Why Is The Fashion Industry In The State That It's In Today?

Discussion in 'Fashion... In Depth' started by LoveFashion25, Jan 17, 2021.

  1. LoveFashion25

    LoveFashion25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2021
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    51
    Growing up I was in love with fashion(still am) and loved the clothings, the quality, handbags, the EXPERIENCE and storytelling but fashion forward to the past 5 years or even longer it seems like these fashion brands I love(ex. Chanel) isn't what it used to be. Fashion needs to move forward or else it will get left behind but man this industry is falling on hard times. I was not impressed with Paris Fashion Week at all. It seems like these brands care more about profits than the customer experience.

    I think the industry needs an overhaul or revamp. I think the amount of celebrities endorsement deals is killing it as well. Many of these celebs do not or should not endorse these brands. I am sadden with how American Vogue turned out to be. IMO Anna needs to retire. I get she's the most influential figure in fashion for 30+ years but we need fresh blood, new ideas and to me she ruined Vogue and the Met Gala. She's hopping on trends and relevancy when she used to be the trendsetter.

    I also think that fashion in terms of France is kind of losing its appeal. The French fashion industry needs to revamp and I blame these huge companies such as LVMH who only care about mass production and not skilled craftsman or seamstress.

    What are your thoughts?

    P.S. Thanks for reading me rant :smile:
     
    devilinmcqueen, Dior Dream and dsamg like this.
  2. arabchic

    arabchic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2020
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    39
    Democratizing fashion is one of the main reasons the industry is in this dire state..
    (Fashion is effected by politics and youth which support this democratizing) and I would go in a rant if I wasn’t so tired right now
     
    ogepma, MyNameIs and dsamg like this.
  3. LoveFashion25

    LoveFashion25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2021
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    51
    I would love to read more since you seem right on point with this idea.
     
  4. Phuel

    Phuel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,993
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    Ousting Anna is not going to make American Vogue the least bit better. She would be immediately replaced with Anna version 2.0… Edward Enninful. Or, is that Emanuel person at VI any better…??? All these people are controlled by the corporations— of which rely on the kidz/SM/influencers with their multimillion followers— like Kendall and her ilks. And when you have as many followers as Kendall and Kylie, you have to dumb down your sensibility to such crass commercialism: You are nothing but the most shallow, hollow of the most bland, boring and basic entity of whatever is trending: You're a boy band. And these are the people that the brands— from Chanel to Vogue, have lowered themselves to emulate. Where once high fashion confidently lead, it now meekly follows.

    Change is not going to happen within these corporations. Whoever will replace Anna/Edward/Emanuel will turn out just like them if they want to keep selling— if they want to keep their job. Whoever replaces Virginie/Virgil/Maria Grazia will turn out just like them— if they want to keep their job. Whoever will replace Tyler Mitchell/Nadine Ijewre/Ryan McGinley will turn out just like them— if they want to keep keep their job. If in my wildest of dreams American Vogue is offered to Fabien Baron, and Chanel to Haider Ackermann (and by some miracle they actually do accept LOL), they would have to dumb down to the masses’ level in order to pull in the numbers that their predecessors had: It’s a vicious cycle that they have no choice but to conform to if they accept and wish to keep their job. Change will only come when the powers that be are willing to take a loss of profits to dare support creative vision. And unfortunately, greed is too mighty an addiction and they’ve convinced the majority that the most basic, bland and boring that’s come to define high fashion is to be celebrated (and more importantly, to buy) in this era like it’s a revolution... when it’s really The Dark(est) Age Of Fashion.
     
  5. MulletProof

    MulletProof Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    26,636
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    I see democratization as a process that does not necessarily pose a problem. Like globalization, it's easy to blame mobility (forced or voluntary) as the source of all problems but it's in fact the lack of regulation and level-playing field.

    When fashion's floodgates were opened in relatively quick time, following a crisis (end of the 00s) where the rich became richer and the vulnerable ones escorted out, the attention and support seems to have turned exclusively to the extravagance of luxury houses.. and they used this to their advantage, with excellent publicity that sort of wired several generations at a time into believing this is the only area of fashion that matters, the only fashion that truly means anything, especially success.. if you're not a part of a conglomerate, you're more or less 'struggling', almost 'there' (aka. in a conglomerate) and maybe not a failure but certainly not success.

