Simone Bellotti - Designer, Creative Director of Jil Sander

[yslforever]

I think the market segment which used to be loyal to Jil Sander during her heyday have since moved on: with Phoebe at Chloe and Celine, then now at the Row, Khaite, Phoebe again, even Cos and Uniqlo by Jil.
That brand was a unique case - I would describe it as Germanic, rigorist, no-fun, Protestant fashion - which fitted its period but cannot be replicated imho, just like Helmut Lang.
I don't see the point of keeping the house open.

 

[Beun]

I think the market segment which used to be loyal to Jil Sander during her heyday have since moved on: with Phoebe at Chloe and Celine, then now at the Row, Khaite, Phoebe again, even Cos and Uniqlo by Jil.
That brand was a unique case - I would describe it as Germanic, rigorist, no-fun, Protestant fashion - which fitted its period but cannot be replicated imho, just like Helmut Lang.
I don't see the point of keeping the house open.

I don't think so.. I'd love to find the HL/JS spirit again today, and I'm sure that I'm not the one. As a menswear consumer: the Row is ridiculously overpriced and is also disingenuous:it's just preying on revered designers without much vision or overall aesthetic. Philo doesn't do menswear, and even if she did, everything she makes these days seems to be clownishly oversized and poorly tailored. Cos is ok for basics and is as best as it could in its price range, but the quality is obviously not there. You could have a gone on a manic shopping spree at JS and HL circa 98, basically stop buying clothes afterwards and still have a perfectly elegant and relevant wardrobe today. The appeal of timeless minimalism, excellent tailoring and high quality garments didn't wane, especially given that a more consumers with larger buying powers care about durability today than 25-30 years ago. Both brands could basically make a killing by just reissuing their archives and promoting their ability to outlast trends and to limit one's ecological footprint.

 

[Kanzai]

I think the market segment which used to be loyal to Jil Sander during her heyday have since moved on: with Phoebe at Chloe and Celine, then now at the Row, Khaite, Phoebe again, even Cos and Uniqlo by Jil.
That brand was a unique case - I would describe it as Germanic, rigorist, no-fun, Protestant fashion - which fitted its period but cannot be replicated imho, just like Helmut Lang.
I don't see the point of keeping the house open.

Hmm, interesting. Personally, I find Jil Sander's aesthetic to be quite timeless. While it's true that her work is extremely sterile – clinical – serious, it doesn't feel irrelevant today if styled and mixed–matched appropriately. Regarding Helmut Lang, while both designers operated within minimalist codes, Lang brought a different sensibility – radical, urban, quietly sensual and grounded in an industrial intellectualism. His menswear isn't really the issue, because many of his pieces challenge the limits of time. But his womenswear carries a unique spirit, a personal signature that today's audience doesn't always grasp or emotionally connect with.

Jil Sander is different. Her designs are more grounded and, in some ways, closer to the pragmatism of her contemporary, Calvin Klein. That’s why it’s not surprising to see ongoing efforts to keep her brand alive and evolving.

Frankly, this brings to mind someone I deeply admire – Armani, my personal hero. While his bygone golden era may now feel like part of fashion history, there’s something quietly miraculous about how he continues to preserve his signature language, all while navigating a fashion world that grows noisier and more chaotic by the day.

At the end of the day, I don’t think the issue has ever truly been about whether a designer's aesthetic or style remains relevant. It’s more about how a designer chooses to adapt or refuses to, even when they may no longer have anything new to bring to the table. With the right designer/CD, a dying brand can still thrive.

 

[tricotineacetat]

I think the market segment which used to be loyal to Jil Sander during her heyday have since moved on: with Phoebe at Chloe and Celine, then now at the Row, Khaite, Phoebe again, even Cos and Uniqlo by Jil.
That brand was a unique case - I would describe it as Germanic, rigorist, no-fun, Protestant fashion - which fitted its period but cannot be replicated imho, just like Helmut Lang.
I don't see the point of keeping the house open.

Most of all, it was fashion for a demographic that weren’t really fashion followers per se - Perhaps in a very select continuum alongside the Belgians and the Japanese (I keep coming back to that, over and over again, I know…), but not in the general 'fashion conversation'.

