Francois Nieuwendam: The Diary of a Trendsetter

Francois Nieuwendam has seen it all in the fashion world. From dresser to DJ, tailor to producer and general trendsetter, Frans has watched the industry's evolution over the last twenty years. Sitting down exclusively with Lookbooks, Francois spoke about the inception of Bryant Park's Fashion Week, the success of Lady Gaga, the difference between American fashion and everywhere else, and why a well-tailored suit will always be in style.

Can you tell me a little about your start in fashion, your interest in it and what keeps you passionate about it?

Basically, I finished college with a degree in English Literature. At that time, my career options were either publishing, advertising or academia. Since none of these paid a living wage, a friend suggested a “buyer training program” in retail. I had developed an interest in fashion in my late teens and had done some fashion events on my college campus, so it seemed like a good idea. After completing executive training at both Lord & Taylor and Bloomingdale’s in New York and Chicago, I returned to New York in 1994.

I had learned the business side and how to be a merchant, which is very important, but I was clamoring to do something more on the creative side of fashion. While working as a merchandiser for Armani, I caught up with some old friends who had just started their own fashion companies and around the time that New York Fashion Week had started in Bryant Park; so I began to help my colleagues at their shows. I started as a dresser backstage, then coordinator, show DJ and eventually producer/director. I was also doing some commercial and editorial styling. All of this was gradual and self-taught.

Tell me about the “evolution of fashion?”

Fashion has evolved from a business whose central axis was Europe, the U.S., and Japan to a now global enterprise. Advances in design, manufacturing, economies of scale and the internet have projected brand images through virtually all corners of the globe, excepting those few repressive societies where religious and societal taboos deny access to fashion,and it's sometimes controversial imagery, to the growing and very youthful populations of these regions. Until the recent financial meltdown, many emerging economies began to assume a larger stake in the fashion business. There are now Fashion Weeks in Brazil, India, Korea and even the West Indies.

Where do you think is the most fashionable place in the world?

I would say Italy overall, not just for fashion but cars, design, food and general lifestyle. In regard to fashion, I think Italy is stronger in menswear. I am still partial to Paris for women’s. London also has a strong fashion heritage. The vocabulary of menswear was invented there, as were the fashion philosophies of eccentrism and dandyism. Lately, they seem to be neglecting it in favor of trash culture; soccer wives, etc. But on the streets, the vibe is still there. Japan has always been a repository of the experimental and avant-garde but its heyday was back in the 80’s.

Do you think fashion is an arbitrary thing? Where do you see the most developments in fashion?

Fashion can no longer afford to be arbitrary. Too many ideas are diffusing up from the streets. Designers like Alexander Wang, for example, may see the way some girl in a club in Bushwick put herself together and be inspired by that. I see most of the innovation happening in fabric technology, manufacturing techniques and online marketing. Sadly, in terms of design, the whole fashion panorama seems banal and derivative to me at this moment in time. But the 80's are still clinging for dear life in Brooklyn and the L.E.S.

With the recent sequel to “Sex and the City,” came attention to vintage pieces. A large percentage of fashion in the film for each character was inspired by vintage. Do you see there being anything we are wearing now that will be relevant in two or three decades?

Right now, there is so little vintage out there that the heritage of a piece is measured in a matter of years and not in decades. So many current collections are based on a vintage aesthetic including the more cutting edge fashion that is really based on 80’s avant-garde, that in a few decades, the vintage buyer will be confused. But some of these items, such as any Marc Jacobs' Louis Vuitton bag, or Sprouse, Murakami or Lanvin gold trainers, stand a chance of becoming tomorrow’s vintage. Current must-have accessories are likelier candidates to survive. The appeal, overall, will always be for the classic, timeless and cerebral pieces.

What is the fascination, particularly in the U.S.A., with rugged and distressed clothes?

I think comfort is the first reason for this fascination. Americans insist upon a freedom of movement in their clothes. Second, is the worn out and lived in patina that makes the item truly “theirs,” manifested in our love of old clothes, dive bars and run-down places. There is also the sense of irreverence and rebellion in our culture that is also rendered a bit disingenuous by the fact that many people are buying clothing that has already been manufactured to look old and worn. It's like pre-chewed food. This type of fashion is another casualty of our increasing need for instantaneous gratification and results.

What is the difference between fashion and style?

Fashion is “of the moment.” It is a business that posits a premeditated look that is marketed to those who may be years away from a true sense of self. Fashion can provide you with many wonderful items but can never truly teach you how to wear them. Style, as regards wardrobe, is the manner in which you mix and match things, the high and the low, the expensive with the cheap and tawdry. It requires time and effort, a bit of living and self-actualization. It is the consistency of your life and how you comport yourself when no one is looking. Once you’ve arrived at that, those who truly know you recognize it. I like to look at sites like stylelikeu.com that feature a diverse cross section of people expounding on their personal style via video blogs.