    It only takes a quick glance at the response towards Theyskens' work, to put an example, either here and on social media to see how that is a recurrent reaction ('poor guy, he could be at Dior already.. sad to see him designing on his own'). People are tired of the current state of fashion but simultaneously, worship conglomerates, from Conde Nast to LVMH. Sort of like complaining it's all coca-cola and pepsi out there and you wish things were more exciting but at the same time, you spend hours everyday trying to find the latest pepsi commercial, speculating who the new spokesperson might be is a fascinating discussion, want to be up to date with any changes in management, and laugh with pity at any up-and-coming brand that dares to not offer soda, they might get some support to spice things up, but never at the expense of giving up on what the conglomerate has to offer. In other words, no one would dare to turn down a Louis Vuitton bag in favor of a Lemaire bag. It feels dumb. So it's a 50/50 problem, conglomerates are, but so are the endorsers, and that seems to be.. everyone?

    The only thing it takes is mindset and no one changes their mindset so easily after age 20 really. By 22, you're already so thirsty to be a part of the establishment. It takes a new generation.. the type of non-indoctrinated people for whom Vogue or Chanel or Gucci has never meant anything, people with that normal desire of seeing something different than what they've grown up with (social media for example, which the older you are, the newer it seems).

    I've been saying this for years but I really think the kids that are around 11-13 right now will bring the change we're all hoping for and the much-needed change of format that will expand the scale of values into more than 'success= being in Vogue, being at the helm of whatever mid 20th-century fashion house, dressing a celebrity'. Time's great but time's also a b*itch. In the same way nearly all people cannot right now pinpoint what 2020-2021 elements will be absolutely cringe-worthy in 2037, assimilation of what's happening right now and a solution will not come from the current players with their heads too deep into this time (esp. after selling out to the extent they have).

    Finally, I was looking yesterday at one of those restored videos in color from like early 20th century New York and thinking of just how amazing it would be to walk out and seeing everyone so dressed up.. then I thought 'well.. you can't do that anymore'. I think the last vestiges of that (provided by fashion) ended with social media. Even if social media disappeared (and it won't), it just ended with a more mythical lifestyle that might have never really existed, it exposed things as less secretive and mysterious than we thought, and made us more judgmental too, what would've been fascinating eccentricity 20 years ago, as a lifestyle, not as part of a spectacle or ultra-exclusive event like the met gala, it's now 'poor lonely woman who dresses like her two minutes at the entrance of Dior is the only attention she will receive for another 6 months'. Like crinolines, I don't think that 'fantasy' side of fashion will ever come back..
     
  6. Phuel

    Phuel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,993
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    ^^^ Can’t blame people for wishing the best creatives to helm the biggest, most luxurious brands with the richest history and some of the most creative visionaries. And it’s these brands— for better or for worst, that have the deep pockets to stage the most elaborate presentations and produce the most iconic imagery through their campaigns. Money talks. And when it speaks to you in the right voice, it can be the most intoxicating inspiration and aspiration. That’s why most here are still lementing and hoping that these fabled brands will reignite their love affair with fashion.

    The likes of Olivier Theyskens/Dries Van Noten/Haider Ackermann simply don’t have the financial resources to be hyping their visions. And not everyone that adored them, or the high standard of individualism like theirs, can afford to support them. But if they were to align with these huge conglomerates, their influences would be easier seen and felt— and on a more pragmatic level, many more could support them by buying the more accessible bag/accessory/footwear. That, I believe is why so many are still holding out for talents like theirs to rule these conglomerate labels. Because try being an indie brand with all the creative visions and mastery of skills fighting for a sliver of a chance in these increasingly corporate days-- and see how far you'll get.
     
  7. MulletProof

    MulletProof Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    26,636
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    ^ oh I can! :lol:. It's the machinery they're after, not the best creatives. What percentage of that excess in production is truly the one person at the helm? and what happens the more success he/she will manage to amass? it will generate a demand that no amount of creativity residing in one human being is able to satisfy. So it seems a very starved, greedy, typically consumerist and short-term type of desire to want someone to create a spectacle knowing the long-term outcome (their downfall). Anyone that's ever experienced creative expression surely must be familiarized with the process of creativity itself and how it's absolutely not natural to adapt it to a factory schedule, which is what they have to do at these houses.

    'How far you'll get' is precisely what I'm trying to say above.. that suggests one route with a scale of distances (success). That will become obsolete. The way twirling in front of two socialites as a 'fashion show' did. The format must and will change, but certainly not by those who, for a majority of their life expectancy, have seen one route being explored.. not trying to be ageist, it's just not a natural course of human development! true change never comes by 're-injecting energy', freshening things up, praying so the suits reconsider their strategies.. it's simply by indifference.
     
