Beyond Paris: the twentieth-century fashion oligarchy

There is a consensus among fashion scholars and professionals regarding the location of
today’s major ‘fashion capitals’. Currently, in the early twenty-first century, the oligarchy
of fashion capitals is composed of, in alphabetical order, London, Milan, New York and
Paris (Breward 2003). While there is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘fashion
capital’ I propose to define a fashion capital by the existence of ‘Fashion Week’ shows
that are routinely covered by major international fashion magazines. At the moment,
fashion weeks constitute a major resilience point in the global fashion system in the sense
that it is very difficult for a given city to generate fashion shows that would gather
sustained global attention. Many jobs are related to the organization of shows, and are
thus anchored in fashion capitals, from fashion public relations and communications to
the services related to the seasonal presence of some fashion professionals, for example
in hospitality. This is also why most designers are located in these cities (Volonté 2008).
This simple criterion indicates that a fashion centre occupies a central place in the
global collective representation of the power structure of fashion. Thus, for example,
Antwerp is excluded from the list despite the influence of its fashion designers because
this city does not organize a major fashion week. Similarly, Los Angeles, despite a
relatively influential fashion week, is excluded because its fashion shows are not
routinely covered by international fashion magazines.
This definition may seem restrictive to those who would like to expand the circle of
fashion capitals − for example to include the city in which they work − but it has the merit
of corresponding to the perception that key fashion stakeholders have of their industry.
Similarly, this criterion can be used − with some caution − over a long period of time since
fashion shows became a central institution of fashion a long time ago, in the mid-
nineteenth century Frédéric Godart 44 with the Paris-based English couturier, Charles
Frederick Worth. Today’s fashion shows are different from those of Worth − they are
oriented towards image creation and marketing performance while earlier they were
designed to introduce collections to clients − but nonetheless they constitute a ‘sticky’
institution that can be tracked over time. Historically, the number of fashion capitals has
changed. Fashion capitals appear, grow and might wither and disappear. Before World
War II, only London and Paris could claim the title of fashion capital, the former for mens-
wear, and the latter for womenswear (Breward 2003). In fact, it is a London fashion
designer in exile in Paris in the 1840s (Charles Frederick Worth) who created the first
modern fashion shows and is considered the father of haute couture (O’Neil 2007). This
simple fact shows, both the attractiveness of nineteenth-century Paris in the European
fashion world, and the creative dynamism of London at the time. Yet the lopsided
supremacy of Paris and London in the fashion world did not last. At the end of World
War II, New York emerged as a major fashion capital, partly because of the relative
decline of Paris and London due to cloth-ing and fabric restrictions imposed during the
war in Europe and a difficult reconstruction of French and British economies which left
fashion on the side as a low-priority sector. However, we must keep in mind that the rise
of New York after World War II was by no means the end of the importance of Paris or
London in fashion, but rather the consolidation of a position for which New York had
already laid the building blocks before the war with the inven-tion of ‘sportswear’ and
ready-to-wear by American fashion houses. By the late 1940s and early 1950s, Paris had
regained much of its influence especially with the New Look of Christian Dior in 1947
and the revival of Parisian haute couture with designers like Yves Saint Laurent and Coco
Chanel. Similarly, the London of the 1960s, led by designers such as Mary Quant, was
very influential with English styles being adopted by the whole world, and inspired
many ‘youth subcultures’ (Hebdige 1979) such as mods or punks. In fact, the causes of
New York’s success as a fashion capital are to be found not only in the external shocks
triggered by the war, but also in some of the internal dynamics of the New York and US
apparel industry. For exam-ple, US fashion consumers had always been ambivalent
about French fashion in general, recognizing its creativity, but seeing it as decadent and
immoral (Steele 1998). As soon as they had the opportunity to reorient their purchases to
American (and other) brands, they did so. In addition, the New York case can help
