The problem with creative directors

Creative director, a term which may remind you of one of Kanye’s greatest lines to not appear on a song, is the most enviable position in all of fashion. They call the shots, not necessarily by strictly designing anything, but by crafting the entire public image of their maison. Yet what does it actually mean? Does a brand really need a creative director? Why are creative directors in fashion hailed so much higher than those in other industries?

That last one is a bit easier to explain. Fashion is all about creativity and self expression. The basis of every fashion label is an image that they want it’s wearers to feel aligned with. Unlike Apple or Polaroid, there is only one potential reason people would like to purchase designer clothing — to create a look. So the creative director being the designer of the entire brand is creating part of every one of those consumers’ looks. And it’s arguably the only position of its kind in fashion. Movies and TV shows have producers, screenwriters, actors and directors all collaborating to depict the entire story. In fashion the creative director spot is in its own lane, separated from the rest of the designers and corporate heads.

But again, what exactly are they doing? They are designing everything that the brand wants you to see. They design the campaigns, the shows and set the tone for the aesthetics that the brand will be using throughout the seasonal cycle. There is such a position as artistic director that also guides the design and artistic vision of the company but how they differ is that the creative director decides what and how the company may be doing and the artistic director is more so concerned about just the how.

However, are they really necessary? Should it be? Yes and maybe. Creative directors have changed entire brands and their perception. Great directors like Hedi Slimane completely revived Dior Homme, changing their entire public perception and transforming menswear. As did many other great directors like Raf Simons at Calvin Klein, Olivier Rousteing at Balmain, Tom Ford at Gucci and more.

But that their lies the problem. Almost all of those directors mentioned either already had their own giant labels at the time of taking directorial roles at another company or have had previous directorships at many a flagship fashion house. The role of director has now succumbed to the same plutocratic musical chair game that most high level businessmen have already been playing. Rousteing being an exception of course, it has been difficult to break into fashion for a while now. Even many of the newcomer labels are started by people who already have fashion affiliations like Matthew Williams’ 1017 Alyx 9SM.

The creative directors are defining eras and stretching the boundaries of the brands that employ them but only within the specific artistic scopes that they’ve already created for themselves. Fashion needs more than ever people that can shake the game. It needs legitimate newcomers, not more industry plants and oligarchs. Which is so especially ironic when one of the most marketable archetypes for these houses is the working class punk.

So should creative director be the most necessary and integral part. Absolutely, but only in a way that allows art to flourish and legitimately break walls and have those walls be broken by someone new and interesting. This is not an insinuation of monotony in fashion(although there has been quite a bit) but instead a call for the concept of creative director to be more inclusive and perhaps even divided. A fashion creative director is just another position we use to credit the 1%. This role has definitely been held by a fair share of extremely creative influential people, who had off kilter ideas that we are all lucky were taken seriously — they just need to start giving the positions back.