Jil did her thing much like somebody like Ann Demeulemeester even at a time when magazines like Vogue did not deem it covetable enough and trends were not developing in their favor - On top of that, we know Anna Wintour would often not even go to people like Yohji or Ann.

The sad truth is that nobody dares to defy the mainstream these days. You have brands like Ann paying celebrities like Dua Lipa to wear the label’s clothes - Something Mrs. Demeulemeester would never, ever, ever do if it hadn’t come out of a genuinely grown personal relationship to an artist. The Jil Sander customer would probably consider it less appealing to see Kendal Jenner, Rihanna or Travis Scott in Jil Sander…

It pains me to see the brand as a trend-chasing brand issueing the discarded, regurgitated rejects from Phoebe-era Celine - It’s just as wrong as what the Colovos' couple did with Helmut Lang when they turned it into a Rick Owens copyist label… I would rather wear archival +J for double the price than any of the nonsense the Meiers did…

 

[tricotineacetat]

I don't think so.. I'd love to find the HL/JS spirit again today, and I'm sure that I'm not the one. As a menswear consumer: the Row is ridiculously overpriced and is also disingenuous:it's just preying on revered designers without much vision or overall aesthetic. Philo doesn't do menswear, and even if she did, everything she makes these days seems to be clownishly oversized and poorly tailored. Cos is ok for basics and is as best as it could in its price range, but the quality is obviously not there. You could have a gone on a manic shopping spree at JS and HL circa 98, basically stop buying clothes afterwards and still have a perfectly elegant and relevant wardrobe today. The appeal of timeless minimalism, excellent tailoring and high quality garments didn't wane, especially given that a more consumers with larger buying powers care about durability today than 25-30 years ago. Both brands could basically make a killing by just reissuing their archives and promoting their ability to outlast trends and to limit one's ecological footprint.

Thanks, it’s nice to hear that. Gives me back a little bit of hope that there’s a silent demography not addressed and I’m not the only one feeling that.

 

[philophile]

It pains me to see the brand as a trend-chasing brand issueing the discarded, regurgitated rejects from Phoebe-era Celine - It’s just as wrong as what the Colovos' couple did with Helmut Lang when they turned it into a Rick Owens copyist label… I would rather wear archival +J for double the price than any of the nonsense the Meiers did…

I don't really post here (das will ich auch nicht weitermachen), but to reduce the Meiers' 7 year body of work to 'discarded, regurgitated rejects from the Phoebe -era Celine' is just not entirely accurate (even if in part, they were very influenced by Philo, like almost every other contemporary last decade). If you follow fashion closely, you know the fashion elite are still lusting after items of the Meier tenure at Jil Sander years ago and they are not exactly Philo-era copies. While there are many pieces that are not exactly very 90s Jil Sander, there are many others that are, including coats, bags, shoes, etc. Said items are so popular they will continue becoming re-released even with Belotti as a CD. The Meiers were a mixed bag but they released lots of jewels here and there. There's a reason why Jil Sander became relevant again, when no one was speaking about the brand for years. Like them or not, they put the label on the radar again, even if they became increasingly boring by the end of their tenure and they needed to be fired. Daniel Lee would have been a perfect fit for the brand, not the snoozefest that is being hinted by Simone Bellotti.

There's also this incredibly useful German word called 'Zeitgeist' which defines an era and it is absolutely normal for most artists/musicians/filmmakers/writers/etc to continue developing ideas within a certain aesthetic movement, just like Cubism did with Picasso, Braque, Metzinger, Zadkine, Archipenko, etc, etc etc. Picasso was the leader of Cubism, just like Philo was of 2010s minimalism, yet no one would be so disingenuous and miopic to discard Henri Laurens' work and call it a 'reject from the Picasso era'.

What I fail to really understand in this thread is: One the one hand, people are super bored with fashion nowadays, but on the other, if someone does something remotely different, then let's go back to boring, basic fashion? What do people want from Jil Sander in 2025? Do you really think 'going back to the roots' to the severely austere, sterile, and strictly functional fashion that Jil Sander was in the 90s a good idea? Really? There was a context back then, which is a nonexistent condition right now: Jil Sander only rose to popularity as minimalism was a counterreaction to 80s excess and maximalism. This context is far away from what fashion just relatively recently experienced last decade with the Philo-led minimalist movement. But the real problem is that Gen Z has suddenly become obsessed with the 90s. Jil Sander 'going back to the roots' will just get lost in a market oversaturated with nondescript and pragmatic fashion. The Phoebe Philo-led 2010s movement was distinctive because it incorporated subversive elements to otherwise clinical designs. This opened a whole world of creativity the Meiers joined and which was a natural progression of minimalist fashion (if Philo hadn't done it, someone else would have, trust me). So we should just retrogress or what?

