fashion criticism

Vogue World Milan and the spectacle of “Made in Italy”

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

The lost meaning of Italian elegance and craftsmanship


Vogue World Milan is all over social media, but not for the reason one might expect. Rather than embodying class and sophistication, it generated enough grotesque memes to last for years. Some viewers even described it as a “plastic surgery expo.” Even Miuccia Prada appeared to have something to say without saying a word. So, spectacle yes, but not exactly in a flattering sense.

However, some people commented, “It was so Italian” — which left us astonished. What was so Italian about it? Just Milano and those sitting in the front row. Certainly not what Vogue claimed. In fact, it seemed closer to the Met Gala idea of fashion spectacle than to any distinct Italian vision.

Created by Anna Wintour in 2022 for philanthropic purposes, Vogue World is an international event less a fashion show than a highly produced spectacle that brings together designers, models, celebrities, performers, and technology. This Milan edition took place in Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II, bringing together Italian craftsmanship, fashion, performance, and technology.

Staged on September 22nd, the event was in collaboration with the Milan Municipality, Teatro alla Scala and its Academy. More than 500 guests were seated along the four arms of the Galleria. The front row was historic and exceptional: many of the biggest names in Made in Italy were there — Miuccia Prada, Raf Simons, Donatella Versace, Pierpaolo Piccioli, Domenico Dolce, Stefano Gabbana, and more. The event raised €2.65 million for the Biblioteca di Quarto Oggiaro redevelopment and expansion.

According to the official programme, Vogue claimed to move through “The Artisanal Revolution,” “The Industrial Revolution,” “Made in Italy,” “The Age of Intelligence,” and “The Imagination Revolution.” Vogue specifically said the event was intended to address the value of craftsmanship in the age of AI.

But was Vogue World Milan really so? 

Elegance, craftsmanship, Italianness — these didn’t seem to be the main values. Elegance, in particular, seemed a lost concept. 

There is an interesting contradiction at the heart of the evening. Vogue explicitly presented the event as a celebration of “Made in Italy,” craftsmanship and the human touch in the age of AI, while sponsors including OpenAI and Meta supported the event. The very forces the spectacle claimed to examine were footing the bill.

So, Vogue World Milan claimed to celebrate “Made in Italy” and craftsmanship. Yet the spectacle seemed to undermine both. Most importantly, what does it mean to celebrate “Made in Italy” when the people and production system that actually make it possible are increasingly under pressure? 

For an event ostensibly celebrating human craftsmanship and “the human touch,” Vogue World Milan’s defining moment was four robots waving at the crowd. A fitting confession that fashion would rather borrow Silicon Valley’s hype than trust its own hands. The irony runs deep: Vogue World was billed as a tribute to Italian artisanal tradition, yet the segment everyone talked about featured Unitree humanoid robots wearing nothing at all, doing little more than waving and mimicking a lasso motion.

Il Fatto Quotidiano called the staging “extremely didactic.” A wooden model of the Duomo, tailors in white coats, then the Industrial Revolution, then the irruption of technology, all seasoned with ostentatious luxury and so much show-off that it left doubts about the event’s true meaning: a mere and self-referential celebration of fashion as the status quo.

On her Instagram, Frida Giannini highlighted the disconnection between the rhetoric of Italian craftsmanship, elegance and “Made in Italy”, and the extravagance of the event itself. She wrote:

“Tacky and ridiculous… Nonsense. Nonhumor. Nonelegance. Only an embarrassing circus. For Milano and Italy… With Open AI and robots??? Please, a bit of consistency. And dignity. So sad.”

She was having fun, she swore — but only because she could see all the details of those creepy faces having fun. The point stands: the inconsistency between the rhetoric and reality wasn’t a detail. It was the whole show.

While Italian craftsmanship was being celebrated as a marketing slogan, a few kilometres away the Made in Italy supply chain was enduring one of its most dramatic moments. The figures released by Milan’s CGIL paint a stark picture: in just three years, Milan’s fashion system has lost a quarter of its exports (−23.3%), sliding from over €3 billion to under €2.3 billion. Artisan businesses are shuttering (−19.7% in clothing, −17% in leather). And hours of temporary layoff schemes (cassa integrazione) soared in the second quarter of 2026. (source: Il Fatto Quotidiano)

The hands that actually make Made in Italy possible went unmentioned.

