時尚界是不是有什麼東西在潰爛
Is something rotten in the state of fashion?
時尚界是不是有什麼東西在潰爛？
On Wednesday — six days after it was announced that the designer Raf Simons was leaving Christian Dior, and weeks after Alexander Wang’s last show for the house of Balenciaga — Lanvin, the oldest surviving French fashion house, announced that its creative director, Alber Elbaz, is also leaving the company, “on the decision of the company’s majority shareholder,” according to a statement from Mr. Elbaz.
週三（10月28日），現存的歷史最悠久的法國時裝公司浪凡(Lanvin)宣佈，其創意總監阿爾貝·埃爾巴茲(Alber Elbaz)將離開這家公司。埃爾巴茲在聲明中說，“這是公司控股股東的決定。”六天前，設計師拉夫·西蒙斯(Raf Simons)宣佈將離開迪奧(Christian Dior)。幾周前，王大仁完成了在巴黎世家(Balenciaga)的最後一場時裝秀。
“Feels like the industry is shedding its skin right now,” Linda Fargo, the women’s fashion director of Bergdorf Goodman, wrote in an email.
“感覺這個行業正在蛻皮，”波道夫·古德曼百貨公司(Bergdorf Goodman)的女裝總監琳達·法戈(Linda Fargo)在接受郵件採訪時說。
But unlike Mr. Simons and Mr. Wang, both of whom lasted approximately three years at Dior and Balenciaga respectively, Mr. Elbaz has been at Lanvin since 2001. He single-handedly revived the brand, making it a favorite of regular women and celebrities like Meryl Streep and Natalie Portman, in the process becoming one of fashion’s most beloved figures.
西蒙斯和王大仁分別在迪奧和巴黎世家待了大約三年，而埃爾巴茲從2001年起就爲浪凡效力。他憑一己之力復興了這個品牌，讓它成爲受到普通女性和名人（比如梅麗爾·斯特里普[Meryl Streep]和納塔莉·波特曼[Natalie Portman]）青睞的品牌。在此過程中，他也成爲時尚界最受喜愛的人物之一。
He is known not only for his talent, but also for his generosity (he regularly sends flowers to other designers before their shows) and his self-questioning. Last week, receiving his award at the Fashion Group International Night of Stars, the Roger Vivier designer Bruno Frisoni noted that the event was especially important to him because Mr. Elbaz was also being honored. “I love you, Bruno,” Mr. Elbaz called out.
他的名聲不僅在於才華，而且在於慷慨（他經常在其他設計師的時裝秀之前給他們送花）和自我反省。上週，Roger Vivier的設計師布魯諾·弗裏索尼(Bruno Frisoni)在國際時尚組織(Fashion Group International)的羣星之夜(Night of Stars)領獎時說，這場活動對他來說尤爲重要，因爲埃爾巴茲也獲獎了。“我愛你，布魯諾，”埃爾巴茲大聲迴應道。
In his statement Wednesday, he also expressed “gratitude and warm thoughts” and “affection” for all his colleagues. (When contacted for comment for this article, he texted a heart emoji to me, but no words).
在週三（10月28日）的聲明中，埃爾巴茲也向全體同事表達了自己的“感激之情、溫暖的感受”和“喜愛之情”（我請他就本文做出評論時，他回覆了一個心形表情符號，沒說別的）。
As a result, and though Lanvin itself is privately held (it is owned by the Taiwanese publishing magnate Shaw-Lan Wang, and Mr. Elbaz reportedly has a 10 percent stake) and relatively small, with 2014 revenues of 250 million euros, Mr. Elbaz was regularly on the shortlist for every major fashion appointment in the last five years.
雖然浪凡本身爲私人所有（它屬於臺灣出版大亨王效蘭，據說埃爾巴茲有10%的股份），規模相對較小，2014年的總收入僅爲2.5億歐元，但是在過去五年裏，埃爾巴茲經常出現在所有大型時裝公司的終選名單上。
But he regularly denied any impulse to leave. In 2011, when asked if he would consider moving to another brand from Lanvin, he told The Financial Times: ‘“How could I do that? The people who work there enable me to do what I do. They are my orchestra. I can’t say to them, ‘Oh, bye, Mummy’s leaving now.’ ” In the end, it was not his decision, though a pointed line in his statement — that he hoped the brand found “the business vision it needs to engage in the right way forward” — suggests disagreement between himself and his corporate colleagues.