 

[philophile]

It pains me to see the brand as a trend-chasing brand

P.S. Are you suggesting that being a Philo-influenced brand is being a trend-chasing brand? How come so many of us are still wearing Philo (and even some Meiers') silhouettes, despite them not being necessarily in trend after so many years? Trend-chasing is not exactly the right word if you ask me. There is a high demand for these brands exactly because they never chased trends. These designers had a great eye for timelessness, despite creating playful fashion. I also don't recall one single trend the Meiers were joining/setting, or please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[PDFSD]

original jil sander is as relevant as it was back then: if cos and the row etc all doing well now shows there always was and will be a need big or small for well made designed refined elegant purposeful clothes with some wit to it now and again.

Saying Meiers made Jil sander relevant again is saying Blazy made bottega relevant again when Lee was there before as Raf at Jil with the big shift/focus in vision .

ever since jil herself and raf after here the good will toward jil sander of a brand was based on that not on what meier's build or disjointed efforts

just as an philosophy if its not clear there is nothing to believe in, jil sander is rooted in a clear philosophy we don't need more phoebesque zeitgeist versions around.

post raf Jil lost all/any status it gained back during raf era post jil exit, after that it was just a lost Philo-influenced trend-chasing brand.

no amount of if and buts will change this there is Jil and Raf.... the rest is mayor crap so far.

Philo trend never went away what are we talking about!! post celine other brands continued to push her silhouettes and ways of doing.

thats the whole fatigue that it seem there is nothing else then philo copies around.

a trend can last 10 15 years

 

[Simera]

As fashion week draws closer I am more curious about how his casting will be for the show. Will it be no names like at Bally? Or will it have a strong cast.

 

[philophile]

90s fashion is no longer relevant after 30 years when most of it is comprised of what we call 'basics' today. This is how normalized it has become after decades, which is expected from any movement that left its influence for so long.
As a Gen Xer, BELIEVE me, Jil Sander was more relevant in the 90s than it could ever dream of being today. You don't understand how 80s fashion was, it hurt the eyes, I know it because of my mother. All minimalism was groundbreaking in the 90s. It created and founded what we call timeless today and Jil Sander was it alongside Calvin Klein and Helmut Lang. Cos is just copying all of this. This is all a no-brainer for anyone above 35. This historical context is impossible to be replicated.
BTW, the Meiers made Jil Sander relevant again before Lee made Bottega relevant again, as it was at least a couple of years before Lee's tenure (giggle).
Who says Philo is not based on a clear philosophy? You? lol
There is no such thing as Philo fatigue. She simply opened the doors for a whole world of creativity, where anyone can do it differently and 'clean up' anything at any time. It's analogous to abstraction in painting: anyone can do it in their own way and in groundbreaking ways without there being limits.

 

[philophile]

a trend can last 10 15 years

Isn't that quite literally called an era? But anyhoo, we can call anything, anything we want to, it seems.

BTW, Raf Simmons (whose Jil Sander I liked, BTW) stopped designing for the brand in 2012. The Meiers tenure only started in 2017. As an obsessive minimal fashion follower since 2012-13 I do not recall Jil Sander at any point in between being mentioned in fashion conversations. If it helps, let's go on beating a dead horse. Good luck on Belotti's basic Jil Sander, if that's your cup of tea. The competition won't be easy.

 

[tricotineacetat]

I don't really post here (das will ich auch nicht weitermachen), but to reduce the Meiers' 7 year body of work to 'discarded, regurgitated rejects from the Phoebe -era Celine' is just not entirely accurate (even if in part, they were very influenced by Philo, like almost every other contemporary last decade). If you follow fashion closely, you know the fashion elite are still lusting after items of the Meier tenure at Jil Sander years ago and they are not exactly Philo-era copies. While there are many pieces that are not exactly very 90s Jil Sander, there are many others that are, including coats, bags, shoes, etc. Said items are so popular they will continue becoming re-released even with Belotti as a CD. The Meiers were a mixed bag but they released lots of jewels here and there. There's a reason why Jil Sander became relevant again, when no one was speaking about the brand for years. Like them or not, they put the label on the radar again, even if they became increasingly boring by the end of their tenure and they needed to be fired. Daniel Lee would have been a perfect fit for the brand, not the snoozefest that is being hinted by Simone Bellotti.

