This was a wonderful interview but I disagree with you both on the topic of logomania. Or rather, I think that wouldn’t have been the example I used to make that point.
Buying an otherwise indistinct pair of leggings with a designer logo printed all over them, isn’t any tackier than buying a pair of $10,000 Phoebe Philo polyamide leggings. Or a $5,000 navy sweater from the Row. Logos are not my thing but when I see someone covered head to toe in them, I think, “good for you!” You might look tacky as hell but you made a bold aesthetic choice. And you’re probably having a lot of fun in the process. Getting all dressed up in your designer costume. Good for you! I so much prefer that consumer to the one with a closet of inoffensive designer basics in ochre, grey, black, and (gasp!) maybe a Kelly-green. That person has nothing to say with their clothes. No point of view. But they are aware enough or they're simply still faithful enough to the idea that fashion hierarchies are legitimate. And so, they're positioning themselves on the side of the gatekeepers. Is the construction of a $5,000 T-shirt really so superior as to warrant its price tag? Designer jelly shoes are a thing now, really?
There is something so sweet about a logomaniac. They’re the last vestige of the aspirational shopper. Designer clothing has gotten so expensive that it’s no longer feasible for a middle or even an upper-middle class person to save up and splurge on one special item every season. The only shopper still participating in that kind of consumerism is the logomaniac. And if they’re going to blow half a year’s paycheck on something designer, they want the world to know who it’s by and where they got it from And to all the mom’s in Sherman Oaks rocking that Fendi catsuit at carpool I say, “you go girl!”
I think the real problem with fashion criticism isn’t that critics fear retribution from big houses, it’s that even the shrewd ones still believe wholesale that gatekeepers exist. They revel in the exclusionary tactics that belief then breeds.
The younger crop of critics are positioning themselves as the rightful heirs of taste. Yes, criticism of anything aesthetic requires that the critic have a fealty to the medium they are criticizing. They must believe in the artform's power to ask questions, transcend, and reveal truth. But I believe a legitimate fashion critic needs to be honest that it's all a little bit bullshit. Fashion is an art so deeply imbedded with the machination's of capitalism. It has been for a very, VERY long time. Its incredibly difficult to reveal truths about the world when the art you create is a business first.
The power of fashion and style, to me, is the unfettered promise of self-expression. And surely a true eccentric, a true subversive, would realize the whole endeavor has been tainted from the start.
This really made me think thank you! Although I didn’t get the reference to Sherman Oaks apart from where it is, it did make me realise how different logo mania is from country to country. Here in Melbourne Australia the city central business district is dominated by young Asian people who wear alot of designer however I notice it’s primarily the tasteful end of it - and even if it’s Alessandro era Gucci, they still look incredible, they own the city at night which is so inspiring! Anyway thank you for making me think I really enjoyed your comment
Your point about logomania being different from country to country is so interesting because this is something we never think about. It would be such a treat if someone where to do a research around what an LV, Gucci, Balenciaga logo means in different cultural contexts.
As to your comment about Asian people, as someone who has been working for a long time in e-commerce, they are the most interesting customers. Korean customers love new trends and will look for information about a brand and if it is worth their money, whereas Japanese tend to be more classic and discreet, to the point that you would never if they didn't like their purchase because they don't do returns but will resell it, and the Chinese customer though trend driven also love a heritage brand. They have their own way to wear Western brands, but I'd love to see us paying attention to what their designers are doing, because they have very interesting ones.
Sherman Oaks is a suburban enclave of Los Angeles. It’s synonymous with a certain type of suburban housewife. Sorry, just now realize the term is a bit inside baseball.
I am really glad you appreciated the interview. Philippe is one of those voices in fashion that needs to be more heard. There's a mystique behind him that I appreciate, he's there but it is not over-the-top. And just like you I was happy to get to know more about him. One thing I say is that he is extremely nice and approachable, curious about the person he is talking with.
To come back to the article and Gucci, I believe journalists don't go beyond the products because this is what is asked from them. I also think that there is not much journalists can tell about big brands belonging to conglomerates as they have a big PR machine and all the monies. In my previous interview, Silvia Schirinzi said something very interesting about brands that: now they are their own storytellers. In that sense, journalists working for publications are almost not needed anymore. I don't know where all this will lead, but with Gucci there is clear gap between the storytelling (that is not that deep) and what we see on the runway, and to me, that's an issue.