不過，他拒絕了所有離開的機會。2011年，《金融時報》(The Financial Times)問他是否考慮跳去別的品牌，他回答說：“我怎麼可能那樣做呢？在這裏工作的人幫我實現了願望。他們是我的管絃樂隊。我不能對他們說，‘哦，再見啦，媽媽要走了。’”最後也不是他決定要離開。不過他在聲明中說，希望這個品牌找到“它需要向前推進的正確商業目標”，這句尖銳的話表明他和公司同事之間存在不同想法。
Still, Mr. Elbaz has also long expressed a certain discomfort with the direction the industry at large is taking. Receiving his Fashion Group International award, he said, “We designers, we started as couturiers, with dreams, with intuition, with feeling.” Then, he said: “We became ‘creative directors,’ so we have to create, but mostly direct. And now we have to become image-makers, creating a buzz, making sure that it looks good in the pictures. The screen has to scream, baby.”
不過，很久以來，埃爾巴茲也表達了自己對這個行業總體發展方向的某種不適。在領取國際時尚組織的大獎時，他說，“我們設計師本來是裁縫，有着夢想、直覺和感受”，後來“我們成了‘創意總監’，所以我們必須去創造，不過大多是進行指導。現在，我們必須變成形象創造者，要引起轟動，確保照片拍出來很棒。屏幕必須尖叫，寶貝”。
But, he said, “I prefer whispering.” Combined with Mr. Simons’s departure for “personal reasons,” and Mr. Wang’s, this is sure to exacerbate the storm of existential self-questioning currently roiling the fashion world and focused on “the system.” Whether the constant cycle of collection after collection, far-flung store opening after far-flung store opening, Instagram after YouTube, demands too much of its creative talent. Whether, as Mr. Elbaz said at FGI, “everyone in fashion just needs a little more time.”
他說，但“我更喜歡低語”。再加上西蒙斯“因個人原因”離職和王大仁的離職，這無疑加劇了目前攪動時尚界的風暴，人們紛紛在質疑自我存在感，並把目光聚焦到“體制”上。一個又一個系列，一個又一個遙遠的店鋪開幕，發完Instagram又要發YouTube，這些是不是對創意人才的要求太高了。或者是否就像埃爾巴茲在國際時尚組織頒獎禮上說的，“時尚界的每個人都需要多一點時間。”
That is part of the problem, no question. But I also think it’s actually time to look a little harder at what is going on. Because, while “the system” is a disembodied, nonspecific entity that may be the most obvious culprit for our dissatisfaction, it seems to me that all these departures are also a very powerful reflection of an insidious, and potentially more destructive, trend.
毋庸置疑，這是一個問題。不過我也覺得，現在應該更仔細地研究一下到底是什麼情況。因爲，雖然“體制”這種空洞的東西可能是我們不滿的最明顯的罪魁禍首，但是在我看來，這些設計師離職也有力地反應出一股潛在的、可能更具破壞力的潮流。
That is, the current situation in which brands treat designers as “work for hire” — stewards that set a course for a style ship for a time, but who can be replaced as necessary while the ship itself sails on — and its inevitable corollary: that designers start to see themselves the same way. The result transforms the relationship from that of a marriage, where you pledge to love and care for each other through sickness and in health, into a dispassionate contract-to-contract arrangement.
目前的情況是，品牌認爲設計師是“僱傭工”，是在一段時間內爲一艘時尚大船導航的舵手，但是在向前行進的過程中，如果需要，他可以被取代；這種態度帶來的必然結果是，設計師們也開始這樣看待自己。結果，設計師和品牌的關係從原本類似婚姻的關係——發誓相互關愛，同甘共苦——變成了冷漠的合同關係。
While on the one hand this makes for a cleaner and more professional pairing — one less fraught with the highs and lows (and mood-altering drugs and rehab stints) of the generation before, like Mr. Galliano and Alexander McQueen, one where expectations between the parties are theoretically aligned — it also means that creative directors are more willing to weigh the costs and benefits of an employment situation and make a conscious judgment that it may no longer be working for them.
這樣雖然能結成更簡單、更職業的合作關係——不像上一代，合作過程中充滿起伏（以及令人心情動盪的吸毒和戒毒事件），比如加利亞諾(Galliano)和亞歷山大·麥昆(Alexander McQueen)——雙方對彼此的期待從理論上講是一致的，但它也意味着，創意總監們更容易去權衡一個職位的代價和利益，會有意識地考慮這個職位是否還適合自己。
Put another way: They can leave. And increasingly, it seems, they do.
換句話說：他們可以離開。而且他們似乎正在越來越多地這樣做。
Fashion is now on a slippery slope of its own making that began with Tom Ford’s departure from Gucci Group in 2003. It was a rupture caused by disagreements over the scope of his power that was first seen as a dire event (How would Gucci survive without its superstar designer?) and latterly introduced the ascension of the brand: the idea that it was the house that mattered, and the designer served that master.
