ANNOUNCEMENT! This summer I will be teaching a new StyleZeitgeist Academy course on fashion writing and journalism. If you are an aspiring writer or an established one who wants to turn to fashion, this course is for you. No prerequisites are required. More info here.

“It’s never a season without nostalgia, but Fall / Winter 2026 has taken us quite far back in time,” proclaimed a recent trend forecasting presentation, noting “a laundry list of time travel options” on last season’s runways. Indeed, they are not wrong. It looks like fashion’s obsession with nostalgia has reached a crescendo. Here is a sample from just April: Giorgio Armani rereleased thirteen designs from his archives. At Gucci, Demna unveiled a blue silk shirt that is a copy of the one Tom Ford created for the house in 1995, and that was made famous by Madonna. The shirt is a part of his “Generation Gucci” initiative, which itself sounds like the popular “Pepsi Generation” ad campaign, which peaked in the 1980s. Chloé re-released its Paddington bag that debuted 20 years ago. In retail, Authentic Brands Group, the owner of Barneys’ intellectual property, teased a possible revival of the iconic store that set the tone for New York City retail decades ago. In May, as fashion descended on Los Angeles, banking on the celebrity capital of the world, the Dior show mise-an-scéne was an escapist ‘50s dream, complete with pink Cadillacs and models in flouncy skirts. It increasingly feels like the entire industry is in the grip of postmodernism, relying on recombination of past styles, while genuine innovation suffers.

Nostalgia in fashion is nothing new. Designers began to reference previous decades’ styles as early as the 1970s. Yves Saint-Laurent’s infamous 1971 collection “Liberation” harked back to silhouettes from the 1940s. Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood began their career by aping the 1950s Teddy Boys subculture. But these references also served as a basis for eventual innovation – one can hardly call these designers unoriginal. What feels different today is that rehashes of past styles have become not a sideshow, but the main mode of production.

In his 1973 book Anxiety of Influence, literary critic Alan Bloom posited that all poets are influenced by their predecessors, and that the difference between a “strong” artist and a “weak” artist is their ability to get out from the shadows of their illustrious predecessors. The same goes for fashion designers. There would be no Alexander McQueen without Thierry Mugler, or Rick Owens without Martin Margiela, but these strong designers were able to forge their own creative paths. Increasingly, it feels like such auteurs are a dying breed. Instead, we are being treated to more and more outright copies, incessant re-releases, archive “curations,” as private archives of the 1990s greats like Helmut Lang do a brisk business loaning clothes to brands that copy their patterns.

Nostalgia is a powerful force that operates on wistfulness, but it can only take one so far. The underlying mechanism of fashion is change and newness. If fashion fails to produce genuine innovation, it runs the risk of losing its allure, and perpetuating a dangerous downward spiral; the less newness, the more looking back at the alleged good old days, resulting in more retro pastiche, resulting in less interest in current fashion. We can see this happening already with the rise of the vintage market, where disappointed, nostalgia-driven fashion enthusiasts increasingly migrate. Why buy a copy, or a copy of a copy, when you can still get the original?

It may be true that given the vast archive of contemporary fashion it has become harder to innovate and therefore a return to the recent past is inevitable. But it is equally true that if fashion is to remain fashion, innovation is paramount, because it drives the cohort of enthusiasts that spearhead fashion consumption – just witness the recent frenzy around the new products from Matthieu Blazy at Chanel. Without innovation, fashion turns into apparel. And which fashion enthusiast wants that?

Recommendations:

Read – American investors now own a ton of European football clubs and are remaking the game in the country’s business-first image. (Financial Times)

Read – On my personal Substack, Arguably, I wrote about reading books without the goal of finishing them. (Substack)

Read – Could men use a little more vanity? Perhaps (Financial Times)

Read – “Jerry Gogosian” made a career wrecking-balling the art industry, before her fame consumed her (Air Mail)

On the odd chance you have not yet seen this, my book, Torn: Fashion and Postmodernism is finally available for preorder. More info here. I am lining up media appearances; if you would like to talk, let me know.

September will be a big month, the book will be out and StyleZeitgeist turns 20. We are planning a band tour during all the fashion weeks that month. I am speaking with various parties in NYC, upstate New York (where I live), Dublin, London, Paris, Milan, Antwerp, and Florence. Letting you guys know early in case some of you would like to travel.

Also, we are doing a class with Sruli Recht over at StyleZeitgeist Academy, commencing this Sunday! A few spots are still open. It will be epic.

Main:

Last week Chanel triumphantly announced a return to sales growth for the 2025 fiscal year. Although the growth is modest, only 2% (just for comparison, its 2022 growth was 17%), the company, and the compliant fashion media, trumpeted this as a major win.

