Explorations

SS26 London Fashion Week: The high-low fashion line collapses

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Is London still a bastion of creative rebellion, or a stage for fast fashion exploitation?


The SS26 London Fashion Week has concluded, with its expanded schedule seeking a renaissance yet exposing a contradiction within the industry. While houses such as Burberry, Simone Rocha, and Erdem reaffirmed their creative authority, the prominent platform given to H&M raised a pressing question: how does this align with London’s professed commitment to sustainability? The line between luxury and fast fashion has not just blurred—it has collapsed.

SS26 London Fashion Week: Creative highlights


At Burberry, Daniel Lee recomposed British heritage with a rockstar edge. The collection was a tribute to swinging London—Mod-inspired short hemlines, slim suits, and leather boots, all set to a Black Sabbath soundtrack. A tribute to Ozzy Osbourne that delighted us fans. (Watch the show here).
Lee commented, “Musicians have always had incredible style, and together with fashion they form a really strong culture.” That was certainly true in the past. Today, rock stars don’t have personal style but stylists. And they’re paid to wear branded clothes—but that’s a topic for another post.

Simone Rocha offered a breath of fresh air with a feminine, childlike, and whimsical collection where lightness and an ethereal mood prevailed. Her designs reminded us why London has long been a laboratory for creative experimentation. (See the looks here).
Meanwhile, Erdem explored “overlapping identities,” blurring the lines between history and imagination in a masterful display of narrative craftsmanship. (Watch the show here).

Yet, this creative reaffirmation was juxtaposed with the event’s strategic inclusion of H&M. The Swedish fast-fashion giant hosted an immersive showcase, leveraging the city’s youthful energy. Its presence was no anomaly but a calculated move that speaks volumes about the event’s current priorities.

The logic behind H&M’s platform


Laura Weir, the new CEO of the British Fashion Council and a former Vogue fashion editor, has described the task of restoring London’s fashion status as “herculean.” After Brexit, Covid, economic instability, and wars, her effort is understandable. But if the goal is to strengthen London’s global standing, is giving H&M such a prominent role really a meaningful long-term choice?

For H&M, a place on the LFW schedule is the ultimate PR coup. It borrows prestige and “cool factor” to reposition itself from a seller of cheap basics to a legitimate trend-maker, helping to justify its premium collaborations and designer partnerships.

From the organisers’ perspective, the logic is equally clear: LFW is, after all, a business. Burberry generates press, but the British Fashion Council needs revenue. H&M’s substantial investment helps subsidise smaller, emerging designers—the lifeblood of London’s reputation for innovation. Furthermore, an H&M presentation can attract celebrities and mega-influencers who might not attend a smaller, avant-garde show. (Sadness of contemporary fashion, as it sounds.) This generates massive social media buzz and media coverage that amplify the event’s visibility.

When blurring lines becomes a blurred vision


The lines between luxury fashion and fast fashion are no longer merely blurred—they are actively erasing each other.

Luxury has adopted the pace of fast fashion: pre-collections, cruise collections, and countless “drops.” They need to constantly feed the content and sales machine. They also court influencers and celebrities in a way that mirrors mass-market marketing.

Fast fashion seeks the cultural capital of luxury: H&M hires former luxury designers, produces “premium” lines, and runs high-production-value campaigns to emulate a luxury feel.

London Fashion Week has always celebrated eclecticism and experimentation. London has historically been the birthplace of street style co-opted by high fashion (punk, mod, etc.). It’s where Vivienne Westwood sold clothes in a shop called SEX. But there is a world of difference between elevating grassroots rebellion and platforming a corporate fast fashion giant. 

The critical question is: what is the cost of this “inclusive” curation? By including H&M, is LFW nurturing creativity or legitimising a business model built on overconsumption? This move directly challenges the halo of exclusivity and creativity—and most importantly, the ecological values London claims to champion. 

Final thoughts


The rock energy of Burberry and the H&M presentation are two sides of the same coin in today’s fashion industry. SS26 London Fashion Week is not merely observing the collapse of the high-low divide; it is actively curating and capitalising on it.