  8. LoveFashion25

    LoveFashion25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2021
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    51
    This is why when a revolution happens it starts with one person mostly. I think in time we will see smaller unknown brands being creative and innovative imo.

    I do agree that they have to dumb down to the masses when they used to be front and center. Its why when these brands choose their ambassadors I side eye it. I hate how these corporations and social media is killing creativity and innovation. Anna is also part of the problem too...
     
  9. LoveFashion25

    LoveFashion25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2021
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    51
    Oh the era of dressing up is gone and I do blame social media and insta influencers too.

    "People are tired of the current state of fashion but simultaneously, worship conglomerates, from Conde Nast to LVMH. " - I personally find it sad how these two juggernaut are one of the causes of why the state of fashion is what it is today. I also blame celebrities too but won't get further on that front lol

    "I've been saying this for years but I really think the kids that are around 11-13 right now will bring the change we're all hoping for and the much-needed change of format that will expand the scale of values into more than 'success= being in Vogue, being at the helm of whatever mid 20th-century fashion house, dressing a celebrity'. " There are many creative minded people who are not in that age bracket you listed and wants to see a change.
     
  10. LoveFashion25

    LoveFashion25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2021
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    51
    I said earlier but in the next 5 or 10 years we will see an influx of smaller brands rising.
     
    Phuel likes this.
  11. Phuel

    Phuel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,993
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    ^^^ I almost don’t want to say this in fear of jinxing LOL: A new fashion era would likely come around in the next several (5) years. Looking back at fashion cycles from the 1920s onward, it seems eerily on the mark that it’s usually at the mid-decade point that a new fashion cycle emerges from the previous cycle. Maybe I’m just more optimistic but I don’t believe it’s the 11-13yos that will be the catalyst for a new vision; I mean, of course that youngest of generation will instigate some change when they come of age— they’d have to, cuz I can’t imagine stupid oversized coats, oversized hoodies and oversized kicks looking like overgrown toddlers are still the rage LOL Just that in the next several years, I do believe a change is in the air. People— even the proponents of everything that is basic bland and boring of the current fashionscape, will get bored of this current air (even more likely than other fashion generations before them since their Insta-attention span is shorter than other generations’).

    (Corporate greed on the other hand… That’s the ever omnipresent shroud that this industry seems to never be rid of. It will undoubtably-- and strategically manifest itself into another gimmick and hold sway.)
     
  12. LoveFashion25

    LoveFashion25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2021
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    51
    This is AMAZING because I agree with you. Something is brewing in the air and I do think in the next 5 years a new fashion era will arise. I was actually looking at the same from 1920s to 1960s being an inspiration for the next fashion era. I dislike how fast fashion and influencers has disrupted the fashion industry and Anna ruining Vogue and the Met Gala too. I was at the mall the other day and while walking I saw Chanel, Dior, famous perfume brand ect... all going back from the 1800s to the 1900s and made me think why haven't we started a new fashion revolution that these fashion brands will rise that in the next 100 years they would become prestigious and legendary? Made me realize we live in the NOW which is a shame.

    People— even the proponents of everything that is basic bland and boring of the current fashionscape, will get bored of this current air (even more likely than other fashion generations before them since their Insta-attention span is shorter than other generations’). - So true!
     
  13. Lola701

    Lola701 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    7,007
    Likes Received:
    7,379
    I personally don’t think we will see a rise of creativity from smaller brands. Unfortunately, there’s a decline in creativity and skills from younger designers. They only see fashion from a cultural paradigm...

    ‘The rise of talents in the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s came from a desire to cut from the codes of the institutions. In the 70’s, the spirit of RTW was in rupture with the stiffness of Couture. In the 80’s, the desire was to prove that RTW was a force of creativity. The 90’s saw the two worlds mixing each other. Globalization came big in the 00’s and because it was all new, there was a great sense of freedom...

    Today’s society is more and more conservative and everybody has indulge with the codes of luxury.

    What killed a certain idea of fashion is designers themselves and social media. We have to understand something: Executives responds to the market and editors reflects or society.

    Designers used to design because they wanted to change men/women lifestyle or because they wanted to accompany them in the changes of our society. Today designers are just fine with seeing their clothes on socialite during their holidays in Cabo.