I get it, the luxury fashion industry could use a bit of good news. What was more eyebrow-raising was that Chanel attributed this success to its new creative director Matthieu Blazy. This is some seriously magical thinking, considering that his first collection was presented in October, 2025 and hit the shelves in 2026. Clearly, in direct sales terms, his impact on the 2025 numbers stands at 0.

Read more

Read more

Read more

–––––––––––––––––––

Tonight the fashion world will b…

Read more

“DEPRESSING AND EXHILARATING, ONE OF MY FAVORITE COMBOS” – RICK OWENS

This is what Rick Owens wrote about my new book TORN: FASHION AND POSTMODERNISM, an examination of the state of fashion of the last 25 years. It is out for preorder. You can find more about the book here, including links to preorder in your market. It’s out on Aug 25th, but preorders are important, because of their flywheel effect.

And now onto the main subject.

Amongst the flurry of corporate earnings and subsequent propaganda about “realignment” and “rightsizing” that preoccupied the fashion media two weeks ago, another piece of news went somewhat underreported. Authentic Brands, the owner of Barneys intellectual property, announced a planned revival of the storied department store. According to a report by the Business of Fashion, a source close to the brand said that it plans to reoccupy its Madison Avenue location.

A reminder, Barneys went bankrupt – again – in 2019, and this time no white-jeaned knight with deep pockets (the last one was a hedge fund manager who bought it as a toy for his wife) appeared to save it. Authentic Brands Group is a conglomerate that owns various brands of the dispiriting mass market variety you find at a Macy’s on the country’s periphery. Its business model befits our society of the spectacle in which only branding matters; it owns intellectual property of brands like Champion, Guess, and Juicy Couture, letting its licensing machine rake in profits while little elves in the third world make interchangeable merch that is only differentiated by a logo, and various third parties distribute the stuff. This means that the conglomerate owns very little in terms of tangible assets, and very much in terms of air, which keeps costs down, annual revenue to the tune of $30 billion, and the name “Authentic” in the deep irony category.

ABG paid a hefty $271 million for the right to Barneys name and likeness. That’s a lot of money for brand equity, and by the looks of it ABG has not gotten much return on its investment. It has made some Barneys merch, opened misaligned concessions at Saks Fifth Avenue (which is like doing a Shake Shack x McDonald’s collab), which the first (and last) time I checked sold some sparkly dresses, apparently licensed the name to some luxury apartments, and did a pop up with a mass market cosmetics Hourglass that was so on-brand lame, it was hard to fathom how anyone with a modicum of style could create such an abomination. The only solid stream of revenue seems to be coming from Japan, where Barneys continues to chug along with 12 locations (though it is impossible to gauge how profitable it is.)

Read more

First, I am finally pleased to share that my book TORN: FASHION AND POSTMODERNISM is now available for preorder. Preorders matter, so I encourage you to buy your copy now. You can do so by visiting this link where you can learn more about the book and preorder it in your region.

Second, we just announced the summer semester of DESIGNING THE UNTHINKABLE: ADVANCED PRACTICES IN UNCERTAINTY, a master class taught by the inimitable artist/designer Sruli Recht. If you are a creative of any kind, we highly encourage you to take this class. More info by following this link and you can sign up there as well. The summer semester schedule is oriented for those who live in Europe and Asia. We will follow up with the fall semester to accommodate those who live in the Americas. And just in case you missed it, here is my text on Sruli’s mind-blowing exhibit in China.

Now onto the latest earnings season, which revealed exactly what it was supposed to reveal; that luxury fashion is not exactly in a crisis, but also has few reasons to cheer, that the aspirational consumer remains priced out, and have turned to less expensive treats like perfume and skincare (though plenty are being priced out of the premium tier), that the wealthy consumer unconvinced, spending on jewelry, boring luxury, and experiences instead, and that this is not going to change any time soon. And, of course, everyone blamed the Iran war, which emptied the luxury malls in the EU.

LVMH was the first to report its earnings last Monday.

No good news here, though the largest conglomerate remains untouchable and I would not say that we are witnessing a disaster. Most analysts speak in percentages, but sometimes numbers perhaps tell a more impactful story, and the overall revenue clocked in at 19.1 billion EUR, almost 1.2 billion less than last year. This would have murdered most companies, but LVMH can absorb that. All division sales were down given that the company reports in EUR, and the currency has been strong across the board, even against the mighty USD.

