Fashion often provides us with the opportunity to reflect on culture and our times. In my critical work, I have learned to use interpretation tools that come from different fields, combining the historical approach with sociology, anthropology and psychology, but also with philosophy and semiotics. Observing fashion in this way means getting out of the like/dislike theorem to develop deeper reasoning.

When we talk about heritage brands, we mean brands that base their identity on a long history and values consolidated over time. In Italy there are not many in the field of fashion, because our country has a very recent tradition in this sector. Very few brands were launched before the 1960s, and even the oldest ones achieved success during the boom years. However, many still exist today, and it is interesting to analyse how they have continued and continue to do so.

The first scenario is that of preservation, which usually occurs when the founders, or their heirs, are still active in the company. This is a fundamental presence in terms of consistency, which can sometimes slow down innovation. In Italy this attitude is quite common. In fashion and beyond, we tend to have a museum-like, preservative approach: when faced with a beautiful historic building, we might carry out minor restoration, but generally, we think it’s best not to touch it, leaving it as it is. The same thing happens in some companies, which, once they have identified icons, proceed without inventing new codes and languages, relying solely on their history. This history, in fact, remains locked away in a drawer, because we forget that memory is not something solid, it’s constantly changing. It is a vast territory, encompassing many different things, and it is necessary to understand these in order to decide what to use and what not to, what is interesting from a symbolic point of view and what is not.

Hence the second scenario, which is also the name of my talk: destruction. Let’s imagine the brand as a perfect marble sphere: if we start smashing it with a chisel, it will break into two, then in four, then in a thousand pieces. But it’s when the brand is shattered that we’re able to look inside ourselves, to take the individual pieces and re-imagine their meaning. Of course, the marble ball is no more, but we have many new extraordinary stones, to be used in many different ways. I believe that once you truly know a brand, you shouldn’t have mercy on it. Brands can, and perhaps should, be trampled on, although of course it remains essential to keep them connected to their history. Only in this way can heritage be used in an open, dynamic, and even disruptive way.

When I think of FOPE, for example, I see in the elastic mesh something that comes from the brand’s past that engages very well with the present. The fact that the necklace is so simple to wear is a feature that revolutionises the traditional imagination – I’m thinking of the classic couple in front of the boudoir mirror, him helping her fasten the necklace. Today she buys the necklace, or the bracelet or the ring, and puts them on herself. And maybe he does too, because men’s jewellery is just as interesting.

In conclusion, I think working with heritage brands requires a deep understanding of their history. Only by starting from there can their symbolic heritage be valued and given new meaning in the present day.