The danger is that the marketing power of fast-fashion players may drown out emerging voices, turning what should be a celebration of creativity into a marketing convention. True London “street” DNA is anti-establishment and authentic. Aligning with corporate fast fashion is the opposite—it’s the ultimate embrace of the establishment.

By giving H&M a platform, London Fashion Week may not just be selling tickets — it may be selling its soul.

SS26 London Fashion Week: The high-low fashion line collapses Read More »

Fashion is no longer a job for fashion designers

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The appointment of Jaden Smith at Louboutin signals a new priority: star power over technical expertise


It seems increasingly clear that fashion is no longer a job for fashion designers. The industry’s new hiring practices are the most glaring evidence. The appointment of Jaden Smith—actor, rapper, and nepo baby—as head of Louboutin’s men’s division is not an anomaly. It is a pattern. It follows the identical playbook that brought Pharrell Williams to Louis Vuitton. These moves are not about design expertise; they are a calculated response to a deeper crisis. But do we really need celebrity designers?

Chasing hype over heritage, the industry faces an existential crisis 


The luxury fashion industry has fundamentally changed. Once the domain of visionary designers and family-owned houses, it has been reshaped by the forces of modern capitalism: marketing, algorithms, the influence of the relentless pace of fast fashion, and the insatiable demand for growth. In this new paradigm, the designer’s role has been diminished, their craft made secondary to a new bottom line. The result is an implosion: a loss of soul, meaning, and the distinct DNA that once differentiated one brand from the other. Marketing killed fashion, and yet they keep going.

Modern capitalism has eroded the perception of luxury itself. As brands scaled into monumental “cathedrals” with vast retail networks and gigantic egos to match, they sacrificed their intrinsic value for a hollow exclusivity. And fake scarcity. This identity crisis, combined with global economic instability, has led to a widespread luxury downturn. As a result, the clothes no longer sell themselves.

So, what is the fix for easy profit? Star power. Celebrities are the hyped-up solution to a problem of their own making. They generate immediate buzz, attract legions of fans, and create viral moments. A short-term lifeline for brands struggling to remember their own identity. Or simply trying to pay their costs. 

The paradox of fashion education


However, this shift makes the existence of prestigious, exorbitantly expensive fashion schools a profound paradox. For instance, a Bachelor’s degree in Fashion Design at Istituto Marangoni in Milan costs approximately €21,550 to €25,900 annually for the 2026/2027 academic year, including an annual enrollment fee of €4,000 and an international fee of €25,900 for non-EU students. For European students, the tuition fee is around €21,550 annually.  

This shift creates a devastating paradox: Why would a student invest such money to master a craft that the industry no longer values? Why specialise in a field where the top jobs are offered not to the most skilled, but to the most famous?

The craft behind the hype: why shoe design isn’t for amateurs


Not to mention that, from a technical perspective, shoe design is far more complicated than clothing design. Shoes must combine aesthetics, ergonomics, and durability. It requires knowledge of lasts, leathers, soles, stitching, and construction methods—cemented, Blake, Goodyear welt, and more. Comfort, weight distribution, and movement are critical, so design overlaps with engineering and biomechanics. Production is also slower and more expensive to change.

Clothing design is broader and trend-driven, with complexity in variety and fit. Shoe design is narrower but technically more intricate, since every millimetre matters for comfort and wearability. Shoes demand precision, not popularity. But knowledge isn’t a problem, unless you’re nobody.

Final thoughts


In conclusion, the choice is a strategic one. Brands prioritise expansion and rapid growth over heritage and craftsmanship. They don’t need a designer; they need a headline. This explains why Louboutin chose Jaden Smith—for his vast reach, not his mastery of lasts and leathers.

Clearly, fashion is no longer a job for fashion designers. The pressing question is not if this is true, but what this soulless, celebrity-chasing pursuit means for the future of creativity itself.

🖤 What are your thoughts? We want to hear from you:

💬 Comment below (registration is quick and easy)
📧 Send us an email
💬 Message us on WhatsApp

Your perspective is a vital part of this discussion.