Is this Italian? Is this Italian elegance? Or is it simply a spectacular representation of what fashion has become — a circus of its own making?

Find the response in Miuccia Prada’s eyes.

Vogue World Milan and the spectacle of “Made in Italy” 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 »

SS25 Haute Couture Week Final Thoughts

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Marine fantasies from two visionary designers


As SS25 Paris Haute Couture Week unfolds, we dive into a realm where fashion transcends reality, offering a glimpse into the fantastical and unattainable. Haute couture is not just about garments—it’s a space for dreams and artistic expression at its peak. By the way, it’s about true luxury for a few.

Whether drawing from mythological fantasies or embodying a designer’s essence, haute couture captivates with its artistry. Among the collections that resonated with us were the mesmerizing creations of Jean Paul Gaultier and Yuima Nakazato—each echoing the enchantment of marine life in their own distinctive ways.

SS25 Haute Couture – Jean Paul Gaultier: nautical fantasies reimagined


We were captivated by Naufrage, the sea-inspired collection by Ludovic de Saint Sernin, this season’s guest designer for Jean Paul Gaultier. From shipwrecked mermaids to daring sailors, pirates and majestic sailing ships, the show was an ode to the nautical themes so deeply embedded in Gaultier’s DNA. Corsetry, second-skin gowns, and audacious tailoring wove a seamless narrative, staying true to the house’s heritage while offering a fresh, contemporary twist.

This was so much Gaultier—bold, imaginative, and beautifully executed. The brand’s iconic codes were reinterpreted with a modern edge, proving that reinvention doesn’t mean losing identity but rather refining it with artistry.


Yuima Nakazato: ethereal nomads in a dreamlike desert


A dim light. A barren desert at the center of the stage. The distant sound of waves. Models moving in slow motion, as if suspended in time. The Japanese Yuima Nakazato transported us to a world where tradition and futurism merged effortlessly. His garments, a fusion of ethnic beauty and modern innovation, carried an almost sacred quality. The craftsmanship was exquisite, with accessories that perfectly complemented the ethereal silhouettes. The overall effect was mesmerizing—like watching a noble tribe with luminous souls making their way through the vastness of a quiet, moonlit night.


Valentino through the eyes of Alessandro Michele—Valentino?


Alessandro Michele’s first haute couture collection for Valentino left us wondering: do we still need designers who are actually capable of doing their job? Apparently, not anymore. 

A black backdrop illuminated by LED lights. Exaggerated silhouettes. Two details we appreciated: the graceful presence of models of all ages, including middle-aged and beyond; and the focus on individual pieces. And yet…

What we saw wasn’t couture but costume. The collection felt like a direct extension of Michele’s Gucci era, repurposing his own aesthetic that, while impactful, didn’t translate into the world of Valentino. The essence of Valentino’s haute couture— gowns for a few lucky ones —was missing as most pieces were unwearable.

We couldn’t help but wonder: why doesn’t he launch his own brand instead? And above all, how is Mr. Valentino doing after seeing this show?

SS25 Haute Couture Week endnotes


In conclusion, as the SS25 Paris Haute Couture Week comes to a close, we are once again caught in the whirlwind of musical chairs—who exits, who enters, and what it all means. The relentless cycle of change seems to overshadow the very notion of timelessness, while the designer’s ego increasingly takes centre stage, shaping the narrative more than the heritage itself.

🖤 We’d love to hear from you! Whether you have questions, feedback, or just want to say hello, we’re all ears

📲 Connect with us on WhatsApp, by e-mail, or by commenting below (just register first).

Let’s start a conversation #formodernhumans

SS25 Haute Couture Week Final Thoughts Read More »

Isn’t the Relentless Game of Musical Chairs Fueling Fashion’s Inconsistency?

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Questioning the strategy behind the constant change of creative directors


A while back, we wrote a post about creative directors and the relentless game of musical chairs—a situation that has become increasingly common. Now, the topic has resurfaced abruptly across several fashion brands. As they hop from chair to chair, is it about power, visibility, or something else?

Last week, breaking news revealed significant shifts at the helm of major brands. Specifically, Galliano has departed from Margiela with no news yet of his next destination. Matthieu Blazy left Bottega Veneta for Chanel, while Louise Trotter departed Carven to join Bottega Veneta—finally, a woman at the forefront. Moreover, rumours are circulating about Jonathan Anderson preparing for a new role.

