Is fashion on the wrong side of history?

In astronomy, when we talk about revolution, we refer to a celestial body that completes its orbit and returns, after a long journey, to the position it originally occupied – which is ironic since, normally, when we talk about revolution, we refer to a change. But even in history, it often happens that the final act of a revolution is the return of society to a state almost identical to the starting point: after the French Revolution, for example, came Napoleon, who essentially became another absolute ruler, and when Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo, the Congress of Vienna in 1814 saw the old European monarchs do everything to recreate the Ancien Régime – with all the necessary distinctions. Something similar has also happened in today's fashion, where the big luxury groups, the old monarchs of the industry, seem to have forgotten the revolution that was happening years ago and have left behind the Napoleon that emerged from it: Virgil Abloh. On the 30th of September, in fact, on Abloh's birthday, LVMH sold Off-White – signaling not only the irrevocable divorce between fashion and streetwear but also the abandonment of creating collections in tune with the present, with the "street," and with the new generations who walk it.

The sale of Off-White was not just a simple business transaction but demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt the distrust (or rather, the rejection) of the streetwear world as well as the will to forget the past and how just a few years ago luxury had left the ateliers and city centers to pour into the streets, capturing the interest of a new generation that found itself in fashion, restoring relevance to it after losing it during the first decade of the 2000s. An entire generation of designers and fashion enthusiasts today remains orphaned of Virgil Abloh. And at this very moment, a historical juncture where films like Megalopolis and the thoughts of many writers compare the modern West to the Roman Empire of decadence, the fashion industry has practically decided to move in open contradiction with history, anchoring itself to the past and turning to an elite so narrow and rarefied that it completely nullifies its ability to resonate with youth culture and the world at large. By abandoning Off-White, institutional fashion has decided to abandon the new generations – not so much because its relationship with the new generations depended on the brand, but because the brand was the one that initially carried the values that were then adopted by the entire industry.

For a moment, starting with Virgil Abloh's first show at Louis Vuitton, the fashion audience dreamed of breaking down the barriers that separate the world of luxury from that of pop culture through an inclusive mindset that gave the new generations the opportunity to approach the glamorous world of fashion and express themselves through it. A new and very important approach, though obviously with some critical points, since the price of bringing so many young creatives into fashion was opening the doors to a certain dilettantism which, in the absence of the cultural capital that Abloh possessed thanks to his studies in design and art, was also responsible for flattening the idea of fashion design to mere graphics and the reworking of already known products and ideas with minimal changes – Abloh's famous 3% rule. This very dilettantism, which poorly connected with luxury clientele, the super-rich and lifelong loyal customers, has led to the return of the old regime on the runway – but by completely erasing the ability to tell the reality in all its aspects. Today, amid the collapse of every ideology and system of reference, on the verge of war and steps away from ecosystem collapse, it feels like the end of history – causing an anger, a pain, and a disorientation that fashion today should be able to tell but cannot, trapped in the escapist performance of a gilded and idyllic lifestyle that has no other value to express besides its own privilege.

Perhaps fashion, just like the new generations, looks to the future with anxiety and wants to go back because it cannot move forward, deprived of its spontaneity and the art that has always been intrinsic to it, crushed by commercial demands and nauseated by the ideology of intensive and ever-growing profit. And during this fashion month, we have truly witnessed shows capable only of recounting nostalgia for past times, without curious or intuitive looks at the present or the future. But unfortunately, this is the case when everything seems to follow the principle of legitimacy, where luxury is thought of and developed only for the rich – the only class that, since the times of Ancient Greece, essentially never changes or evolves. Instead, it would be necessary to redefine the idea of luxury, making it not a signifier of social status but a carrier, in the name of excellence in applied arts, of new values within it and freeing itself from the mercantilist idea of high margin at any cost – an idea, moreover, that creates more and more contradictions and discrepancies even within the perception of the rich to whom luxury is destined, further narrowing the customer base of a fashion that is increasingly desperate. And what if today an Armani suit bought on Vinted were more luxurious than one fresh off the Saint Laurent runway? After all, we keep hearing that in the past, everything was of higher quality and even old second lines often seem better finished than the products landing in stores today. Are the show, the celebrities, and prices elevated beyond any reasonable threshold still so determining in defining the current idea of luxury? Or is it enough to own a prestigious object to enjoy it?

The truth is that the definition of what fashion is and the ways to participate in it have already changed – paradoxically, it's fashion that is lagging behind, as it has refused to recognize the fundamental and irrevocable ideological shift that occurred with the advent of Virgil Abloh. The big groups show no signs of wanting to acknowledge it; on the contrary, it seems as if the past few years never existed, and all that is spoken about is high craftsmanship and luxury materials while bags are stitched in semi-illegal sweatshops scattered across the countryside of half of Europe. The consequences of this attitude intolerant of change are manifesting in the rampant success of fast fashion, whose main brands like Zara, H&M, or Uniqlo have already begun to recruit creatives who are part of the luxury world but have been rejected or excluded in one way or another. But the migration of creatives to fast fashion is triggering new and more dangerous revolutions that will hardly be resolved by once again turning the game table upside down.

To understand the state of the fashion, we compared the mid-year financial results of Kering and LVMH (excluding alcohol and hotels from the latter) with those of Inditex and Fast Retailing: it emerged that in the first half of 2024, the two luxury groups saw a overall decline of -10.2% compared to the same period the previous year, driven mostly by Kering's losses; while the growth of the two fast fashion groups was +7.8%. Overall, though, LVMH and Kering recorded 47.9 billion in revenue, while the two fast fashion groups only 28.8 billion. Although it is clear that the sum is only indicative of their respective sectors, the issue moves on a double track: luxury makes more money but its growth has slowed considerably due to investment expenses and sluggish sales; fast fashion is still profitable but growing rapidly. Specifically, Kering is the laggard of the entire selection, as in the first half of the year it earned less than Uniqlo. The forces of fast fashion, in short, are gaining ground and will soon be able to compete with luxury, at least in terms of spending power. History should teach fashion that time does not stop, but moves forward inexorably. Rocks do not stop the sea of change, and the runways will not return to the palaces of power of yesteryear; the revolution is still there, on the streets, and another Virgil will come to guide us and overturn the pyramid once again.