Identity crisis and creative transitions at Milan Fashion Week

The saying “the show must go on” originated in the 19th-century circus industry, but it could just as easily apply to fashion, where even the absence of what was once an integral part of any brand – its creative director – no longer seems to be a fatal disruption. At least in theory.

Design teams are often tasked with bridging the gap between creative directors, ensuring continuity. And yet, at Milan Fashion Week, many presentations were overshadowed not by the collections themselves, but by the lingering uncertainty surrounding key figures and the future of their respective houses.

Farewells and questionmarks

Autumn/winter 2025 was, for many brands, another season of transition. In recent years, creative directors have come and gone with increasing speed, but while speculation about departures and appointments is typically reserved for the weeks before or after a show, it is rare for a runway presentation itself to confirm a designer’s exit.

At Jil Sander, however, that is precisely what happened. Luke and Lucie Meier had barely stepped off the runway—having just presented a collection that marked a stark departure from their soft, feminine beginnings at the brand – when their long-rumored departure was all but confirmed. This season, black dominated, with fringed details on tops and dresses and tailoring that blended military precision with school-uniform undertones. Hours later, an official press release made it final. But for those in attendance, the moment of confirmation had already played out when Renzo Rosso, CEO of Jil Sander’s parent company OTB, greeted the duo with a large bouquet backstage that left little room for doubt. The only lingering question was why there seemed to be such a rush to move them out, and who was moving in.

Glenn Martens was spared a similar public send-off at Diesel, though speculation remains that this may have been his final show before shifting roles within OTB to take on the already confirmed and much more prestigious role of creative director of Maison Margiela. If autumn/winter 2025 does turn out to be his last collection for Diesel – a brand he has been widely credited with revitalizing over the past five years – it would serve as a fitting conclusion to his tenure. Martens did what he does best, mixing the high and low, wether that be in fabric, ‘working-class’ denim with Coco Chanel's favourite fabric, Tweed and Boucle, or in silhouettes, where high-waistbands mit low waist versions akin to Alexander McQueens infamous ‘bumster’ trousers.

Martens’s oeuvre was not the only potential swan song left unconfirmed. Rumors are swirling about a possible change of leadership at Versace – and not just on the creative side. Capri Holdings, the American parent company behind the brand, is reportedly looking to offload the Italian luxury house after its attempt to be acquired by Tapestry was blocked by the Federal Trade Commission last year.

Versace, the only luxury house within a a group otherwise best known for owning Michael Kors, has always stood apart in Capri’s portfolio. Yet speculation over a possible acquisition by the Prada Group raises its own questions. Beyond its clear luxury positioning, the fit is not immediately obvious. Whether the deal, said to be valued at approximately 1.5 billion euros, will materialize remains uncertain. But if it does, and if it coincides with Donatella Versace’s departure, autumn/winter 2025 would serve as an unworthy farewell for a designer who has navigated the brand through decades of triumph and tragedy.

The collection itself felt like a whirlwind tour through the house’s archives, a tribute that appeared largely dedicated to Gianni Versace, her late brother and the brand’s founder. His 1997 murder thrust Donatella into the role of creative director, and over the years, she has frequently drawn inspiration from his legacy. This time, however, the results felt less like a celebration and more like a chaotic collision of references – frenetic rather than provocative, sexy, or, above all, fun.

How to rewrite history without losing identity?

By now, the fashion industry should have learned that appointing a new creative director and executing a drastic 180-degree shift in direction is not always the solution to a brand’s struggles. If anything, Sabato De Sarno’s short-lived tenure at Gucci should serve as a cautionary tale for designers and brands alike as they embark on new creative visions.

There is no denying that De Sarno faced a thankless task from the outset. His mandate upon arrival was to strip away the beloved excess and maximalism that Alessandro Michele had infused into the brand, reorienting Gucci toward a more timeless and understated luxury aesthetic. The strategy may have appealed to Kering, Gucci’s parent company, on paper, but despite De Sarno’s efforts, the results never materialized.

In his absence, the autumn/winter 2025 collection was once again assembled by the in-house design team—the same group that had bridged the gap between Michele’s departure and De Sarno’s arrival just a few seasons prior. His influence still lingered in certain elements: boxy tweed tunics and ‘60s references echoed his final collection. Yet, traces of other eras in Gucci’s history were just as present.

