lol fashion's giving me an existential crisis 😅

An interview with fashion writer Max Berlinger, in which we discuss the state of menswear, the techno-demise of style, exciting menswear brands, and creative life.

Love this interview? Know someone else who’ll love it? Then…share it! 😘

After my chat with

Philip Sherburne

back in July, I got a very surprising email.

“DUDE!!” it said. “The call out here!!”

It was from fashion writer Max Berlinger, who I noted in the aforementioned chat as one of the many figures I turn to for qualified opinions and impeccable taste. These are my deities, in many ways, who I’m realizing are becoming more and more akin to cultural fairy godparents and godpeers, that invoking the names of people you admire can summon them to your inbox. This is also to say: I about shit my pants, not realizing that people are actually out there listening and reading these newsletters, least of all the people whom I admire.

This was immediately followed by seizing the opportunity, by adopting Shonda Rhimes’ “year of yes”-ology and rolling with invitations and messages from the universe: would he like to chat with me about fashion? Would he like to sit upon the tiny Trend Report™ mount and wax on about the state of style, the state of menswear, the state of the things that we are excited (and repulsed) by? Like Shonda before me, he too said yes.

What came to pass was a near two-hour phone conversation where we intended to focus on menswear but found ourselves in a cultural unraveling, a mapping out not just of what the world of fashion is like but what it means to be a creative in an over-capitalized world, what happens when aesthetic gestures overtake knowledge and experience, and why people like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg are adopting fashion as a shortcut for greater emotional and intellectual intelligence. What does it all mean? 

These are very strange times. Yes, for politics, yes, for the health of the planet — but also for everyone else, from working creatives all the way down to people who simply are trying to live their lives. Much of this has to do with the collapsing of information, be it from media illiteracy or there being too much stuff, which is enabled by finance and tech people filling the void with what they think they can profit from as they introduce another cheaper good and shoddy resource to maintain our collective sense of docility, of laziness. What we have lost is basic intelligence — or, as critic Nina Metz observed, we’ve lost “a collective frame of reference,” which disallows shared context and pop cultural literacy that enables in depth conversation — all the way up to more diverse, more development ideas of taste, or as designer Flo G. observed, quality that has been stunted as people “cannot discern their own condition,” that they don’t know who they are or how to move through the world without being told what to do, what to like, what to be.

It’s funny that this conversation was supposed to center fashion only to end up being about everything else surrounding fashion. It’s like Lynn Yaeger said, in quoting Sally Singer: if you’re interested in fashion, learn about everything but fashion. And that is what we did, exploring the contours of our cultural world and collective psychology, as we aired shared grievances in anticipation of a big change, a big collapse, a big reforming of the world that we’re in the moments before, the discomfort and uncalm before the storm. Are things looking good? Or bad? Yes and yes — and you’ll have to read on to learn why, while discovering brands we both love and advice for better understanding creatives today.

Grab some almonds and a lil drinkie because this is a long one.

KRF: To start, how would you define this moment in style? Why is it interesting? What's new and novel? I feel like there's a lot of difficulty — at least for me — in understanding what actually is new because so many things that are called “new” by publications aren’t. What do you think this current moment is?

MB: It’s tough right now. You can't deny that phones and images being so accessible has really shifted everything. What's interesting is the idea of visual movements and trends existing without any sort of connection to a subculture, that — and Miss Kamala Harris would probably be distraught to know — fashion actually does not really exist within the context of all that came before. Right now, it exists like it fell out of a coconut tree: people can cherry pick visual styles that suit them and not really care about a music scene that it first came from or a movie that it is being referenced. There's a lot of that. Cottagecore is an example, which people try to decipher for feminist undertones — but people just want to wear bows or frills because that's what Sandy Liang said. And you know what? It's not a good or a bad thing. It's just indicative of the time, where a lot of things are context all the time. To me, we're just living in this time where we're just bombarded with ideas and people sort of pick and choose. It's funny. I remember Cathy Horyn used to be like, “We have a specific role, of having to explain where things came from.” You don't need to do that now: everyone sees every show as soon as it comes out and everyone can sort of have their own opinion online. It's interesting, the role the critic plays nowadays versus 25 years ago, or even 15 years ago.

