Second Thoughts
Solstice Magazine, Print Issue 63, December 2024
A think piece on the creative director shakeup of 2024. A retrospective dive into the past, placating uncertainty within the future of fashion.
How much do you believe in the creativity permeating the current state of fashion? What do you value the most regarding the relationship between business and art? How much trust do you have in the culture? The display of instability begs the question of how the industry can move forward. Confidence in creative direction is shaken and stirred to its core.
It is possible to take things in stride and come to terms with the countless abrupt exits—some iconic designers, others barely taking on the responsibility for a year. An abrupt departure is not something we haven’t seen before. Creative differences and retirement are not foreign. Growing pains are a part of life, and thus, art follows. However, this year, nobody seems interested in staying the course or sticking around to see things through.
Whether there’s a long list of exits or not, are things so different from the past? Does volume mean much in the grand scheme of things? Business economics may push the fashion industry to say farewell to meaningful long tenure, which may be detrimental in every sense. That is, if it really is a corporate chokehold.
There is a possibility of overstaying your welcome. How long should a creative director dig their heels in before they move on to forge their path? Is the risk really in leaving heritage brands twisting in the wind, or is it ultimately a bigger risk to stay in an attempt to assimilate to the changing times for the sake of the brand’s survival?
There is this underlying culture of playing the game until it becomes unbearable. Marc Jacobs, recognized for his lavish and prolific view of dimension and proportion, struggled with “getting back to this sort of spirit of Perry Ellis” that he was passionate about. He couldn’t find the
balance as a young designer in a shifting business. He felt “no matter what I do, I can’t win. Either it's going to be disappointing, or people are going to expect something, and I don’t deliver that. I just felt like I couldn’t win.” Could he save the brand’s women’s division while appeasing the corporate giants?
Jacobs “didn’t want to repeat [past collections] but did want to tap into that freedom” of everything that inspired him. To his dismay, “it ended up as this kind of smart clothes for ladies to go to work in...that to me didn’t look at all like the energy in which Perry started.” But even in the late 80s to early 90s, this was the direction big business was moving towards. Leading up to its partnership with Manhattan Industries, womenswear at Perry Ellis suffered. Ultimately, “it was mostly about men's shirts and men's suits and things that didn’t require a designer at all.” This revelation would be a discouraging moment in anyone's career as a creative director and vice president of women’s design. This realization shaped his future at the company. The disappointment induced some level of self-awareness and discovery. It sparked a reevaluation of his goals as he took in the state of his career juxtaposed with his mentors like Perry Ellis and inspirations like Steven Sprouse.
The obstacles drove Jacobs to reshape and refine his creativity and objectives, magnifying the fine line between authenticity as an artist and professionalism. His last collection with Perry Ellis is now known as the first true Marc Jacobs collection; the iconic grunge received editorial praise. Yet, “it would never make back the money that was spent on it.” Could he have tried to conform to the new business structure? Sure, but isn’t that where creativity goes to die? Is it essential to attempt assimilation before you break the mold?
It was a great learning experience if nothing else. Jacobs's main takeaway was to “Trust your instincts, do what you love, and let go of the results.” Whatever the outcome, he had conviction
and determination, and the pain was only in the resistance to change. It was time to make peace with what was beyond his control.
What expectations can you put on a creative director? Being bold and unapologetic is at the heart of being a designer. Having a visceral response to something new, tedious, and discouraging makes the defining difference and shapes the new eras in fashion.
Yes, Jacobs got fired for it; conversely, Tom Ford became synonymous with Gucci's success and had almost total control during his tenure. Allowing the creative freedom could be the sole reason for brand survival. Blurring the lines of responsibility and creative trust could be the path to perseverance, a new era in fashion. His time at the heritage brand is still the driving force for minimal aesthetic, blistering editorials, and suggestive marketing. The relationship between Ford and CEO Domenico De Sole was revolutionary. Gucci was past the point of resuscitation before their partnership came into play. This dynamic worked flawlessly until Pinault Printemps Redoute gained a majority stake in the company.
The logical response would have most believe this was over money. In actuality, it came down to control. Ford’s talent overshadowed Gucci's DNA. To this day, we hear the mantra, “If it wasn’t Tom Ford, was it really Gucci.” When it gets to the point where the creative director is in higher regard than the brand’s original identity, is it an indication that it’s time to move on? How much must remain intact for both the creative director and the fashion house to function in a symbiotic relationship before both identities are cannibalized?
In Ford’s case, leaving was essentially the end of an era for the entire industry. It was a wake-up call, referring to it as “ a real dose of real life by stepping away for a while.” It was disruptive to
the natural flow of fashion that existed in the late 90s to early 2000s. It made everyone question what place business has in fashion.
In business, everything is about capitalizing on the predictable, how one can make profits, and turn popularity into a science. But how long can the world stay engaged with what we can predict? How long before everything winds down to the mundane essentials and basic wear? Ford and De Sol had the maturity to walk away from triage and form the exceptionally successful Tom Ford brand.
