Cathy Horyn of the New York Times recently wrote a rather sobering article titled "The End of the Affair" about the state of the fashion industry. Specifically, she discussed the seemingly stark outlook for talented designers which she attributes to a general decrease in appreciation for creativity in favor of the big, bad bottom line.
She raises many good points, and given her knowledge of the business, this negative take may be warranted. Plus, the recent closure of Rochas was a highly visible case of a talented designer losing his job and probably has much of the fashion world thinking pessimistically. However, from an economic standpoint, the situation does not seem quite so dire.
It seems that the fashion business (and by "fashion business" I mean the business of designer or high fashion) is becoming more competitive. As Horyn notes, thanks to forces like reality television and the internet, "fashion has never touched more lives than it does at the moment, and by so many different means." Additionally, it seems the barriers to entry into the fashion business have lessened, and smaller designers and houses abound. (Just look at the number of shows at this New York Fashion Week!) Designers must also work faster now that precollections are a vital part of sales. Finally, as a result of the explosion of diffusion lines and massclusivity-type ventures, there is an abundance of moderately priced clothing on the market which is on trend and of decent quality--which many consumers will gladly take over more expensive offerings.
To survive in this environment, a house or designer must combine talent with business savvy; fashion houses must all accept certain basic economic truths. As a firm in any industry, a fashion house must acknowledge that there are tradeoffs. Exclusivity, prestige, perfection in design, loyalty to one's vision, or innovation can be increased only at the expense of revenue, high salaries, or investment in the future of the brand. Greater competition does not necessarily mean that "a tide [has] turned against designers and even perhaps against talent." It simply means that talented designers should try to partner with equally talented businessmen and women. Let's consider some specific cases, shall we?
Marc Jacobs has been able to successfully balance creativity with smart business. His is one of LVMH's "star brands" it is so profitable. It's not hard to see why when one considers all of the revenue generating activities Marc Jacobs is involved in--accessories, his diffusion line, and fragrances. And yet his collections are still very creative and thus very well received by the critics.
Many designers have participated in massclusivity deals, launched diffusion lines or gotten into accessories (through licensing, for example) or fragrance to ensure that their business remains profitable or even viable. Thakoon Panichgul is a smaller designer with some talent who seems to be managing well. He designed shoes for the Nine West Front Row Project in large part because it meant "money [injected] into his company outside the biannual market frame."
If the case of Rochas is convincing people that talented designers have no place in the fashion industry at this moment in time, this is somewhat misleading. No one can deny that Olivier Theyskens is immensely talented. (What a shame that we won't see a Spring 2007 show after that beautiful resort collection!) And perhaps the Rochas fashion brand may have survived had P&G been willing to part with both the fashion brand and the fragrance (so that the two could operate as a single company, with the profits from the fragrance feeding the fashion brand). However, it is true that he refused to allow the Rochas fashion brand to purchase advertising in magazines, and he did not release an "it" bag because he did not want to "rush" one out. Moreover, Theyskens was a perfectionist, and the marginal cost of perfection is very high (for instance, a member of his team would spend an extraordinary amount of time researching fabrics).
So what is my point? Talented designers have a place in fashion, and they always will. Designers can be creative and innovative and still be successful. There is no need to worry that the collections in Paris will begin to resemble some of the very commercial shows in New York such as Tuleh or Baby Phat.
The photos at the top of this post are stunning but perhaps not so salable looks from the Marchesa and Rodarte Spring 2007 collections. I hope that the designers of these lines will make sure to plan for the possibility that some of the more creative items they send down the runway may not sell extremely well!
Personally, I really don't care; designers have became a dime a dozen to the extent that the essentials don't matter anymore. Horyn says:
What feels less familiar is the lack of interest in the talent they represent -- for skillful cutting, a refined color sense or for communicating emotion. These gifts, along with a strong sense of identity, are probably a designer's most valuable assets. Yet lately they have been devalued, like an out-of-date sweater, as much by a jangling, ''what do I get out of it'' culture as by a greediness and mistrust that seem to exist between designers and corporate owners.
Horyn makes the point that these skills have been devalued but I'd ask by whom. Designer wantabes or critics? Both? Imo, far too frequently, it's the designer. In such case, I don't pity them. If you leave the standards by the wayside, there is no way to measure you then either, so you really can't complain when you're discarded. You're nothing but a fad yourself. Who cares?
There will always be room for people who are good, period. People who are smart, have their skills aligned and keep their egos in check. You're not a rock star and this isn't brain surgery and you're not a boon to humanity, saving lives or anything. Planetary priorities are changing. In the meantime, keep it real. Prima donnas are so tiring.
Posted by: Kathleen Fasanella | September 17, 2006 at 10:34 AM
Ah! How interesting to hear someone who studied economics comment.
I agree that there will always be room for people who are good. And that's why I disagree with Horyn's dramatic take on the situation.
I admit though I am caught up in following certain designers and hoping that they will keep their egos in check and make smart business decisions. ;)Or perhaps it's just that I appreciate their work and am excited about seeing equally interesting work in the future--which there should always be (even if it's by new and different designers) based on my argument above.
I hadn't thought about it earlier, but perhaps the part of reason some of the newer designers are so appealing is the fact that they have not developed a prima donna attitude.
All in all, thanks for the comment!
Posted by: Elsa | September 17, 2006 at 01:57 PM
Desinger Women Handbags
- eLuxury.Inc is the best online Womens Handbags stores where you can buy the
cheapest desinger women handbags. Our huge selection of women handbags includes Jimmy Choo handbags,Coach handbags,Chanel handbags,Gucci handbags,Prada handbags..
Posted by: eLuxury.Inc | April 23, 2009 at 08:56 PM
The quality is good, can enter our website.
Posted by: christian louboutin | March 22, 2010 at 02:39 AM
Replica jerseys are becoming rapidly popular as regular attire. And therefore, you will notice many teenagers donning a Bill Russell or Oscar Robertson jersey in pubs, colleges and discos. In fact,[url= http://www.jerseysleague.com]nfl jerseys[/url]even individuals who are not nba fans have started wearing cheap [url= http://www.jerseysleague.com]mlb jerseys[/url] sthese jerseys as a style statement.
Posted by: nfl jerseys | March 22, 2010 at 02:43 AM