There's also this incredibly useful German word called 'Zeitgeist' which defines an era and it is absolutely normal for most artists/musicians/filmmakers/writers/etc to continue developing ideas within a certain aesthetic movement, just like Cubism did with Picasso, Braque, Metzinger, Zadkine, Archipenko, etc, etc etc. Picasso was the leader of Cubism, just like Philo was of 2010s minimalism, yet no one would be so disingenuous and miopic to discard Henri Laurens' work and call it a 'reject from the Picasso era'.

What I fail to really understand in this thread is: One the one hand, people are super bored with fashion nowadays, but on the other, if someone does something remotely different, then let's go back to boring, basic fashion? What do people want from Jil Sander in 2025? Do you really think 'going back to the roots' to the severely austere, sterile, and strictly functional fashion that Jil Sander was in the 90s a good idea? Really? There was a context back then, which is a nonexistent condition right now: Jil Sander only rose to popularity as minimalism was a counterreaction to 80s excess and maximalism. This context is far away from what fashion just relatively recently experienced last decade with the Philo-led minimalist movement. But the real problem is that Gen Z has suddenly become obsessed with the 90s. Jil Sander 'going back to the roots' will just get lost in a market oversaturated with nondescript and pragmatic fashion. The Phoebe Philo-led 2010s movement was distinctive because it incorporated subversive elements to otherwise clinical designs. This opened a whole world of creativity the Meiers joined and which was a natural progression of minimalist fashion (if Philo hadn't done it, someone else would have, trust me). So we should just retrogress or what?

I don’t think you have the slightest idea what I’m talking about and were very much triggered by my rather brash and unflattering critique for designers you have often displayed a fondness for on this forum.

That’s all fine and well, but it shows your lack of understanding for the work of Ms Sander herself, that there is in fact a lot more to it than '90s minimalism'.

I will dare to say that we have too much 'fashion' and too little garment engineering, calibration of the smallest details in today’s fashion zeitgeist - Jil Sander had that and there was a thoughtfulness to her process that just so happened to culminate in a product that was pure and refreshingly straightforward how it was supposed to integrate in the life of it’s wearer - As somebody who comes from a menswear background, I see how most womenswear designers today (many of which are until today heavily inspired by Ms Philo) are taking mostly the looks but little of the functionality that thoughtful minimalism should have.

You are entitled to have your own taste but I don’t think you and I are talking about the same thing.

 

[tricotineacetat]

As an obsessive minimal fashion follower since 2012-13 I do not recall Jil Sander at any point in between being mentioned in fashion conversations.

Perhaps she did something well by not chasing the fashion circus - Truth be told, I don’t remember the last time we saw the mainstream fashion industry talk about the work of Yohji Yamamoto or Ann Demeulemeester (when she was still designing), and yet nobody would question their place in fashion history.

 

[philophile]

I don’t think you have the slightest idea what I’m talking about and were very much triggered by my rather brash and unflattering critique for designers you have often displayed a fondness for on this forum.

That’s all fine and well, but it shows your lack of understanding for the work of Ms Sander herself, that there is in fact a lot more to it than '90s minimalism'.

I will dare to say that we have too much 'fashion' and too little garment engineering, calibration of the smallest details in today’s fashion zeitgeist - Jil Sander had that and there was a thoughtfulness to her process that just so happened to culminate in a product that was pure and refreshingly straightforward how it was supposed to integrate in the life of it’s wearer - As somebody who comes from a menswear background, I see how most womenswear designers today (many of which are until today heavily inspired by Ms Philo) are taking mostly the looks but little of the functionality that thoughtful minimalism should have.

You are entitled to have your own taste but I don’t think you and I are talking about the same thing.