Fashion is no longer a job for fashion designers Read More »

Critique and contemporary language: subjectivity vs shared understanding

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 5 minutes

How words shift meaning across culture, fashion, and society


As we prepare to absorb the inspiration from Milano Fashion Week, we find ourselves reflecting on critique and contemporary language. Should words remain confined to a subjective sphere? Or do they also carry a broader, shared dimension? The issue is crucial for achieving mutual understanding — especially in these divisive times.

Critique in fashion and contemporary culture


Critique is the process of analysis, evaluation, and judgment. It involves questioning assumptions, examining evidence, and applying standards (aesthetic, ethical, logical, etc.).
Words like critique — in fashion or elsewhere — naturally exist in tension between subjectivity and shared understanding.

Subjective meaning

Each individual, culture, or professional field can bring nuances to the term. In fashion, for instance, critique might mean a thoughtful aesthetic evaluation, a cultural commentary, or even a business review. For a designer, it could feel like judgment; for a scholar, it’s analysis; for a writer, it’s content.

Shared understanding

At the same time, communication requires a common ground. Without at least a baseline agreement (e.g., that critique is an evaluation beyond mere description), the word loses clarity. A global fashion discourse — spanning Milan, Paris, Tokyo, Lagos, and New York — requires a shared definition so that ideas can circulate meaningfully across borders.

Language: a living ecosystem


In practice, in fashion as in society at large, language works like a living ecosystem:

  • Words are never static; they evolve with cultural shifts. For example, “queer” once carried a negative, derogatory meaning. Over time, with cultural and social change, it has been reclaimed as a term of identity and empowerment within LGBTQ+ communities.
  • Critique in the 1980s fashion press does not mean quite the same thing as critique in today’s Instagram reels. In the 80s and 90s, it often referred to structured reviews by authoritative voices (Suzy Menkes, Cathy Horyn, etc.), published in newspapers or magazines and capable of shaping designers’ reputations. Today, critique is fragmented: it can be a 15-second TikTok reaction, an academic essay on cultural appropriation, or a consumer’s Instagram caption. Authority has decentralised, and critique has stretched from elite judgment to everyday commentary. And even the journalists’ commentary seems bland.
  • Globalisation pushes towards a shared vocabulary, but context (regional, professional, generational) keeps recharging words with subjective layers. The word “sustainable,” for example, has entered the global lexicon, particularly in fashion and lifestyle. Yet its meaning shifts: for policymakers, it refers to measurable impact and regulations; for brands, it often becomes a marketing narrative; for consumers, it can range from “eco-friendly” to simply “durable.” The same word is globally shared yet continuously recharged with subjective layers.

Language & social media

These evolving meanings don’t just change language in theory — they directly reshape how critique functions in practice, especially on social media, where fashion discourse now largely unfolds. On these platforms, language is both personal and public, amplifying the tension between subjective expression and shared understanding.

As Paola Bonacini, Associate Professor in Geometry at the University of Catania, noted: “Social media is a mirror of that small portion of reality, or falsehood, that we intentionally show the world.” This insight frames the current culture with precision.

The role of critique in fashion


In fashion, the tension between subjective and shared meaning plays out vividly: critique has shifted from the authoritative voices of established critics to the fragmented, instant reactions of digital platforms. In today’s “Like” economy, feedback is quantified in likes, shares, and sales. Dissent is rarely articulated; it appears instead as silence — a lack of engagement. There is little room for nuanced, critical argument in comment sections dominated by “OMG!” or “I hate this.”

Here, the collapse of critique illustrates the danger of losing both subjectivity and shared understanding: individual voices are reduced to emojis, while no collective definition of critique holds sway.

Brands are terrified of alienating any customer segment. Taking a strong, dissenting stance — for example, a political or environmental position that might prove controversial — is seen as bad for business. It feels safer to be bland. The industry thrives on collaborations – designer × fast fashion, brand × celebrity, brand × brand. The ethos is mutual celebration and commercial synergy, not critical examination. To critique one is to critique all, so silence prevails.

