Good evening, everyone. My name's Irene, and I'm the editorial director at Models.com. I'll be your host for tonight's, you know, great conversation. It's called Industry Access: Does fashion still know what women want?
In a year defined by designer entrances and exits, fashion finds itself at a critical crossroads. Runways are increasingly driven by spectacle and viral moments, body diversity is slipping, cultural politics are reshaping ideals, and consumers are more discerning than ever.
Tonight, we've brought together two amazing voices who sit at the center of how fashion is imagined, interrogated, and made visible. Vanessa Friedman is a fashion director and chief fashion critic at The New York Times, and Rachel Scott is the creative director of Diotima and newly appointed creative director at Proenza Schouler. Thank you guys so much for joining us.
Rachel and Vanessa, we really appreciate you joining Models.com for this conversation. We really want to explore where representation, design, and reality collide, just kind of figure out where women fit within the images and the garments that are shaping this moment. And so, we were talking backstage in the green room about the 25 to 75 split of women creative directors at luxury houses.
And obviously, Rachel, by your appointment at Proenza Schouler, that is a huge addition to the number, but it's still quite small. And I wanted to start this conversation with Vanessa, considering it really started from one of your articles during Paris Fashion Week, and the title of the article was: 'Fashion is teetering on a relevancy brink,' which, you know, is a very strong statement.
And I wonder if you still think that, considering we're at the end of the year and we've had a full year of designer appointments, exits — I mean, it really was a cluster blip, for lack of a better word. And I wonder, Vanessa, from your perspective, do you think designers are still designing for women's bodies, or are they more designing for viral impact? When virality kind of becomes the goal, I wonder, does fashion lose its understanding of the women that they kind of claim to serve? What's been your perspective on this past year?
So I do think that we are at — I would say it's teetering on the brink. I think we're at the brink of something. I feel like fashion is about to enter a kind of new stage, if we're talking mostly about high fashion, right, runway fashion, or a new age maybe. And that's driven largely by the crop of designers who are taking, who have taken over at big houses.
In terms of whether they're designing for women's bodies, I mean, I think that's a question that probably people have been asking since designers existed. Right. And there's always been a split, I think, between designers who seem to be thinking very much about the comfort of the customer or the psyche of the customer, and then designers who seem to be creating an image of a woman that's maybe a little more abstract. And I think that's still true, and it's just been exacerbated by social media.
Yeah, it seems social media is really the facilitator of the virality. You know, there was a lot of moments that people kind of saw, and I think they analyzed the designs by face value. Right. Like we spoke about the Mugler kind of binding of the arms. There was definitely a viral moment at Gaultier. And, you know, I think that seemed to be kind of the crux of getting the word out that these debuts had happened. Did you feel like some of these spectacles outweighed wearability in any case? Or what was your kind of take?
I think that's been true for years. I mean, you know, I don't know about you, but like every time my mother looks at a Comme des Garçons, you know, collection, she's like, 'What is that?' You know, so I think, like, there are lots of reasons we look at a runway, right? There are lots of reasons that people, that designers make collections, and it's not — wearability is not always driving that.
And I actually would argue that, I feel like some of, you know, a large chunk of new designers this time around were much more, sort of more relaxed about their approach, particularly to heritage brands. They didn't feel as, like, locked in to the DNA and, like, the icons and, you know, the sort of, like, stale clichés that people trot out. On the other hand, there were also a number of designers who created clothing that seemed to be designed to either, like, trap women, lace them up, cage them, hide them, obscure them, you know, what have you. And that is also a comment on what's going on today. You know, it may not be one you necessarily want to wear, but it's interesting.
Absolutely. And Rachel, you just had your first show this past September, and I was surprised to see that you had never had a show prior to your appointment at Proenza Schouler. Let's go back to that. I remember you dedicated the show to honor all displaced persons, which at the time — we're talking about September — you know, that mindset, it was one rooted in empathy politics. It was a rare comment to frame it in that way. As someone kind of building an independent brand from the ground up, how do you navigate the tension between the fantasy of the story and the function of what you're creating? Like, how do you make sure that the storytelling doesn't get in the way of making clothes that women can wear?
That's a very tricky question. I've been in the industry for a long time, and I've worked on teams for a long time, and when I started a team, it was very much a desire to do something that was meaningful for me. And what was meaningful for me was kind of an emotion, something that was rooted in an emotional reaction to what was happening culturally, politically.
