Coexist - What to do when a brand’s original designer no longer designs
From left to right - Thierry Mugler, Nicola Formichetti, Casey Cadwallader - designing for Mugler.
By Hannah Schmidt-Rees
When Pablo Picasso died after his prolific career, do you think a group of people sat around a conference room table and discussed who would be painting for him in the future?
No, obviously. Because Picasso’s style was something only he could do, it would be considered disrespectful for someone else to create under his name after his death. So, why is it fine for other designers to take control over fashion brands/houses after the original designer has passed away? Why is the McQueen brand still around even though Alexander McQueen is no longer with us?
Whilst the comparison to fashion and art is correct to a degree, they’re also very different creative industries. A high-end painting is created by one person, whereas a high-end outfit is created by a team of people. An artist will work on a project from start to finish whereas a designer may only be involed for a fraction of the process. It’s just hard to imagine Karl Lagerfeld designing, patterning, toileing and sewing a garment. Heads of fashion houses are called Creative Directors, so no theyre not sewing everything but they dictate where the brand is going - and that’s one of the most important roles for the success of the brand.
The reason why I thought to write this article is because of the Mugler brand (which is my favourite). I’ve written about Thierry Mugler here, but in my research, I discovered something significant. Thierry Mugler retired in 2002, and the brand was closed, until 2010, when Nicola Formichetti was announced as the new Creative Director. The Mugler brand was back, but it was incredibly different to the vision of Thierry Mugler almost a decade earlier.
Nothing against Nicola Formichetti, he does some amazing designs, but I don’t think he was worth reviving the Mugler brand. If you see his designs on their own, theyre great; clean, modern and feminine. But if you see them with the context of the brand he’s designing for, they’re,, underwhelming and too simple. And this is my issue - maybe we should’ve just let the brand ‘die’ in its prime. There’s no point continuing something if it doesn’t have that ‘thing’ that made it special in the first place.
Although, there is hope for Mugler, post-2017. Casey Cadwallader took over as Creative Director and in my eyes, as a Mugler fan, the brand was truly reborn.
I could write an entire article about Cadwallader’s design process and influence on Mugler, who knows - I might. But! I’ll just do an abridged version for this article.
In my opinion, the biggest success of Cadwallader is his reliance on the archive. He would go through, pick a piece or an aspect, and examine and photograph it. This would become the starting point for a new ready to wear collection, with influences from advances in fabrication and the shift in style.
It’s a combination of old and new, a reimagined homage. Its not about recreating things, nor is it about making something completely new. Cadwallader understood what made Mugler so good in the first place, the bold femininity, pushing the edge of what a powerful woman looks like. But the best thing is, he reinvented that to fit today’s world. He prioritises inclusivity, making sure all sizes, ages and cultures are included without compromise, even more than Thierry himself. In addition, the most recent Mugler shows highly reference the intense theatricality of the original shows. This is another way that the original designer is respected, not just in the actual clothing.
Even just looking at photos of the runways for each creative director, you can see which ones are a successful homage and which ones aren’t.
“It was to present a project that echoed Mugler’s history and archives without being a copy of what had been done before. What should be kept or amended? The idea was really to understand the DNA of the brand and what it represents, and then to combine it with today’s cultural codes.”
This is different to Formichetti for example, its hard to see the connection to the Mugler brand and the runways were just like any other RTW show at the time. It just didn’t have that specific Mugler spark.
So here’s the conundrum, there are examples where a new creative director takes over and (in my opinion) aesthetically kills the brand. But, there are other examples where the new creative director pulls the brand into today’s world while still paying homage to what made the original designer so special. It’s a hard thing to determine, but I think if a brand is looking for a new creative director after the original passes away/retires, they shouldn’t just go for the first option, the most technically amazing option, or the coolest option, it should be someone that can live and breath what made the brand special. Make it worth keeping the brand alive.
It’s like Alessandro Michele for Gucci, Kim Jones for Louis Vuitton Menswear and John Galliano for Dior. All good examples of how an in-tune and modern designer can completely reinvent a brand to success without sacrificing its original feel.
I dont know if these brands just have the different priorities when choosing a new creative director - money? attention? commercialism? I have no clue, not invited to these board meetings. I’d just like to know what Louis Vuitton was thinking when choosing Pharrell Williams to take over for Virgil Abloh.
“If you’re going to try to resurrect an iconic house, you gotta throw some gasoline on that.”