is in oversharing.”

I love Phoebe but what the f?

We get it. She’s an icon and probably an intellectual to a lot of people and whatever. You don’t have to reflect that to your writing. I seriously cannot stand most of the fashion writers these days. Way too dramatic and flowery with their words. Can’t they write in a more concise and straightforward tone?

Phoebe’s clothes are a reflection of her character. She wears her clothes. She makes clothes for women. There’s nothing too deep there.

And of course, the fashion c*nts of Instagram and Twitter who keep using ‘mob wife’ and the term ‘aesthetic’ too loosely are gonna eat this as if it’s such a groundbreaking moment.

 

[Tchi]

Kudos to everyone that went beyond the third line, this article is teribbly boring

 

[tricotineacetat]

“Her black nylon bomber, rounded in the shoulders and cropped above the waist, looked sort of like a small turtle shell into which she could withdraw and emerge at will. Under the bomber she wore gray pinstripe trousers and a matching oversize shirt. Her brown hair was pulled into a casual ponytail, and she wasn’t wearing any makeup. She is as disinterested in artifice as she is in oversharing.”

I love Phoebe but what the f?

We get it. She’s an icon and probably an intellectual to a lot of people and whatever. You don’t have to reflect that to your writing. I seriously cannot stand most of the fashion writers these days. Way too dramatic and flowery with their words. Can’t they write in a more concise and straightforward tone?

Phoebe’s clothes are a reflection of her character. She wears her clothes. She makes clothes for women. There’s nothing too deep there.

And of course, the fashion c*nts of Instagram and Twitter who keep using ‘mob wife’ and the term ‘aesthetic’ too loosely are gonna eat this as if it’s such a groundbreaking moment.

The flower-y narrative already started when she presented her first collection for Celine and this "women-designing-for-women" notion was blown up all over the fashion media, discrediting men to dress up women like dolls, disqualifying them to make clothes that were less in tune of how women want to dress. People describe fashion as a reflection of our Zeitgeist, and it's worth noting it found it's reflection in the MeToo movement.

That being said, I could name a good amount of acclaimed male fashion designers who could claim ownership for a look as the one described on Phoebe Philo in this article...

 

[nonfatgoddess]

The flower-y narrative already started when she presented her first collection for Celine and this "women-designing-for-women" notion was blown up all over the fashion media, discrediting men to dress up women like dolls, disqualifying them to make clothes that were less in tune of how women want to dress. People describe fashion as a reflection of our Zeitgeist, and it's worth noting it found it's reflection in the MeToo movement.

That being said, I could name a good amount of acclaimed male fashion designers who could claim ownership for a look as the one described on Phoebe Philo in this article...

Yup, but let's also not forget that Phoebe actually stood her ground by designing for women with a genuine aim, unlike many male designers who merely had a 'vision' of women and often created absurd garments with their boobs hanging around

 

[tricotineacetat]

Yup, but let's also not forget that Phoebe actually stood her ground by designing for women with a genuine aim, unlike many male designers who merely had a 'vision' of women and often created garments with absurd garments with their boobs hanging around

I mean sure, while there is a niche of the market inhabited by designers who love the idea of a hyper-feminized glamazon, it's only but one proposition among many. I would bet the women wearing Martin Margiela, Yohji Yamamoto or Lutz Huelle aren't any less liberated than the disciples of Phoebe Philo or The Row.

It's without doubt that her Celine was wildly influential but as a design legacy, I don't think her voice is as singular as, for example, that of her peers Hedi Slimane or Nicolas Ghesquiere - That's why I find it rather upsetting that she is constantly being credited for a contribution to fashion that spans only but a fraction of time when compared to that of Jil Sander's.

 

[nonfatgoddess]

^ I see your point. But to be fair to Phoebe, I appreciate that she gave women an option/alternative and actually acknowledged that women should think, which is sadly a lot of her so-called fans aren’t doing. With Nicolas I can agree but I’m sorry, I think she has more of a vision compared to Hedi

That's why I find it rather upsetting that she is constantly being credited for a contribution to fashion that spans only but a fraction of time when compared to that of Jil Sander's.

Or Miuccia Prada for that matter

 

[MulletProof]

That's why I find it rather upsetting that she is constantly being credited for a contribution to fashion that spans only but a fraction of time when compared to that of Jil Sander's.

But shouldn’t that be expected? recognition being proportional to level of commercialism? not to say Jil was a small obscure designer but revisiting my previous post, Phoebe’s success is founded in a corporation, with mainstream trends, not on one defining ethos or on catering to the most demanding, difficult demographic, more the opposite, a demographic that still chases trends, remains non-demanding but understands the importance of cultural capital so they will plug in some meaningless philosophy into their consumerism if necessary. That, to me, has little to do with her ability to preserve/not negotiate her own experience as a woman and succeed in injecting it into her work, in a way that, personally, and I assume a lot of female consumers feel similarly, does distinguish it very visibly from what most of her male counterparts tend to do (Raf, Hedi, McQueen, list goes on).

And of course then you have the case of designers where that sensitivity is definitely tainted or fully eroded by the male dynamics we are all a part of, they’re definitely not ‘a girl’s girl’, but they will be the first ones to constantly demand credit and obtain it thanks to their financial means and the media coverage they benefit from (Miuccia, Maria Grazia).