I think so many important elements of conversation are being lost now. I agree with Philippe - saying I like this collection (or I don't) without explaining in detail why, doesn't benefit anyone. One's experience with a brand or product is invaluable. I recently wrote about Victoria Beckham collaboration with Mango - it was my experience as both a consumer and journalist, and people responded to that. Which was great. It's the same when it comes to beauty - when you are an influencer and you are gifted things, you will gush. But that doesn't benefit consumer, nor truly reflects influencer's experience with a product. we see same brands again and again, while those who thrive to improve, craft or bring something new are struggling. So honest expression and constructive critique can benefit all parties, when insincere gushing does no good at all and feel increasingly tone deaf and fake.
Thank you for your comment. I really appreciated your distinction between the work of an influencer and the work of a journalist. I think this distinction has been diluted in the conversation. When your livelihood depends on what you're wearing on picture, it is sure that your judgement will biaised even though influencers started as the girl/boy-next-door myth.
Critique is necessary to fashion whatever many say. Your average Joe might not read any fashion reviews, but people in the industry and those interested in fashion do. I believe critique is room for improvement that is why I'd like to have more writers looking at materials, construction, and the context in which a collection was made instead of gushing over the location, the celebrities who were there, etc. The pop culture aspect of fashion reviews - though I understand it - has taken too much space.
And yes, I agree with you - location for a fashion event might be interesting as backdrop - personally I never cared about celebrities, let alone influencers - but it’s the materials/construction/inspiration/choice of music & people who make those collections come alive - not just one designer & brand owner. I always loved glossies for campaigns they did in the 80s/90s & 00s - now it’s all refined & mostly unoriginal. When I look at Loewe, I get intrigued & inspired. When I look at Dior or Chanel now, it doesn’t move me at all. The latest ad with Brad & Penelope was a sterile version of Un Homme et Une Femme. I think of that movie & my heart skips a bit still. I watched Chanel mini movie & just smiled seeing two familiar & handsome/beautiful faces - but my heart wasn’t involved at all. You wanted to be moved, instead you are just sold things. I think that’s the difference - and it’s palpably offputting
Having started as a blogger, I completed my postgrad in journalism at the same time - and that felt vital to me, even though blogging was just emerging as a metier. What influencers do is they just promote things they are given & while journalists of course have their own biases - or those of publications they work for, an educated view & nuanced writing to me is vital still. I have always seen my job as educational, doing research about a brand or product, talking to founders - and then deciding whether it’s worthy of sharing with my audience. Life is hard & many people are lost in the vortex of endless newness churned by fashion & beauty - which often is wasteful to start with. In beauty like in fashion it’s the big ones that dominate, because they have marketing & get exposure everywhere - yet consumer is none the wiser & more list than ever about what to buy or who to buy from. So critique & own, personal opinions backed by professional experience, rather than PR event invitations, is what we all need & crave. Yet finding such editorials /posts or Substacks is increasingly tricky, as generally it’s the same people writing & appearing everywhere. It frustrates me in as much as the people I talk to about fashion, beauty or culture. It we are used to sameness, we start craving it in our desire to fit in…
But isn't that a problem symptomatic of a broken system? I think casting ire on the influencer is a mistake. They are just pawns that, due to luck or privilege (and yes, maybe a little bit of hard work), have found a way to make a living in an inherently exploitative world. A world that cares more about profit than people.
The design houses and the vanguard powers that be legitimize influencers because they are good for business. And why wouldn't they? Fashion is a business first and and foremost, and always has been.
Was Anna Wintour, in the early days of her reign, really so much more legitimate or important a voice than a popular influencer is today? Was Carine Rotfield?
I do believe that fashion journalism is an essential means of creative expression and must be protected. But the fashion magazine or the newspaper column are not and have never been the exclusive or even the primary source of those essential opinions.
You make a good point, but I think influencers are active and willing participants, rather than pawns.
In truth, very few influencers deliver value or significant sales to brands - that's a fairly well-known fact, that's why many influencers don't stay in the game for too long and are regularly replaced with new faces or bodies to promote the product with.
I think Anna and Karine are both smart and savvy, otherwise they wouldn't have stayed top of their game for that long - and continue to remain there because they deliver results.
As to fashion journalism, it's becoming almost impossible to make a living out of it - as with other types of journalism, which is replaced with more and more marketing talking about more or less the same group of brands. So interesting, nuanced commentary on whichever platform is bound to get attention - and hopefully spark interesting and varied conversations not about 'sameness' but rather new things emerging that have the potential to grow into something meaningful and significant.
I think they are making the most of a situation for which any one individual has little power to change. It's not an especially noble path but the fashion establishment are the one's with real power, money, and influence. They must gain something--if not monetarily than in the form of cultural currency (i.e. clicks, cache, etc.)--to partner with them as they have.
And isn't the whole thing about Anna that she's more of a business woman than an editor? Some might say that about Carine, too. Their longevity has more to do with their tactics in the boardroom than their take on fashion. Not that business savvy isn't as legitimate a skill as any other. But it's not their idiosyncratic contribution to fashion discourse that's kept them at the top. It's their fondness for orchestrating expedient partnerships, something which they've always done in one way or another.
they are, but I disagree that one individual lacks power to change. if you disagree with the status quo, you have a voice, so put it to good use. Otherwise we all trudge along, feeling increased sense of doom and frustration. As to clicks and likes, they mean nothing really...
Anna is both a writer and an editor, and a savvy woman as well, all of which combined make her stand out from the crowd - irrespective of whether she is liked or not. the same with Carine - if they didn't deliver results, they wouldn't continue to be in as much demand, as they are. being at the top is never easy. Anna in particular has supported many designers and helped them navigate the industry & many people speak highly of her, sincerely.
Thank you for doing this interview! I've really enjoyed his commentary and it's so great to hear a bit more from him. What he said about Sabato de Sarno at Gucci being just product, is exactly how I feel about luxury brands these days - no story, no vision, no dreams. And I don't understand why fashion journalists aren't looking beyond whether a product is "good" and not questioning the point of it all..
This was a wonderful interview but I disagree with you both on the topic of logomania. Or rather, I think that wouldn’t have been the example I used to make that point.
Buying an otherwise indistinct pair of leggings with a designer logo printed all over them, isn’t any tackier than buying a pair of $10,000 Phoebe Philo polyamide leggings. Or a $5,000 navy sweater from the Row. Logos are not my thing but when I see someone covered head to toe in them, I think, “good for you!” You might look tacky as hell but you made a bold aesthetic choice. And you’re probably having a lot of fun in the process. Getting all dressed up in your designer costume. Good for you! I so much prefer that consumer to the one with a closet of inoffensive designer basics in ochre, grey, black, and (gasp!) maybe a Kelly-green. That person has nothing to say with their clothes. No point of view. But they are aware enough or they're simply still faithful enough to the idea that fashion hierarchies are legitimate. And so, they're positioning themselves on the side of the gatekeepers. Is the construction of a $5,000 T-shirt really so superior as to warrant its price tag? Designer jelly shoes are a thing now, really?
There is something so sweet about a logomaniac. They’re the last vestige of the aspirational shopper. Designer clothing has gotten so expensive that it’s no longer feasible for a middle or even an upper-middle class person to save up and splurge on one special item every season. The only shopper still participating in that kind of consumerism is the logomaniac. And if they’re going to blow half a year’s paycheck on something designer, they want the world to know who it’s by and where they got it from And to all the mom’s in Sherman Oaks rocking that Fendi catsuit at carpool I say, “you go girl!”
I think the real problem with fashion criticism isn’t that critics fear retribution from big houses, it’s that even the shrewd ones still believe wholesale that gatekeepers exist. They revel in the exclusionary tactics that belief then breeds.
The younger crop of critics are positioning themselves as the rightful heirs of taste. Yes, criticism of anything aesthetic requires that the critic have a fealty to the medium they are criticizing. They must believe in the artform's power to ask questions, transcend, and reveal truth. But I believe a legitimate fashion critic needs to be honest that it's all a little bit bullshit. Fashion is an art so deeply imbedded with the machination's of capitalism. It has been for a very, VERY long time. Its incredibly difficult to reveal truths about the world when the art you create is a business first.
The power of fashion and style, to me, is the unfettered promise of self-expression. And surely a true eccentric, a true subversive, would realize the whole endeavor has been tainted from the start.
This really made me think thank you! Although I didn’t get the reference to Sherman Oaks apart from where it is, it did make me realise how different logo mania is from country to country. Here in Melbourne Australia the city central business district is dominated by young Asian people who wear alot of designer however I notice it’s primarily the tasteful end of it - and even if it’s Alessandro era Gucci, they still look incredible, they own the city at night which is so inspiring! Anyway thank you for making me think I really enjoyed your comment
Your point about logomania being different from country to country is so interesting because this is something we never think about. It would be such a treat if someone where to do a research around what an LV, Gucci, Balenciaga logo means in different cultural contexts.
As to your comment about Asian people, as someone who has been working for a long time in e-commerce, they are the most interesting customers. Korean customers love new trends and will look for information about a brand and if it is worth their money, whereas Japanese tend to be more classic and discreet, to the point that you would never if they didn't like their purchase because they don't do returns but will resell it, and the Chinese customer though trend driven also love a heritage brand. They have their own way to wear Western brands, but I'd love to see us paying attention to what their designers are doing, because they have very interesting ones.
Love this, there’s some amazing creators here in Melbourne so I might suggest this to them and credit your idea! 💡 💝
Sherman Oaks is a suburban enclave of Los Angeles. It’s synonymous with a certain type of suburban housewife. Sorry, just now realize the term is a bit inside baseball.
Ah I see! In Melbourne we would call that Toorak or South Yarra, white culture is hilarious for having these enclaves! 😂😂😂
Hello Lin,
I am really glad you appreciated the interview. Philippe is one of those voices in fashion that needs to be more heard. There's a mystique behind him that I appreciate, he's there but it is not over-the-top. And just like you I was happy to get to know more about him. One thing I say is that he is extremely nice and approachable, curious about the person he is talking with.
To come back to the article and Gucci, I believe journalists don't go beyond the products because this is what is asked from them. I also think that there is not much journalists can tell about big brands belonging to conglomerates as they have a big PR machine and all the monies. In my previous interview, Silvia Schirinzi said something very interesting about brands that: now they are their own storytellers. In that sense, journalists working for publications are almost not needed anymore. I don't know where all this will lead, but with Gucci there is clear gap between the storytelling (that is not that deep) and what we see on the runway, and to me, that's an issue.
I think so many important elements of conversation are being lost now. I agree with Philippe - saying I like this collection (or I don't) without explaining in detail why, doesn't benefit anyone. One's experience with a brand or product is invaluable. I recently wrote about Victoria Beckham collaboration with Mango - it was my experience as both a consumer and journalist, and people responded to that. Which was great. It's the same when it comes to beauty - when you are an influencer and you are gifted things, you will gush. But that doesn't benefit consumer, nor truly reflects influencer's experience with a product. we see same brands again and again, while those who thrive to improve, craft or bring something new are struggling. So honest expression and constructive critique can benefit all parties, when insincere gushing does no good at all and feel increasingly tone deaf and fake.
Hello Galina,
Thank you for your comment. I really appreciated your distinction between the work of an influencer and the work of a journalist. I think this distinction has been diluted in the conversation. When your livelihood depends on what you're wearing on picture, it is sure that your judgement will biaised even though influencers started as the girl/boy-next-door myth.
Critique is necessary to fashion whatever many say. Your average Joe might not read any fashion reviews, but people in the industry and those interested in fashion do. I believe critique is room for improvement that is why I'd like to have more writers looking at materials, construction, and the context in which a collection was made instead of gushing over the location, the celebrities who were there, etc. The pop culture aspect of fashion reviews - though I understand it - has taken too much space.
And yes, I agree with you - location for a fashion event might be interesting as backdrop - personally I never cared about celebrities, let alone influencers - but it’s the materials/construction/inspiration/choice of music & people who make those collections come alive - not just one designer & brand owner. I always loved glossies for campaigns they did in the 80s/90s & 00s - now it’s all refined & mostly unoriginal. When I look at Loewe, I get intrigued & inspired. When I look at Dior or Chanel now, it doesn’t move me at all. The latest ad with Brad & Penelope was a sterile version of Un Homme et Une Femme. I think of that movie & my heart skips a bit still. I watched Chanel mini movie & just smiled seeing two familiar & handsome/beautiful faces - but my heart wasn’t involved at all. You wanted to be moved, instead you are just sold things. I think that’s the difference - and it’s palpably offputting
Having started as a blogger, I completed my postgrad in journalism at the same time - and that felt vital to me, even though blogging was just emerging as a metier. What influencers do is they just promote things they are given & while journalists of course have their own biases - or those of publications they work for, an educated view & nuanced writing to me is vital still. I have always seen my job as educational, doing research about a brand or product, talking to founders - and then deciding whether it’s worthy of sharing with my audience. Life is hard & many people are lost in the vortex of endless newness churned by fashion & beauty - which often is wasteful to start with. In beauty like in fashion it’s the big ones that dominate, because they have marketing & get exposure everywhere - yet consumer is none the wiser & more list than ever about what to buy or who to buy from. So critique & own, personal opinions backed by professional experience, rather than PR event invitations, is what we all need & crave. Yet finding such editorials /posts or Substacks is increasingly tricky, as generally it’s the same people writing & appearing everywhere. It frustrates me in as much as the people I talk to about fashion, beauty or culture. It we are used to sameness, we start craving it in our desire to fit in…
But isn't that a problem symptomatic of a broken system? I think casting ire on the influencer is a mistake. They are just pawns that, due to luck or privilege (and yes, maybe a little bit of hard work), have found a way to make a living in an inherently exploitative world. A world that cares more about profit than people.
The design houses and the vanguard powers that be legitimize influencers because they are good for business. And why wouldn't they? Fashion is a business first and and foremost, and always has been.
Was Anna Wintour, in the early days of her reign, really so much more legitimate or important a voice than a popular influencer is today? Was Carine Rotfield?
I do believe that fashion journalism is an essential means of creative expression and must be protected. But the fashion magazine or the newspaper column are not and have never been the exclusive or even the primary source of those essential opinions.
You make a good point, but I think influencers are active and willing participants, rather than pawns.
In truth, very few influencers deliver value or significant sales to brands - that's a fairly well-known fact, that's why many influencers don't stay in the game for too long and are regularly replaced with new faces or bodies to promote the product with.
I think Anna and Karine are both smart and savvy, otherwise they wouldn't have stayed top of their game for that long - and continue to remain there because they deliver results.
As to fashion journalism, it's becoming almost impossible to make a living out of it - as with other types of journalism, which is replaced with more and more marketing talking about more or less the same group of brands. So interesting, nuanced commentary on whichever platform is bound to get attention - and hopefully spark interesting and varied conversations not about 'sameness' but rather new things emerging that have the potential to grow into something meaningful and significant.
I think they are making the most of a situation for which any one individual has little power to change. It's not an especially noble path but the fashion establishment are the one's with real power, money, and influence. They must gain something--if not monetarily than in the form of cultural currency (i.e. clicks, cache, etc.)--to partner with them as they have.
And isn't the whole thing about Anna that she's more of a business woman than an editor? Some might say that about Carine, too. Their longevity has more to do with their tactics in the boardroom than their take on fashion. Not that business savvy isn't as legitimate a skill as any other. But it's not their idiosyncratic contribution to fashion discourse that's kept them at the top. It's their fondness for orchestrating expedient partnerships, something which they've always done in one way or another.
they are, but I disagree that one individual lacks power to change. if you disagree with the status quo, you have a voice, so put it to good use. Otherwise we all trudge along, feeling increased sense of doom and frustration. As to clicks and likes, they mean nothing really...
Anna is both a writer and an editor, and a savvy woman as well, all of which combined make her stand out from the crowd - irrespective of whether she is liked or not. the same with Carine - if they didn't deliver results, they wouldn't continue to be in as much demand, as they are. being at the top is never easy. Anna in particular has supported many designers and helped them navigate the industry & many people speak highly of her, sincerely.
I am so high right now by the way I have no idea if I’m making any sense
Thank you for doing this interview! I've really enjoyed his commentary and it's so great to hear a bit more from him. What he said about Sabato de Sarno at Gucci being just product, is exactly how I feel about luxury brands these days - no story, no vision, no dreams. And I don't understand why fashion journalists aren't looking beyond whether a product is "good" and not questioning the point of it all..