The Fashion Cycle: Why Burberry and Tom Ford have Scrapped the System.

This is big.
Huge.
Fashion history is writing itself right now.

What is happening? Burberry and Tom Ford are going against the current unsustainable fashion cycle by reformatting their their shows to twice a year. February and September, their clothes will be seasonally relevant THEN, and more importantly, clothes and campaigns will be ready to buy/launched the second the fashion show ends.

HISTORICALLY, 

fashion shows were never intended for the consumer. A fashion show was a preview of what the designers had in the pipeline, so press, investors and wholesale buyers could speculate and place their orders on the clothes 6 months in advance of clothes hitting the racks.

This is why the Spring Summer shows are in September, and the Autumn Winter shows are in February.

The fashion industry is founded around this 6 month delay; from Zara to Fashion publications, this is how the industry works.

However as we have all come to know; this isn't how the system works anymore. Fashion shows have become spectacles; for we are a Society of Spectacles (Debord, 1967). We millennials are driven more and more by the Experience Economy (Pine, Gilmore 1999). Growing up with recessions and less confidence with money security: it has been argued our whole generation puts more weight on experiences now, than consumer goods. (Pine, Gilmore 1999)

I would argue that fashion shows are now our business. We no longer sit back and wait for the press to report on the shows and be fed second hand: we live stream the shows, line up for hours outside; even exploit the positions of power we are in to consume fashion shows, just as we would consume the products 4 months later.

We also need to take into consideration the instant gratification demanded by us millennials. If I see clothes or a trend? I want it now. I am not going to wait 6 months for it to come out.
This is what brands such as Zara, who have a 6 WEEK turnaround (they see 70's trend, it's in stores in stores within 6 weeks from the trends conception) exploit.

EXAMPLE: I am not going to be able to buy Tom Fords' flared jeans for 6 weeks, so I am going to go to Zara in the meantime. But often before the trends even hit the designers racks: the trend has moved on.
Zara: makes the profit on Tom Fords trend, Tom Ford: misses the boat.

What has changed? 

Fashion shows are no longer for wholesale buyers, investors or press: they are a publicity stunt for the consumer. A shopping experience.

Whether that be experiencing the fashion shows on the frow (front row), via snapchat (as Burberry has done), or through a music video (see Tom Fords' new collection and Lady Gaga's new song in this music video) the consumers expect the fashion shows, just as naturally, we expect the clothes as soon as we see them.

Pros and Cons 

of this new implication to the greater fashion industry.

Pros

Less Pressure on Designers
If you read my article on why Raf Simons was leaving Dior, the reason was that the model of the current fashion cycle (some designers produce up to 14 capsule/full collections a year) places an unsustainable pressure on designers.

Gender Blurring/Neutrality
Which is an issue very relevant today; is once again, unsupported by the current fashion cycle.
Having mens fashion week and women's fashion week at the same time, will allow for the possibility at least, of a gender neutral collection, or clothes being presented as clothes, on gender neutral models. Something integral to this generations cause.

Burberry SS16 Show. Source: fashiontimes.com

Easier for all those involved in the Fashion industry
One Burberry runway for both men and womens show.
One fashion week for industry specialist who have to report on both mens and women's.
Opportunity for those who have only visited mens week or women's week to expand/explore.
The chance for there to be a greater PR cacophony for a brand with a one show hit wonder (imagine twitter hashtags as #BurberryShow as opposed to #BurberryMenswearShow and a few weeks later #BurberryWomenswearShow).
LIFE WILL BE EASIER.

Brands will get to financially benefit from their trends 
(as was always intended) Sorry Zara.

All brands will have to follow suit
and I'm talking, everyone. Burberry and Tom Ford are colossal brands. As I said, this is huge.
It's like dominoes. If they have? Everyone is going to scrap the dated fashion calendar.

Cons

Highstreet brands with 6 week turnovers
...will be forced to step up their game. No more riding on the coat tails of others. That gap in the market will be saturated. However that being said; Zara's high fashion designs and high street prices will surly remain unrivalled.

Fashion Publications
Will be having kittens. They will have to step out of their time machines, and create magazines 6 months in advance MINUS the foresight of trends. (Maybe consider making them 3 months in advance now? Just an idea!)

All brands are going to follow suit
Not everyone is going to like it. Restructuring a brand isn't free or easy. Plus it's a major edge lost for the brands that benefited from 6 months ahead foresight.

PR's and Celebrity Stylists
are too, going to have kittens. How on earth are they going to dazzle and wow celebrities with the latest seen-but-never-worn hot off the catwalk trends and looks, if the general public already has access to it? *yawn, boring!*
'Without envy, glamour cannot exist' -John Berger
Does this mean celebrities will not have to be offered bespoke everything by the brands? Who knows how they are going to make up for this loss!

Conclusion

Not much more can be said? It's time for us now, to sit tight and watch this all play out.
It is certainly a better system than that previous, but how well is that going to work for smaller brands? Publications? High street brands? This is going to have ricochet effects from the major fashion houses to bloggers; just you wait.

If you want to have more of a read about all this, do check out these articles on the matter;

Business of Fashion

Vogue

Harpers Bazaar

The Guardian

Bloomberg Business

All the best,

Why Raf Simons is Leaving Dior: Creativity v.s. Commerce

Image Source: © JACQUES BRINON /ASSOCIATED PRESS

Sadly, the rumours during Paris Fashion have turned out to be true.
Raf Simons, after a short three years at the helm of the monstrous label, is leaving Dior.

Personally, I find this truly upsetting. I have loved what Raf has created while at Dior, and I applaud the direction he has steered the label in. I found his influence key in defining the gap between Dior and, rival powerhouse, Chanel.
His almost germanic vision has redefined everything from the aesthetic down to the silhouette of Dior. As I have said in a previous article where I examine his SS15 collection; I believe Raf has redefined the modern Dior woman.