Love Jil and who knows if she’s low profile by complete choice but that’s, in any field, the disadvantage of silence.. you need to credit yourself for your achievements because, sit around and someone else will..

 

[tricotineacetat]

^ I see your point. But to be fair to Phoebe, I appreciate that she gave women an option/alternative and actually acknowledged that women should think, which is sadly a lot of her so-called fans aren’t doing. With Nicolas I can agree but I’m sorry, I think she has more of a vision compared to Hedi

The place I am looking at is less the 'how successful was it' part and more what a designer's body-of-work says in relation to the history of dress, it's social/technical contribution and the singularity of the vision left behind of when you look at it in retrospect. We will obviously then come to some designers recognized for very different qualities, from some like Grès, Vionnet, Balenciaga or Alaia for their technical wizardry and others like Saint Laurent, Chanel or Jil Sander for the way they impacted a sense of dressing. Then we have designers like Rei Kawakubo, Yohji Yamamoto, McQueen or Chalayan who are being recognized for a singular artistic expression their work embodied all throughout their career. Rick Owens is one of the few designers still active today who fall into the latter category.

From a historical point of view, we are experiencing for the first time now a crop of designers who have never build fashion houses of their own and have always worked as creative directors at houses owned by big luxury conglomerates - In many ways, Karl Lagerfeld was the progenitor of this phenomenon. While that doesn't dismiss their work as less historically important, we know the increasing pressure of such assignments has a strong effect on the way collections are being designed today. We can arguably consider Hedi Slimane's work for Dior Homme and Nicolas Ghesquiere's work at Balenciaga to be more important contributions to the history of fashion than their later outputs. With Hedi Slimane I think all that's left to say is that we can look at nearly 30 years of contribution in menswear design and a complete 360* vision created by him that extends merely that of fashion. It's safe to say that his womenswear will probably be seen as less significant.

With Phoebe Philo, I think it will be harder to look back on her Celine collections and pick one that really impacted on the terms I laid out before - Influential yes, in that her Celine tenure as a whole informed a decade of copies but historically less interesting when we have Claire McCardell or Jil Sander as more important female designers of modern minimalist fashion design within the times their work is attributed to.

 

[Nimsay]

how this bland woman has amassed a legion of fans i'll never know

Cute purses go a long way.


The male gaze in 2024? I mean the NYT has been trash for like over a decade atp. this is amusingly detached from reality. anything to do with fashion can never be dated or in an ivory tower. It has to be in the moment and relevant.

 

[philophile]

I think she has more of a vision compared to Hedi

Oh lol, this is so true it ain't funny. But it isn't anything anyone on this forum is ready to admit.

 

[philophile]

a demographic that still chases trends

This is quite a bit of a hypocritical comment from someone who posts fairly consistently on a fashion forum. Isn't everyone who is into any sort of fashion nowadays to a lesser or greater degree 'chasing trends'? People who wear minimalist fashion definitely follow trends less than your average person, it's only a logical conclusion. If you hate minimal fashion (It's all the impression I get from reading all of your comments I've stumbled upon here), then let me suggest you to have a higher, and more educated stance than to give place in your mind to pluralism. Believe me, minimalism is a niche movement, you will get all your 'fun' sequin and flower pattern dresses forever, you have nothing to worry about.

Phoebe's success is founded in a corporation, with mainstream trends,

Phoebe Philo is one of the few designers who have an upper hand defining trends, not on following them. That's exactly what lead her to success. Her trousers and coat patterns are still being drafted all over the world.

 

[philophile]

anything to do with fashion can never be dated or in an ivory tower. It has to be in the moment and relevant.

I've been a Céline by Phoebe Philo wearer for 11 years and I'm not changing my style. Funnily, I don't see all of her legion of fans changing their style either. I'm not saying it won't, but this is the most timeless fashion has ever been and I mean EVER. After over 10 years, I don't see it changing any time soon. It's cheaper, I can wear my oversized blazer paired with everything I own a milllion times and it will always look freaking chic. THAT's why people love it and it doesn't go out of style for so long.

 

[philophile]

I honestly don't get all the rage and hatred on this forum against minimalist fashion. First off, is it really the dominant movement in fashion? Who are the main brands producing this type of fashion? Khaite? The Row? By Malene Birger? Alongside some other niche fashion brands, tell me, who is so dominant? Are you freaking kidding me? Do you think your average fashion consumer purchases The Row and not instead Gucci, Chanel, Louis Vuitton or any other maximalist fashion brand? Then what are you so upset about? I doubt my siblings have ever heard of The Row, but they surely know Dior or any of the traditional brands you love. I live on a seventh floor and I see most people wearing prints and bright colors outside, besides all the people I've seen during all my travels.
Or is it that you're upset because there are so many ridiculous fashion influencer clones posting this type of fashion? They're still not the majority of people. They annoy the hell out of me too, but not because they're minimalist, but because they're obviously so not authentic. Just ignore them.

 

[Nimsay]

I was talking about the NYT article not Phoebe. Ive said “watch this space” a few times - this will be the cutting edge of fashion once Phoebe warms up and gets rolling. Right now her presentations are just slightly leading edge not the definitive dictation that made her name.