I've never been an outright fan of Alessandro Michele, the recently defunct Gucci designer. I often found his ensembles laborious and self-indulgent; Unedited, like the rambling monologues he would deliver after performances in the guise of a press conference, throwing himself into a throne-like chair in exhaustion. So far in the past week, since Announcing his departure from the brand Nearly eight years later, I couldn't stop thinking that we would miss him more than we could have imagined until now.
And that his passing is yet another example of the obliging fashion it has created for itself, with the constant churning of designers, the constant reinvention of brands, and the constant production of new things. With instant high addiction that's what's new! And different! next one!
whether you like what he does mr. Michelle did it or not, there was no denying his point, and it changed not only the way people dress but the entire course of fashion. This is a rare achievement that has its own value.
Coco Chanel did just that, when she threw out the corset and started making mini boucle-bouquet bodysuits to match her bomber jackets. Christian Dior did it with new look. Yves Saint Laurent, owner of subversive elegance lo smoking. Cristóbal Balenciaga, with its immaculate architecture. More recently, Giorgio Armani did it with his deconstructed power suit, and Martin Margiela, with his deconstructed notions of beauty. They created their own vernacular which was then absorbed into fashion in a big way, and from there into cupboards everywhere.
But these are just a few names in the big fashion sweep, and the truth is, most designers—even the super-successful ones—don't even have a single idea that lives up to it. They only make good clothes that people want to buy because they look right. There's nothing wrong with that, but it also doesn't change our sense of self, which is what a design that doesn't look like what you thought you wanted to do but that suddenly looks exactly like you think you want to be able to do.
And even those who have changed fashion have not done so more than once. After they found their thing, they pretty much stuck with it, season after season. (Hi, Armani jacket. How are you, Birkin bag?) That's part of what convinces consumers that such items are worth investing in: their sheer longevity.
it's not that mr. Michelle's own designs were very revolutionary; They often looked noticeably outdated. It was the way he defined fashion in the first place, and who it was for, that made it resonate and seemed to crystallize the contemporary cultural moment.
He's taken a brand known for its bumbling, rich mix of python, late-night panting, and Jackie O's ambition and turned it into a big tentpole world of fashionistas and freaks, flitting across genders, time periods, and fantasy. loafers in bedroom slippers made with fur bellies; put horn-rimmed glasses on the silver screen siren; And they sent models down the runway with replicas of their heads. He's had deals with Major League Baseball, Disney, and Disney Dapper day.
Everyone was welcome at Gucciland. (He also made a lot of things, there was a lot for everyone.) He saw inclusivity as wide as possible and made it great. He brought the unenthusiastic sentimental back into fashion. Even if his work sometimes veers into maudlin, it has reverberated through fashion to Hollywood and beyond. It was a great idea.
But now, apparently, this is no longer enough. it's not that mr. Michelle was making nasty things; He was just making the same things, and it wasn't that exciting anymore. When consumers get bored, and they always do — in this case, there's a lot of weirdness any wardrobe can handle unless it belongs to Jared Leto — things are bound to pick up. And Gucci has been such a huge success for so long (eight years is an eon in today's fashion time) that when that wasn't the case anymore, it seemed off by comparison. And procrastination, these days, equals failure.
when was mr. Michel either couldn't or didn't want to switch gears—it's not clear who instigated the breakup—he and Gucci's owner, Kering, agreed to disagree.
Maybe it was inevitable. The chances of any designer producing two major fashion-changing ideas in one career are very slim. Hedi Slimane, for example, would do Hedi Slimane regardless of the brand name (Dior Homme, Saint Laurent, Celine). Tom Ford Tom Ford is not much different from Gucci's Tom Ford. John Galliano has shifted gears at Maison Margiela from the days of Dior and Galliano, true, exchanging lofty and historical romance for eclectic recycling, but so far, while good, it hasn't had the same effect.
Breaths are drawn in at the long-awaited debut of Phoebe Philo, and the question is whether she'll do another version of the chic adult wear and undergarments she made at Céline before Mr. Solomon changed course, or something completely new.
But whether the change should have been demanded in the first place is a different question. Maybe refining the big idea, owning the big idea for posterity, rather than giving it away entirely, is enough. At a certain point, the endless turbulence and renewal becomes as exhausting as the same old age. And continued growth on a finite planet is an illusion that must be returned to the fantasy land from which it originated.
In fact, it comes on the heels COP27 Climate ConferenceAnd, with more general commitments to sustainability from all aspects of the fashion industry, the Gucci switcheroo seems particularly ironic. After all, what usually happens when a brand chooses to change over the top? Out with the old! If it doesn't go back to the trash or the incinerator, at least to the sale shelves. More stuff, flooding stores. Sustainability means adhering to the brand idea, not just biodegradable materials. It means a long-term relationship, which has its own implicit value.
Sometimes change is good, no doubt. Sometimes it is necessary. (See Burberry, which is about to make a makeover under its new designer Daniel Lee Yet when Riccardo Tisci fails to give the British brand any clear identity.) But when it changes for change's sake, or change for shopping's sake, or change for analysts' sake, which is change for investors' sake, it simply reinforces the bad habits we have. I got into it. Both as consumers and as businesses. And that...well, that's just another word for trash.
Source link
0 Comments