An analysis of the most important names in fashion and the “Maisons” they helped build…and ultimately close? We explore after the jump.
PARIS–Since the beginning of the history of Les Maisons de Couture in Paris, a dilemma has vexed design houses: What will happen after its namesake founder decides to retire? In May 1968, the press was shocked to learn that 74-year-old Monsieur Balenciaga–after 30 years helming his eponymous house–was stepping down and closing up shop. Announcing the news at his last show (and in his own way), he dramatically and suddenly bid farewell to the public. He swiftly moved back to Spain, where he passed away four short years later.
There is much talk about whether the founder of a company or couture house can survive an exit, when they are no longer the visionary and lead creative supplier of magic and inspiration. John Galliano is arguably the most complicated and unusual example. He was at the peak of his career designing for Dior, as well as his own self-titled label, when he descended into addiction and exhaustion. This culminated in a racist tirade at a Paris café in 2011, which led to his excommunication from the fashion industry at large. His swift departure from Dior also resulted in his exit from his own brand, since LVMH owned a majority stake in it through its Christian Dior Couture division.
A team continued to design the collection—initially helmed by Galliano’s ex-assistant Peter Gaytten—with two divisions: one couture and one premium contemporary through a license with an Italian company. But ultimately, the John Galliano brand could not survive without the founder, even though LVMH has plenty of resources. Currently, the brand is dormant, but rumors are circulating that LVMH is considering reviving it with Galliano once again at the helm. All of these resurrection rumors are due to the incredible reception of the Maison Margiela couture show in January, which he designed and which quickly entered into the canon of the most iconic fashion moments, taking the internet and media at large by storm.
The most recent example of a founder announcing a retirement suddenly is Dries van Noten, who announced in March that he will retire from his brand in June after his Fall 2024 men’s show in Paris.
The news was met with shock and sadness, namely because this is one of the first times a designer has retired at a relatively young age (van Noten will be 67 in May), and also because he had a clearly devised succession plan already in place. The fashion public got wind that something was shifting when he sold his label to Puig in 2018—an unexpected move at the time, because van Noten wanted to maintain control of design and management and never wanted his label to get too big. However, in some ways selling to a more niche fragrance and beauty company, as opposed to one of the large conglomerates, also felt very Dries; perhaps it was an expansion on his terms––even if his master plan did not include him remaining at the helm of his brand. It now it seems clear that the mastermind's vision for the next phase of Dries van Noten doesn't involve him at the levels expected or desired by his adoring fan base. And yet, this is still emblematic of a designer who has seemingly always been able to maintain the brand he wanted, on his terms.
The Dries van Noten example is the antithesis of what Karl Lagerfeld did—he basically died at his desk. Up until the end, Lagerfeld was designing both Chanel and Fendi, as well as designing and co-managing his own namesake brand. He died at 85, without ever really considering retiring.
This brings us to Giorgio Armani and Ralph Lauren. Both titans haven’t included an exit plan that really indicates their full departure from their businesses. It seems clear that Armani has handed over most of the management reins to family members and to his longtime collaborator, Pantaleo Dell’Orco. Lauren, on the other hand, has tried to hire successors only to fire them soon thereafter. Armani will turn 90 in July; Lauren is 85 and is no longer CEO, but still very much Chief Creative Officer.
I also wonder what will happen to brands like Michael Kors and Marc Jacobs when their founders decide to retire. Marc Jacobs just celebrated his brand’s 40th anniversary. The Michael Kors brand, which is owned by Capri (and currently the target of an acquisition by American fashion brand Tapestry). How long will Kors himself stay engaged? Another brand in Capri Holdings is Versace, whose artistic director is still Donatella Versace, who has notoriously never released the reins of control since taking over the brand following the murder of her brother Gianni. Rumors swirled that this is why the Ricardo Tisci deal to take over Versace ultimately failed, following his exit at Givenchy; Donatella contractually wanted the last creative word. We will always wonder (and maybe even fantasize) what Versace led by Tisci would have looked and felt like.
Alas, we will never know. What we do know is there is much to be said about reigning supreme and being dethroned; further, the shifting turnstile of creative directors at heritage brands also doesn't seem to be working. Do we look with positivity at the creative leadership of Hedi Slimane at Celine or Matthew Williamson at Givenchy? Everyone has certainly noticed the dramatic decline—both fiscally and in popularity—of Gucci following Alessandro Michele’s departure after his tenure at the brand. The trend of “rinse and repeat” has reduced the Creative Director title to more of a stage (a French term for internship/apprenticeship), creating a chaos at brands that have had this rotating door of short-term leaders who leave us to question if they ever left a mark or not. This span seems to be getting shorter and shorter each year, with the average Creative Director lifespan clocking in at about 3–4 years max.
I think we can all support a changing of the guard when the time comes, but the message here seems to be simple: Respect your creative life and legacy and end things on your own terms.
