Nobody takes risks anymore. Everybody does the same things. Banalization is right around the corner. Let’s start from the words of Marco Bizzarri, ex CEO of Gucci, in order to understand what is currently happening to fashion, which seems to be suffering an identity crisis. As demonstrated by the exit of Sabato De Sarno from Gucci. A news that (especially) concerns creativity, or even communication
by Domenico Casoria
“Creative direction is essential. Nowadays we assist to a complete platitude, as nobody takes risks anymore. You know the engagement data, of the traveler’s purchases, of the shop in Timbuctù and, based on all of these numbers, you tell the director what to do or not to do. All the actions are related to the past, and for this reason everyone is led to propose the same things. We need to come back to realizing something based on emotions and not only on numbers, otherwise there is a high risk of banalization”. These are the words of Marco Bizzarri, ex CEO of Gucci and now at the head of the Nessifashion holding, which invested in the brand Elisabetta Franchi.
What happened to creativity?
So much has been written about the crisis of the fashion industry, and so much has been said about the transformation that the figure of the creative director is going through. All of the observations – the extremely high prices, the overly exclusive luxury – distract from a much more structural crisis: the one that concerns creativity. We are not talking about creativity in a narrow sense, but about the narration that fashion creates in order to give value to its products. During the latest years (especially during the pandemic) the managers of the companies convinced themselves about the effectiveness of focusing on less risky products. Neutral shades, basic shapes, very few frills.
In other words: the “real luxury”. Quiet, minimalist, someone would say “basic”, but still extremely expensive and far away from the accessibility that few can aspire to. For at least two seasons, we have seen on the runway identical collections, which had the consequence of distancing the potential clients from the fashion debate. It seemed – perhaps – the answer. But it didn’t satisfy the traditional mechanisms of desire and ambition, which were no longer able to justify the value of a certain product. So, fashion has understood that, at this rate, it would not have lasted longer and, for this reason, it came back to the certainties of the past, the one that was previously disgraced.
The De Sarno’s case
On February 6th, after less than two years at the creative direction of Gucci, Sabato De Sarno abandoned the ship. He was nominated to succeed Alessandro Michele. A designation questioned from the start, as De Sarno decided to cut the relationship with the maximalist past of the griffe, proposing a couple of relatively basic, linear and with few frills collections. At the opposite of his predecessor. You can’t say there was no creativity, but for the short time he had, De Sarno wasn’t able to communicate it and to give value to his vision, as he bumped into an anesthetized market of products that needed a shock. Perhaps, during this particular moment of his career, the creative exercise was under development. One can be a masterful creative, but then you need to turn the ideas into acts. The result? The end of a liaison built on wrong premises.
The meaning of a comeback
Alessandro Michele, as we were saying, has reappeared on the fashion scene after exiting from Gucci at the end of 2022. During March 2024, he became the new creative director of Valentino, succeeding Pierpaolo Piccioli. The first collection – together with the couture staged on Jan. 30 – have right away highlighted the differences in creativeness. While the collections proposed by Piccioli were perfect in terms of tailoring, but not really able to narrate stories, the ones proposed by Michele narrate everything that needs to be told. His collections are extremely recognizable, are still refined in details, but are characterized by a complexity in terms of interpretation. With his projects, Michele pollutes the gaze of the observer, as he wants to recall the client to reflect on the mechanisms of fashion.
A neverending creative crisis
But, at the same time, we are talking about a deep readaptation of the archive codes that are one more time actualized. In fact, the ferocious critics pointed towards Alessandro Michele – on the tone of “what happened to Valentino” – confuse the work of Piccioli with the one of the founder that, deeply analyzed, is different. But they tell us how creativity is nowadays perceived, to the point of not being able to recognize it when someone tries to implement it. The crisis is just a direct consequence of the simplification of concepts and manufacturing.
Identical products that enhance a neverending creative crisis. So, the debate about what fashion is nowadays has arrogantly returned on stage. Is it art? Is it just clothes? Because it seems that the few creative exercises that are proposed are directly and negatively considered extremism or provocation. To keep up Balenciaga, Demna Gvasalia has always provided for objectively unwearable clothes, with artistic (or related to marketing) expedients that require a deep creative effort and a good amount of risk. This make him provocative?
Maybe, but always with a creativity that considers the past as a source in order to try to understand where the world is going. Surely, the debate related to fashion is now polarized. Identical copies or unseen things. In the middle of nowhere. So, there isn’t an answer: we are not able to forecast where fashion will go in the next few months. What we certainly know is that the clients are not anymore willing to spend thousands of euros for a simple sweater. And that’s a starting point.
Read also: