The Death Of A Designer...

[leyla m.]

Originally posted by ebowleg@Dec 21st, 2003 - 12:08 am

as for the other houses, such as VERSACE  : now thats real sad cause its not even a complete stranger who is designing but the MASTER'S own sister  .. i mean she should have respected his style a bit more

Leyla m.- what do you mean she should have respected Gianni more? She still creates sexy clothes with tons of prints, color and excess just like he did. No, she is not Gianni, but we cannot expect her to be. She is bringing something new to the house, more feminity that Gianni himself could not. Look at what Nicholas Ghesquier (i know i spelled it wrong) is doing at Balenciaga. It looks nothing like what Cristobal did, yet he gets rave reviews.

i agree with you about the prints and sexiness...
but i find that donatella has brought a lot of trashiness too.
i never liked versace in the first place (talking of those medusa print shirts, etc) but at the time of GIANNI it was cool. donatella makes the label just look cheap

just my opinion

 

[ignitioned32]

Well McQueen has a good point. I mean, as Lena said, who can do Dior like M. Dior or Givenchy like Hubert? I mean look at YSL, Tom just keeps borrowing from the archives.. it's like better off dead right? The house is not being re-invented. Though if a designer can re-invent the house and make it right for today (or the time where he is designing) maybe it can work. Like Nicolas G. at Balenciaga. At least he never borrows from the archives, re-invents the house and makes it right for today but still in the spirit of the house.

 

[ignitioned32]

Originally posted by Lena@Dec 20th, 2003 - 4:34 pm
worst thing regarding revamping old houses is that this makes it extremelly hard for new designers to succesfully launch new labels>> new original signature styles.

Yes I so agree with this, Lena!

 

[ebowleg]

I can partly agree with you ighnitioned32, but I see it like this. YSL was never dead (the brand, not Yves himself) therefore it didn't need to be reinvented. Gucci for example was fading into time until Tom came in and revived a dying house. What Tom does at YSL is updates the items that made YSL what it was, but in his sexual, perverse way. I don't see many things there that YSL himself would ever send down the runway. As for Nicolas G. at Balenciaga, he doesn't borrow from archives, he borrows from other people. Case in point, he knocked off a design from a little known asian designer for a few print tops for the S/S 02 collection.

 

[ignitioned32]

First, Nicolas did not borrow from the "little known Asian designer" Wong. Before even Wong did those types of design the late Dutch designer Koos Van Der Accker did those and Nicolas said that himslef. Plus that was just one collection look at Fall 2001 or Sprign 2003.

Secondly that sexual perversiveness Tom does at YSL, is that true to M. Saint Laurent?

 

[ebowleg]

You said it sister!

 

[Plumour]

it's all about marketing in my opinion.
if the house is gone when its designer dies, no further money would be made.
and if the new designers just go ahead and open their own houses, it's very likely that their labels wouldn't be recognized and be those "big names" until a long time after, and during this time, I don't think they can make good money.
sometimes fashion is just not only about fashion...

 

[Scott]

I agree with the young designer aspects. I feel if it were that way,we would be allowed to see what they really feel strongly and passionately about in their works instead of being dictated and edited in a conglomerate fashion house. Having your own label has its freedom that none rarely get from designing certain houses at an early stage.

However,I think once you've got something going and then decide design for a House like McQueen did,perhaps that would be ok. But no pleasure is greater than putting your own blood,sweat and tears out there under your own name with no one having to prove to but yourself and your clients.

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by MissPurple@Dec 21st, 2003 - 7:08 am
it's all about marketing in my opinion.
if the house is gone when its designer dies, no further money would be made.
and if the new designers just go ahead and open their own houses, it's very likely that their labels wouldn't be recognized and be those "big names" until a long time after, and during this time, I don't think they can make good money.
sometimes fashion is just not only about fashion...

thats exactly why this is happening.. shareholders are just offering their investment a 'lifting' by bringing in 'new blood' for a transfusion, still this can only work up to one point, because in the long run i belive houses 'lose' their touch through the 'takes' of new designers on the brand's name.