I tend to discount the ifs and buts in revenue figures, since there are many ways to manipulate it (raise prices and you can sell fewer things and still make more money, etc.), and by that measure all company divisions were down. Leather goods and fashion was down a whopping 9%. Annoying, LVMH refuses to break out performance by brand, though the management flagged continuous strong performance for Loro Piano. The Veblenian laws that state that the job of the less rich to imitate the rich are holding strong.

Outside of the numbers, the LVMH earnings presentation – which looked put together by an intern using AI – offered some entertainment, including gaslighting, filler content in lieu of hard evidence, and other corporate gobbledygook. To wit: it touted “Successful collections designed by Nicolas Ghesquière and Pharrell Williams” at LV. Sure, if you say so. “Great start of first products of Jonathan Anderson,” ditto. At Givenchy, “New bag The Snatch; highly appraised shows by Sarah Burton,” I don’t even know where to begin with that one.

The perfume division was down 6%, and watches and jewelry 2%. Alcohol, which has been taking a beating forever was up slightly, allegedly because of Chinese New Year, and not any structural improvement.

Read more

Just like for many fashion enthusiasts, The Antwerp Six loom large in Eugene’s and Philippe’s imagination. On this sprawling episode they talk about how the Six have influenced their understanding of fashion, about their role in expanding the boundaries of the fashion system, their spirit of independence, innovation, but also pragmatism and professionalism, and the indelible imprint the group has left on fashion.

Eugene and Philippe touch upon both the personal and the professional views on the work of the Six, the importance of fashion retail as a support system that has allowed the group to flourish, and the significance of forming a collective even if its members have distinct styles.

The Antwerp Six exhibition is on view at MoMu through January 17th, 2027. We encourage you to visit it.

Read more

While the bankruptcy proceedings end up milking existing investors for another $1.75 billion in funding, questions of how Saks Global will get out of this mess are not going away. Saks has been busy closing stores; twelve Saks and three Neiman Marcus branches, on top of most of the Off Fifth outlets. The total of planned closures will reportedly be 24 at this point. Saks Global is also looking to offload a 49% stake in Bergdorf Goodman for $1 billion, though who will shell out for a minority stake in a troubled business is a big question mark. Meanwhile rumors are circling that BG will have to relocate its men’s store once its lease expires, which, if true, will be another enormous headache.

What should this beleaguered business do next? According to Imran Amed of the Business of Fashion, the fate of Saks Global has been on people’s minds during this past fashion month. It seems like some people think that the company should get rid of the Saks Fifth Avenue brand altogether and concentrate on Neiman’s. I think that is too drastic of a proposition. Saks is a very strong brand and its Fifth Avenue building is both a New York City and a luxury retail icon. Shut it down and you are losing tremendous brand equity, a misfortune that has befallen Barneys, whose brand has been turned into a zombie (with a highly ironic presence at Saks).

Read more

Brands have long used front row fixtures like celebrities and influencers to generate buzz. The more celebrities, the more attention a brand receives. And the less meaning and the less design in the clothes, as has often been the case lately, the more the need for superimposing meaning onto them through other means. And while celebrities and influencers continue to sell if not things than the public attention, everyone by now knows that their appearances are mostly sponsored. Many other efforts, especially in the realm of culture, like literary clubs, often feel forced. In the ever expanding search for validation, it seems that some fashion brands have found a new vein to tap in, the former legendary creative director.

It is a clever move, for a couple of reasons. First, it taps into our overwhelming sense of nostalgia, which now comes in two types, one for those who were there, and another, the stranger and newer type, for those who weren’t. For those who were there, there is a pang of recognition and wistfulness, for those who were not, a chance to get closer to something they never got to experience.

Read more

There is a school of thought that art is supposed to tell us about the world we live in. Many people confuse this stance with thinking that art should merely reflect that world and not examine or critique it. By such a twisted funhouse mirror standard Demna is fashion’s Andy Warhol, the late stage Warhol, who after an attempt on his life decided to jettison his early deft meditations on pop culture in favor of the “making money is art” mentality. So, in reality maybe Demna is more of a Jeff Koonz.

In any case, if we accept the premise that Demna is good at capturing the cultural moment, his show underscored the fact that this moment is one of unadulterated vulgarity, that we live in the world suspended between a Dubai shopping mall, a Mykonos nightclub, an arriviste rapper’s crib, a footballer’s first big paycheck shopping spree, and Trump’s gilded Mar-a-Lago toilets. This world is garish and vacuous, amoral and ugly, a Las Vegas in sartorial form.

Read more

By and large these buying experiments have not fared well, though causes vary. I am still convinced that Patrizio Bertelli, Miuccia Prada’s husband, bought both Jil Sander and Helmut Lang in order to run them into the ground and rid himself of competition in the red-hot end of the ‘90s minimalism space. It seems counterintuitive to people who are not psychopathic egomaniacs – who spends money to buy businesses so they can ruin them? – but if you look at the movies Bertelli made post-acquisition, this conclusion seems the most obvious.

