This year will be a year of drastic changes in the fashion world. That much is normal.
No, it’s no surprise that this year will be a year of drastic changes for those involved in fashion. Starting this month, new designers from eight global brands, including Calvin Klein and Chanel, will debut on the runway. Bottega Veneta, Lanvin, Givenchy, Tom Ford, Alberta Ferretti and Dries Van Noten, as well as Fendi, Maison Margiela, Helmut Lang and Calven, are likely to open up more slots in the coming months. .
Shhh! Whether that power shift will lead to dramatic changes in what we wear is another question.
There is much speculation about the cause of the confusion. Much of the blame has focused on the slowdown in luxury spending (particularly in China) and global political and economic uncertainty, which has led to a game of blaming the designer (when in doubt, blame the designer). , which led to Change the Designer. designer.
In such an environment, we tend to play it safe. Return to the comfort of your camel coat and assume that what sold well in the past will sell well in the future. Focus on commercial rather than creative.
This is wrong.
It’s time for a fashion revolution. A kind of revolution caused by Coco Chanel in the 1920s. She turned the little black dress, the uniform of the service class, into a status symbol of emancipation, and apparently horrified Paul Poiret, clutching his chest and proclaiming: Invented? Deluxe Poverty. ” Her customers resembled “little undernourished telegraph workers,” he sneered.
A kind of post-war revolution by Christian Dior, who scandalized the world with the New Look in all its extravagant skirts and wasp-waisted glory, sparking riots in the streets against the excess of materials. Yves Saint Laurent ignited the tumultuous 1960s by adapting men’s tuxedos for women, and led to Nan Kempner being kicked out of La Côte Basque for wearing pants. It became.
And this is what Comme des Garçons’ Rei Kawakubo created when the Cold War collapsed and Francis Fukuyama declared the end of history, treating darkness and destruction like precious hides. Kawakubo was accused of promoting “Hiroshima chic” while embracing flaws that forever changed ideas about beauty and the body.
Just as Thom Browne was widely ridiculed for forcing grown men to wear shorts (or just plain old shorts) and shrunken jackets at the turn of the century. Until a shrink-wrapped gray suit changed not only proportions but the very meaning of “uniform.”
Such designs inspired fear and excitement in equal measure, but also rose to the challenge of a changed world and people’s changing sensibilities in dressing. Not just the moment it appeared, but forever after.
Fashion is essentially a story of what paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge called “punctuated equilibrium,” a theory in which significant change interrupts long periods of stability or changes evolution. It is assumed that this happens suddenly, such as when it is slow. So we have LBDs, new looks, pants, and the possibility of disruption.
Out of chaos came creativity. That’s where we are now. The world order is in flux, social mores are changing, the age of AI is dawning, and we are at a mass inflection point where it is unclear how everything will be resolved. The first quarter of the 21st century has come to an end, with streetwear and athleisure at their peak. There is a hunger for something that defines:
So at Maison Margiela’s haute couture show last January, then-house designer John Galliano created a fantasy-filled show full of explosive bodies and exceptional tailoring, a far cry from today’s glam-ready runways. When we proposed a new underworld, there was a huge response. It caused a bout of foot-stomping ecstasy in the audience.
Those clothes weren’t actually new. These were new adaptations of Mr. Galliano’s previous work, a throwback to the great fashions of the late 20th century, with their extreme corsetry and theatricality. What the applause conveyed more than the actual silhouette (which has not penetrated the public in the slightest) was an apparent voracious appetite for something that looked and felt different from everything that had come before. did.
It was a sign that the door was wide open for someone to stop rewriting history and start inventing. It’s about creating something we didn’t know we wanted: something unpredictable. Because, by definition, even if you could predict it, it wouldn’t be surprising.
There are designers who are clearly trying. Demna reverses high semiotics at Balenciaga. Jonathan Anderson, Loewe’s surreal cunning. These are designers who twist not only the items but also the proportions. While some of their works have shaken up the status quo and created moments of viral outrage (particularly Demna with her luxury Ikea bag and corroded sneakers), none have yet created a paradigm shift. . Isn’t that something to see?
Even in old houses, we expect new crops to be prototyped, new names and new brains to actually make new clothes. Thanks to the intense connectivity of our world, the possibilities for one crazy idea to change the public’s sense of self about what it means to look modern are nearly limitless.
Rather than respectfully honoring the so-called house norms, we hope they embrace the abstract spirit of the brand rather than its literal form from the archives. Don’t just tweak the mold; break it and reinvent it. If anger arises as a result, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Because when you see something that challenges your ideas about appropriate clothing, it’s often anger.
However, it is an outrage with a purpose. And if history teaches us another lesson, it’s that such outrages pay off in the end.
Until then, it will take courage for executives and supporters to endure initial backlash and criticism. It takes time for your eyes and clothes to adjust. The problem is that time and patience are rarely luxuries for today’s designers. For them to rise to the occasion, to do the unexpected, they must be given the space and support to do so.
Now, it’s fashion. Surprise us. Please enchant us. Please give us a shock. i dare you.
