"The way I see it is that all the men’s designers have to prove to the consumers that they need these clothes. There must be a compelling reason, if your standards are high and your budget—well, isn’t budging. Givenchy? Not a believable vision. Galliano? Been there, Jack Sparrow. Dior Homme? Wasn’t this a cool label once? Lanvin? Seductive and romantic, the clear fashionista favorite. Number (N)ine? Crazy delightful, worth it if you have $2,500 plus to spend for one of the Flemish-colored jackets. Saint Laurent? Drab and unimaginative. Rick Owens? Original but I don’t want to know what the wearer’s hobbies are. Raf Simons? The fit is the compelling reason, nothing more, nothing less. Comme des Garcons? A good season for eclectic pieces, including the leopard pumps. Dunhill? Pointless things done to clothes, with the formality of a boutique hotel uniform."
I think maybe this is where the fashion market, maybe not high-end luxury fashion-fashion, but everything else, the mass market, all the way up to the $450 silk shift print dresses girls have been (inexplicably) buying at stores like Intermix and Scoop for the past five years, has gone wrong. Save a handful of designers, so few of the others have actually created a compelling reason over the past five to ten years. Menswear is different, I think, because menswear has had a brilliant run over the last ten years, I think it even sort of outdoes the wow-factor of most of womenswear, if you look at the last few years. It's been hard to find a compelling reason lately, and maybe it's because designers have been lulled into complacency by a flush market. One year, two seasons later, and everything's turned around. This market demands more. It's not enough to buy some fabric, slap a label on it, and price it at $1000, sorry. There has to be a compelling reason. I like that phrase.