The following is excerpted from an unpublished conversation on fashion forum KanyeToThe, following the announcement of the first Vetements collection designed specifically for men.
I think it's easiest to split this into two perspectives: my point of view as a consumer of fashion, deciding whether or not I'd wear the brand, and my point of view as a critic, looking at the brand from an objective stance.
From a consumer's perspective, I don't like Vetements because I don't see any beauty or nuance in their wares. The design as a whole seems random and really is the definition of that lovely phrase we all use to death - "fashion victim." I don't really like anything they make, other than some of their deconstructed and reassembled garments, such as this panel hoodie or some of the more elegant displaced-pocket jeans. Both are quite feminine, though, and although most seem to have pushed past the fact that this was for a while an exclusively women's brand, I think it being a women's brand is an important signifier of its truly high fashion aspirations. A $1000 oversized hoodie means something very different in the women's section of Barneys than it does in the men's. And that's not sexism, just a recognition that women's fashion is objectively further along than men's and the tier that Vetements participates in, pricewise, is noticeably less gritty and streetwear-inclined than the corresponding men's bracket. When women spend that kind of money on fashion, chances are it's going to something more elegant than what the average "fashion-forward" male might buy - a pair of sneakers, perhaps, or some jeans. Maybe that's an oversimplification, but as a whole, oversized, uber-casual clothing sticks out more in elite womenswear than in men's. So Vetements, if you'll looking at it from womenswear perspective, seems more surprising, bold, and even perhaps conceptually interesting (more on that later).
But yes, I know, Vetements now has a men's collection as well. To me, it's much much much much worse than the womenswear ever was. It doesn't look like high fashion at all, really; it looks like cheap streetwear, poorly designed at that. Again solidifying my lack of interest in ever purchasing the clothes.
So then why is Vetements so popular, then, specifically with the male population? I will cite the "fashion victim" cause here, but let me go into more detail. The fact that Vetements started out as women's only is a large part of why it took off so well with men. It takes audacity for a man to wear women's clothes; I see people on less progressive online forums all the time losing interest in something as soon as they hear the intended gender. Even when it's something inherently androgynous, like a pair of jeans or a shirt, if it was designed with a woman in mind a lot of men will turn the other way and even begin to criticize. But high fashion today, the next big thing for the world's hungry, pop-culture-addicted youth population, is all about being a little bit risqué. If you could tell rappers in 2005 that the cool thing to do in ten years will be to wear heeled boots and skinny jeans they'd most certainly laugh at you. But being edgy is the new normal, and doing what the previous generation would gasp at is the true mission for all the wealthy kids out there with a bit too much spending money gobbling up "grails" online and flaunting them on forums and social media. Wearing women's clothing, the thing I just said most men shy away from at all costs, just adds to the draw of Vetements on today's youth. It's another step of edgy, and the fact that Vetements is women's yet men are wearing it might suggest that damn, this must really be some next level shit right?
(I don't mean to overstate the womenswear point, just felt like it needs some explaining. I think it's just one factor of why the brand has taken off)
That last sentence leads me into the other, and quite possibly biggest factor of their success, something I explained in a thread a little while ago:
More than anything, I think people just want to say they were a part of the next big thing in fashion. Right now there's a whole generation of kids taking a new interest in fashion who are learning about the legacies designers like Raf Simons have left behind, and looking at how coveted those garments are now, wishing they could've been there when archive parkas and patched hoodies were sitting in Barneys. But the problem is I don't think they totally know why such figures are iconic, or care to educate themselves of the history beyond just the name and the most expensive piece they can find on Grailed or in a music video - they just cling to the popularity, the "hype" (since we're all so fond of that word).
So Vetements comes along and, for a while, has just enough popularity that an explosion seems certain but it's still not yet mainstream. To clarify: Kanye [West] wore this brand quite some time ago, and for a short while only the really dedicated, troyd247¹ type fans knew about it (within the casual young "fashion kid" demographic). But more and more people latched on, because it seemed like something unique and recognizable. But not just that - it has a definite feel of self-importance. The graphics are very abstract and the silhouettes are strange enough that it can't be just an "aesthetic".
So basically this: it makes people feel like they're grabbing a hold of something revolutionary, something very high-brow. Surely those strange silhouettes must mean something! I think people want to be able to say to doubters: "well you just don't understand it" in the way they might with a Raf piece, but now they can feel like they're ahead of the curve as well.
