The Twilight of the Verdict
The curtain falls, the lights come back on, and, without fail, a standing ovation sweeps through the audience. This ritual, once reserved for moments of absolute grace or major aesthetic breakthroughs, seems to have become the industry’s standard practice. In the tightly packed rows of fashion shows, dissent has vanished, replaced by a mechanical, almost Pavlovian approval. The conclusion is clear: fashion seems to have shifted into the era of systematic reward, a time when the mere fact of existing and producing is enough to merit accolades.
This culture of the “participation trophy”—a concept borrowed from children’s sports competitions, where every participant receives a medal to avoid frustration—has ultimately taken over the most exclusive spheres of design. We no longer evaluate the boldness or precision of a cut; we simply applaud the presence. In this context, a fundamental question arises: at what precise moment did the practice of fashion criticism become a relic of the past? Critical scrutiny, once the driving force behind high standards, seems to have dulled in favor of a superficial benevolence that, under the guise of support, ultimately lowers standards across the board.
The Mechanics of Soft Consensus
The shift has occurred quietly, through a slow erosion of the right to be dissatisfied. Today, expressing reservations about a collection is seen as a lapse in taste, or even an act of aggression. The industry has built an ecosystem where criticism is perceived as an unnecessary dissonance in a perfectly orchestrated marketing symphony. This transformation turns observers into communication relays. The role of the analyst—whose mission was to dissect the structure of a garment or the relevance of a creative concept—is giving way to that of the professional enthusiast.
This “medal for everyone” phenomenon does more than just smooth over social relations between designers and commentators. It profoundly alters the very meaning of success. If every presentation is described as masterful, then none truly is. The inflation of superlatives has ultimately devalued the currency of admiration. The “past” of sartorial criticism is not merely a matter of fashion; it is a symptom of a panic-stricken fear of conflict and rejection in a milieu that, paradoxically, was built on distinction and rupture.
The Erosion of the Aesthetic Hierarchy
The dawn of this era of “trophies for all” marks the end of hierarchy. If criticism is deemed outdated, it is because it requires making choices, establishing scales of value, and distinguishing between what is mediocre and what is exceptional. Yet the current paradigm prioritizes emotional inclusion over technical rigor. A piece is no longer judged for what it is—an arrangement of fabric, a reflection on the body—but for the sense of community it generates around it.
This widespread complacency creates a vacuum. Without the resistance provided by demanding criticism, the creative muscle atrophies. Creators, deprived of honest mirrors, navigate a flat landscape where applause no longer points the way forward. The risk, then, is that creativity will become diluted in a permanent comfort zone, where the absence of risk is rewarded with a success based on esteem that is guaranteed in advance. Criticism was not a hindrance; it was the fuel for excellence. Its disappearance gives way to a form of golden stagnation.
Politeness as the New Dogma
Why this shift in tone? The explanation may lie in the transformation of power structures. The fashion critic, once a free spirit capable of making or breaking careers with the stroke of a pen, has blended into an economy of visibility where goodwill is the only accepted currency. Being “critical” is now interpreted as a lack of loyalty, a jarring anachronism in a world that demands immediate adherence. Silence or praise have become the only two acceptable options, relegating nuanced analysis to the dustbin of cultural history.
This dogma of politeness transforms presentations into ceremonies of self-congratulation. The audience, aware of its role in the performance, plays along with a facade of admiration. We are witnessing a form of social theater where no one wants to be the one to point out a collection’s lack of substance. Fashion criticism has become a discipline in exile, driven out by an industry that prefers the comfort of a shared lie to the harshness of a constructive truth. The result is a landscape where everything is celebrated, but where nothing seems to matter anymore.
The Cost of Unanimity
In the long run, this era of participation could well backfire on the industry itself. Fashion, to remain a living art, needs friction. It needs voices that dare to say “no,” that question intentions, and that call out complacency. By making criticism seem outdated, the industry is depriving itself of its own warning system. Unanimity is never a sign of creative vitality, but rather of institutional stagnation. If everyone wins, it means there’s nothing at stake anymore.
A return to a form of sartorial lucidity therefore appears to be a necessity to break free from this cycle of empty celebrations. Restoring the prestige of high standards, accepting that disappointment is part of the creative process, and ceasing to hand out medals simply for adhering to a schedule: these are the challenges facing an industry that wishes to regain its momentum. For beyond the applause of complacency, it is the survival of a certain idea of fashion—demanding and unique—that is at stake on runways devoid of critical thought.