If we're sticking with the homes analogy, I'm not talking that granular and the logistics of it. I'm saying he's taking the dopest house in Jackson Hole with its big skylights to admire the stars, 8 wood burning fire places, full stables, and lots of exposed timber and stonework then dropping that house in the middle of Miami Beach, throwing up some local Cuban artwork, replacing the King Ranch out front with a Lambo and calling it good. Its still a dope house and you could make the argument that its disruptive and its visionary and you may have a point but you're still going to realize that you can't see any stars in the city, no one sells firewood in Miami, and you got full stables in the middle of the city.I understand, and maybe things are different in fashion but I’m not seeing why it should be vs other product disciplines. Let’s take your builder theory since I do have experience in that business:
You are a builder. You might care about the ‘art and design piece of it-a lot. And you also care about your family and maximizing your income stream and lowering your risk. So you need capital correct? So whether your funding these projects completely yourself (unlikely) or to minimize risk (something goes wrong, bye bye income stream, savings and maybe family LOL) you get loans and business partners. Who naturally would like their money back at the end of this venture.
So if you have one particular home design (and looking into it, the locations you described building a home, which would be a $17-$20 million dollar listing and a $12 million investment which I think isn’t applicable to a mass produced brand like LV, so let’s say a $1 million dollar listing which is more ‘common’) which has proved to be wildly successful and profitable.
So in this the space of higher end homes, depending on land/construction costs (production and showroom operating expenses in LV case for comparison) one might want a ‘sure thing’ from a design perspective-so if your $1 million dollar AZ home connected with buyers, you would be very well served from a business POV to repeat a lot of those architectural plans across different markets because it’s successful, and as a builder, you would have experience with those themes and subsequently can find/buy/build with those similar material finishes and get a consistent result. (Sale of item, which at the end of this process, is all you want when the bank/investors calls about the capital it loaned you to start these projects)
I agree that innovation is important, but these outcomes are pretty predictable due to a number of factors.
All I'm saying is that Virgil has had the fashion world at his fingertips for the better part of the last 5 or 7 years. Man can literally make Evian bottles sell out but at this point its just him making the same streetwear with the same themes and detailing at whatever price point the company thats paying him lives at.Again, its highly successful so I see why it keeps happening but for someone that had so many fresh ideas in the past, it all seems kind of stale at this point. I understand its hard to always come up with new ideas, I sure as hell can't, but you can't honestly tell me that if you took the LV logos off most of his recent stuff and changed it with an Off-White logo, that you wouldn't think you were just looking at some Off-White pieces from like 5 years ago.