KRF: I do think we're still in this waiting game, let's say before people — especially young people — start to realize the value of critics because there's a bigger conversation right now around, say, the line between a creator and a journalist. That's an ongoing conversation. But, now, a lot of time, people are really conflating opinion with criticism. At least for people our age — for Millennials, who have lived through a lot of things, by being older — are able to contextualize things: unless you're really studied, when you’re young, you don't know any of the shit being referenced and it really is to your detriment, especially when it comes to aesthetics, fashion, art — any sort of creative item. You're in conversation with something without even knowing it! You can put something out, thinking it's unique and new, when you're unwittingly copying something — and you're going to look like an idiot. We're getting into a space where we're going to see that happen more and more. I can imagine an S.S. Daley type of cutesy boy fashion emerging and the designer saying, “This is brand new. I made it myself.” and a PR person having to scramble to be like, “No, they're in conversation with Emily Bode.” and it's like…how do you not know about this shit? I feel like that s going to happen more and more.

MB: Right? It's funny because people are so tuned in: there's always going to be the people who really do the deep dive into historical things. Marc Jacobs, for example. I think the reason why people love him is he’s so smart. He really knows the shit! When he does something, it feels so authentically referenced, in a way that's clever and learned and curious and really nuanced. I'm 41 and I am — for the first time in my life — seeing certain things from my own childhood that were important bubble up, affecting me in a personal way. I can be like, “I have this connection to this thing.” and then I get annoyed by younger people, taking claim to that thing and being like, “Yeah, you don't get it.” Does it matter? Can people appreciate a thing without context? Sure. I hope they look into it. It’s a very fair way to use fashion. Isn’t learning about something gatekeeping, in a way? So you can say, “You don’t know about those.”?

KRF: There's too much information and too much stuff in the world, both physically and mentally because of the internet. Remember in, say, literally 2020 when the whole bimbo aesthetic started, which was great — but now it’s evolved into this willing dilettantism, a cute performance that is now a point of view. Being young and dumb and naive is brilliant sometimes. But also? The other side of the coin is a Republican refusal to learn.

MB: The thing is, the more possible, different interpretations of things, the more interesting it is, the more people can say, “I'm attracted to a certain look because it's subversive.” Another person can miss out on that, saying “I like it, but I don't like it in that way.” There's just so much information out there. Anything can be interpreted in any way. There’s no monoculture.

KRF: Having no monoculture is beautiful in that there is a diversity, that there are so many different spheres existing. The maybe problem is that you then have a giant machine called Fashion™ and Hollywood™ and Publishing™ who are feeding us — but the system isn’t working anymore. All this to say: time doesn't exist online, and it's increasingly not existing in real life. That’s great — but we do exist in a context and time is moving forward. We can’t move backwards. It’s a fascinating collapsing. We’re still a few years out from this but it won’t be until Fashion Week dissolves that a true rethinking will emerge. You know what I mean? These old systems still exist because there's people with billions of dollars across all over the world who want to go into a Louis Vuitton and buy a shitty purse.

MB: I remember in May of 2020 when Dries Van Noten and all these big designers signed this open letter saying the fashion system was broken. They told us the current system needs to stop — but then eight months later, they're like, “Never mind! We're kidding! Can you guys get on a plane so we can show you our pre-fall collection?” Nobody in fashion is doing anything to stand against this. When thinking about this question about newness, creativity is being sidelined for marketing. Everyone does this but it’s more recognized now. It’s a global trend because we have finance guys and private equity guys making decisions for Netflix and making decisions for LVMH. Finance people, who have different priorities, are driving the conversation while maximizing profits. Before, sure, designers could eke out a little bit of profit and everyone’s happy because it's an artist making a little bit of cash. Now merchandisers are driving everything. “What worked last season? Let's do another version of that.”: that’s where we're at — and there’s no room to nurture small brands and younger designers. Now it’s: Are you going to get bought? Are you going to get sold? Are you going to get a job? Jonathan Anderson is probably the best version of that, being able to find an equilibrium that works for him. But these things happen all the time. How long can a Collina Strada or Puppets and Puppets go? Not everyone has to be a Ralph Lauren but it feels like…you’re an LVMH brand or a little art project for five years, until you get absorbed. I don’t know what the future of that looks like.