illustrate the basic idea that the destiny of ‘global cities’ (Sassen 2001) is linked to how
economic activities related to these cities are organized in specific territories (Sassen
2008). New York has what might be called an ‘intra-urban’ model of economic
development based on the presence, in one place, of a well-organized production system
coupled with a significant market. Fashion in New York has historically been
concentrated in the ‘Garment District’ (similar to the Sentier in Paris) between 40th Street
to the north and 34th Street to the south, and 5th Avenue to the east and 9th Avenue to
the west. It has spread in recent years to the Lower East Side of Manhattan. The growth
of the Garment District, and its recent extension to the Lower East Side, is due to a
significant local demand, a steady influx of immigrants providing garment producers
with cheap and abundant labour, and a local institutional system that has always
favoured innovation (Rantisi 2002a; 2002b). The local institutional system is composed of
designers and fashion houses that continually negotiate with The power structure of the
fashion industry 45
 retailers and buyers about the colours, styles and fabrics that will form the collections
of the following seasons.
The designers themselves are educated in prestigious fashion and design schools such
as the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), the Parsons School of Design (‘Parsons’) or
the Pratt Institute, which form their tastes and help filter multiple influences that come
from the forecasting offices, trade shows and fashion magazines. An example of New
York creativity can be found in the collaboration between Parsons and the cable television
channel Bravo, which has led to the creation of the hit reality TV show Project Runway,
anchored by former supermodel Heidi Klum, where relatively new designers compete to
win the right to present their collection during New York Fashion Week. Finally, the
Lower East Side boutiques operate as a subsystem at the avant-garde of the more
traditional Garment District, particularly through ‘alternative’ magazines and fashion
shows. Professional associations, such as the Council of Fashion Designers of America
institutionally regulate the industry.
What about the fourth ‘oligarch’ of the contemporary global fashion industry, Milan?
The situation of Milan is ambiguous and, while Italy had always been a major bastion of
fashion, some even seeing it as its birthplace (Steele 1998), it was not until the late 1970s
to the early 1980s that Milan clearly became central in the global fashion industry, both
as a place of production and of creation. Rome, Venice and even Florence had long been
notable centres of Italian fashion, but it is the industrial might of Milan that enabled this
city to impose itself, particularly vis-à-vis Rome, as the capital of Italian politics, cinema
and glamour (Steele 2003).
While the New York case illustrates the importance of the ‘intra-urban’ model of
development for fashion capitals (which also corresponds to the case of Paris and
London), the Italian case illustrates the conflicts and cooperation that can exist between
regions within the same country and therefore constitutes an alternative model, that can
be called an ‘inter-urban’ model, that grows within a national framework. Like New
York, Italy as a major contemporary fashion power asserted itself after World War II.
Milan emerged in the 1970s as the key Italian city in fashion, but it had to fight to gain
this position, which draws from a long Italian tradition of luxury and fashion excellence.
The Italian success did not come from nowhere, and as Steele (2003: 1) writes:

The development of a recognizable ‘Italian Look’ is generally thought to have taken

place in the late 1970s, spearheaded by designers such as Armani and Versace.
However the foundation for Italy’s success began much earlier.

Traditionally, fashion is an important industry in Italy and the reconstruction of the

textile industry in the second half of the twentieth century was an important point in
the reconstruction of the Italian economy after the war (White 2000), especially in
Veneto and Emilia-Romagna. The existence of artisans specializing in clothing, leather
goods and shoes as well as a significant and sustained demand for luxury goods from
the Italian elite contributed to the emergence of Italian brands still known today
(Breward 2003). Another factor in the success of Italian fashion after the war, as pointed
out by Steele (2003), was the distrust of US consumers vis-à-vis French fashion, seen as
being too ‘imperialistic’. Italian brands and styles, focused on wearability (Volonté
2012) and know-how (Segre Reinach 2006), offered a satisfactory alternative that
completed a rising taste for American fashion houses. Frédéric Godart 46