The clothes are important, not the logo
Wear, what,why, when? Possession. That’s what this branding and rebranding is all about
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Until recently, the logo was considered sacrosanct and inviolable – the fashion equivalent of the crucifix or the Star of David.
Think of Chanel’s intertwined Cs, Gucci’s Gs and those jangling, boxy bags that overlaid the initials D-i-o-r. Last week, JW Anderson unveiled his new Loewe logo, a reconfiguration of four mirrored Ls designed by M/M (Paris).
Lordy, that’s a lot of lettering. But what does it all spell out? Namely, that logos aren’t quite as immovable as we once thought. Hedi Slimane’s transmogrification of Yves Saint Laurent into Saint Laurent – abandoning the Cassandre-devised typeface and shunting the YSL logo off centre-stage – was the most visible, violent example. But it’s being subtly echoed elsewhere. One of Alexander Wang’s first steps at Balenciaga was to redesign the label’s labels.
Today’s rebranding seems tied to the need for a new designer to assert an immediately recognisable impact. It’s interesting that both Anderson and Slimane unveiled their branding before showing a single piece of clothing to the press.
Anderson’s logo isn’t so much an overhaul as a subtle rework. Its factual origin, says the Loewe press release, was the branding iron used to mark cattle and leather. The purpose of that kind of branding is, of course, to signify ownership. Possession. That’s what this branding and rebranding is all about: designers’ ownership of their respective labels, sure, but also making visible the otherwise invisible hold a successful fashion house has over its consumers.
It’s a shame people don’t care more about the clothes.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments