The brand is a fashion success story. But will wearing it deny you a personality?
Something has taken over public spaces. It’s more ubiquitous than a Dan Brown novel. Almost as popular as an iPhone – and often more expensive. I’m talking the Michael Kors handbag.
The fashion brand, founded by the slick American Michael Kors, has been doing quick business. His is the go-to label for anyone looking for a bit of glitz. Earlier this month the company reported a 6.3% jump in quarterly sales. By the end of last year it opened 114 news stores, mainly in Europe and Asia, meaning that by mid December the company owned a total number of 623 stores worldwide. While the brand hasn’t had an easy year, it’s still growing and people are still buying – literally by the bag load.
This popularity is all down to sharp businesses sense. Mr Kors knows what you want and he’s going to serve it up on a silver, fur-encrusted plate. But here lies the problem.
The buzzword used to describe his business model is ‘accessible luxury’ and it was all over his 2016 autumn/winter collection, shown yesterday in New York. Unusually for a collection – these days anyway – the whole spectrum was covered, from when you get up, to the wee hours staggering home from the club: cute pixie dresses channelling 60s Twiggy (or perhaps the updated version, Alexia Chung), chic pussy-bow blouses (hello Gucci) that would wow at an executive lunch, and rock’n’roll evening gowns, sparkling, louche and a touch Saint Laurent. For the men it was preppy brown check, refined grey pea coats and tan leather. The kind of thing you might wear to one of those clubs on the Kings Road.
It was all so boring. Beautifully made but boring. This is artisan with out the art. It will make you look fabulous, but deny you a personality.
It was interesting to compare this to the collection presented by Narciso Rodriguez on Tuesday night. He presented a series of outfits that came from a singular vision. They were deceptively minimal and beautifully constructed. (Anna Wintour, editor-in-chief at American Vogue once claimed: “No one but Narcisco has ever made a simple line look more stunning.”) There were shapes that appeared distantly related to monks habits (or Jedhi knights) and simple bias-cut dresses that belied amazing craftsmanship. Layers gathered like a Renaissance painting, simple outlines were given a fascinating flourish by the cut – slightly gathered here, carefully exploding there. Textures were carefully overlaid for maximum impact. But most importantly of all, it was all wearable. And unique.
The deference between Kors and Rodriguez is the difference between Britney Spears and Kanye West, Take That and Radiohead, Raymond Erith and Zaha Hadid. It’s the difference between an artisan and an artist.
Unlike Alessandro Michele’s recent work at Gucci – beautifully made, laden with references and carving out a worldview of its own – or Demna and Guram Gvasalia’s hip Parisian brand Vetements which has sent the fashion world into a spin – Michael Kors is just drag and drop fashion. A label for those that want Zara at a higher price point. That’s not bad. But it’s not fun either. And you’ll just look like everyone else.
ZEFFADELICA 