On this blog I normally write about womenswear; however, I wanted to take the time to write about Vetements. You may or may now know what Vetements is so I’ll explain. Vetements is a design collective lead by Demna Gvasalia, the current creative director of Balenciaga, and first started to show in Paris with their Spring 2015 Ready-to-Wear collection.
Vetements is known as being a disruption to Parisian fashion because they are not comparable in sophistication to other French fashion houses. The house strays far from what French fashion is known for and experiments with creations that mimic a fusion of Maison Margiela, Alexander Wang, etc. Pieces like oversized hoodies, tops with corporate logos and satanic symbols abound their runway. Do I have a problem with any of these? I could care less. What does bother me is Vetements is being hailed as revolutionary. Yes, they are not your typical French fashion house, but no, they are not contributing innovative creations that have a large scale impact on the fashion industry.
They have had a significant impact on social media amassing a following of over 600k followers on Instagram alone. Their $281 DHL logo t-shirt was a hit with bloggers earlier this year, and celebrities like Kanye West, Lorde, Rita Ora, Rihanna, and even Céline Dion have been seen sporting the brand. So I congratulate them with their marketing efforts which have paid off; sites like Net-A-Porter and MATCHESFASHION quickly sellout when their items are made available to consumers.
Yet, the notion that Vetements is an extraordinary, never before seen house is absurd. If it were to show in New York I am positively sure that that it would attract press, but they would not be describing the house with adjectives like “groundbreaking” or “revolutionary” but with headlines along the lines of “the cool fashion house that is a favorite among street style stars.”
Don’t get me wrong, I am excited to see what new creations Vetements come up with in their future collections. But can we please stop hailing the brand as something it’s not.