Previously, I had watched a video by Bliss Foster, where he discussed the idea of not everything has to be for him. If there are times when he doesn’t want to pay full price for the authentic item (in contrast to buying a replica) then maybe that wasn’t a bad thing. It just is a thing.
I thought of that when I read today’s story on Daniel Roseberry, creative director of Schiaparelli. Here is quoted in WWD:
“We’ve been building the collection steadily over the past three years, so it feels like a good moment to present something that is deeply chic, hyper exclusive. This isn’t Zara for rich people.”
He continued:
“From our clientele, there’s no desire for something that feels more attainable at this point. I think that people want to feel like they’re getting something extraordinary.”
While one could easily take offense to a designer hoping to keep their work reserved only to a special class, I get it. Something about luxury feels luxurious because it is something that not everyone can or will have. While there is a push to inclusivity in so many other ways, there is still a desire among clientele to have something that is just for them. I mean really, even among those who are not super wealthy. It is considered a disaster when two girls show up to prom in the same dress. You are not longer unique. You are just like someone else.
There is something more here in this that I want to keep looking into. Is there a place for more exclusivity, even as we consider how to be more inclusive?
This is the article I referenced:
Diderich, J. (March 1, 2023). EXCLUSIVE: Daniel Roseberry addresses animal head controversy ahead of Schiaparelli ready-to-wear runway debut. WWD. https://wwd.com/fashion-news/designer-luxury/daniel-roseberry-addresses-animal-head-controversy-ahead-of-schiaparelli-ready-to-wear-runway-debut-paris-fashion-week-1235554702/
If you want to read more content like this, here are some more you might like:
And here are my most recent posts:
A Wren Says 