Fashion has not only lost its identity but also its sense of critique. One style, one pattern, one mindset. No space for dissent.

Critical dissent is dissent that is reasoned, articulated, and backed by evidence and analysis. It is the most effective and respected form because it offers an alternative perspective rather than mere rejection. Without critical dissent — reasoned arguments proposing alternatives — there is no force to challenge the status quo.

Final thoughts


In conclusion, the meaning of words is never fixed; it adapts to changing cultural contexts. Yet in contemporary language, both dimensions are necessary: subjectivity and shared understanding. Subjective meaning keeps a word alive, adaptable, and open to reinterpretation, while shared understanding anchors dialogue and provides common ground.

Fashion is more than a showcase of trends; it is a stage where the health of critique — subjective expression and shared discourse — is tested. Without strong critics or designers willing to dissent from the commercial formula, the fashion system has no reason to change. It simply perpetuates the same profitable, safe patterns — which, by the way, no longer work.

As Milano Fashion Week approaches, we should reflect on critique not just as subjective opinion or shared vocabulary, but as the force that keeps fashion — and language itself — alive.

The meaning of words and the role of critique are ever-evolving. What are your thoughts? Do you agree that fashion has lost its capacity for critical dissent?

We want to hear from you: 💬 Comment below (registration is quick and easy), send us an email, or message us on WhatsApp. Your perspective is a vital part of this discussion.

Critique and contemporary language: subjectivity vs shared understanding Read More »

Trends and forecasts of the Italian fashion industry – 2025

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The analysis by the National Chamber of Italian Fashion points to the uncertainty of US tariffs and foresees only a partial recovery


At today’s press conference, the National Chamber of Italian Fashion presented a report on the trends and forecasts of the fashion industry for 2025.

In the first half of 2025, the Italian fashion industry recorded a negative economic performance. There was a widespread decline in turnover, exports, and consumer confidence. The primary cause of this contraction is attributed to the uncertainty generated by the United States’ announcement of new trade tariffs. The impact was immediate, even before their actual implementation.

Negative performance and triggering factors


The sector’s total turnover fell by -4.3% compared to the same period in 2024. The downturn affected both the core segments (textiles, clothing, leather goods, footwear: -4.5%) and the “related” ones (jewellery, eyewear, cosmetics: -3.5%). The latter had partially offset losses in the previous year. At the same time, exports dropped by -5.5% in the first five months of the year. Jewellery was particularly hard hit, both towards the US and intermediary markets (e.g., Turkey). This climate of uncertainty also weakened Italian households’ confidence, leading to persistently negative retail sales for clothing and footwear.

Price trends and trade dynamics


Wholesale prices stabilised in the core sectors after the declines of 2024. Conversely, they rose in cosmetics (+3.2%) and jewellery (+9.1%). At the consumer level, inflation for clothing and footwear (+0.8%) remained contained and below the national average. While exports decreased, imports increased (+5.2% in the core sectors, +2.6% in the related ones), with a strong rebound in flows from China (+19.3%). The trade balance, although positive at €12 billion, shrank by €3.1 billion compared to 2024.

Trends and forecasts for 2025


Forecasts for the rest of the year assume a partial adaptation by companies and a consolidation of the macroeconomic scenario. The International Monetary Fund slightly revised global growth estimates upward, while the impact of US tariffs proved less severe than initially expected. However, uncertainties remain over consumption in China and the Euro area.
The central forecast for the 2025 turnover of the Italian fashion industry is a contraction of -3.6%. This outlook could range between -4% in the event of worsening trade tensions and no recovery in China, or -3% if China recovers and monetary conditions become more favourable.

Final thoughts


In conclusion, the data from the National Chamber of Italian Fashion on trends and forecasts for 2025 paint the picture of a struggling sector. The industry’s excessive dependence on foreign geopolitical dynamics, such as US tariff policies, reveals a deep strategic vulnerability. The industry must navigate not only an uncertain economy but also a dangerous gap between its image as a flawless sector and the harsh reality of the numbers. Recovery, though forecasted, will not be automatic: it will require more than adaptation; it will demand a redesign of value chains and brand narratives for an era of new protectionism and instability.

