THE LIST

Alessandro Turci reflects on creativity, business, and the future of fashion

The future acquires meaning only if we understand the past. Still clinging to the certainties of what, in retrospect (and only in retrospect), appears logical, we often tend to mythologize periods troubled by absurd tragedies, stripping facts and techniques of the terrible context in which they developed.

It is therefore easy to understand that the higher the reference, the more the lack of logic and culture reveals itself in all its disarming poverty, at least in certain aspects and circumstances. This is especially true in fashion when the citation is not a form of creative progress but remains firmly anchored, on the one hand, to the stylistic reference and, on the other, to inevitable self-celebration.

What everyone calls reinterpretation does not evolve into new avant-garde movements; instead, blind to the future, it merely serves itself. The reevaluation of excellent craftsmanship—whether in embroidery or tailoring—is not enough, nor is the association between traditional and technological approaches when there is no vision, or when that vision remains a sterile, convoluted elaboration.

The relationship between body and garment remains unresolved, so much so that the impulse that has always imprisoned creative minds—distorting, subverting, modifying—has increasingly taken on common and accepted characteristics: excessively long sleeves, padding in T-shirts as well as in skirts (reminiscent of 17th-century panniers), Habsburg-style crinolines (historically developed to their widest extent in that period), deforming bustiers, masks, and ruffs.

The undeniable couturier skills of Daniel Roseberry, Creative Director of Maison Schiaparelli, suggest a contemporary remix of classical elements, incorporating drapery and ruffles made even more relevant by modern materials and the combination of extremely rigid bustiers that curve the body to the extreme.

This recalls the work of Hussein Chalayan, Alexander McQueen, and John Galliano (during his tenure at Christian Dior Couture).

Beyond the anthropological and sartorial attempt to make sense of what seems irreconcilable—wearability and comprehensibility—how can we fail to see the grotesque results?

Yet if every era of deprivation and suffering seeks redemption through joy and freedom, opulence and prosperity, what exactly are we aiming for today?

Observing the codes of a fashion house and reinterpreting its archives may be a great starting point, but it should not be the ultimate goal for anyone aspiring to “construct” a new path. Current collections display a persistent nostalgic attitude that has nothing to do with the perception of an alternative spark of innovation. Instead, they resemble mannerist virtuosity, wrapped in tortuous solitary reasoning.

So, who benefits from all this endless storytelling that no longer compensates for the lack of ideas?
Some designers are already trying to bring order to chaos with precise, clear lines—an effort that reflects a desire for greater simplicity and recognizability.

A list, as Alessandro Michele referenced at Valentino Couture, drawing inspiration from Umberto Eco, that classifies and assigns everything its rightful place. However, the Vertigineux exercise appears chaotic in its complexity, far from the sober elegance of the brand’s founder. The inevitable comparison with his previous work at Gucci emerges as the same reasoning is at play, merely inverted and applied to different garments.

We have long been accustomed to both copies (oops, sorry—”inspirations”) and upheavals, as seen in what has happened at Balenciaga. Perhaps modernity itself lies in contradiction, which, alongside indignation, inevitably generates media curiosity—and consequently, business.

It is easy to see, then, that fashion, as we know it today, cannot be separated from the spectacle that sustains it. Spectacle has become our most effective form of communication. An extraordinary image captures attention, making everything extraordinary—even when it is mediocre.

Thus, the naked body reappears, a memory of the ultimate classic, the prehistoric symbol of a beginning—an undeniable value, the true garment to be redefined.

This seems to be the intent of those more skilled at undressing than dressing, as seen on the runway of Jean Paul Gaultier Couture by Ludovic de Saint Sernin.

Exercises in style, sometimes in research, captivate a consumer-collector who is often bored and inexperienced, more attentive to status than quality. Once, quality created status—through exclusivity and refined culture. Today, everything is resolved with money.

So, if the reference for new fashion must be a different lifestyle dictated by evolving needs, then the wait will be long. It is unlikely that clothing alone will define our identity.

For some time now, aesthetic surgery has provided a more radical solution to the challenge of adapting to new standards. Increasingly, the answers will be medical and genetic. The acceleration driven by generative artificial intelligence will likely shape new aesthetic pathways, in which perhaps fashion will play a central role.

For now, the emperor has no clothes.

Alessandro Turci speaking