APRIL EDITORIAL

There is a thin, yet increasingly visible thread linking high fashion to daily consumption. Lately, two news items have piqued my interest due to the heated debate they generated: on one hand, John Galliano’s collaboration with Zara; on the other, the consistent success of Massimo Piombo at OVS. Two significant names, two different paths, but one common point: the choice to cross—or perhaps tear down—the boundary between luxury and accessibility.

For decades, fashion built its myth on distance: exclusivity, ever-increasing prices, and limited distribution. In this way, desire was born from impossibility. Today, however, the paradigm seems to be flipping. When a designer like Galliano, a symbol of theatricality and experimentation (decidedly suited for the few), enters the Zara universe, he brings a complex aesthetic into a rapid, global industrial system. The result is a democratization of imagery: garments inspired by haute couture suddenly become available to a vast audience.

But this operation is not without its ambiguities. I wonder: is it truly democratization, or rather a simplification of creative language? The risk is that the genius of this irreverent and hyper-innovative designer becomes diluted to fit the rhythms and logic of fast fashion. So, sure, now I can buy it at Zara for an easy price, but in reality, I am purchasing a garment that no longer possesses the identity or the couture craftsmanship of the true Galliano.

The Spanish giant’s interest in promoting a polished and virtuous image is clear, but hiring a fashion genius for a gold’s weight is not enough to earn a sustainability certificate.

Different yet equally significant is the case of Massimo Piombo. His work with OVS is not an episodic collaboration but a well-structured, consistent project. After being a luxury brand for many years, Piombo eventually decided to collaborate with OVS, entering into a partnership with the company and, for eight years now, creating affordable yet quality collections suitable for the stores of this chain, which is expanding more and more abroad. Piombo does not “step down” into accessible fashion; he rethinks it from within, maintaining a strong identity—especially an attention to fabrics—while respecting price and production constraints (though all manufacturing obviously comes from Bangladesh and India…). In this way, however, democratization is not a shock, as it is with Galliano for Zara, but a viable process.

It is precisely in this difference that the meaning of the phenomenon lies. Galliano represents the intrusion of luxury into daily life, whereas Piombo represents the construction of a more refined daily life. Two opposite strategies, both children of an era in which fashion’s boundaries are becoming more blurred, perhaps due to the excessive gap between luxury brands and fast fashion.

So, what does democratic fashion mean? It is not just a matter of price; it is, rather, a cultural shift: the idea that design, quality, and even a certain aesthetic vision should not be the privilege of the few. At the same time, however, this openness imposes new responsibilities, such as sustainability, transparency, and respect for labor.

These are all goals that we at Crida—positioned right in the middle between extreme luxury and fast fashion—have always kept at the forefront of our work, which is built on true “Made in Italy” values, craftsmanship, and natural fabrics.

We believe that today’s real challenge is not just making fashion accessible, but doing so without emptying it of meaning.

The experiences of Galliano and Piombo move within this fragile balance. And perhaps it is precisely here, in this tension between the elite and the masses, that the future of the fashion system will be decided.

Cristina and Daniela