KRF: That's a very fair point. This all ladders into differences in taste, but I think about Eckhaus Latta and Auralee and Sunflower — these brands that are really cute, doing really good stuff, but where are they gonna go? The thing that's really holding them up are, let's say, people in their mid-thirties to mid-forties — maybe a little bit older, maybe a little bit younger — who have the disposable income to buy. Other than these people, you have to have really good taste to know about them, to discover very niche Japanese brands and where they come from. They're all great, but how sustainable are they when competing in an economy and world where, increasingly, it's all about data? Data is killing everything! It feels like the moment before everything collapses because it's not sustainable. Audiences don't want algorithmic fashion or movies or books and yet that’s what we’re getting. AI is just gonna expedite this crash.

MB: But there’s really only ever three or four designers or brands who are moving the needle forward at a time. Everything else is set. Jonathan Anderson does a terrific job. The dream, to me, if I was a designer, is to get into a little, middle tier brand. I would never want to do Chanel! I would never want to do Gucci. That seems horrible. Those are the fourth or fifth largest brands at one of the biggest conglomerates around. But — like Jonathan — it’s better to fuck around, make a couple million dollars for what was a middle tier brand, which they probably pat you on your head for and buy you an apartment in Paris. Everyone keeps talking about where he’ll go. If he’s smart, he wouldn’t go anywhere! He is given a certain amount of freedom. Alessandro Michele was firing on all cylinders — but it doesn’t matter. After 10 years, they're tired of you and they'll throw you out there. You might as well just do it at a place where you can kind of do what you want.

KRF: The funniest thing is that young people are like, “I want to be a creative director.” — but I don’t think they fully understand what that means. These are jobs. It’s not their brand. They're an employee of Gucci or wherever. That is cool — and a good job — but it’s a lot of work.

MB: You design much less too, instead overseeing teams and signing off on marketing campaigns. At a place like Louis Vuitton, Nicolas Ghesquière — I don’t think. — is sketching all the time. Maybe a little bit, but you’re really overseeing huge operations.

KRF: It’s 100% that. And, to the point of the public being very intelligent about the mechanics of businesses, there’s still such a simplicity in the public imagination of what such roles actually are. Like being an actor is more than “Oh I get to act.” Most of acting is sucking up to someone at a party and doing press. It’s not actually glamorous unless you’re already rich.

MB: I think about that all the time. I spend days and days of my week doing weird little things so that I can have a day where I can write. I have to do it all myself, from answering emails to doing interviews — all the dumb things you have to do in order to actually be able to do what you want.

KRF: It's funny because, somehow, fashion is so shielded from the mechanics. From all the waste the industry produces all the way up to how the system works, people still have stars in their eyes. They have a monopoly.

MB: Until we can dismantle the idea of the calendar there will always be a certain system in place. Fashion is the only industry in the world where you have to be creative on a very specific timeline, only to deliver a thing and the world is like, “Beautiful! You’re an artist — “

KRF: “ — now do it again — ”

MB: “ — and we're over this. We're done with it. Now create again.” It’s wild.

KRF: That’s capitalism! That’s what’s exciting and not exciting about the industry. To zoom in a little more, what about men’s fashion? If any space is exciting, I think it’s menswear — but I also entirely disagree with that. What are your thoughts within that umbrella? It does seem that, in ways, there is more and more conversation about what people like A$AP Rocky and Paul Mescal are wearing. It has become part of the step-and-repeat experience, which is creating a dialogue, enabling men worldwide to take more risks. What are your thoughts?

MB: I agree in the sense that streetwear really made it okay for straight men to embrace fashion. Only ten to fifteen years ago, fashion was no longer considered fey or feminine thing. It quickly moved from being “gay” to good taste being cool, to being a masculine trait. That goes hand in hand with our suddenly having a venue to show good taste. How do you do that? Fashion, and home decor, which is more recent. There’s more interest in it which means there’s more designers and influencers and coverage and podcasts and newsletters: more people are interested. That has lent itself to more energy in the industry. Emily Bode feels like a really good example. Aimé Leon Dore is a part of that, even if I roll my eyes at them. There’s a ton more for straight, cis men who are interested in fashion which begets more energy, more money in the system. As someone who's gay and not white,I talk to guys about it — and they seem really excited. I grew up reading Details and always thought this was interesting. I just don’t know.

