Bless up From Your Feet to Your ed top
We go again
The notion I see perpetuated in my fashion circles is, Clare Waight Keller (CWK) failed at Givenchy. I felt that was a bit weird considering how much success she had during the run. Much like Galliano she spent a short while revamping the house while not focusing on Ready To Wear as much and dedicating her time to couture and conceiving a vision of the house for whom she would pass the baton to.
I have my own personal feelings about calling menswear tailoring couture but she spent a great deal of time catering to enhancing the vision of the Givenchy man, one which Matthew Williams will inherit.
Clare Waight Keller and Mens Couture
After growing so much clientele for menswear CWK emboldened the Nouveau riche to explore the detailing and embroidery women are accustomed to in couture. Such is the growing ideas of Kim Jones at Couture with his past collections with Dior, exceptionally so with his AW20/21 – as he took a nod to Judy Blame, from Marc Bohan.
The intricacies in the work she was attempting to execute for the haute couture was to reinstate a new vision to the eyes of the men who could afford as a long stretch away from Ricardo Tisci graphics work with Rottweilers and Sharks.
The ideas presented were such supposed to be art creating a clientele and inspiration to anyone who would come after allowing one Vision to marry with the next truly passing the baton not just for couture but also for ready to wear as Galliano did for McQueen prior.
Most of all the idea that there was supposed to be a high focus of sales at Givenchy when for couture that’s never the case it’s creating clientele for the atelier on 3 Avenue George V – if that agenda can be used on Galliano for McQueen, so rightly so it could be used here.
Clare Waight Keller- Money Moves
I’ve taken special consideration to this case especially since Clare has created 2 power house moves in her career, at Pringle and Chloe the narrative is the same, she had a ball of a time creating looks for women to buy in ready to wear reviving a house and selling tremendously. Taking Pringle to a global brand and having Chloe be at $400M in sales the year she left. Both houses, healthy condition, and profitable.
It only stands to reason if her purpose was Ready-To-Wear she would have a 3 peat, instead it was creating couture fit for clientele at the atelier and by my account needed help. She happened to get the greatest press hits for Givenchy 1) as the men she dressed were cited being best dressed in those years, which for the uninitiated brings more hype to Givenchy for them to buy it. 2) She created the Duchess of Sussex Wedding Dress.
Clare Waight Keller Dressing a Princess
Being a royal dressmaker is a star for any fashion designer, here it’s no different. Givenchy is known for dressing Audrey Hepburn and Jackie Kennedy but no Princess wedding dresses. The point being made is this bought an esteem to the house that no even the name sake could bring, often times the narrative being spouted isn’t as such a pure one as in this case when we reflect on Clares success it is a crowning achievement in Fashion history and the houses history. If she had only done that, it is a job well done.
Did Clare Waight Keller flop around Givenchy? No
The value of CWK is there and her stats are up on the scoreboard, we can fudge the numbers or look at it with a clear perspective. She did what she was supposed to do and left.
- Did she give a new identity to menswear
- Did she put Givenchy in the press as a slick Nouveau riche house
- Dis she make something for other little princesses to aspire to
- is her foundation profitability
Answers to all of that is yes. Now she’s moved on and so shall we.
Whatever Moves Your Dial
Damilare. Not Your Typical
To learn more about Owning Your Own Ship – OYOS
Please check out Some of my Thoughts On:
For some longer form write ups Read some of My Dialogues