Amidst the hum of fashion journalism being churned out as collection after collection is paraded for Spring there is one very intriguing undercurrent I have noticed alongside the boring show reviews. People, quietly and without real cohesion or coherent thought, are coming to terms with the changes in the business climate in fashion. Each piece I read attacks it from a different angle. Suzy Menkes’ slightly incoherent rant on private equity and youth proves she knows little of the the market but is nevertheless quite impassioned by these changes. The Wall Street Journal talks about balancing clothing that is salable to regular women versus keeping fickle fashion editors entertained in Milan. But the loudest, longest, and most telling piece was for me not a piece simply on business in fashion itself, but a piece heralding of a new age of women designers in WWD
I have to say what I find most interesting in all this hullabaloo is how the changing business climate and women’s rising prominence in the design world are related. My theory? Fashion is entering a golden age for women because for the first time in its history fashion has a business has gotten large enough, mass enough, and international enough that it has to answer to the market and not to eccentric design houses that have small customer bases. The massification of luxury has the added benefit of requiring it to finally conform to the needs of the actual marketplace. And who knows the market better than than the women who live it? Ahhh the connection is clear. But some do not see this as a good thing.
If couture is art, for which men are celebrated, then a woman’s ready-to-wear becomes mass market seamstress patternmaking, and the respect and impact are sucked out.
I strongly disagree. Frankly that says that once it becomes a business the respect and impact are sucked out. Does that mean oil has no impact or respect? How about computer chips? Or cars?
It smacks of bourgeois elitism to say that this trend makes fashion “less” important rather than more. The market makes fashion MORE important, both as a social phenomenon and as an artistic one as more resources and cultural forces are expended on the industry. Sure I don’t like the tastes of the masses. Hell I am a massive classist. I have no qualms with being honest that I do not enjoy most of lower class America. But this trend of actually having to respond to the market as fashion becomes increasingly business focused means that they must be accountable to their consumers as opposed to whims and flights of fancy. Sure those flights of fancy still exist as branding tools as marketers rely on parties, hype, and spectacle to build prestige (Galliano anyone?) but the balance of art with business is here to stay. And women are particularly apt at sussing out the marketplace because they personally live it.
I don’t agree with Miucca when she says:
“Italy’s tradition of family ownership for fashion companies gives women a great chance to emerge, whereas France, by contrast, is dominated by luxury groups,” Lanciaux said. “It’s more corporate.”
If anything being more corporate is a boon to women because it allows them to be that much more market focused. Gucci is owned by PPR and they have Frida, Valentino is now owned by Permina Holdings and they screwed over the Proenza boys to give the bid to Alessandra. Being corporate means that the road to the top creative director position is more transparent because the standards for achieving success are clear. Sure some of the prestige branding crap is still ephemeral but making at least part of the job more transparent is a step in the right direction.
But equally you can still be quite fashion forward and design clothing that has a commercial appeal with that cool prestige element. Consuelo Castiglioni of Marni is a perfect example. She does not design for the masses but her niche of real women will surely keep the brand intact as the clothing is imminently sellable to a certain customer. It has a customer base and that is good enough. Bottega Veneta is a fashion house that under Tomas Maier actually focuses on real women. Not only is the beautiful (though some want to claim it boring) but it works for its customers.
And as to anyone that thinks this is just a trend:
Molinari couldn’t agree more. “I don’t think this is a fleeting trend, because women are more attentive and sensitive to change and are versatile enough to adapt to market circumstances and seize market opportunities,” she said.
I’m torn between two ideals. The “dumbing down” of fashion for the “masses” can be truly atrocious… what suburban middle-class housewife who shops at Walmart really appreciates Issey Miyake? Furthermore, the “dumbing down” of fashion seems to involve sticking a logo on everything: remember a few years ago when Christian Dior was financially hurting, and produced those “cute” (”cute,” after all, implies an element of bad taste) “J’adore Dior” t-shirts that were only $200 and sold out in the first day? And do we really need to see another woman carrying a Gucci-logoed bag when she doesn’t even know who Tom Ford is?… and now this reactionary price-raising on the part of Chanel (3 times in 2007!!!) is surely in large part due those dumb Cambon bags which every 15 year old saved up allowance money for. On the other hand, I think bringing fashion down-to-earth can really benefit us all… as you said, it IS possible to have commerical appeal and still be prestigious. That, however, requires a fine balancing act that is rare… how effectively can design houses pull this off? I’m not certain.