KRF: You're exactly right. Fashion has turned a corner in that culture has really caught up — but also not. I can go to a club in LA — which is a really fashionable, forward-thinking city — and wear a head-to-toe Bode shorts suit and get turned away for wearing shorts. If a more machismo, straight, white guy did it, would he get turned away? I don’t know, for myriad reasons. To your point, fashion is becoming less about expression and turning into — What? — a more algorithmic expression? The example I want to use is the Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerbergs who are trying to be fashion boys because it has become a rich-in-spirit thing that builds culture, especially in the states. Style can make you money! You can become someone just from having really good taste, from Wisdom Kaye all the way up to Rashida Renée — you can become someone from being stylish online, creating whole entire universes of taste and culture. Law Roach is a great example! His star is rising and will continue to rise as a result. The more the machine of straight men embrace fashion, the more opportunities there may be. Even Derek Guy on Twitter roasting JD Vance: that’s changing the larger ecosystem of public figures in fashion. His Tweets about the right are getting under their skin because they don’t know how to undo it!

MB: There’s a difference between having good taste and being able to afford something. Rich people like Mark Zuckerberg, like Jeff Bezos: what do these people who have everything not have? They don’t necessarily have taste. That’s what people are playing with. “I’m not rich but I have this innate thing in me that is good.” as opposed to this external thing that I can buy. It’s not good enough to buy Gucci head to toe. You can look good wearing whatever, which is why Dickies and Carhartt — who are beyond traditional fashion and anti-fashion, dirty and thrifted — are successful. The other thing about Mark and Jeff is that they’re working on their bodies, which you can’t pay for either. They realize fashion is something anyone can buy, that anyone can have on Instagram, whereas you cannot really buy an amazing body.

KRF: Contrary to that one 50 year old who wants to be a 19 year old.

MB: Totally! The whole fitness thing has sprung from that idea that our bodies are the ultimate outfit. Rick Owens is a version of this —

KRF: Marc Jacobs as well!

MB: Karl Lagerfeld famously dropping 40 pounds to wear Dior Homme suits! The metrosexuals laid the seeds for this current iteration. It’s not new. There have always been straight guys into fashion, from Steve McQueen to Paul Newman. Streetwear moved things forward — then Hollywood. There’s no veil of artistry. It’s a commercial endeavor. The girls have been doing that for decades on the red carpet — and now the boys are too, with their watches and their perfume. I love it. As a gay man, it can be fun watching this from the outside looking in.

KRF: It all gets at this that, in a world where — fortunately or unfortunately — we don’t have religion or community or spiritual beliefs anymore, creation and taste is becoming that expression or filling that hole. The “fruits of the spirit” now aren’t a connection to a higher power now but is a crafting of taste and searching for relics. That’s fabulous and disgusting. Innately, gay men and queer people and people of color have because we have to live through different experiences involving community to get to the end result of taste. It’s in our culture. When we remove religion, what is the straight guy to do? Pop in taste and fashion. That becomes religion when you don’t have a culture that you belong to.

MB: It’s like what we were talking about at the beginning: if you don’t have a subculture with which fashion and life comes from, then the fashion is the culture itself. You’re smart to pick up on the community aspect because, everywhere you read, it’s about how churches and sports have been on the decline and that young people don’t have communities that bond them together. Before, you’d be a goth and watch goth movies and listen to goth music and dress in all black. Now you just dress like that and it doesn’t matter who you are. The fashion isn’t the byproduct of the subculture: the fashion is the subculture.

KRF: As a former very Catholic person, it feels like going through the motions at the stations of the cross without the context of prayers or scripture to give it meaning. You’re just walking around — and bowing at things but you don’t know what you’re bowing at. I feel like I’m going to have an existential crisis!

MB: It’s crazy. I was at my dad’s recently and I asked him, “Was it crazy in 1969 when everything was falling apart, when Kennedy was shot and someone landed on the moon?” He was like, “No. It’s so much crazier now. That did not feel like the world was gonna end.” There is a weird teetering toward collapse.

KRF: Well, that's reassuring in that we’re not actually crazy.

