Industriel

The preview that The Business of Fashion provided in the second issue of Industrie magazine did not shed a positive light on its contents.  Industrie's '50 Most Creative Fashion Forces Working in Fashion Today' didn't exactly endear itself to commentors.  I found no bone to contend with in the list itself but it certainly doesn't represent the rich amount of content that is in the rest of the second issue.  I loved the content of the first issue last year and was eager to get into the second one purely because there were so many salient truths to be found in that first one.  The interviews and features dispelled cliches and did a good job of lifting the lid on a few issues, for an audience that has grown in the last few years as the consumer's interest in the workings of the fashion industry has increased thanks to the celebrity status imbued upon editors and the internet making speculation and commentary on every industry happening.

Therefore I spend another pointless evening typing out my highlighted best bits, longer than last time because at every point, I found myself nodding with a monged-out puppy dog expression.  It's worth saying that the image content has been upped a bit but the text is no less meaty and overall has some overarching general comments to be made about the state of the fashion industry at present that gives me much to ponder about…

Sam Gainsbury of Gainsbury & Whiting (production company that gave us Alexander McQueen's legendary shows as well as representing the the fashion film work of Steven Klein, Nick Knight, Sam Taylor Wood and Ruth Hogben) making the distinction between fashion and feature film directors:

"Big film directors tend to be asked to shoot campaigns and fragrances, which isn't necessarily a bad thing as it creates a competitive edge, but they don't necessarily understand fashion.  Unless you really love fashion, you can't portray it well.  We've worked in film and we know that the film industry can be very patronising about fashion.  Whenever we employ directors of photography from film, all they do is sit around and laugh all day at the frivolity, going: 'Why are there so many Diptyque candles on this set?'"

She also echoes Nick Knight's opinion that there's nothing new anymore to expose in fashion photography…

"It's much harder to come along and be the new cool photographer because it seems like it's already been done.  I can't imagine who that photographer would be and whether he would blow anyone's mind.  What would this person have to do to be innovative?  Make a film!  Because being a photographer isn't innovative right now."

In a 16-page image tribute and interview with famed art director Fabien Baron, he also questions whether original photography can come forth today…

"Today photographers don't live the pictures they take.  Helmut Newton lived his pictures: he had that very lifestyle, he was living in his own decadent luxurious ways in either Monaco, Los Angeles or Paris.  You have to believe in what you do and you have to live it for it to become something true.  The problem with all these kids trying to do photography is they're trying too much to emulate existing photographers and aren't making any personal or intellectual investment.  So their images don't cut it; you just don't believe them.  It's just a style, an aesthetic surface with no soul and no real reason to exist.  Basically I don't think there's anything going on at the moment because there is a lack of a real, deep personal soul searching with the newer generation." 

…and the sentiment extends to the internet as well…

"There are very few people who bring a point of view to what they post on the internet, which is more about scavenging for information or commenting on something.  That's great, but where's the talent?  Where's the creativity?  Where's the point of view?  Where's the longevity?  What are you saying?  You're just passing the buck along and it's just not enough."

Floriane de Saint Pierre, who owns a fashion headhunting agency (she's placed Christopher Bailey at Burberry, Christophe Lemaire at Lacoste as well as other numerous high-profile matches) talks about the process of fashion headhunting and here comments on the role of the creative director at a fashion house…

"I'm wondering whether from now on we'll be looking for creative directors who are like conductors for an orchestra.  For me they need to have a vision that is right for your brand; and they need to be able to pick the right talents and manage them, direct them.  Get experts to design to design and to sketch and to draw and to fit and to do many other things.  What is the common denominator between Miuccia Prada, Giorgio Armani, Coco Chanel, Paul Smith and Ralph Lauren?  none of them could sketch.  none of them is a trained designer."

She also questions whether fashion roles necessarily need to be filled by people who underwent fashion schooling.

"My concern with schools is that they are developing technicians rather than creatives.  You have the best schools in London, so I'm not so concerned about them – they really develop the creative side.  But the risk is that we develop people who are working on a product and not on the vision."

In an article that asks whether there will be another Giorgio Armani (i.e. an independent superbrand that isn't owned by a conglomerate), David Kappo, course director of the graduate diploma in fashion at Central Saint Martins talks about the changing attitude in fashion students who are more interested in becoming creative directors at big houses as opposed to developing their own brand.

"They're definitely more business-minded; they come into college more focused on where they want to go next.  They're more determined.  They take it more seriously.  I still see students enjoying themselves.  But I don't think a lot of them are taking the reisks they might have taken – it's 'I want to go and work for Stella' or "I want to go and work for Calvin".  The bounty is so much greater now, and the rewards can be fabulous.  So many of the big creative directors are from St Martins, and the students are more aware of the lifestyle that goes with that.  'Setting up on your own – are you mad?  I want that designer lifestyle, I want that company credit card, i want to travel business…'"

The article goes on to point out Alexander Wang's potential to become the superbrand that the likes of Giorgio Armani and Ralph Lauren are and he talks about the freedom his brand affords him…

"I'd be lying if I didn't say in the beginning the thought of being grouped in some fancy conglomerate didn't interest me.  But right now, the creative independence is what's most important.  I didn't fully realise this before but, more and more, I realise how much more rewarding it is to say you are the owner and to be able to call the shots."

Colin McDowell also chimes in with a bleak conclusion about the state of fashion today…

"Western designer fashion is in decline because it has, through excess, achieved the almost impossible; it has bored people to death and the actual clothes are of diminishing significance each season."

In another article profiling the president of the F√©d√©ration Francaise de la Couture, Didier Grumbach disagrees with the lack of creativity and instead comments on a surplus of designers, outstripping industry demand…

"There are a lot of new talented designers and it is absolutely not true that there is a need for new creators.  In fact, there is a need for financers and competent managers, but we have many designers and sometimes they don't find jobs.  So on the contrary, there is surplus of creativity and not enough industry."

He also explains the role of haute couture and its existence in certain houses and points out Givenchy's success in making the ready to wear distinctive from its haute couture…

"Haute couture is the superior part of ready to wear.  It is not an industry but a savoir faire.  The brands that have kept this savoir faire and protected it, preserved it, see the benefit.  What Givenchy has just done is logical: really developing its ready to wear and showing off its craftsmanship at the couture collections with a simple showroom presentation, explaining to the ladies that if they want special things, it's time to order." (I wish I was one of those ladies, I might add…)

Grumbach also has some grumbles about the counterfeit laws in USA…

"Today in America, you can say: 'Here is a Valentino dress that was EUR2,000 and this is $20 and it's exactly the same.'  They say that ideas are like oxygen, they belong to everyone.  In Europe, legislation is the opposite.  until America changes its system, China will go on counterfeiting.  The American designers are the first to suffer as they can be copied and they have the right to copy.  To have a sense of guilt for taking somebody's ideas is important."

I'd quote the article that analyses the significance of forums like The Fashion Spot in a rather passive-aggressive way, but TFS have already picked at it, analysing its comments here if you're interested…

There's also a wonderfully detailed profile on Miguel Androver, who once upon time was poised to be New York's next best thing and in the article, goes over his career highs and lows and more importantly the sense of contentment he feels, bringing into question whether professionalism and high monetary stakes might be hurting creativity, a concern that seems so present in this issue of Industrie.

You might think from these highlighted comments I might be off to slit my wrists and lament the pointlessness of it all.  I might be being overly sensitive but it's being drummed into me over and over again through the words in this issue that we are going through a tricky period: navigating the murky waters of a new mode of communication that seems to celebrate and hurt the industry simultaneously, a lack of originality in a new generation of photographers whilst they grapple with finding creativity in the new fashion film medium, a wider obsession with the fashion industry that gives way to a surplus of fashion graduates and designers that outstrips demand and perhaps they won't all find their place in the fashion hierarchy and linked to this fashion school boom, is the question of whether there's enough risk taking going on to spawn new generations of designers that can equal the likes of Alexander McQueen or Giorgio Armani (I cite the former for his dedication to uncompromising creativity and the latter for his superbrand success). 

I perhaps might even agree with some of those sentiments but the flicker of hope is in the fight.  The determination NOT to go down as being part of some souless generation that has made no 'real' creative contribution.  The belief that having plenty of talented creatives who make their mark in some way or another is NOT to be sniffed out.  Not everyone will cut it as the next McQueen or Armani but is achieving even a tenth of their success something to be derided?  The perserverance to show that meaning can be found in this flux filled period in which we're experiencing change, that will impact on the industry in a positive way and perhaps lessen the number of times we don a pair of rose-tinted glasses, wistfully pondering over the good old days and bewailing the lose of those 'golden years' of fashion.   I'm not going to be presumpuous and say that the best is yet to come but seeing as these are uncertain times, I'd prefer to just say "Wait and See" and I'm sure you, me, Industrie and all the rest of the fashion choir will be commenting all the way.