And therein may lie the brand’s greatest challenge—a problem made all the more apparent in its show notes, which made no mention of De Sarno at all. Instead, the house referred to the “many owners and guardians” of Gucci, an acknowledgment of the numerous creative figures who have shaped its identity. Indeed, the brand has seen many such guardians, some of whom left such indelible marks that, for a time, they defined not only Gucci’s aesthetic but its entire legacy.

There is no denying that Tom Ford’s era, and more recently, Michele’s, have profoundly shaped the house’s history. But what does that leave Gucci with now, beyond the lingering ghosts of creative directors past—particularly when those directors championed vastly different visions for the brand? It is a question the next creative director, still unnamed, will have to answer—hopefully, with more success than De Sarno.

Skirting around the lack of a creative director is slightly easier when there is something else to celebrate, and so, Fendi artfully skirted around the fact that they have yet to announce a replacement for creative director Kim Jones with a heritage-heavy anniversary show to honour the italian luxury brands 100-year-milestone. The centenary turned out to be a full family affaire at Fendi, where Silvia Fendi returned to design the brands womenswear, a task she previously mastered alongside Karl Lagerfeld and braved on her own for several seasons before the brand appointed Jones in the role. For the co-ed anniversary show Fendi did not rely on archives only but rather relied on her own memories of the brand that introduced ready-to-wear in 1977.

The collection relied heavily on classically elegant faux “mink” coats, though wool overcoats were also present, styled with fuzzy baguettes, while shoulders were rounded and broadened across pleated leather and appliqué-laden tweed. Iconic bags like the Peekaboo and Spy Bag received fresh updates, including fuzzy textures and a celebrated reissue. For men, asymmetric tuxedo lapels, floor-length fur stoles, and vibrant contrasts of canary yellow, orange, lace, and beading redefined traditional Italian suiting with a playful, subversive twist, one that worked in the context of the brands history without solely relying on what already existed before.

The balance, between the old and the new, archive and innovation, is no doubt a hard one to strike, much like it was near impossible to focus on this season’s debuts, that nearly slipped by thanks to all the rumoured as well as confirmed comings and goings. Nevertheless debuts there were, for one, Lornzo Serafini presented his romantic, yet modern, vision for Alberta Ferretti after the brands namesake and founder had stepped down from her brand last season. He did so largely focussing on flouncy ruffled dresses and sequined bodices, features that, albeit much darker with a twinge of a gothic mood, could also be seen at Blumarine where David Koma moves the brand away from the pastel Y2K designs for his debut.

A steadfast presence

Prada, one of the few luxury houses to have resisted both the industry’s relentless cycle of creative reshuffles and the trend of extravagant anniversary celebrations, offered a reassuring presence in Milan. Yet its influence extended beyond its own runway. Echoes of Prada’s signature 1990s ugly-chic aesthetic surfaced elsewhere—at Gucci, for instance—but perhaps the brand’s enduring imprint on this season, and those prior, comes down to a simple truth: its formula works. The proof is in the numbers. While many luxury houses struggle to navigate fluctuating demand and shifting consumer preferences, Prada remains a steady force.

Yet the reason so many designers look to Prada for inspiration may not stem solely from a desire to mirror its commercial success. Unlike numerous other Milanese houses, Prada has maintained a clear identity and heritage, resisting the impulse to reinvent itself beyond recognition.

For decades, the house has engaged with themes of intellectualism, unconventional beauty, and the imposition of unattainable female ideals. But these ideas feel especially relevant today, in a cultural moment that increasingly prizes perfectionism, standardized beauty, and a return to traditional femininity. In response, creative directors Miuccia Prada and Raf Simons have crafted a sartorial counterpoint to the prevailing sociopolitical climate and its coinciding shift toward conservatism.

Thus, the Prada woman remained the antithesis of submissive and domestic. Sure, there were nods to Stepfordian tropes – floral day dresses, little black frocks, and pajama separates – but each was subtly distorted, reshaped into something deliberately off-kilter. Yet, the act of deconstruction posed a challenge. Even if the rumpled silhouettes and seemingly ill-fitting garments were intentional, the result often verged on outright unflattering.