No, I'm not triggered by it at all, I just simply consider it highly inaccurate (I don't really care about the Meiers anymore, FYI), but sure, go on with personal attacks with what you previously read from me on this forum. It's invalid in a conversation where I have real arguments. And my argument is, that Jil Sander got successful in the 90s only and only because of a a diametrically different previous historical context: the excess of the 80s ( and a lot of 80s fashion was still functional and well-constructed despite its loudness ). Even 1960's Andrés Courrèges's and Pierre Cardin's Space Age minimalist concepts were light years far more interesting than anything she ever did, even if I liked her fashion at the time.

And to be honest: I do not give a rat's hiney to understand 90s Jil Sander and her protestantist, austere, puritane expression of fashion. I am abhorred by anything religious or sanctimonious and very passionate about everything that defies pre-established notions. No, Jil Sander was no more, no less than 90s minimalism, because it is a minimalism that is not modern anymore and didn't trascend its time. Anyone with a miniscule eye for fashion knows this is just basics by now that even Cos has recreated for over a decade. Who says well-constructed garments cannot come with an interesting or architectural twist? This is a logical fallacy. Perhaps national pride contributes to defend so blindlessly a vision that is no longer relevant in the design world.

 

[philophile]

Perhaps she did something well by not chasing the fashion circus - Truth be told, I don’t remember the last time we saw the mainstream fashion industry talk about the work of Yohji Yamamoto or Ann Demeulemeester (when she was still designing), and yet nobody would question their place in fashion history.

Lol, people have always spoken about Yohji and Ann (fashion-forward designers diametrically different to conservative, austere fashion), especially in minimalist circles or people who love avant-garde fashion. 90s evangelical Jil Sander, on the other hand, we gotta move past that. That's what I imagine Trump's protestant followers wearing. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[PDFSD]

Isn't that quite literally called an era? But anyhoo, we can call anything, anything we want to, it seems.

BTW, Raf Simmons (whose Jil Sander I liked, BTW) stopped designing for the brand in 2012. The Meiers tenure only started in 2017. As an obsessive minimal fashion follower since 2012-13 I do not recall Jil Sander at any point in between being mentioned in fashion conversations. If it helps, let's go on beating a dead horse. Good luck on Belotti's basic Jil Sander, if that's your cup of tea. The competition won't be easy.

First of all i don't like Bellotti´s take at Bally nor first video for Jil, just as bad as Meiers both are vile and empty design to me.
I was lucky to meet Frau Sander twice in my life and once in a one on one conversation, this lady is very clear in her point of views in regards to clothes.

Now to the fun stuff :

Historical Era as your trying to define a specific period ... last time i checked was not called anything phoebe only in context of a phoebe at Celine era but thats within the context of the company celine.

what followed (during &) post her era was the trend she set aka stylistic decisions that lead to a phoebe philo era style that till today is the trend

you need ghat gpt in your life philophile quite literally

A trend, in the context of data and time, refers to the general direction or tendency of a variable over a period of time. It represents a long-term pattern, whether increasing, decreasing, or remaining relatively constant, that is distinct from short-term fluctuations. Trends can be analyzed in various fields, including economics, finance, and public health, to understand patterns, make predictions, and inform decisions.

In the context of time, "era" refers to a specific period marked by distinctive characteristics, events, or qualities. It can denote a historical period, a phase in someone's life, or even a major division of geologic time. Essentially, an era is a way to categorize and understand time based on significant features or happenings.

Key Characteristics of a Trend:

• Long-term:
  Trends are not short-lived fluctuations but rather persistent patterns observed over a more extended period
  
  
  
  

 

[PDFSD]

Lol, people have always spoken about Yohji and Ann (fashion-forward designers diametrically different to conservative, austere fashion), especially in minimalist circles or people who love avant-garde fashion. 90s evangelical Jil Sander, on the other hand, we gotta move past that. That's what I imagine Trump's protestant followers wearing. Thanks, but no thanks.

your making jil sander to be some mormon religious sect wear when she did color and played with prints and experimented etc
also total disrespect to a her as a person that always spoke of the humanity of wearing and designing clothes that are well made and have a purpose in people's lives etc

like always i prefer always the words directly from the person in this case jil explains why she designs clothes and not superficial memories of a past era in order to make a point not grounded in facts

 

[Kanzai]

Not a single look from this man yet but this thread has already been giving 🥵.