And my vision for the brand is not one of, like, year-over-year crazy growth. It's one of, like, longevity. And it's one — ultimately it just needs to be interesting to me. It needs to be interesting to me. It needs to challenge me creatively and conceptually. And then it also needs to be something that I want to wear and that the women that I'm lucky to have in my circle and community, that they also want to wear. So it really has to meet those levels of kind of criteria.
Absolutely, absolutely. And I also look to your shows specifically when it comes to casting, because I found like it was one of the rare shows that really expounded on the ideals of who can fit in these clothes, like, who's the woman that fits? From your perspective as someone, you know, that's shaping those decisions, how does Diotima approach inclusive sizing and representation? You know, it seems like larger houses in the same field are kind of pulling back. Does broader representation kind of affect how women connect with your brand, or how do you see it?
Yeah, absolutely. I think for a long time, for most of my career, I never saw myself or my friends in campaigns and shows. We had a moment, you know, in 2020 where there was a little bit of that, but then it kind of — there's been severe rollback. And, you know, if we don't put the world we want to see in our campaigns, in our shows, then we're never going to have — you know, no one else will, unfortunately.
And yeah, you know, it's obviously — there are challenges to making sizes for molds, you know, when we have very limited resources, it's a very intentional thing. So when I go into making samples for the show, I'm actually thinking about the cast. And I'm thinking about the pieces and how I'm going to size them because I can't make, you know, four samples per style. So I'm making — I'm planning, like, months ahead of the show, not knowing who I'm going to be able to cast. I'll know that, like, the night before the show. But I make sure that I have the pieces that can accommodate a very diverse cast, and it's super important.
And it's not — everything is the trickle-down effect too, right? Like, they don't think about the future celebrities that might have options to be able to wear. They don't think about the styling, you know, processes like making sure that we have samples available for, you know, larger models that are doing editorial. And I wonder, is that something that you seek out intentionally, like it has to be part of your shows because, like you mentioned, it's just something that you want to mirror your own collective experience?
Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. And also sometimes I need something to wear and I can't fit in the sample, so... So, absolutely.
Yeah, for sure. Vanessa, you've been tracking the inclusivity conversation for years. You know, whether it's like a viral moment that I'm seeing on Twitter or, you know, your direct articles that kind of speak to the matter. You've written that fashion seems to be in a dramatic retreat from many of its public commitments to change, like, it's like night and day compared to the past five years, especially on the runway. From your perspective, has the push for inclusivity stalled in the face of conservatism? Do you feel like it's larger parties at will? And we're just kind of like reacting to that? Or do you think that, you know, the progress was genuine or just mostly surface level? What's your kind of take on it?
I think if we're talking about size inclusivity — I mean, any inclusivity other than sort of racial — I really do think on the runway fashion has made a big leap forward. I do not think in the power structure it has at all. And I think it is again, we're retreating from that pledge. But I do think on the runway things have shifted and, like, eyes have shifted and it definitely looks different, but not in terms of any other kind of inclusivity. Not, you know, not size, not age, not ability. Right. Like, nothing else.
And in fact, you know, fashion only, like, vaguely really talked about size inclusivity. I mean, honestly, they'd be like, 'Yes, we have, like, two plus-size models.' Right? And it was always the exact same models, you know, which is exactly where it used to be with race, when they'd be like, 'We have Naomi,' you know, like, and that was it. So I think that the pretense that it was really becoming inclusivity in terms of body type, you know, also height — I mean, everything — like, people come in all different sizes and shapes, and consumers come in all different sizes and shapes, and, like, rich people come in all different sizes and shapes, and celebrities do, as you pointed out. And, you know, the runway really has never come in all different sizes and shapes.
And I think it's just, you know, it's for a variety of reasons has given up on even, like, trying to. And it always sort of drove me nuts because, like, everyone was either size zero or maybe, like, a 16, but, like, the world is full of eights and sixes and tens and twelves, and that really is what you want to see. Right. And when you do see it — I mean, I think we have seen it with race. When you see all the different kinds of people that are on the runway, it looks so good, right? It makes the clothes look good. And I just, you know, I wish they could make that leap in other ways. It hasn't.
Yeah, absolutely. And like you mentioned, it seems like when we had the racial diversity conversation, there were obviously advocates for it, right? There was, like, a Bethann, there were people who could, like, speak to it. And for other parts of diversity, there's not really people with that same level of maybe power, influence that can kind of make these changes behind the scenes.
But it took — I mean, it took decades. It took power, it took politics, right? It took trauma, like, it took a huge number of forces to shift an industry that really doesn't — you know, despite the fact that, like, fashion is all about change, it really hates to change.