Well, by producing attractive and wearable clothing for women. I do not believe that will be hard for a designer that considers the female body when creating a collection. But then again, the average fit model is an underweight size 0 so perhaps this is difficult and I am not being fresh.
Anyways, why is mass associated with the “dumbing-down” of fashion? If Chanel or LV did not want ignorant 15 year-olds spending their sweet sixteen party funds on their seasonal it-bags, they would stop mass-marketing. LV would stop purchasing ad space in CosmoGirl magazine, Chanel would not buy ad space in Glamour.
AW, I find your comments extremely elitist. While I can see why “dumbing down” fashion is not desirable since I do like to see haute couture creations, the reason you cited for disliking it is rather offensive. What does “really appreciate” mean anyway? As long as Issey Miyake produces something that appeals to the suburban middle-class housewife, I don’t see why their appreciation of the creation is viewed as less than what, I presume, your appreciation of him would be. Why does a woman have to know who Tom Ford is to carry a Gucci bag? You act as if these are one-of-a-kind creations, as though they owned the Mona Lisa without knowing who painted it. In the end, it is just a handbag – an object that has utility. If someone buys a handbag because it is pretty and useful, which are probably traits the designer implemented not accidentally, I see no problem with that. In the end, that is exactly what fashion is – creating something beautiful that people wear.
I am going one step further and accusing many people (not necessarily you) who are on this side of the debate of being dismayed because they don’t want the brands they are wearing on everybody else. I think it is a means of separation from the rabble brought about by a social construct that allows big, corporate firms to tell you that you are better than everybody else because you wear a brand. On the flip side, I am appalled that the “masses” would actually pay $200 for a T-shirt for the sole purpose of advertising that they wear a brand, not because it cheapens the name of the fashion house, but because of the sheer power of the grip this fashion house has on women.
I really like fashion. I like looking at beautiful objects, I think of design as a real talent and I think the history of fashion does reflect societal change. But there comes a point when the other stuff that around it grows to where women are irrationally enslaved by what the advertising tells them – and both your dislike for the ubiquity of a brand and the fact that this ubiquity exists because people are willing to buy $200 T-shirts are testament to it.
N, I agree with a lot of your points and my intention was not to come off as elitest. However, I refuse to play the game of political correctness over simple facts: there is a middle-class, there is a middle-class lifestyle, and there are middle-class tastes. If it hurts you to admit this, then you have much more class anxiety than you should. A Gucci bag, like an Hermes or a GAP bag, is just that: a bag. You’re right that it’s a matter of utility, but unfortunately, it’s much more than that: it’s an easy way to buy into a brand that’s perceived as prestigious, no matter how limited the consumer’s perception of the design house. I think it’s a little sad to purchase a Gucci bag because you saw Beyonce carry it rather than because you admire the house itself (hence my previous comment about many Gucci-carriers totally unaware of Tom Ford’s existance)… as the CEO of the Gucci Group noted just two weeks ago in the Wall Street Journal: two different crowds buy Bottega Veneta and Gucci. “There is virtually no overlap.” Let’s look at popularity and brand image: which is more prevalent, who wears/carries Gucci and who wears/carries BV? BV does not make dozens of bags in a large price range that allows nearly everyone to buy a bit of the Gucci lifestyle they see on MTV. And that is fine, to each her own, but let’s not call these logoed Gucci bags and their kindred spirits (like the J’Adore Dior tee) anything but dumbed-down fashion. I still hold that you have to be off-your-rocker crazy in order to genuinely believe that what the public-at-large holds in esteem and propells to success through consumption can easily be reconciled with couture. Just like a lot of the public doesn’t “get” or enjoy totally relevant and valid music, like say Stravinsky or The Boredoms, they do not get Issey Miyake. If Miyake were to in fact create a bridge line that appealed to the suburban housewife, you can bet it would look a lot different than his current designs. Sorry, but all you have to do is turn on your radio or television to realize that unless public tastes change (currently, I find them dumb… after all, how many seasons has Simple Life been running? I don’t need to provide the myriad case studies here), fashion marketed to the public will be just that: dumbed down.