 

[tricotineacetat]

No, I'm not triggered by it at all, I just simply consider it highly inaccurate (I don't really care about the Meiers anymore, FYI), but sure, go on with personal attacks with what you previously read from me on this forum. It's invalid in a conversation where I have real arguments. And my argument is, that Jil Sander got successful in the 90s only and only because of a a diametrically different previous historical context: the excess of the 80s ( and a lot of 80s fashion was still functional and well-constructed despite its loudness ). Even 1960's Andrés Courrèges's and Pierre Cardin's Space Age minimalist concepts were light years far more interesting than anything she ever did, even if I liked her fashion at the time.

And to be honest: I do not give a rat's hiney to understand 90s Jil Sander and her protestantist, austere, puritane expression of fashion. I am abhorred by anything religious or sanctimonious and very passionate about everything that defies pre-established notions. No, Jil Sander was no more, no less than 90s minimalism, because it is a minimalism that is not modern anymore and didn't trascend its time. Anyone with a miniscule eye for fashion knows this is just basics by now that even Cos has recreated for over a decade. Who says well-constructed garments cannot come with an interesting or architectural twist? This is a logical fallacy. Perhaps national pride contributes to defend so blindlessly a vision that is no longer relevant in the design world.

Sure, these kind of clothes are clearly lacking of 'interesting, architectural twists'…

Funny that you’re throwing around arguments from different people as you see fit to suit your needs, since I never used those associations you described Ms Sander's work with. The cultural context you are trying to link her work with is wildly speculative, to say the least.

You clearly have your aesthetic preferences shaped with a larger emphasize on how Zeitgeist-y it resonates and by today’s standard, that happens to be what gets being picked up by content creators, is being shared on social networks, etc. - Momentum is the currency by which the outside world validates the relevance of artistic work and by that measure, having a notoriously private, uncompromising creative like Jil Sander return for a 2nd time, replacing her much-acclaimed and beloved predecessor Raf Simons explains why the public did not welcome her back with much enthusiasm - Added to that her abrupt departure for reasons rooted in her private life, that created an air of unease for the media to engage with the work she created in her brief return.

Keeping in mind how the industry works and a momentum is created (also by the stamp of approval from Vogue and other fashion magazines), Jil Sander’s work falls way below the radar since decades, whereas of course, we have a whole other momentum behind Phoebe Philo as well as the designers following in her lineage, brought up in a largely digital-leaning PR. As an 80-year old woman, I think Jil Sander has every right to withdraw from this game, much as her peer Alaia largely disengaged from the need to personally promote his work by any means.

The value of an artistic body of work often only becomes clear in hindsight - for example, the most radically purist, yet architectural work by Cristobal Balenciaga in the 1960s was only much later considered the peak of his output and not received with great enthusiasm at the time of it’s presentation - Whether or not Ms Philo or her peers following in her lineage will be remembered in the history of fashion with similar significance as Ms Jil Sander remains to be seen.

 

[tricotineacetat]

90s fashion is no longer relevant after 30 years when most of it is comprised of what we call 'basics' today. This is how normalized it has become after decades, which is expected from any movement that left its influence for so long.
As a Gen Xer, BELIEVE me, Jil Sander was more relevant in the 90s than it could ever dream of being today. You don't understand how 80s fashion was, it hurt the eyes, I know it because of my mother. All minimalism was groundbreaking in the 90s. It created and founded what we call timeless today and Jil Sander was it alongside Calvin Klein and Helmut Lang. Cos is just copying all of this. This is all a no-brainer for anyone above 35. This historical context is impossible to be replicated.
BTW, the Meiers made Jil Sander relevant again before Lee made Bottega relevant again, as it was at least a couple of years before Lee's tenure (giggle).
Who says Philo is not based on a clear philosophy? You? lol
There is no such thing as Philo fatigue. She simply opened the doors for a whole world of creativity, where anyone can do it differently and 'clean up' anything at any time. It's analogous to abstraction in painting: anyone can do it in their own way and in groundbreaking ways without there being limits.

You think you need to lecture me on that, do you?

I’ve been working in the fashion industry for more than 20 years. And no, 'minimalism in fashion' predates the 1990's. Get back to educate yourself about 20th century fashion history, perhaps when you look at the work of other (female) designers like Anne Marie Beretta, Claire McCardell, Madeleine Vionnet or Madame Grès you will find that purist design was not exclusive to the expression of 1990s fashion.