Why the farewell to y/project matters.

What makes Y/Project’s closure such a loss for fashion?

‍Y/Project wasn’t just another fashion brand; it was a laboratory for experimentation and reinvention. Under Glenn Martens, the label pushed boundaries, blending avant-garde ideas with wearability in ways that felt both intellectual and approachable. It served as a reminder that fashion could still surprise us, offering a fresh alternative to the sameness that often dominates the industry. Losing Y/Project isn’t just losing a brand; it’s losing a voice that consistently challenged norms and inspired creativity.

Why do smaller, creative brands seem to struggle while legacy brands endure?

‍This is the heartbreaking paradox of the industry. Smaller brands like Y/Project, which represent innovation and fresh ideas, often face challenges in securing the financial and institutional support they need to thrive. Meanwhile, legacy brands—many of which rely on past glories—continue to dominate headlines and resources, even when their offerings feel uninspired. It’s as though the system prioritizes familiarity and scale over substance, leaving groundbreaking brands without a lifeline when times get tough.

Could this have been avoided? What’s the solution?

‍Absolutely. The industry is brimming with young talent who could have carried Y/Project’s experimental legacy forward. With the right leadership and investment, these talents could have sustained and evolved the brand. The real issue lies in the lack of mechanisms to preserve and support smaller labels—there’s an overreliance on profit-driven decisions rather than an acknowledgment of the priceless cultural value these brands bring. If the fashion industry doesn’t start championing its innovators, we risk a future dominated by sameness and losing the core of what makes fashion an art form.