who remembers what gucci style was like before tom ford? gucci is not 'gucci' since tom, it has become Tom's style, Tom Ford's Gucci ...
and now we should be prepared for someone else's take on the gucci style, this eventually dilutes the initial artistic direction of the label

as for McQueen, he has my respect but his take on Givenchy was so ...not Givenchy, as Nicolas G. work is so NOT in the spirit of the house of Balenciaga.

btw, the 'replacement' phenomenon first came around after the death of Dior, it was only because there were so many people investing at Dior that they could not possibly lose their money once ChristianD. passed away.
Still, Dior was never Dior again.. the house never reached its old glory.

and yes, fashion is absolutely not all about style and creative expression
this is a HUGE global business developing from shareholder's boards,
not from designer's ateliers.

 

[contessacolette]

quoting lena:

and yes, fashion is absolutely not all about style and creative expression
this is a HUGE global business developing from shareholder's boards,
not from designer's ateliers.

AMEN!

* * *

business should really be emphasized at fashion schools. in fact, it should be made mandatory. there'll be far less cases of "wasted talent" just because young graduates lack the necessary tools and know-how to start/sustain their fledgling ateliers. then of course it helps A LOT to know people.

 

[Lena]

something more.

investors instead of investing in old labels should take attention to new designers.
it obviously involves risks and this is a 'short time investment' but its the only way fashion can go forward 'developing' and profitable. This could bring a fresh take on what is cool today, we need more money invested to young talent. There are so many brilliant designers out there who do not have the means to compete with super labels and their creativity gets unoticed from lack of financial support.

 

[ignitioned32]

Originally posted by Lena@Dec 21st, 2003 - 4:37 am
as Nicolas G. work is so NOT in the spirit of the house of Balenciaga.

Just IMO, Nicolas Ghesquiere’s huge popularity in the fashion world is due to his ability to innovate while still respecting the tradition of his label’s namesake, Cristobal Balenciaga.

Proof of this can be seen in his recent collections. Like the A line coats and the stiffness of the 1960's Balenciaga was all seen at the Fall 2003 show. And the heavy, architectual clothes Cristobal was known for was seen at the Spring 2004 show.

 

[Lena]

OT

i disagree igni, i just cant see the Balenciaga connection in his work.
Elbaz, Sibylla, Matrin Grant, Ralf Rucci are far more into the Balenciaga mood than Nicolas G.
As for the reasons that made him famous i suspect them to be: his drop dead good looks and an amazing circle of hype. His soft 'fallen angels' debut collections with dripping tulles and lace i'm sure they gave Christobal's poor soul the creeps, so NOT in the austere mood of the house

 

[ignitioned32]

Now I really think the houses should die with the designers.

Lena you have a point there. Since Nicolas G. is not Cristobal he cannot maintain all the aspects of the house. Like sure he has the architectual and stiffness of Balenciaga and makes it right for today but he doesn't maintain the austere-ness of the house. If the designer can't maintain everything he better be off on his own.

 

[Scott]

Sorry of topic:


Did anyone think Nicolas' earlier collections(first three seasons,that is)were far better than of late? I think those collections were far more in tune with fluidity an structure that made Cristobal famous.

Fall 98:

 

[Scott]

Spring 99

 

[Scott]

Fall 99

 

[Spacemiu]

being of scubject: btu id o leik nicholas's work, despite the massive hype, it think Balenciaga was creating a modern constructed but still romantic clothing, and I think Nicholas is doing the same, I certinly dount think he is any wear near balenciaga, btu i think he is respecting the spirit ut still doing his won thing, wich if you must put a desigenr at an odl hosue, wich as is aid befor i despise, than this si teh ebst you can ask for IMO.

 

[so_pink]

givenchy and billblass are two prime examples of how fashion is always evolving..
u have audrey hepburn..the quittessential fashion icon of elegance ..givenchy made her style a eternal fashion standard. today u see so much emulation for his clothes then..but not now.. b/c givenchy is not there himself to design them.. i think the label should develop a revival campaign bringing back the hepburn/givenchy era... as for bill blass...i pity that designer who recently got fired... see i don't even know his name! i didnt think his clothes were all that great either.