When choosing clothes for yourself, what do you look for?

I have always gravitated towards well-made suits and tailored pieces. I am drawn to fabric and to color, in contrast to the all black wardrobe of my youth. [Frans shows a picture of himself in college in 83’. He is wearing a a dark double-breasted suit, white shirt, dark tie.] These days, I have a lot of my things custom-made, which I also do for many of my style consulting clientele.

Contrary to the dated opinion, they can be rendered a bit more sporty and casual through the proper use of accessories and furnishings something that Dries van Noten and Lanvin do superbly. A lot of guys compliment me on my attire and then follow-up by saying that they could never pull it off or are simply not “into fashion.” I like to remind them that men wear clothes victims wear outfits...

As for women’s fashion? I admit that after all these years I find it a beautiful yet elusive enigma. I am not well-versed. Most of my work in women’s has been in model casting, which I have a good eye for, and in producing runway shows. My attempts at styling women were pretty disastrous from the onset. I know when a particular look appeals to me, but those are generally women of style and not of fashion.

Are accessories appropriate for men?

They are appropriate within a certain context. The use of accessories and jewelry can vary according to factors such as culture and ethnicity. That’s why I hate the double-talk of men’s magazines that say jewelry or fragrance, etc. are hot or not from one season to the next. If GQ and Details don’t address your background and lifestyle, then their advice is moot. That being said, there are a lot of men out there wearing very bad jewelry, cheap cologne and too much of it. I personally dislike large diamond earrings worn with suits and ties. If you’re wearing something formal, at the ESPY awards for instance, take the “ice” off your ears, at least for the occasion.

What is the appeal of European fashion in the U.S.?

We are a very young country. In Europe, I lived in a house older than the United States. I think we don’t like to acknowledge it, but, to many, European fashion carries with it a certain cachet, a pedigree and myth of craftsmanship that for a considerable amount of money you can buy into. Ralph Lauren understands this and has created a global empire by recognizing the collective desire to transcend one’s class by buying into WASP or Anglophilic status.

America’s contribution to global fashion is immeasurable. Through the diffusion of clean American sportswear, we unshackled people from the oft times rigidity of clothing and taught them how to dress for leisure.

Buyers and editors from around the world descend upon Bryant Park (now Lincoln Center) to partake of our style. Iconic looks from the Rocker, the Cowboy, the Preppy or Hip-Hop continue to fuel many collections both here and abroad. European conglomerates have revived once moribund houses by hiring American creative directors such as Tom Ford, Marc Jacobs, Rick Owens, Thom Browne, etc. They bring with them a practical eye for the needs of the customer, designing the items that they truly covet, all the while looking out for the bottom line.

In regards to American fashion, I would like to see a more romantic, sensual and artistic relationship between our people and their clothing. We buy in bulk here, and we buy disposable. In Italy, one’s pieces are carefully thought out. They have to last you some years, sometimes, in the case of men, with the thought of handing them down. Although lately, the young in every country are buying disposable fashion en masse.

More support for aspiring designers would also be a great thing. In France and Italy, for example, fashion is important for the country’s cultural identity as well as a major export. It is thus vigorously supported through public grants, financial assistance and so forth. It is difficult to be a designer in New York. I’ve seen small labels come and go over the past 15 years. It’s little wonder that so many young designers prefer the more “risk averse” business model of the t-shirt line.

What are some of your creative outlets, and how do you find the time to do things you love?

Well, I have also worked a number of years in the nightlife industry (doorman, host, GM, etc.). It's great in that I work 3 or 4 days per week and it affords me plenty of time to pursue my fashion and other interests. Working in the better venues also let's me meet some interesting people. I unwind and get creative by cooking frequently. I also like to teach myself new subjects. Right now, I'm putting myself through a self-study course in religious mysticism (though I'm Agnostic). I think that for fashion and other creative types, a good education in the humanities can be an important fount of ideas for one's work.

What are the challenges to directing and producing fashion shows?

Logistically, working with designers, stylists, DJ's, publicists and models on a runway show is an exercise in balance. The disparate personalities, opinions and conflicts have to be sublimated in order to make the show or presentation happen.

As a director, I have to be boss, diplomat and confidant. The first show I ever did at Bryant Park involved a shouting match with the stylist that almost came to blows. Such is the nature of working with the creative and the volatile.

Why are all runway shows the same in the U.S.?