These frequent changes evoke the game of musical chairs: they provide plenty to talk about but often leave people perplexed. Yet, this appears to be the prevailing strategy of luxury fashion brands, with designers seemingly changing every few years.

What is the strategy behind the relentless game of musical chairs?


But what is the strategy behind these moves? Is it simply a way to stay in the spotlight, dominate conversations, and remain relevant? Are brands confident that luxury shoppers prefer fleeting buzz over meaningful products that embody the values of a specific brand—products of which there is almost no trace?

Many creative directors show little to no respect for the heritage and DNA of the brands they represent. Meanwhile, scepticism towards the concept of luxury continues to grow, even because luxury products do not keep their promise. Do they not realise that this constant game of musical chairs risks further damaging the image of luxury itself?

Conclusion


This excessive shuffling has significant consequences: brands lose identity and consistency, while consumer trust erodes. The original design codes and unique DNA that once defined each maison become blurred, leaving the brands looking increasingly alike. Yet, in an industry dominated by oversized egos, appointing a new creative director seems to be the ultimate goal for luxury brands—even at the cost of trust and respect.

In conclusion, this constant turnover appears to be the prevailing strategy for luxury maisons—something consumers will need to get used to. But is this revolving door truly beneficial for the brands? Or is the relentless game of musical chairs only fuelling fashion’s inconsistency?

Isn’t the Relentless Game of Musical Chairs Fueling Fashion’s Inconsistency? Read More »

Designers Repeating Themselves vs Journalists’ Commentary

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Paris Fashion Week SS25 highlights the death of fashion criticism


At Paris Fashion Week SS25, we saw the emergence of constructed silhouettes and a renewed desire for more dressy styles; a longing to dress up once again. However, the most striking observation is designers repeating themselves. That coincides with the disappearance of what once was true fashion criticism.

In his critique of Milan Fashion Week, Tim Blanks of B.O.F. highlighted a lack of identity among Italian brands. So, what should we say about Paris Fashion Week? Aside from a few exceptions, like Chloé, Saint Laurent, Yohji Yamamoto, Chanel or Miu Miu — who delivered shows deeply rooted in their brand’s identity and heritage — most others could have been anyone.

Fashion criticism and designers repeating themselves


We’ve seen high praise for Alessandro Michele’s work at Valentino, which is surprising given that his approach seems merely centred on his own aesthetic. It’s as if he’s saying, ‘I love flea market style, and that’s what I bring wherever I go.’ Hasn’t he replicated what he did at Gucci? The only difference is the brand name. But just as one swallow doesn’t make a summer, a bow or a frill doesn’t make Valentino. So, it’s puzzling to read such glowing reviews from journalists when social media reactions have been far less favourable. Many users have called it a Gucci replica, with comments like ‘he destroyed one brand, now he’s doing the same to Valentino,’ and ‘he doesn’t realise people are tired of this.’ Others suggest, ‘he should launch his own brand.’ We’ve explained why he won’t in a previous discussion. Here’s an excerpt:

But why don’t these creative directors launch their namesake brands? They avoid it because out of that box, they lose their relevance. Their skills rely on immense archives and huge investments. They excel at styling and marketing, but the creativity of a fashion designer is a different matter. Their ego overpowers.

Indeed, the journalists’ comments couldn’t be more disconnected from those on social media.

The death of fashion criticism


So yes, we agree with Tim Blanks that brands lack identity. But someone must inform him that this issue isn’t exclusive to Milan. Top brands that have lost their original designers have completely lost their identity as well. They’re now focused solely on making money, and it’s hard to tell one from the other. Boundaries have blurred, and this is one of the reasons why fashion has lost its appeal.

However, we disagree with Tim Blanks and other journalists who praise designers who keep repeating themselves wherever they go. It seems they’re doing it just to secure their front-row invitations.

Fashion hasn’t just lost its identity. Also, it has lost its sense of critique. One style, one pattern, one mindset. No room for dissent.

🖤 Dive into our latest post, and don’t hesitate to reach out. You can comment here below (just register first), or drop us an email or WhatsApp. We’d love to hear from you! Whether you have questions, feedback, or just want to say hello, we’re all ears. 

Let’s start a conversation!  

#formodernhumans

Designers Repeating Themselves vs Journalists’ Commentary Read More »