Christian Lacroix: The last real Couturier

Christian Lacroix- Baroque dress

Photo: Wire Images

"The one hand you have the Narcissistic masturbation of Fashion people, press photographers, and editors. They are creating a fake fashion world for themselves, their pals and colleagues only. And on the other hand you have the big clever labels like Zara, H&M, Uniqlo which are connected to the street and real consumers but share a flat view. Magazines are only open to rich labels, the ones that are able to spend billions on Advertising. That gives the public a fake and discouraging image of our work". (Christian Lacroix interview with Filep Motwary).

Lacroix the Brand was placed under creditor protection at the start of June and has not made a profit since being founded 22 years ago.

Christian Lacroix is an artist, not a Businessman.  Have we become so vulgar, and philistine that an artist like Lacroix can't survive. So what that he hasn't made a profit. No art, no style, everything for profit, and the bottom line.The bottom line is vulgar, and Bourgeois. People who are naturally gifted towards an art, usually aren't good Business people. Pablo Picasso never made a profit. Michelangelo never made a profit, his works were subsidized by the state. The Pope commissioned him to create the Sistine Chapel. What a concept. State subsidy of Art. This work will live for eternity. Why do we insist today, that artists have to be profitable?These people should be subsidized for the benefit of society/humanity, like they were before the Industrial Revolution. There is plenty of money today, just not for these purposes. We can subsidize the banking industry with billions of dollars for TARP( Troubled Asset Relief Program). The same mentality , we dont have money for universal health care, but we have money to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. We valued other things before. Again, where is the profit in sending 30,000 more troops, and  where is the profit in giving Wall Street billions of dollars, for malfeasnace and incompetence? Why arent these sectors required to provide a profit? These are simple questions, why are some sectors required to make a profit, and not others? What have the bankers and financial sector done, that they will be remembered 200 years from now. It's so vulgar.

In France, the label "haute couture" is a protected appellation. A certain number of formal criteria (number of employees, participation in fashion shows...) must be met for a fashion house to use the label; a list of eligible houses is made official every year by the French Ministry of Industry. The haute couture houses belong to the professional union the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture.

The French term for ready-to-wear (not custom fitted) fashion is prêt-à-porter. Every haute couture house also markets prêt-à-porter collections, which typically deliver a higher return on investment than their custom clothing. Failing revenues have forced a few couture houses to abandon their less profitable couture division and concentrate solely on the less prestigious prêt-à-porter. These houses are no longer haute couture. There are only 15 couture houses in the world left.

The price of an haute couture dress, hand-made to a client's specification, starts at about euros 20,000. It is a luxury reserved only for the very rich and there are estimated to be fewer than 500 buyers worldwide. In recent months, with personal fortunes lost,  these customers are far less willing to spend such vast sums.

"There are fewer clients," admits Anne Valerie Hash, one of the new generation of French haute couture designers. "When their husbands lose millions on the stock exchange, you find that women won't buy 10 dresses, they'll buy one." This isn't a valid excuse. There was a Depression in the '30s, and yet haute couture survived. It thrived. How do you explain this. People with money are just less sophisticated today, and value different things.

The turnaround plan consists of closing down Lacroix's haute couture and pret-a-porter activities, while keeping the licensing contracts for accessories and perfume. Out of a staff of 120, only 11 workers would be retained.
Didier Grumbach, head of the trade union for French haute couture, said that Lacroix is a fascinating artist with much creativity to express, but added that "haute couture is an industry, not a display of contemporary art". His main point being that to keep a company above water, we mustn’t forget that collections need to be commercial. Yes, Monsieur Grumbach we understand this, how can we forget. This mantra is shoved down our throats today. Must be commericial, must , must, must, be commercial, keep saying that over and over again Monsieur Grumbach. Fashion isn't an Art, it's a Business. Fashion isn't Art, it's a Business. Being commerical today means using sexual imagery, to sell merchandise, as a substitute for real artistic content, since there are few real artists today. Sex is banal. Art is eternal. Again, and again, it is the bottom line. The bottom line is vulgar. There is no place for art in fashion, or anywhere in a world that reduces everything to the bottom line, and profit margin.