I have been asking myself the same question for years now. The oft repeated mantra in New York regarding shows is that “it's all about the clothes.” It's about the clothes overseas as well, but their shows still manage to be entertaining. That's why I have to call “bullshit” on the American editors and buyers. If they were scalping tickets to a Galliano or Chalayan show, these same people would be the first to line up. In the case of the designers, many here are loathe to admit that they simply don't have the budget. It's understandable! It's expensive to put on a show in New York. Nevertheless, we have enough originality and cultural references on this side of the pond to give our clients a more interesting sense of context for these collections. I mean, do you want to wait 45 minutes to see models walk down a white runway to Top 40?

There is obviously an intense fascination with celebrity in the world, and part of that obsession is fashion. What do you see in Hollywood? And in speaking of Top 40, what do you think of icon-of-the-moment, Lady Gaga?

In Hollywood there is a dichotomy between an overly safe, understated attempt at glamour and then a visually arresting spectacle of garish, trashy out-fits that are guaranteed to get press mention. The former can, in no way, replicate the glamour of Old Hollywood. Remember, that the men who founded our film industry were tailors and garmentos from the East Coast. They lent an aesthetic to film and celebrity image that was shaped by their laborious past in New York's Seventh Avenue. They created the “studio system” by which every aspect of talent, including image was managed. With the demise of the studio system, and the arrival of the “counter-culture,” actors were given more freedom, sometimes regrettably, to pick their artistic vehicles and to shape their own image. There are cadres of celebrity stylists that have done a decent job of reigning in the excess but while there are some “hits” there are still plenty of “misses."

As regards the later, worst red carpet moments such as Bjork's infamous swan dress and Lara Flynn Boyle's tutu do provide an entertaining counterbalance to the new sobriety.

It's a shame that the fashion and entertainment media choose to show us images of celebrities in beautiful and tasteful clothes that many of them would not actually wear and perhaps not even like. Then they are invariably caught in regular moments sans the embellishing hand of their stylists; a disheveled realness that at times can be quite shocking and almost vagrant. In their defense, we all have our casual days, running errands and so forth, but you can't fake style on a magazine cover and then get caught by the paparazzi in such a state unless you're “in character” for an upcoming film.

As for Lady Gaga, people are quite partisan about her; either love or loathe. To me, she is a series of fashion moments; Ziggy Stardust, Freddy Mercury, Steve Strange (Visage), etc. Through the House of Gaga, her “people” develop ideas and give her access to fashion items that for the rest of us come close to a house note. Is her work and image collaborative in the manner of David Bowie's with designers Kansai Yamamoto and Tommy Nutter? Is it like Grace Jones with Jean Paul Goude and Gaultier? That remains to be seen.

Bottom line is that Top 40 music is the coin of the realm. Gaga moves a lot of music through a body of catchy commercial pop packaged in an artful edginess. Like her or hate her, but you can't avoid talking about her. Me, I have never liked cheesy and commercial pop music but, most of the world does and will continue to do so, therefore, I'm in the irrelevant minority.

Do you think that when designers pair with the H&M's or the Gaps of the world, they are diluting their brand?

Not at all. It's a democratization of the brand. They're cultivating a relationship with a younger clientele who will eventually buy the luxury items that their growing income will later afford them. Looking back at these recent collaborations, many of these pieces quickly become collectors items, worth many times their modest purchase price. Some of the established luxury customers become miffed at these arrangements, but it is usually the more status oriented luxury customer. For me, the value of a piece is not in price, but in it's aesthetic attraction. Luxury for status is a tired anachronism, out of place with the way people shop today.

What do you think fashion houses do when they lose their figureheads? Is it an opportunity for new designers to flourish?

It can be a great opportunity if the house is strong and is seared into the collective memory of its customers. Other houses should be left to die in dignity. Many global fashion conglomerates buy a “name” thinking it's an easy shortcut to heritage. But why buy a fashion house only to leave its archives, moldering and gathering dust in some warehouse while your new creative director designs a collection that in no way resembles the vision of its founder. You must create new things that speak to the present, but you must, out of respect, keep the DNA intact.

Your children are not clones of yourself but their resemblance to you is still unmistakable. So it should be with the continuation of an old house. For example, Alexander McQueen (RIP) was not a good fit for the house of Givenchy. His dark, goth glamour did not mesh with their vision of glamour. It was not the Givenchy of Audrey Hepburn. His quick departure from the house and from LVMH made perfect sense. The establishment of his own house was the only logical course from the beginning.

Sadly, with his demise, the fate of his own house now comes into question. There was some speculation, but I cannot imagine how Sarah Burton will now helm the House of McQueen. His collections and shows were very autobiographical. They were a seasonal exorcism of his personal demons, rendered in cloth, light and music. As there was never a complete purge of his psyche, he lost the struggle to stay among us. I was and continue to be huge fan of Lee McQueen. The moody, old goth in me truly loved him.