Vetements collections are comprised of loud garments, bold "statement items" that to a relatively fashion-ignorant mind are easier to justify the price of than something more minimal. If you look at what kids are really attracted to on Grailed, it's the crazy stuff, the totally-out-there, virtually-unwearable 'pieces' that people really want. Raf parkas, Lang astro bikers, Rick Owens geobaskets, CCP drip sneakers, ozweegos, those Dior Homme metal derby shoes... Hell the only piece most young consumers could probably associate with Dolce & Gabbanna is the parachute bomber, which is a total outlier in terms of what that label actually signifies as a whole. Now there's nothing wrong with liking the wild stuff, just that the contemporary obsession with statement pieces very clearly shows the current demographic of men's fashion. People want the easy way out, and aren't thinking longterm, they want something COOL to wear NOW, even if that means wearing your $1,200 archive raf sweater or geobaskets with H&M jeans and a hanes tee because you couldn't afford, take the time, or commit to actually building a wardrobe first. These statement pieces are also often the easiest to flip when the next thing comes along. But if you dig into the collections most of these archive "grails" flock from, the collections themselves seem almost lackluster in comparison. Not everything is a loud jacket or extreme shoe silhouette, because that's not how fashionable people dress day to day. But kids aren't thinking day-to-day, they're buying to have something that they can post or flex, not to improve the way they actually dress. Up until a few years ago, one of the things Helmut Lang was most known for was his jeans, whose slim/straight cut was just impeccable, a true achievement of nuanced design. But nuance is hard to see if you're just getting into fashion, so this new demographic is flocking towards the items that are loud and can be appreciated (somewhat) without having to squint for details or actually use your head to think about the meaning of the item. Ironically, a lot of the most 'hyped' archive designers these days were originally accredited with being champions of intent, hosting thought-provoking collections with ingenuity that almost put the physicality second. But the average customer in fashion's now bloated fanbase can't be bothered with watching or scrolling through 40+ outfit collections or reading press releases or reviews when that time could be spent in the more easily digestible world of quick, one sentence postings and photo-laden links to listings of items with bright colors, crazy silhouettes, and high prices.
(I put 'pieces' in quotation marks because the influx of use of this word even further proves my point. Everything is a 'piece' now, something that people buy as the focal point of their outfit or wardrobe. Arguably the current trend in menswear is minimalism, but really it's just being minimal everywhere outside of the one item that sucked up your savings account, whether that be a sweater, destroyed jeans, or a pair of sneakers or boots, etc etc. This is especially apparent with Saint Laurent's current demographic, in which the dreaded "SLP aesthetic" has become, for the most part, spending a lot of money on boots and maybe skinny jeans then filling in the rest of your fit with whatever unobtrusive generic slim fitting shirt or even tee you can find. If you look at Hedi Slimane's runway collections, you'll see that is far from his true "aesthetic", which is quite maximalist, full of loud prints and scarves and bright, complex outerwear.)
So now the flipside. From my snobby (yes) educated (not actually) elitist (probably) perspective. I don't like Vetements because the brand, conceptually, (and sometimes quite literally) is not original. The Margiela resemblance is vast and unforgivable. Once you see it, it cannot be unseen. Being a huge Margiela fan (he very well may be the greatest fashion designer of all time, you're welcome to argue), I started looking into Vetements and becoming familiar with it, as I figured that I'd have to be in order to fairly bash it on a forum. Margiela is everywhere. First of all, no matter what Demna or your fellow KTT poster tells you, there is concept in Vetements. Just like with music, there is always something, however small, going on behind the physical (or in music's case, aural) existence of the collection. Vetements quite clearly shows certain motifs throughout its collections, themes of deconstructionism and being antifashion are undoubtedly there. I personally see a lot of Raf resemblance in Demna's work as well, although I think it's more visual resemblance than conceptual, which I think helps gravitate this new generation of wide-eyed fashion kids towards it.
I've mentioned before that I believe in divorcing designer personality and clientele from the clothing when discussing a brand, and I'll continue to do so here. But Demna Gvasalia certainly isn't doing the brand's likability any favors in my opinion. That said, I am curious to follow his work with Balenciaga, as that's an extremely serious position that I was shocked to hear him appointed to. It is that position that has, several times, made me take a second look back at Vetements and see if I'm simply missing something, but I have found no reason to like the brand to date and have only uncovered more distaste with its practices.
¹ Troyd247 was an Instagram and internet forum poster known for exactly replicating outfits worn by Kanye West and posting photos of them side-by-side next to the originals. His Instagram page later became a marketplace for selling popular celebrity-worn fashion garments.