MB: I talk about this in therapy all the time, as I’m waiting for the end of something, for things to come undone, because things feel broken and I want the next option. I’ll just say that I had to go through Bloomingdale’s via a subway stop and…it was so depressing. There are just racks of clothes from so many brands — Some big! Like All Saints! — that don’t need to exist. Give me more Marni and more Uniqlo. There are so many things without personality that are so interchangeable. Who cares?

KRF: Talk about falling off. To look at the brighter side, what brands or figures or movements do you think actually represent an evolution? It feels like things are constantly and never evolving now in fashion. Who are you watching?

MB: On the bigger end, Jonathan Anderson. He’s giving us a masterclass on how to exist in the luxury, conglomerate space by doing weird things and conceptual ideas — and it’s working. They’re really legibly made. Even JW Anderson! It feels real and true to him. Talk about having a context! It all feels like memories of his life made in a specific way that is nostalgic and personal and yet I understand where they would live in a commercial context. I was really sad to hear about Online Ceramics because I really loved what they did —

KRF: Wait! Did they close?

MB: It’s going to exist but one of them is moving on.

KRF: Wow. The things I miss since leaving LA.

MB: Yeah, one is going into an art practice and the other is going to continue. What they do is just so not overthought, just drops when they drop and t-shirts and hoodies and cool jackets. It’s the same imagery that comes from them doing them, existing outside of the fashion system. They found the people who worked for them.

KRF: They inadvertently dropped a bomb in fashion that we’re still in the crater of, especially working with A24. It wasn’t novel as it was a lot of recycling of ideas from the 1970s and from film and graphic design — but now it’s everywhere, especially with the melancholic and ridiculous and surrealist messaging. That’s so folded into culture now.

MB: Again: they came from a subculture. They came from the Grateful Dead and, um, drugs. Because of that, people really responded. It feels so true and specific. In this age of wanting to be everything to everyone, the more you dig into your weird obsession, the more you find your right audience. Don’t think about scaling it though. Emily Bode is another one who is very interesting and very specific. Now, eight years later, we forget how revolutionary that was. She has really stayed true to that. Other people have caught up and now there’s sort of a backlash, which is expected, to say it’s not cool anymore because it was so cool. I don’t think she cares. She just wants to make grandma quilts and go to weird markets.

KRF: Her stuff and S.S. Daley and Tanner Fletcher, these young, cutesy brands — they’re not aspiring to be an LVMH anything because they’re salt of the earth and embrace vintage, shifting more into curation. Emily Bode and her husband are the pinnacle of what this looks like, which goes into sourcing shit and making it a lifestyle. That’s where things are going, especially with Emily Bode’s husband doing interiors. They are set for life!

MB: It comes from a curious brain, from pursuing things from outside of the algorithm. I feel really trapped by the algorithm! I sense that her vision was so different because she was existing outside of what people were wearing. She was looking at dirty blankets at garage sales in Kentucky. That was informing her thinking. We’ve so quickly metabolized that look and think that’s old — but it isn’t. It’s really beautiful and looks cool and you can go into that store and find that she made something where there are only six in the world. If you want it, you buy it now. 

KRF: And this extends to the vintage of it all, where Tanner Fletcher is going outside of fashion, sourcing vintage goods for the home, selling old paintings and plates. Yes, you can find these things yourself — but will you? If you have more means, you can buy a $900 vintage painting that probably cost them $50. It’s a very fancy reinvention of Etsy and I’d love more of that.

MB: Do you know Gardenheir? They moved upstates and make cute gardening clothes and clogs. It’s not revolutionary clothing-wise but, because they like to garden, they make very specific things and also sell a hundred year old pitchers. It’s all cute and lovely and, like Bode and Tanner Fletcher, maybe they make $3 to $5 million in revenue a year — and that’s fine. You can live a nice life and pay employees and keep an office. I’m not a business owner and it’s probably easy to say from the outside but, people say scale up, scale up, scale up —

KRF: When they don’t have to. 

MB: Right? It can be nice to have a website and specialty retailers and a life where you can afford to do it. Then, all of a sudden, it gets so big and so messy, which makes it deluded and then you have a million leases. Then you start making decisions on paying bills and not being creative.

