When the creative director should stay exactly where he is

In recent months, the fashion world has been hit by a tiring wave of news, mostly related to confirmed or speculated departures of designers from the brands they work for. Burberry, for example, which for FW25 has finally presented a truly spot-on collection under the guidance of Daniel Lee, could soon part ways with the British designer. In Milan, instead, Italian fashion practically witnessed the live departure of Luke and Lucie Meier from Jil Sander. The news was overshadowed by a series of rumors raising several questions: it is said that Donatella Versace could leave her position as creative director of the family brand, which in turn could be the next target of a Prada acquisition. Uncertain positions could also involve Silvia Venturini Fendi from Fendi, Simone Bellotti from Bally, and Maximilian Davis from Ferragamo. In Paris, meanwhile, it seems almost certain that Jonathan Anderson will leave Loewe (in fact, he will not show either with the maison or his own brand, remaining the major absentee of the season along with Mathieu Blazy), while confirmation is awaited regarding the positions of Maria Grazia Chiuri from Dior and Casey Cadwallader from Mugler. In general, there are separations that are, all things considered, natural and desirable, yet one feeling that was particularly alive in Milan was a strong attachment to creative designers and their current positions. Commenting enthusiastically on Bally’s latest show, Vanessa Friedman wrote on X: «Just imagine him at a bigger brand», to which another user responded: «Or imagine him staying put and continuing to take Bally to new levels. This idea of pushing people to the next best thing is ruining fashion». In fact, this season, for the first time in years, many insiders are actively hoping that the musical chairs game stops: certain creative directors should stay exactly where they are.

The discussion starts with Burberry, a brand that is in the early stages of a much-awaited resurgence, whose creative director, Daniel Lee, could be on his way out. If they had said this six months ago, it wouldn’t have been an issue – but now that Lee, with a new CEO at the helm, has created a collection that is finally solid, very much his but also very Burberry, what sense would it make to let him go? The same question, charged with rightful sentimentalism, was heard after the Fendi show. There has been a rumor for months that the centenary of the maison would also be Silvia Venturini Fendi’s farewell show, as she became the designer of the women's line for the occasion and proved to be perhaps the only creative director truly able to capture its soul, after a rather forgettable creative direction by Kim Jones. Even though Silvia Venturini Fendi is confined to managing a brand dominated by logos and monograms, it doesn’t take away from the fact that she is one of the most brilliant menswear designers in recent years – and with the centenary show, she proved beyond doubt that her grasp on the "Fendi woman" idea is more secure and precise than ever. Why, many have wondered, not leave her with the keys to a house that, after all, is still hers? Meanwhile, the jury is still deliberating on Ferragamo and Maximilian Davis’ work despite his immense talent, while the most striking case of "a designer who shouldn't leave" is that of Simone Bellotti. In just four seasons, Bally’s creative director has given the brand a stunningly modern identity, both elusive and crystal-clear, while confirming himself as a remarkably solid and insightful author. His departure would not only orphan the historic Swiss brand but also remove one of the most coveted guests from Milan Fashion Week.

The way the public and insiders hope that a certain designer does not leave the brand that belongs to them represents a certain fatigue towards constant changes of creative directors which, for fashion managers, are somewhat like a defibrillator for a brand whose heart is stopping. And even though these changes are partly driven by the invisible hand of the market regulating supply and demand, as the relationships between a designer and their maison are, from a certain point of view, purely transactional, it remains true that the most valuable thing for a brand is becoming the stability and cohesion of the company and creative direction, beyond the carry-over products found in stores, the history, and the archives of each brand. There are cases where certain pairings are natural, like that of Silvia Venturini Fendi and Bellotti with their respective brands; others where a designer needs three or four collections to find the right path, as in the case of Daniel Lee at Burberry. Given that from the appointment of a designer to the arrival of their products in stores often more than a year passes, maybe it's worth learning to wait for a creative director to adjust their course rather than changing the cards every two years. In fact, a brand that changes its creative director every two or three years doesn’t communicate innovation but instability, lack of credibility. And often, the crisis of a brand doesn’t depend only on the person leading creativity, but on the strategists and managers behind the scenes making decisions far more vital than any designer’s. If fashion wants to impose itself as a producer of culture, it must stop functioning like a slaughterhouse. And while it's true that you don't need to fix what isn't broken, you can always fix what doesn’t work. A shake-up now and then often helps, but too many shakes together become an earthquake.