Image Source: Raf Simons

"The juxtaposition of man and woman, Dior then and Dior now, fashion in the past and future, all culminate to represent Raf Simons' vision of the Modern Dior Woman" - Read the article here

The biggest tragedy of all is Raf was just falling into his stride; it quite literally takes designers years to gain that confidence and rhythm to really be in a comfortable enough position to start pushing limits. Galliano's first collections with Dior were certainly weren't anything compared to his later work.

So why is Raf leaving?

Firstly: if this topic interests you, and you haven't seen the film 'Dior and I' by Frédéric Tcheng1, you should. Because those of us who have seen the documentary, will have seen a glimpse into the pressure factory that titanic labels like Dior- have become.
In the wonderfully raw film, the exclusive twinkling glamorous wall that divides the public and the fashion world is taken down. You witness the blood, sweat and tears that make up the backbone of this, otherwise pristine industry. Raf Simons' breakdown before presenting his show is a beautiful insight into real life.

The pressure is insurmountable; which brings up Shinkle's2 theory of "Creativity versus Commerce". Imagine having the duty of designing to perfection, a mens and womens' collection, up to 8 times a year: while being loyal to a pre-existing set of parameters in accordance to the brand heritage, while keeping in mind consumers wants/needs as well as finance.
All the while you are expected to be 'creative'?
There is a fine line to walk of too much and none at all.
Frankly, any original, pre-existing joy inspired creativity is molested into something to feed the hungry machine of capitalism.

Being the creative director of a brand is perhaps one of the hardest jobs in the entire world.
Which leaves us with the question of, why didn't he leave sooner?

Creatives are not business men or politicians; Alexandre McQueen was such a private person; I have heard he used to sit in clubs in the corner of the room speaking to no one.
When I wen't to see John Galliano speak at the Vogue Festival, he came across as one of the most soft spoken, gentle men I have ever come across.

I am sad Raf is leaving. I liked how he shaped Dior, and I believe he has left big shoes to fill.
But then again, I love Raf as a designer: and I believe that it pained him to be unable to be creative for himself, not have it squeezed out of him like caviar.

The fashion industry is split into two kinds of people: the creatives and the instigators. You do not come across someone who is both.
We need each other; and the expectations for a creative director shouldn't be for him to be a spokesperson, PR, politician, finance director etc.
That's what we, the instigators are here for.

I hope that he finds the peace that he is looking for, and I hope that the next creative director of Dior can live up to Raf's reputation.


After all; we want Creativity and not Commerce... right?

1: Tcheng, Dior and I, 2014
2: Shinkle, Fashion as Photograph, 2008

Feminism, Fashion and the Future: Dior SS15 Haute Couture Show Review

Figure 1: Dior Spring/Summer 2015 Collection, designed by Raf Simons and shown at Paris Fashion week.

 

Figure 2: Dior 1954 ‘New Look’ Dress. The ‘New Look’ dress put Dior on the map, after having been founded in 1947.

Figure 3: Photograph of ‘New Look’ suit
 Designed by Christian Dior
 Photographed by John French
London, England
 1947 
V&A John French archive

Dior’s Spring/Summer 2015 collection stood out from the rest. In comparison to the splatter of metal and floral feminism that made up the Chanel show, or the musical, glittery and colourful extravaganza that was Jean Paul Gaultiers last Ready-To-Wear show; Dior’s collection brought a touch of taste, minimalism and serenity to the otherwise chaotic Paris fashion week.

Raf Simons was inspired by three themes. Both traditional men and women’s dress from the Belle Époque, the idea of the future, and the notion of the ‘Modern’ woman and what that meant. I believe Raf Simons achieved all three; his collection embodies a fresh take on 18th century royal French attire; with traditional details such as dark thick calf leather, richly dyed silk jacquards, and swaggering bishop sleeves- yet with the twist of being free and unrestrictive. This is where the futuristic aspect weaves in; in the past when designers revisit 18th century, the soft and feminine silhouettes they create, in reality, are anything but.

Raf Simons believes the definition of a modern woman is a woman that’s free; which chimes in beautifully with the chorus of feminism seen at Paris Fashion week. An example of Raf’s Vision of a free Modern woman is Emma Watson. Because of her, Dior’s cheer for feminism was not only seen on the runways, but also in the U.N. At the launch of her HeForShe campaign, as if on cue, wore Dior.

But has Dior always been an advocate? Of course, Christian Dior and the brand have always been devoted women’s strive for beauty and glamour, but have they always been devoted to women’s strive for rights?

Women spent the duration of WW2 adapting to more powerful professions, left behind by their husbands, fathers, and brothers. In 1945, when the war was over, and the men were back, women were sent back to mother and cook. This is reflected in the spring 1947 New Look (see Figure 2, 3). With masculinity, came power; Dior’s New Look brought about a feminine silhouette that came at the cost of a corset. With no masculine silhouette, no more masculine rights- this meant a drain of power for women.

Dior has evolved; and the 2015 Collection just shows how far they have come. A similar silhouette to the New Look can be seen, however the crucial difference is that this female silhouette is no longer restricted: she is free.

Even the details scream a free woman, no longer restricted by stereotypes of a woman; the sharp cut lines, boy shorts, clinical white, knee length, the shocking colours and harsh bodices; versus the soft eyelets, embroidery, the flowing fabrics, waist definition, exposed backs and the pastel pinks and blues: all facilitate the overall look of a feminine yet androgynous woman with power emanating from her head to heels.

This juxtaposition of man and woman, Dior then and Dior now, fashion in the past and future, all culminate to represent what Raf Simons vision of the Modern Dior woman, as well as represent how she came to be.

-Josephine Vermilye