So, is big business getting in the way of fashion? For some designers, it’s helping; LVMH has been backing Phoebe Philo since the beginning of her eponymous brand.
For Philo, the investment is helping her live up to the highly anticipated return with seasonless collections and exclusive stockists. Her reclusive fifteen years at Chloe and subsequent tenure at Celine helped her build a track record and carve a niche, granting her creative liberties with her notorious obscurity intact.
Is this a lesson to all creative directors that the driving force to the industry’s success is still the intrinsic value of couture and luxury? The unorthodox booklets at Celine worked. The nostalgic influences paid off. It’s about breeding anticipation and excitement. She used the opportunity to breathe life into Chloe and Celine, took some time away, and then moved on to her next project.
There is no fault in stepping away for personal or professional reasons. Yes, family is a valid reason to break away. It has nothing to do with the art of fashion design. Artists never stop creating, whether it’s their job or not. Art is a part of them. It is akin to brushing your teeth or sleeping. It is what they do. It is who they are. The fantasy, their identity, the dream doesn’t stop.
The same outlook feels true for John Galliano, whose tenure at Maison Margiela saved his life. It still appears to fancy like family. There’s no conflict. There’s no creative block. Chairman Reno Russo regards Galliano’s ten years at Margiela as cutting edge, with “incredibly intense work, amazing shows and installations, extraordinary beautiful product,” crediting him for “[laying] the foundations for the future.” His last collection with Margiela is solidified in history with an incredible porcelain doll fantasy featuring elements of puppetry and brilliant makeup from Pat McGrath. He just did a mic drop on the world with his spring 2024 collection. Even Galliano accepts that “everyone wants to dream.” That creative direction is part of the “all-consuming act of creativity...I will never stop dreaming; I, too, need to dream.” It’s clear there is more to come from Galliano, the dream isn’t complete. It may never be, but one thing is certain: he is nowhere near finished, regardless of his next endeavor. This opportunity at Margiela gave Galliano the will to continue sharing his art, but what happens when an artist feels uninterrupted or uninhibited? What does the end look like if dreams are not deferred and the fantasy is complete?
There is the possibility that we have seen the “complete picture” with Dries Van Noten, but it is heartbreaking all the same. A third-generation tailor known for his grit and painstaking belief in his creative freedom has decided to retire and move forward with his life. For a designer with discipline and resilience in his blood, the thought of “designers changing and changing and changing again worries me a lot. The last thing I want is that my name becomes just a name that is put on different collections. And that happens so much.”
Grappling with separating himself from the brand is not in vain or frivolity. There can never be another Dries Van Noten for Dries Van Noten unless he himself makes a return similar to Jil Sander’s short reprisal with her brand. The truth is you can’t recreate someone’s art. It is essentially trying to relive and recreate someone’s life. It is impossible. Art is where you are in
life, time, and space. For him, “Fashion is not a profession. It’s a way of life. And it’s an addiction.” Van Noten's creative decisions reflect his sole battle with the intensity and hyper-fixations in fashion. His inspirations and undying love for his brand are an obsession of his own. For that reason, Van Noten’s identity will remain intact. He and the brand are one and the same, and it’s the current creative director, or the director ten years from now, who is questing to respect his life’s work. The comfort lies in the closure and contentment of his creative vision coming to fruition, not how well the next visionary can emulate his artistry.
It is a hope for Van Noten to continue as an adviser to guide without feeling the pressure to lead. Unless he desires to jump back into the role in the future, his leisure is a privilege for us to experience, having brighter projects in his future. Then again, he deserves to live his life purely for himself. There is no need to look back when it’s a job well done.
So will there be another standout, genius creative anytime soon if the high turnover continues? The question is simple yet impossible to answer. Can you effectively respect the brand ethos while reinvigorating a legacy set before you? Whether the problem is a short tenure or the inevitable struggles of keeping a heritage brand’s identity intact, the affair comes down to whether the duration matters.
A brief tenure may be a way of fostering creativity, forcing directors to have the conviction to take more risks and experiment instead of playing it safe with lackluster collections. There is no use in trying to relive the glory days of someone else's reign. A poor imitation of someone else's art is time wasted.
Is a three to five-year stint enough time to make a mark as a creative director? For Marc Jacobs, it only took four years at Perry Ellis. Peter Hawkings knew it was time to step away from the role
at Tom Ford after less than a year. The shortened duration could signal that things are changing for the better. It’s a chance to do the job properly or move on before the risk of diluting the brand. In the end, for so many designers, their careers thrived after saying goodbye to strenuous tenure. Only the strongest can thrive in unconventional conditions that make for a great creative director to emerge. Time will tell if there is another legendary director in the midst. Whether there’s any comfort found in the element of time is up to you. Can we really afford not to play the long game?
