What is going on with creative directors?

The announcement came altogether: Matthieu Blazy is leaving Bottega Veneta to join Chanel, and Louise Trotter, who departed from Carven the same day, will replace him. According to almost everyone, while John Galliano has left Maison Margiela, Glenn Martens, who recently exited Y/Project, is expected to take his place. Not to mention the rumors circulating in Milan these days, suggesting that Jil Sander and Fendi may soon see new creative directors as well, while Helmut Lang, Carven, and Y/Project are still searching for replacements—not to mention the upcoming debuts expected in the coming months, including Michael Ryder at Celine, Haider Ackermann at Tom Ford, David Koma at Blumarine, Sarah Burton at Givenchy, and Veronica Leoni at Calvin Klein. Other designers, most notably Hedi Slimane and Pierpaolo Piccioli, along with Riccardo Tisci and Jeremy Scott, remain free agents for now, though likely not for long. It has indeed been a while since the fashion system experienced so many shake-ups. While all these designers are poised to bring a breath of fresh air to the somewhat stagnant fashion world, one must assume that this series of strategic changes and announcements reflects an increasingly profound dysfunction. For some time now, it has been said that fashion no longer sells dreams but products, that it has betrayed its original spirit—but perhaps things will change. That said, with a fashion month looming just beyond the holiday season, will all these mid-course changes truly manage to revitalize a luxury industry in which confidence is at an all-time low?

Certainly, considering the many managerial reshuffles within major groups, one can speak of a broader strategic realignment across the entire industry. On a positive note, when it comes to creative directors, we see designers with strong and distinctive visions being promoted. Pierre A. M'Pelé from GQ France commented on Threads about a new golden age. The optimism is admirable, but perhaps we should take these developments with a proverbial grain of salt. Over time, it has become increasingly evident that a change in creative directors is also a media strategy. Of course, a designer greatly influences a brand's image—after all, it is their vision and work that drive a brand’s imagery and narrative—but the truth is that today, a creative director must answer to a CEO and an infamous commercial team operating under purely economic logic. The overpowering influence of stock prices and dividends has created a barrier between the collections presented on runways and the lines that ultimately reach stores.

Thus, the reason behind these announcements is twofold: on one hand, brands need to update their image and creative offerings; on the other, they aim to excite the market by generating news, delivering a sudden burst (or perhaps explosion?) of novelty, and building anticipation to ultimately rekindle consumer interest. But how effective—and for how long—can this tactic be? The creative activity of designers now operates within predefined boundaries, with predetermined goals, and within pre-constructed frameworks. The space for pure creative initiative has undoubtedly diminished compared to the past. A creative director in 2024 is no longer the voice of the brand: they are a soloist in a larger choir, a primus inter pares, but not an absolute monarch. Except in cases of long-term strategies that prioritize continuity over performance, any creative director can be replaced if investors are dissatisfied with financial results.

Another noteworthy aspect is the seemingly artificial synchronization of these appointments. The choreography appears so meticulously planned that numerous rival players had to coordinate for a cascade of announcements to be released one after another. The key here lies in strategy: while creative director changes are often described as a game of musical chairs, if it truly were such a game, there would be an element of randomness. These changes increasingly resemble a rational, calculated chess match. For example, according to rumors, both Marc Jacobs and Jacquemus were ruled out as candidates for Chanel because they owned their own brands, which could distract them. Instead, as Bruno Pavlovsky stated, the goal was to avoid giving the impression that the brand had stalled but rather to make it “relevant”. The aim was to modernize the brand’s image, which made Blazy, the great modernist, the perfect fit. Nonetheless, while it is undeniable that the press and public, now more interested in designers than brands, will view Chanel with fresh eyes, it is equally clear that the work of Trotter at Bottega Veneta and Blazy at Chanel will, to some extent, remain dependent on the past. How free will they truly be to innovate? How much will they have to color within the margins of an already sketched outline? If these designers' creative vision is what brands are betting on, perhaps it is time to reconsider the mechanism where only a tiny fraction of runway looks make it to stores. After all, the collection we see on the runway is followed by another that may not be entirely unrelated but is almost. In the game of creative directors, CEOs and companies have started placing increasingly higher bets—but are we sure they understand the rules of the game?