fashion education

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Where does a brand’s value come from: designers, garments, or celebrities?

The front row used to be the place to witness fashion. Now, it is the fashion.

When a celebrity generates more headlines than the collection they are seated in front of, the question becomes inevitable: who is really selling—and who is being sold?

Before the shows even begin, cameras, more than angled at garments, focus on faces. The new collection about to be presented becomes almost a backdrop. The identities in the front row take centre stage.

Clearly, this is intentional. However, it increasingly resembles a carnival, where everything centres on marketing and advertising. And the risk of over-saturation is real.

Lately, in the aftermath of Ferragni’s “pandoro gate”, a de-influencing trend has surfaced — though it has quickly migrated from influencers to celebrities.

Nevertheless, a certain exhaustion is growing with celebrity marketing. 

The attention economy

The front row is no longer about proximity to design, but proximity to visibility.

Social media has rewired fashion’s priorities. A single Instagram story can generate more reach than an entire runway show. As a result, brands now curate their front rows as carefully as they design their collections or cast their campaigns.

Visibility has become the value. 

Celebrity marketing is increasingly seen as a key driver of luxury fatigue — and more broadly, of consumer exhaustion with advertising. The relentless flood of celebrity endorsements, coupled with rising prices and, at times, declining quality, has led many consumers to feel alienated and sceptical towards luxury brands.

And in this system, celebrities are not just guests — they are amplifiers. They validate, extend, and monetise a brand’s presence in real time. The front row generates headlines before the first look even appears. See the strategic placement of K-pop stars and the relentless pursuit of younger audiences. 

So the question emerges naturally: are clothes still the centre of fashion? 

Where identity resides

If identity was the underlying theme of the latest Fashion Weeks, then the industry faces a more fundamental question: where does that identity truly reside?

In the clothes. Or in the spectacle surrounding them.

If a celebrity wears one brand for a single show and another the next, what does their endorsement actually signify? Is a garment valued for its design, or for who was seen wearing it?

And ultimately: whose identity are we really buying into?

Front row: authorship vs amplification

Fashion has traditionally been rooted in authorship — the designer’s vision expressed through garments.

But today, that authorship is increasingly filtered through amplification. Who defines value now: the designer and the work itself, or the celebrity whose visibility transforms that work into relevance?

Because — most importantly — the same celebrity who legitimises one brand in the morning may endorse another in the afternoon. These associations are not rooted in continuity, in genuine support, but in circulation. They are transactional, immediate, and temporary.

In short, we have shifted from an era of authorship to an era of amplification.

Final thoughts

Ultimately, a counter-movement is quietly asserting itself. Some designers, particularly those outside the celebrity-driven machinery, deliberately eschew the carnival of front-row dressing and photo opportunities. For many independent designers, this is not merely a philosophical stance but a practical reality: lacking the massive marketing budgets required for celebrity booking and styling, they must rely instead on the quality of their work and the support of local press. 

In doing so, they inadvertently pose a pointed question to the industry: isn’t good design and quality the true point of a collection? And in fact, isn’t that what designers need to show?

Amid all the frenzy over front-row attendance and the relentless pursuit of visibility, the game has grown cloying. There exists, however, a different perspective: one uninterested in celebrities, indifferent to who wears what, and intent on returning to something closer to old-school fashion.

What remains, in the end, is a simple desire: to see beautiful clothes—
in a fashion show where the intensity returns to the clothes themselves.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Was the previous tenure worth the ride? And what game are corporations really playing with fashion?

As Sabato De Sarno abruptly leaves Gucci, the fashion world is abuzz with speculation about the brand’s future. But beyond the headlines, his departure raises deeper questions about the state of the luxury fashion industry and the role of creative directors in shaping iconic brands. While most are focused on who will take the reins next, we’re asking a different question: What is this game truly about?

As the fashion industry remains engrossed in a never-ending game of musical chairs—currently involving other maisons like Dior and Fendi—we can’t help but question the very foundation of the industry itself.

Specifically, in Gucci’s case, we ask: Was the previous tenure—Alessandro Michele’s era—worth the ride?

Retracing Gucci’s path before De Sarno

Alessandro Michele transformed Gucci’s image, imposing his own aesthetic—a chaotic, flea-market-inspired vision where anything was possible but which bore little resemblance to the brand’s heritage. Worse, he flooded the market with products that became repetitive, overexposed, and ultimately unsellable, even at steep discounts.

When the game was over, Michele was dismissed. It was a matter of ego rather than thoughtful stewardship—a failure to honour Gucci’s history and values.

He left, but the damage was done. Gucci’s legacy was diluted, its market oversaturated with items like furry slippers that no one wanted anymore.

The House of Gucci: Enter Sabato De Sarno

De Sarno was tasked with performing a miracle: cleaning up the mess in less than two seasons. Unfortunately, this didn’t happen—and not because of him. Rebuilding a brand’s identity and value takes time. But for corporations, time is a luxury they can’t afford. They are even ignorant about fashion; money is their only focus. They demand immediate results, immediate profits. And in the face of a luxury market slowdown, those profits didn’t materialise.

On this matter, we particularly admire Fecondazione Prada’s satirical take on Instagram:

“Large luxury company looking for new scapegoat.
er… creative director.”

This biting commentary nails the reality of how luxury brands often treat creative directors as disposable, shifting blame when strategies fail.

On De Sarno leaving Gucci

Destroying the legacy of a fashion house might have seemed like a bold move—even a fun game. In reality, it’s a dangerous gamble, one that leaves lasting scars.

As Sabato De Sarno leaves Gucci, we’re not asking who will replace him. Instead, we’re left wondering: What was the point of Michele’s game? Was it ever worth replicating at Valentino? And, ultimately, what game are corporations really playing with fashion?

---

🖤 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