New Yorker article on Reed Krakoff not too long ago? The one in which his mother and wife kept correcting him?
The article was about how Krakoff had developed his own line of clothes and bags (see photo, right) as well as his Coach line.
At one point he said something like this (and I paraphrase from memory): he designs his Coach bags for a specific
customer, not one whose aesthetic he shares, but stated that his Reed Krakoff line is more a reflection of his own taste.
And the article does note what good taste Mr. Krakoff has. (Take a second look at the photo, now above.)
Certainly, designers design with a client in mind, but it is my (naive?) wish that they would design aspirational goods--not super-expensive pieces, but elegant, beautiful pieces that would respect and perhaps enhance the consumer's own taste.
For in the past decades, Coach has moved from a rather charmingly stodgy line of thick, train-case, horsy leathers to become the blinged-out love child of Juicy Couture and Roberto Cavalli.
Did Mr. Krakoff seem a tad embarassed of the recent bags he's designed? Perhaps not, as they have made money for the company, but perhaps he should, as they have made money for the company.
He clearly has the aesthetic vision to create something lovely, as a counterpart to gaudy; why not do so for his Coach customer?
In related Coach news, five classic bags have just been reissued. Available through Net-a Porter, as well as Coach, they are the grand dames, the foundations of the Coach legacy. I will be interested to see how they are received.
Will women buy these: