At the top of the big fashion houses, there is a real reshuffle going on in recent months. Empty chairs for creative director positions surface, leaving the system and the public uncertain. What is the real position that creative directors have? Is the time of ‘superstar’ designers over?

Meanwhile, a small recap. Just a few weeks ago Moschino surprisingly announced the departure of Jeremy Scott in the role of creative director, which he had at the fashion house since 2013. Scott had succeeded Rossella Jardini, who joined the fashion house as assistant to founder Franco Moschino. Today Scott comments on his departure, calling himself “full of excitement and expectations and ready to share what I have in store next.”

A few days later Trussardi also found itself with empty creative director chairs. Serhat Işık and Benjamin A. Huseby, known for their Gmbh brand, founded in Berlin in 2016, were in office for just two years. Also leaving Trussardi was the entire board of directors, leaving the company’s future in the balance.

Late last year Gucci had shocked the fashion system with the farewell of Alessandro Michele, prompting a veritable ‘Fashion Toto’ to identify who would take his place. More than a month ago through an official note Kering (Gucci’s parent company) announced Sabato De Sarno as the brand’s new creative director, whose debut will take place next September.

“The problem seems to be the CEOs’ lack of ability to recognize talent, assess its alignment with the brand story, and envision a future vision that contains both commercial success and media response,” commented fashion critic Andrea Batilla. “From the days of McQueen and Galliano in which clothes were not expected to sell but it was enough for fashion shows to create hype to sell perfume, we have moved to a much more structured business model in which the creative director must not only be a media darling but also have the gift of multiplying sales across all product categories. He must, in short, be able to develop powerful fashion shows but also work with merchandisers and marketing managers to please all the different markets around the world.”

And Demna, creative director of Balenciaga, seemed to have succeeded, until the succession of scandals that have hit the brand, but also his figure in recent months. It was enough for the brand to disappear from the small screens (archiving on its Ig all its photos, put back only a few days ago) and to abjure the role of Demna. Re-emerging for the presentation of the fall/winter 23-24 collection, the concept adopted was clear: tabula rasa, we start over with clothes. No scandals, political messages or provocations, typical of the creative director’s trademark, just a focus on his black blazers. “I went back to cutting jackets and pants, experimenting with patterns and shapes. I can’t explain it any other way than that I have taken refuge in the activity I love: making clothes,” the Georgian designer had said. In short, nothing that could potentially come across as ‘over the top,’ also strongly desired by Kering ownership.

And still in September 2022 also wanting to change course was Burberry, which let Daniel Lee take over as creative director from Riccardo Tisci, in charge since 2018. The new designer made his voice heard immediately, trawling the brand’s historical archives, but coming out ‘revamped’ with the new campaign in mid-February.

In short, there is a real earthquake among the armchairs of fashion houses. To what extent are creative directors really free to choose without having to subject themselves to the decisions of turnover and media image? When is the position of designer vacated out of pure creative interest?
What do you guys think?

by Giorgia Dallasio
April 06, 2023