如今，時尚界正沿着自己開創的滑坡下滑。這始於2003年湯姆·福特(Tom Ford)離開古馳集團(Gucci Group)。他們關係的破裂源於對福特權限範圍的不同意見。最初，人們覺得福特的離開非常可怕（沒有這位超級明星設計師，古馳怎麼生存下去呢？），後來，這個事件反倒拔高了這個品牌的地位：人們開始認爲，重要的是這個公司，設計師只是爲主人服務。
Gucci tested the theory by hiring three unknown creative directors after Mr. Ford (for women’s wear, men’s wear and accessories), a situation that lasted only until 2006, when one of them, Frida Giannini, became the sole creative director. Ms. Giannini remained at her post for nine years, before being replaced earlier this year by Alessandro Michele, also an unknown.
古馳驗證了這個理論的正確性。在福特離開後，古馳聘用了三位不出名的創意總監（分別負責女裝、男裝和配飾）。這種狀態只持續到2006年，那一年，三位總監中的弗麗達·詹尼尼(Frida Giannini)成了唯一的創意總監。詹尼尼在這個職位上待了九年，今年年初，她被同樣不出名的亞歷山德羅·米歇爾(Alessandro Michele)取代。
Meanwhile, other brands began to go through creative directors at a notable rate, for a variety of different reasons. Alessandra Facchinetti, Gucci’s head of women’s wear post-Ford, was let go from the brand in 2005, and joined Moncler Gamme Rouge, before jumping to Valentino, only to be replaced after two collections and hop to Pinko, where she introduced a new collection called Uniqueness in 2011, leaving in 2013 to become creative director of Tod’s following the American designer Derek Lam, who had been there for six years. (Phew.)
與此同時，其他品牌開始以驚人的速度更換創意總監，原因各不相同。取代福特負責古馳女裝的亞歷山德拉·法基內蒂(Alessandra Facchinetti)在2005年離開該品牌，加入Moncler Gamme Rouge，後來又跳到華倫天奴(Valentino)。她在華倫天奴只設計了兩個系列就跳到了Pinko。2011年，她在Pinko推出了一個名叫Uniqueness的新系列，但是2013年就離開Pinko去Tod’s做創意總監。她在Tod’s的前任是美國設計師林達克(Derek Lam)，後者在Tod’s做了六年（哇！）。
At Nina Ricci, Lars Nilsson was creative director from 2003 to 2006 before being replaced by Olivier Theyskens (2006 to 2009), who in turn was replaced by Peter Copping (2009 to 2014), who was replaced by Guillaume Henry. Mr. Theyskens resurfaced at Theory in New York in 2011, where he lasted for just over three years.
麗娜蕙姿(Nina Ricci)的創意總監也是不停地換，2003年至2006年是拉斯·尼爾森(Lars Nilsson)，2006年至2009年是奧利維耶·澤斯肯斯(Olivier Theyskens)，2009年至2014年是彼得·科平(Peter Copping)，之後是紀堯姆·亨利(Guillaume Henry)。2011年，澤斯肯斯復出，就職於紐約的Theory，他在那裏待了三年多。
(In case you were wondering, the standard term for most creative director contracts is at least three years.)
（你可能會想怎麼都是三年，這是因爲大部分創意總監的合同期限都是至少三年）。
At Céline, Michael Kors left in 2004, and was replaced by Roberto Menichetti, who after two seasons was replaced by Ivana Omazic, who in 2008 was replaced by Phoebe Philo, who famously insisted (after leading Chloé from 2001 to 2006, when she resigned — shades of Mr. Simons — for personal reasons) that she be allowed to stay in London with her family, and work from there.
思琳(Céline)的情況是這樣的：2004年邁克爾·高仕(Michael Kors)離開後由羅伯託·梅尼凱蒂(Roberto Menichetti)接任；兩季之後，他被伊萬娜·奧馬齊克(Ivana Omazic)取代；2008年，菲比·菲洛(Phoebe Philo)又取代了奧馬齊克（2001年至2006年菲洛執掌Chloé，後來因個人原因辭職，跟西蒙斯的說法一樣）。菲洛堅持要求允許自己在倫敦工作，可以和家人待在一起。
It’s a decision that has been cited often in the last week as an example of the way the current generation of designers has made an effort to prioritize their own needs along with their brands’ needs for better balance, as was Alexander Wang’s decision, made mutually with the brand, not to renew his contract with Balenciaga, in part to concentrate on his own company.
在過去一週裏，這個決定經常被拿來作爲一個例證，證明這一代設計師們會權衡自己和自己品牌的需要，更追求平衡。王大仁不再和巴黎世家續簽合同的決定是和這個品牌共同做出的，部分原因也是爲了專注於自己的公司。
Whether or not Balenciaga actually wanted him to stay (as Dior did with Mr. Simons), or it already thought things weren’t working out — and it has since appointed Demna Gvasalia of the French label Vetements to the post — Mr. Wang didn’t go quietly into that good night. He went running and jumping and practically celebrating, as all of us who were at his final Balenciaga show could see, suggesting that he was more than happy to be free of the grind.
不管巴黎世家是真的想挽留他（就像迪奧挽留西蒙斯那樣）還是已經認爲這樣不可行——巴黎世家後來任命法國品牌Vetements的設計師戴姆娜·吉瓦薩利亞(Demna Gvasalia)接任此職——王大仁都不是悄悄地消失在美好的夜色裏。在他巴黎世家的最後一場時裝秀上，我們看到他又跑又跳，簡直就是在慶祝，表明自己爲擺脫束縛感到萬分開心。
We have reached the point where designers feel as justified in leaving a brand as the brand does in leaving them — and after it has happened once, for whatever reason (as it did when Mr. Simons left Jil Sander in 2012 under cloudy circumstances), it gets easier to do.
如今，就像品牌覺得解僱某個設計師完全合乎情理，設計師們也覺得自己離開某個品牌完全合乎情理。這樣的事情一旦發生過——不管因爲什麼原因（比如2012年，西蒙斯不太愉快地離開Jil Sander）——以後就更容易發生了。
Indeed, Ms. Philo has publicly mused about her desire to spend more time in nature, and that, combined with the fact she left Chloé at the height of her success, has made rumors of a potential departure from Céline almost impossible to squash. It’s simply too believable that she could just walk away, not because she had a different job offer or a falling out with management, but because she simply wanted a different life. Like Mr. Simons.
的確，菲洛已經公開提到想更多接觸大自然，再加上她是在非常成功的時候離開Chloé的，所以關於她想離開思琳的傳言幾乎很難粉碎。人們太容易相信，她可以一走了之，不是因爲有了其他工作機會或者和管理層不和，而僅僅是因爲她想過不一樣的生活。就像西蒙斯那樣。
The problem is, if we divorce emotion from the creative process, if designers don’t care as much about their brand, and brands are not as wed to their designers as they were when the same name shaped a sartorial identity over decades, then the risk is that consumers will feel the same way. It’s the part of this equation that doesn’t add up.
問題是，如果創作過程中沒有感情，設計師不像從前那麼在乎品牌，品牌和設計師的聯繫也不像從前那麼緊密（以前，一種獨特的裁剪風格來自同一位設計師數十年的塑造。），就會出現這樣的風險：消費者也會有同樣的感覺。這纔是這種關係不平衡的地方。
As a retailer who asked to remain anonymous because she sells many of the brands said on hearing the Lanvin news: “Why do people covet Chanel or Comme des The brands send a consistent message about what they are and what they stand for. If you are going to invest, you invest in that. Even if you don’t like a collection or a season, you can’t deny the purity of the message. All these changes means fashion doesn’t feel pure any more. What do you say to the women?”
一位零售商（她要求匿名，因爲她銷售很多品牌）聽到浪凡的新聞後說：“人們爲什麼渴望香奈兒(Chanel)或Comme des Gar 因爲關於這些品牌是什麼以及它們所代表的東西，它們傳遞的信息是連貫一致的。你要是投資的話，你投資的是這個。即使你不喜歡某個系列或某一季的服裝，你也不能否認這個信息的純粹性。而現在這些變化表明，時尚界不再那麼純粹了。你該跟女顧客們說什麼呢？”
When designers leave, by choice or not, the value proposition becomes broken. No one needs a new bag, or a fancy dress; they desire them because of what they represent. Once upon a time, Mr. Elbaz said in his Fashion Group speech, he used to ask himself: “What do women want? What do women need? What can I do for a woman to make her life better and easier?”
設計師們不管是主動離開還是被動離開，品牌的價值定位都會被打破。沒有人需要一個新包或者一件漂亮的新裙子。她們想要的是這些東西所代表的價值。埃爾巴茲在國際時尚組織的獲獎致辭中說，他過去常常問自己：“女人們想要什麼？女人們需要什麼？我能做些什麼，讓她們的生活變得更好、更輕鬆？”
Without that — the seduction and sentiment, the promise of transformation — it’s just stuff. And really, who wants that?
如果沒有那些——誘惑和情感，能帶來變化的承諾——那就是隻是些東西而已。真的，誰需要那些呢？
