Every time a fashion house crowns a new creative director, the industry collectively holds its breath. The question is as perennial as couture itself: Will they archive-dive, or will they innovate?
Some argue that a maison’s DNA is sacred—untouchable threads woven by founders who built empires stitch by stitch. To meddle too much risks alienating loyal clients, those who come to Chanel for tweed and to Hermès for silk. After all, what’s Gucci without a bit of Gucci-ness?
But others see heritage as a gilded cage. A new creative director isn’t hired to play archivist; they’re expected to reimagine, disrupt, and carve out a vision that defines the next decade. Think of Phoebe Philo at Céline, or Demna at Balenciaga—who turned a sleepy couture house into a cultural lightning rod through irony, exaggeration, and the deliberately “ugly.”
Now, though, Demna is stepping into a new arena. His husband recently posted—then quickly deleted—a shot of Tom Ford–era Gucci. The timing confirmed whispers: as soon as Demna officially joined Gucci this July, he went straight into Ford’s archives. His first full runway show won’t arrive until March 2026, but all eyes will be on September 23, 2025, when a Milan presentation marks his first public gesture at the house.
The reference points are already obvious. Ford’s vampy tailoring. The blunt sexuality. The monogram and horsebit kitsch. Codes that didn’t just shape Gucci but redefined the image of Italian fashion globally—seeping into Eastern Europe, where Demna himself grew up in Georgia.
Balenciaga was built on irony and shock; Gucci may well become the stage for a new chapter of seduction. His shift toward sharper silhouettes, leather jackets, and bootcut denim suggests a cleaner, sexier lens. The lingering question: how much of Balenciaga’s irony will survive in this Tom Ford revival?
This is the bigger debate facing all new creative directors: are they guardians of heritage, or agents of rupture? Do they polish the silver, or melt it down to start anew? Fashion thrives on tension, contradictions, and reinvention. And maybe the truth is simple: every heritage was once a new vision.