    Today designers are totally into that idea of commercialism and culture relevancy. Nobody is talking about craft, techniques and quality. Even designers are speaking like marketers...

    I think that the voice of change will come from a big fashion house that will have the guts to hire a real talent. I usually think Chanel because all the executives are following Chanel because of their longevity but it can be another house.
     
    SophiaVB, Phuel and LoveFashion25 like this.
  14. MulletProof

    MulletProof Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    26,636
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Absolutely. I'd say it's a minority those who do not wish for a change. There is, however, a significant difference between wanting to see a change and being able to make a change. From what I've observed, and please correct me if you have seen differently, these two, at their deepest expression (profound discontent and reaching that point where you can envision a solution) rarely meet, they might have done so in agrarian movements but no way in a potential transformation within a field that is middle class at its poorest.

    Age becomes a major factor because, while the older and more experienced group may harbor deeper anger at the status quo, that's also tainted by frustration at their own inability to engage in any change themselves as that could jeopardize their position within. The younger ones benefit from a type of freedom that makes so little of the current order because they have not yet compromised livelihood and identity in many transactions. They have the ability to build on the side, with their own vocabulary and set of values and trophies, eventually turning obsolete what we see as unbreakable and 'here to stay' right now.

    To put it differently, you can demonstrate discontent and wish for a change, but that is bound to conflict with the possibility of no one ever needing your set of skills again, and all every adult has, in this economic system, is their set of skills. So one can think a 45 year old person, a 70 year old, a 30 year old, etc is able to make a change simply because they so desperately want to see it but that's not really the case in an industry centered on status. The less compromised in the system have a greater advantage in envisioning new ways. In this case, clothing and sartorial expression do not need fashion as we understand it, or the current fashion industry and what it values and dictates, or fashion at all, but, as this thread proves, we are so deeply wired to think we do it's impossible for us to even conceive a real change. It would be unnatural, too. Less faith in youth, skepticism on new talent and thinking a different mood or trend constitutes change is very much representative of a human life's cycle, so as not to prevent the newer humans from.. blooming.
     
    #14 MulletProof, Jan 19, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2021
    LoveFashion25 likes this.
  15. LoveFashion25

    LoveFashion25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2021
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    51
    Designers used to design because they wanted to change men/women lifestyle or because they wanted to accompany them in the changes of our society. Today designers are just fine with seeing their clothes on socialite during their holidays in Cabo.

    Today designers are totally into that idea of commercialism and culture relevancy. Nobody is talking about craft, techniques and quality. Even designers are speaking like marketers...

    I think that the voice of change will come from a big fashion house that will have the guts to hire a real talent. I usually think Chanel because all the executives are following Chanel because of their longevity but it can be another house.


    This right here was a true eye opener and how true it is but I have to say historically it has ALWAYS been the small man who made the historical change not the big man who has all power and control. So I believe smaller brands will make that change and hoping we have something new during the 2020s and moving forward.

    Honestly Chanel isn't any better with their quality issues and being very complacent too.
     
    Dior Dream and Lola701 like this.
  16. LoveFashion25

    LoveFashion25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2021
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    51
    I would say people in their 20s can make that change as well. In history we have seen many people in this age bracket making changes. Honestly age is just a number, you are right there is a difference on wanting a change and making a change.
     
  17. Lola701

    Lola701 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    7,007
    Likes Received:
    7,379
    Yes, historically change came from smaller brands but it came from designers who had convictions, a real POV but now, young talents don’t have that anymore.

    I’m thinking about the young talents today. Apart from serving us an updated version of Expected and overdone references, I don’t see anything.

    Take the example of Demna. Vetements was a come up for Balenciaga. Today, young talents wants to be a part of that club. When Nicolas took over Balenciaga, he started from scratch and his work established the house to the top.

    About Chanel, there’s a reason why people expect someone like Phoebe Philo or even Haider Ackermann. Because it will change the status-quo. Executives will notice...

    Alexandre Arnault is someone who has kind of destroyed a certain profile for a fashion designer. He is talented but he only sees Fashion from a cultural POV and look at the designers they are choosing now.

    Commercialism is so present in designer’s minds that I wonder how someone can have a small brand, a strong POV and keep it in that environment.

    For me overall, there’s too much mediocrity in new talents. It’s about visuals and not so much depth in terms of designs, construction and techniques.
     
    Phuel and LoveFashion25 like this.
  18. LoveFashion25

    LoveFashion25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2021
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    51
    For me overall, there’s too much mediocrity in new talents. It’s about visuals and not so much depth in terms of designs, construction and techniques.
    This right here I actually agree with. It really isn't about quality, technique or the designs but more like you said visuals and marketing. Its a shame because historically it was the smaller brands who made the necsearry changes. But Anna is part of the blame too. Look at Vogue or Met Gala. Its not about designers but tacky celebs and being relevant or on trend.

    I doubt Chanel will have Phoebe or Haider. Seems like Virginie is there to stay but her choices is making me sad eye and I am afraid Chanel will go back to what it was before Karl joined.

    Why do you think they haven't thought of anything creative or innovative? I have noticed we haven't really had a fashion brand rise to the heights of Chanel, Dior or Hermes is it cause they lack vision or innovation? You can't tell me everything has been done already because it has NOT! We are being lazy or complacent.
     
    devilinmcqueen likes this.
  19. Lola701

    Lola701 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    7,007
    Likes Received:
    7,379
    Yes, Anna has her responsability. Celebs sells, she jumped big time into it but the downside is that she became a prisoner of the whole thing. I admire Anna as a business woman and because the way she handle her career is quite impressive. Unfortunately, her Vogue has not been it IMO since 2008-2009.
    But for the Met Gala, I’m not mad of what she has done because it has reinforced Vogue as a relevant, cultural force. From a business POV, it’s genius..
    The downside is maybe that the Met Gala has become what the Vogue/VH1 awards was. Celebrities today are also a little bit more tacky I must say.
    I just don’t like to single out Anna because I think the mediocrity is visible in a lot of publications.
    Independent magazines have lost their identity too so there’s no more balance. There’s a real lack of edge in fashion publications...That’s why the lifestyle supplements of great newspapers looks more relevant. They have a real sense of emergency and there’s an intelligence in the content. Nobody ask for a politician to look glamorous on the cover of M le Monde because the reader wants the politician to do his job...

    She is there to stay but if you wants to be a leader, you have to lead. Soon enough the price increases won’t be enough for Chanel. My dream will always be Nicolas anyway...

    They haven’t thought of anything creative and innovative because it’s not their job. For 37 years, they had a designer who did everything and more. So, it’s difficult to go from that place of total peace to suddenly have to rely on the « corporate machine ».

    To have a fashion brand at the level of the Big players has more to do with foundation than innovation or vision. Dior in 10 years created the foundation of his house: fashion, fragrances, accessories. He established staples in daywear and eveningwear.
    I think there’s one brand that was created recently that has the potential to be a big luxury brand with the likes of Vuitton and Dior: Tom Ford.
    The problem with Tom Ford is that he has had an underwhelming return to womenswear but I think if he choose a talented and skilled designer, there’s a real potential.

    As far as younger designers...I see a lot of brands disappearing after the designer resign (JW Anderson) or turning into cash cows (Alexander Wang). Some can survive in their little box (Altuzarra).
     
    LoveFashion25 likes this.
  20. LoveFashion25

    LoveFashion25 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2021
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    51

    I agree that Anna is a legend and did amazing things for the fashion industry as a whole but imo she needs to go. Vogue hasn't been it for a long time and with the Met Gala inviting any and everyone like fashion influencers it shows how the world is. We only care about mediocrity. But she isn't the whole problem.

    She is there to stay but if you wants to be a leader, you have to lead. Soon enough the price increases won’t be enough for Chanel. My dream will always be Nicolas anyway...

    - I fear when it comes to Chanel she is not going to lead the pack and I agree that the price increase won't be enough. But its legit hard to come after what Karl did though...


    They haven’t thought of anything creative and innovative because it’s not their job. For 37 years, they had a designer who did everything and more. So, it’s difficult to go from that place of total peace to suddenly have to rely on the « corporate machine ».
    - Thats why I am hoping that in the next 5 years or so we can see a shift/change wear we can go back to that or have a balance of the two.

    To have a fashion brand at the level of the Big players has more to do with foundation than innovation or vision. Dior in 10 years created the foundation of his house: fashion, fragrances, accessories. He established staples in daywear and eveningwear.
    - Are you saying that a small brand in order for them to become legacy fashion houses shouldn't rely on a big corporation? So basically being independent? how can that happen when you pointed out designers of today are very mediocre at best?
    It kind of reminds me of Givenchy and Audrey. Givenchy made beautiful creations but Audrey propelled it to new heights. Sadly Givenchy is a mask of its former self.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"