Other buyers had other reasons. Still, by and large, the verdict so far has been that the buyer who buys an independent brand with a strong voice that is inextricably attached to its founder / designer should proceed with caution, because much of the brand’s success hinges on the cult of the designer him/herself. Kering has never been able to make McQueen successful, and is now quietly spending half a billion euros to spruce up the brand before most likely offloading it. And witness the various attempts to resurrect Helmut Lang, the inability to return Jil Sander to its former glory, the failure to ignite a spark at Ann Demeulemeester, and so on. It is likely that the same fate will befall Dries Van Noten, what with Puig’s record of treating the fashion brands it owns as marketing appendages to their beauty businesses.

The fundamental story behind these mostly failing enterprises is the new owners inability to attract a new generation of customers while not alienating the core fanbase. This is a tricky balance to strike. Change too drastically and the old consumer is gone while there is still a question mark of whether the new one will come. Don’t change at all, and you may find yourself with a diminishing business. Most brands have not been able to accomplish this. There seems to be only one true success story, and it’s Maison (sans Martin) Margiela.

Read more

Read more

What accounts for luxury fashion’s hypergrowth can roughly be classified into two categories: 1) there has been an explosive growth of wealth in both the developed and the developing world, 2) there has been an equally explosive growth in cultural awareness of luxury fashion. Taken in tandem, these developments have created a vast new consumer market for luxury. But there is one crucial factor that’s missing from this analysis, that the overall pecuniary power of the contemporary luxury consumer is overestimated. Let’s unpack.

There is no question that the world has grown vastly richer in the past twenty-five years. According to research from UBS, a Swiss bank, cited by CNBC, “the number of ‘everyday millionaires,’ or investors with between $1 million and $5 million in assets, has more than quadrupled since 2000 to about 52 million individuals.” That’s a lot of money and a lot of potential luxury clients.

Read more

Another quarter, another Lyst rankings release, another flurry of commentary that seems to miss the point but reflects perfectly well the disorienting, noisy state of fashion information. In the past decade Lyst, a data miner masquerading as a shopping aggregator, publishes its rankings of what’s hot or not. The self-appointed arbiter of what people wan…

Read more

Read more

At Individual Sentiments Yoko Ito continued to thread the line of casual formality, mixing workshirts with coats with strict shoulders but forgiving, fluid body and wide in/out of the house drawstring pants with tailored suits in speckled wool.

Read more

From there I walked over to the Tokyo Fashion Award showroom, where I liked several brands (the Japanese keep Paris looking good). It was nice to see the work of Kiminori Morishita again, whom I used to follow but he kind of dropped off the map. The flagship piece was two jackets frankensteined together with a zipper, but there were plenty of desirable and less dramatic pieces – most in a beautiful shade of gray – including the siren song of a parka lined in long hair shearling. I also liked Anthem A for its deceptive simplicity, and Tamme’s take on goth.

Then it was off to Sacai, where Chitose Abe presented an absolute smash hit of a collection, themed around breaking through the walls (hence the set and the Muhammad Ali references). Abe is a rare designer these days who has her DNA pat down and yet is able to continue developing it each season. There were denim jackets spliced with shearlings, reworked suiting, billowing peacoats, antiqued leathers, and it was all utterly brilliant.

High on Sacai, I went to the Mordecai showroom, where the designer Ludovico Bruno walked me through his excellent collection that blended martial art uniform references with tailoring and techwear elements into a truly desirable mix. Bruno spent ten years designing at Moncler, and his thoughtfulness about functionality was very clear in this work. For me this is definitely a talent to watch.

Read more

From then I stopped by the Undercover showroom. For this collection, called 100% Khaotique Noir, Jun Takahashi revisited his epic S/S 2020 show, once again collaborating with Cindy Sherman, and once again concentrating on blacks and grays. I loved the leather blouson with a Cindy Sherman photo graphic, as well as the puffer jacket with same. As it was with S/S ‘20 this time Takahashi used more luxurious fabrics; there was plenty of cashmere and silk along with the requisite denim and jersey.

Then it was off crosstown to the Rick Owens showroom – as promised. This was probably the most desirable Owens collection in several years. I was particularly drawn to the new 3D version of the overshirt, both in the heavy duty gray speckled Japanese wool and black wool lined in leather (you read that right) that were utterly elegant in that severe Owens way. But there were also cool long coats and cropped jeans that drew the eye.

Read more