The CFDA has had a rough few months, and somehow the organisation responsible for representing American fashion keeps finding new ways to make the situation more awkward.
For an organisation that hands out scholarships to young designers, supports American fashion and plays a major role in New York Fashion Week, the CFDA has a lot riding on its reputation. It is supposed to be one of the institutions setting the standard for the industry. Lately, though, its choices have raised a rather obvious question: who exactly is setting the standard here?
Photograph: (Getty Images)
The latest and most uncomfortable incident came during the COS show at New York Fashion Week. On 13 September, two PETA protesters interrupted the runway carrying signs objecting to COS’s use of wool. Security was present, but Steven Kolb, the CFDA’s president and CEO, stepped in himself. Video from the incident shows Kolb pulling a sign away, physically grabbing one protester and putting his hand over her mouth, while also covering the face of another protester.
This was hardly a heated exchange between two people at a party. This happened at an official New York Fashion Week show, under the gaze of an industry that spends an extraordinary amount of time talking about ethics, sustainability, accountability and the future of fashion. The person involved was also the head of the organisation overseeing the week. That distinction matters.
There is a reason security exists at fashion shows. A protester interrupting a runway is disruptive, yes. It can throw off a show, unsettle models and create a logistical headache for everyone involved. But that is precisely when trained security is supposed to step in. Having the head of the CFDA physically intervene, grab protesters and attempt to silence one of them creates an entirely different picture.
Photograph: (PETA)
Kolb has apologised and was subsequently placed on leave, as the council said in its statement. What does ‘leave’ actually mean? Is this a temporary measure? Is there a review? Is he expected to return? What does the CFDA think about what happened? These are fairly reasonable questions when the person at the centre of the controversy is the organisation’s president and CEO.
Another problematic development at the CFDA recently is its partnership with the Bezos Earth Fund, because the irony practically writes itself.
The CFDA partnered with the fund on the Next Thread Initiative, a $6.25 million programme aimed at supporting sustainable fashion, including funding for emerging designers. On paper, this sounds great. Fashion needs money for sustainability, young designers need funding and there is certainly no shortage of people in the industry who love talking about a greener future.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Bezos Earth Fund (@bezosearthfund)
The Bezos name, however, comes with its own baggage in fashion. Jeff Bezos’ growing presence in the industry has hardly been met with universal applause, and the Met Gala made that fairly clear. The reaction to his and Lauren Sánchez Bezos’ presence became one of those very public fashion conversations where the audience did the talking for the industry.
And now the CFDA has put the Bezos name next to sustainability. Sustainability cannot simply become another nice-looking partnership for the press release.
And perhaps the bigger problem is that the CFDA increasingly seems to be caught between the fashion industry it wants to represent and the messy realities of the industry itself. Fashion has become very good at packaging things. Except the audience is paying attention now.
Photograph: (Getty Images)
The CFDA cannot control how people react to its choices simply because it is an institution. It also cannot expect the fashion industry to scrutinise designers, celebrities and brands while giving the organisation behind the calendar a free pass.
That is especially relevant when the council is deciding who gets a platform. Alexander Wang’s return to the New York Fashion Week schedule was another reminder of the uncomfortable questions fashion institutions have to answer when commercial relevance, creative influence and accountability collide. Whatever one’s view on Wang’s return, the CFDA’s role in deciding who gets to return to the official fashion-week conversation deserves scrutiny too.
This is where I think the CFDA has a bigger problem than one bad incident.
Photograph: (PETA)
The organisation seems increasingly comfortable with the glamour of being fashion’s gatekeeper, while being less comfortable with the harder part of being a gatekeeper: accountability. Choosing designers, backing brands, accepting partnerships and controlling access to one of the world’s most important fashion weeks all come with consequences.
The Kolb incident is particularly disappointing because, at the end of the day, he has been part of the council’s leadership for the past 20 years! Perhaps it is time for the council to decide what kind of fashion institution it actually wants to be. One that attaches itself to every shiny new sustainability conversation, gives its stamp of approval to whoever fits the calendar and hopes that the controversies disappear after an apology? Or one that is willing to examine its own decision with the same seriousness it expects from everyone else?
