Looking to break the fashion system: revolutionary or continual consistency?

Fashion commentators are
almost unanimous: the current system is obsolete, everything must change, etc.
The following thoughts all stem from the same basket of eggs: pressure on
artistic directors, too great number of collections to digest, and in
particular the fact that fashion weeks as they are currently conceived are
outdated. This means that the period between the presentation of
collections and their availability in stores six months later no longer no
longer satisfies both consumers and companies.

But is this really debate as new and revolutionary as it seems? Not really.
Whilst Burberry, Tom Ford and Vêtements, to name but a few, recently
announced one after the other that they want to break with the current
system by offering, for example in the case of Burberry and Tom Ford, to
sell their collections at the time of their presentations, they are only
airing the obsessions that their illustrious predecessors have already
nursed and resolved well before them. The only difference lies in the fact
that these predecessors, who were truly visionary, were the only ones at
the time to make their dissonant voices heard.

A photo posted by Burberry (@burberry) on Feb 3, 2016 at 6:15am
PST

Iconic designer Pierre Cardin inevitably springs to mind first. It was
often said that the celebrated fashion designer was fired by the Chambre
Syndicale, as he was the first person who dared to present a ready-to-wear
collection in a large department store, in the Printemps store in fact,
denigrating in passing the economic model for Haute Couture. Didier
Grumbach more than once contradicted this legend; rightly, as it was the
reverse that happened. In reality, it was Pierre Cardin who before anyone
else absolutely rejected the system of calendar schedules, fashion shows
and muses: in 1966, going against the traditional rules of the Chambre
Syndicale, he flatly refused to adhere to the schedule laid down, refused
to give the press certain documents, and sent a letter of resignation that
was immediately accepted. “Why should I agree to put on my fashion show six
months before selling the collection, when in the meantime all my models
will be copied by Le Sentier?” he objected. However, this dispute which
ended in the fashion designer being banned by the Parisian intelligentsia,
is no less modern and talked about than all those of the designers and
other visionaries of today.

“Anna Wintour scares everyone but when she sees me, she is the one who is
scared.”

Azzedine Alaïa also comes to mind as from the very beginning of his
prodigious career, he refused to commit himself to the fashion circus of
shows. The great fashion designer always preferred to show his creations in
intimate settings (to which he invited whomsoever he wished, when he wished
and without allowing his creative agenda to be dictated by any fashion
institution) and never really cared about being snubbed by the major
figures in the press. (he does not advertise and refuses to keep to the
official schedules) He even went so far to declare a few years ago the
following: “Anna Wintour knows how to run a business but she doesn’t
control fashion. When I see how she dresses, I don’t ascribe to her tastes
in clothing for a single second. She hasn’t photographed my work for many
years but I am still one of the biggest sellers in the United States. The
Americans love me and I don’t need her help. (…) She scares everyone, but
when she sees me, she is the one who is scared!” Numerous designers,
including Jérôme Dreyfuss, say the same today.

A photo posted by Azzedine Alaïa
(@azzedinealaiaofficial) on Jan
29, 2016 at 1:31am PST

New-York versus Paris

So where does this sudden agitation in the fashion world come from, one
which is looking at itself and thinking that the end of the system is nigh?
The blow first fell in New York in the form of Diane Von Fürstenberg: not
DVF the designer, but DVF the Chairman of the Council of Fashion Designers
of America (the equivalent of the British Fashion Council and the
Fédération Française de la Couture du Prêt-à-Porter des Couturiers et des
Créateurs.) The respected Chairman commissioned the Boston Consulting Group
to carry out a study to assess the future of fashion in New York. The
results of this study (whose applications should not in principle be
applied beyond the February fashion shows) were clear and comprehensive:
fashion shows must become shows for the general public (which, in the
circumstances, they already are to a large extent) and in particular they
must present collections that are immediately available in stores (which is
the new part to the fashion system).

These proposals are interesting. They also received open support from Linda
Fargo, Senior Vice-President of Fashion at Bergdorf Goodman. But if they
want to play Devil’s Advocate, they should say: ‘Be careful you are not
deceived by the effects of your statements or the hidden issues!’ Without
jumping to conclusions, the essence of New York Fashion Week is very
different from the essence of Paris Fashion Week. New York is traditionally
more commercial, with sportswear and less emphasis on on couture, and with
more experimentation and pure creativity. Paris has a profound love for
craftsmanship which neither the flow of the economy or the ferocious
emergence of any large group can affect: it is a love bound by the city’s
history and its culture. The Fashion Council recommends changes and measure
not
necessarily
for fashion in general, but for New York fashion in particular. The fact
that collections will be available for sale on their presentation will
certainly change their overall nature and these collections will have an
interest in being more commercial, and in turn downgrade the status of the
podium. This equation will suit certain labels fantastically well, but
others lot less, for these designers the fashion show is also a time for
showing off, sometimes to excess, the vision of a fashion house and skilled
craftsmanship.

A video posted by NYFW (@nyfw) on Feb 11, 2016 at 7:59pm
PST

In addition, the wish to generalise ‘instant availability’ (without wishing
to enter into philosophical considerations) poses considerable problems in
terms of stock, production and cash flow. This also means that collections
must be designed a substantial period of time in advance, if only, firstly,
to be offered beforehand solely to buyers and, secondly, to be produced on
a reasonable scale at any given moment. Lastly, when it is generally known
that designers no longer support their own creations once they have been
completed, what this situation (presenting collections that they designed
only months previously) will cause in terms of comical incidents on certain
shows can only be imagined.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Ralph Toledano is the incarnation of
the calm assurance of a venerable institution that has been through a lot.
“The system has not broken down and the fashion industry is functioning
well; our fashion houses are calmly expanding and business is excellent,”
says the President of the Fédération Française de la Couture du
Prêt-à-porter des Couturiers et des Créateurs de Mode, playing for time. In
a meeting with WWD, the President of the Federation recognised the power of
the Internet and the social media, saying, “Nevertheless, these
technologies are still tools, and the role of tools is to help us, not to
control us.” He added, “We must be careful before casting this or that set
of new rules in stone. After all, copying existed long before the
Internet.”

So, there is nothing new under the sun, it seems after all: supporters of
revolution will end up on the one hand doubting themselves as to the
relative merits of instant availability and on the other hand, others will
go off to contemplate the career of Pierre Cardin and the singular and
inspiring career of Azzedine Alaïa once more.

Originally written by Herve Dewintre for FashionUnited FR