Absolutely. Especially when it comes to technology. I mean, listen, we can go into that and we will circle back to that conversation. But, Rachel, I wanted to talk about, you know, in the past four, almost five years now, you've built a very tight creative circle, photographers and stylists. We were talking about Marika — lovely Marika-Ella Ames — and photographers like Zora Sicher, Deidre Lewis, Hedi Stanton, who've helped to kind of creatively shape the world of Diotima.
I wanted to think about who are you kind of designing for when you're building that world, and how do those collaborators help you create desire without losing touch of the realities of women's bodies and making sure that the clothes speak for themselves? But how do you create those visual images of what you really put out there? Because, you know, we were talking about the castings that you do. And I remember thinking about Kai Newman that you shot in Jamaica a few years ago. How was the process of really creating your visual world?
It's not super clear, to be honest. It's like — it kind of changes, it's a bit amorphous, but I would say it's very much collaborative dialogue. And I think I've been very lucky to work with the list of people that you just named, especially Marika, who I work with very closely on Diotima, now also at Proenza.
And I think, you know, yeah, I don't even like to use the word fantasy. I don't know if it's fantasy per se, but I think, like, there is a level of intimacy that I'm trying to build and sensuality. I think the desire comes from, like, building this intimacy, which I think, you know, when you look at campaigns, usually there's, like, a level of — there's, like, a glass between you and the image. And I think maybe because I think about fashion and the way we perceive it almost more like film, that I think we're trying to create film-like stills where you can get into the world, where you're thinking about who this woman is. You're not just thinking about her clothes, but, like, what her life is.
And we think a lot about that. You know, it's like a lot — somehow a lot of the Diotima collections are, she's left a party and, like, it's the next morning and, like, she's pulled herself together, and that's super interesting to me. I don't know why. Like, because she could have been this really erotic woman the night before and very serious the next day. And I find that very intriguing. So, yeah, I think we're always trying to build a world and a narrative that's not didactic or prescriptive.
And I think because I've worked with so many women, I think there is this level of embodiment that, you know, it's not — they're not performing, it's not performative. And, like, it's almost like — I hate to use the word intuitive when talking about women, but there is a level of intuition. I think that's what I mean by it's amorphous. It's more like a feeling and a dialogue that sometimes is not quite verbal, you know?
Do you find that that conversation is easier to have with other women, or, you know, where it's just innate and you guys are able to kind of play off of each other's energy? I'm sure it's not maybe an intentional thing to have listed all those people and say, like, 'Oh, you're working with women.' But I wonder, is that something that you're actively seeking out?
Yeah, definitely. No, I think yes, I've definitely sought out really strong, intelligent, nuanced perspectives that happen to be women. I think there's, like, you know, when you talk about the power structures in these companies that haven't changed so much as what you see on the runway or in campaigns, I think that's super important.
I think that, like, I exist in a very intersectional place of being a woman, being an immigrant, being Black, being queer, being disabled, and being not, like, you know, not straight-size. So, like, there are things that I think about what I want to see and the complexity of that, combined in dialogue with the complexity of all of these other collaborators and their experience, I think manifests in something that hopefully is fantasy or not prescriptive, but also something that you can also get into — that you can believe yourself in this world, but be inspired by it.
Absolutely. And, you know, Vanessa, from the critic's seat, I wonder, you know, we haven't had a chance to see all the campaigns from the September shows, but we've seen little teasers, so to speak, whether that's, you know, Demna's vision at Gucci, Dario's vision at Versace. And I wonder, like, are runway and campaign images today reflecting the women and the people — you know, women and people as they are? Or is it all about the fantasy of desirability? It just seems like, you know, I guess that's part of the marketing. But I wonder what your perspective is on, you know, who fashion is kind of speaking to when they're pushing out images nowadays.
I mean, hopefully it's speaking to lots and lots of different kinds of people. And I think it is. You know, I think that, you know, sadly, Dario is no longer at Versace. So now what's happening with that vision? But, you know, that was one kind of vision, and Demna was clearly something else, and Jonathan something else, and Rachel something else. And that's what you want, right? Like, the reason you want diverse designers is because you want them to bring a whole diversity of viewpoints and ideas and, you know, takes on the world to making clothes. Right? Because that gives everybody, all of us, more to choose from, right? It gives you the opportunity to find yourself in their ideas.
And, you know, maybe you find yourself in Rachel's, maybe you don't. Maybe you find yourself in Demna's Gucci, maybe you don't. You know, I think that it's like the more different women that designers speak to, the better, frankly. So just because I don't — I mean, I never think about myself when I'm looking at the runway. But, you know, as long as there's somebody there that I can recognize, then I think that's a successful collection.