The data are not just numbers; they represent an invitation to a collective moment of reflection.

Trends and forecasts of the Italian fashion industry – 2025 Read More »

EU adopts new rules targeting textile and food waste

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The move tackles the millions of tonnes of waste generated each year in the EU, aiming to create a more circular economy


In a major step towards a circular economy, the European Parliament has officially adopted new rules to tackle the millions of tonnes of waste generated by the textile and food industries.

The legislation, which received its final green light yesterday, takes direct aim at a massive environmental problem. Every year, the EU generates a staggering 60 million tonnes of food waste (equivalent to 132 kg per person) and 12.6 million tonnes of textile waste. Clothing and footwear alone account for 5.2 million tonnes of waste. The equivalent of 12 kg of waste per person every year. Currently, less than 1% of all textiles worldwide are recycled into new products.

Textile and food waste: key measures


Key measures of the new law include:

Food waste

EU member states must meet binding 2030 target to reduce food waste by 10% in processing/manufacturing and by 30% per capita in retail, food service, and households. They must also facilitate the donation of unsold food safe for human consumption.

Textile waste

“Polluter pays” for fashion. All producers selling textiles in the EU must cover the costs of managing their waste through new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, a system designed to make brands financially accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. This means:

  • Who it affects: All producers (brands, retailers, importers) who make textiles available on the EU market. Rgardless of their size or whether they are based inside or outside the EU. This explicitly includes e-commerce sellers.
  • Financial obligation: Producers will be financially responsible for the full net costs of the collection, sorting, transport, preparation for re-use, and recycling of their end-of-life products.
  • Timeline: Member states have 30 months from the directive’s entry into force to establish these EPR schemes. Micro-enterprises are granted an additional year to comply.
  • Product scope: Broad coverage including clothing, accessories, headwear, footwear, blankets, bed and kitchen linen, and curtains.
  • Targeting fast fashion: Member states can modulate EPR fees based on the sustainability of products (e.g., durability, recyclability). Crucially, they are encouraged to use this tool to address the environmental impact of ultra-fast and fast fashion business models, making them pay more for their disproportionate waste.

This framework fundamentally shifts the financial and operational burden of textile waste from municipalities and taxpayers onto the producers. So it creates a powerful economic incentive for the industry to design longer-lasting, more recyclable clothing and to support circular business models. Notably, the legislation also empowers countries to target ultra-fast fashion by adjusting financial contributions to make these practices less profitable.

The law will be formally signed and published. EU nations then have 20 months to transpose these groundbreaking rules into their national legislation, setting the stage for a more sustainable future.

Potential challenges and criticisms: The fast fashion loophole


Burden on SMEs, micro-enterprises, and compliance costs.
Micro-enterprises get an extra year to comply. But the costs of setting up monitoring, reporting, and paying into EPR schemes can be disproportionately high for small designers and brands compared to giant corporations.

Focus on end-of-life vs design: recycling vs. reducing.
The legislation heavily focuses on managing waste after it is created. And so: collecting, sorting, recycling. While crucial, this doesn’t directly force a radical reduction in production volume—the root cause of the problem. The fast fashion business model, based on ever-faster turnover, can continue as long as producers pay the recycling fee. The fee must be high enough to truly incentivize designing durable, repairable, and recyclable clothing from the outset.

Final thoughts


The EU’s new waste law is strong in intent, ambitious, and necessary. But the weak spots are primarily in the execution:

  • The use of non-binding language for critical issues like fast fashion.
  • The historic difficulty of harmonizing enforcement across 27 different countries.
  • The economic and practical challenges of building a circular economy from the ground up.

The success of this directive won’t be judged by its passage, but by how these challenges are navigated by the European Commission and member states over the next decade. 

It’s a powerful first step, but the journey ahead is complex.

EU adopts new rules targeting textile and food waste Read More »