KRF: And, looping it back to the start, by there being such a multiplicity of styles and ideas where everything clashes together, there is a world where these small brands thrive from a core 100 shoppers who are going to them every year and supporting them. That is entirely possible. That is the future everyone wants — if they stop and think, “Wait. I’m not going to buy 20 things in a half of a year from this one dumb fast fashion brand.” and, instead, buy one or two really nice things from these brands that you love. That would help everyone! But that takes really unplugging from the machine.

MB: That’s not the way the world is sold to you. The bigger picture is that you’re being sold flying on private jets — not that it’s beautiful to buy a little house and have a little apartment. Your saying that reminds me of Stóffa, which is made to measure. They opened a store in the spring and, while they may have a small ready to wear collection, the vast majority is tailored clothes. It’s so specific, so beyond trends.

KRF: Like Lauren Manoogian but for men. All light colors and knits.

MB: Ghaia Cashmere is another one, in LA, with a teeny, tiny store with pants and button downs that is Italian Riviera meets California. I don’t know everyone’s business plan but it seems like an Italian dude with a cappuccino maker and a few things in a store: keep it small and keep it personal. I’ve written about this but, in our world, everything is so big and mass produced. There’s something beautiful to walk in and meet the person who makes the clothes, who designs it, to know their story. 

KRF: Those things are happening and will continue to happen in cities. If we’re looking at larger models of culture — small businesses, creators, newsletters — these are all direct-to-the-source ways to support what they love, be it an entertainer or a restaurant. We’re way past the time, but are getting so, so close, to the moment where we support this local brand and local tailor and local shop within arm’s reach. Because of what culture at large vomits on people, we get lazy. Having to work so much, the last thing you want to do is take time to source what you wear. But in a city you can. I do that all the time. I’d go to the Rose Bowl and walk to stores and go to the tailor and make what I find my own. It’s not impossible to do that in smaller places. In fact, in smaller places these ideas thrive because it’s more affordable for everyone. It’s a mindset, one that my parents and siblings would never do. And, perhaps, it’s not for them.

MB: Both ways of living can exist. I do hope that capitalism…sometimes I wonder what the end goal is. What’s the point of living in a big city if you can’t afford it and it’s only Lululemon, only Starbucks, only Sweet Greens? At some point, they have to think about letting leases be okay for smaller places. What’s the point of living in a city otherwise? Then everyone leaves.

KRF: The thing that will break are the people upstairs. Look, hey — Covid? Very, very bad. But it made people wonder “Do I need an office?” It fucked with the system. More things like that will undo these systems. You don’t need the space, you don’t need the shit. Something is going to break.

MB: So many assumptions have been challenged these past few years and the fashion one bums me out. They signed that thing! I think about it all the time because people were so on board and then immediately, six months later, they started doing fashion weeks again. Fashion week is why brands go out of business! Tens of thousands — If not hundreds of thousands! — of dollars get spent on something that gets limited bang for their buck when they could spend their money doing so much more. There are too many shows at fashion week and everyone’s so scattered. You can really get lost as a brand.

KRF: You risk dropping Bill Skarsgård’s The Crow. For every banger runway show, there are so many flops. That’s business. That’s how it is. Who was it? The Row who recently stopped having shows and inviting press?

MB: It was Oscar de la Renta!

KRF: Right! It sounds so fucked up but…why do they need people like me to see their show? I’m not buying their stuff!

MB: Absolutely. It’s going back to when critics needed to explain what things may look like in six months after this or why these things matter within the system. Criticism will always exist and we will always need people to place things within an ecosystem: we’ll always need that. But a business should take a ruthless look at what is worth it to them. Is the Times coming to your show worth it? Or is an influencer who will hype up your brand? Or a customer who spends $150,000 a year? I think of when Cathy Horyn got banned from Armani in the early 2000s and she wrote about it, to say that there will come a day where brands either don’t invite critics or stop showing altogether. That’s on the critics to figure out, not the brands. They should do what makes sense for them. Just because things have worked one way doesn’t mean they should continue. We’ll figure it out! We’re watching this with Kamala. The media needs to do their job and she will do hers.

For more on Max, be sure to follow him on Twitter and Instagram.

---

Subscribe to The Fox Is Black and gift a paid subscription today.