This piece really crystallizes what's been nagging me about current fashion coverage. The observation that Anderson offers 'brainfeel' while others sell background-checked cashmere is spot on. It reminds me of my art history classes where proffessors would say the most enduring works weren't the comfortable ones. I've always gravitated towards designers who make me uncomfortable first. That discomfort usally signals something worth paying attention to.
It’s all fun and games until a collection with colour doesn’t sell 😭 Really feeling the note here that clients should be challenged, to find new depths of themselves, not designers bending backwards and designing beige blocks to sell collections
Most brands don’t take many risks because, at the end of the day, a brand survives by selling clothes and related sub-categories such as perfumes, sunglasses, and accessories. Taking a risk means accepting the possibility of either success or failure, but in both cases a vision is communicated through the media. Ultimately, it is this willingness to express a clear vision, even at the risk of loss, that allows a brand to stand out and remain culturally relevant.
Loved the piece—J. Anderson really is an architect of modern fashion. I recently wrote about women’s lifestyle and fashion, and your article reinforced how menswear, with its tighter constraints, often demands an even more precise and imaginative design language.
Dior Men FW26 accepted risk as part of the mandate. The conversation around it wasn’t a byproduct — it was the point, and, as with many things that defy expectations, the discomfort was part of the response (aka the internet was tripping over itself with verdicts and name calling).
So you’ve made an observation? What is your position?
I’m glad there’s enthusiasm for Anderson and Dior, but fashion has always been about communicating identity and ideas — that’s the premise. And I think the general population has already caught up to that after all the “recession indicator” conversation last year.
For a culture magazine, I think it would be more useful to go deeper. Explore which ideas are being sold here, why now, what tension Anderson is responding to, and what this collage actually means culturally. Otherwise, are you just saying this to vibe?
“Fashion shows are about showing ideas,” he said. “The show is built up with this idea of collaging things together.” - and that’s why he is the visionary of our generation. I will forever die on this hill
This piece really crystallizes what's been nagging me about current fashion coverage. The observation that Anderson offers 'brainfeel' while others sell background-checked cashmere is spot on. It reminds me of my art history classes where proffessors would say the most enduring works weren't the comfortable ones. I've always gravitated towards designers who make me uncomfortable first. That discomfort usally signals something worth paying attention to.
Such a good point about art as well. Nobody was into Bosch until it was too late.
It’s all fun and games until a collection with colour doesn’t sell 😭 Really feeling the note here that clients should be challenged, to find new depths of themselves, not designers bending backwards and designing beige blocks to sell collections
Amen! I want a collection to open doors in my mind (and closet)
Most brands don’t take many risks because, at the end of the day, a brand survives by selling clothes and related sub-categories such as perfumes, sunglasses, and accessories. Taking a risk means accepting the possibility of either success or failure, but in both cases a vision is communicated through the media. Ultimately, it is this willingness to express a clear vision, even at the risk of loss, that allows a brand to stand out and remain culturally relevant.
Loved the piece—J. Anderson really is an architect of modern fashion. I recently wrote about women’s lifestyle and fashion, and your article reinforced how menswear, with its tighter constraints, often demands an even more precise and imaginative design language.
Dior Men FW26 accepted risk as part of the mandate. The conversation around it wasn’t a byproduct — it was the point, and, as with many things that defy expectations, the discomfort was part of the response (aka the internet was tripping over itself with verdicts and name calling).
So you’ve made an observation? What is your position?
I’m glad there’s enthusiasm for Anderson and Dior, but fashion has always been about communicating identity and ideas — that’s the premise. And I think the general population has already caught up to that after all the “recession indicator” conversation last year.
For a culture magazine, I think it would be more useful to go deeper. Explore which ideas are being sold here, why now, what tension Anderson is responding to, and what this collage actually means culturally. Otherwise, are you just saying this to vibe?
“Fashion shows are about showing ideas,” he said. “The show is built up with this idea of collaging things together.” - and that’s why he is the visionary of our generation. I will forever die on this hill