Eh. Allow me to play devil's advocate, for funsies. Yes, as the blog post states, Virgil Abloh "stole" (or "steals"). But he did not steal, he "stole" ("steals"). That is, his entire modus operandi was appropriating and "elevating" the work of others. This was expected of him. If his inspiration was not obvious, then it was time to start looking for whoever he did "steal" from.
Some (not 100%) of this was from lesser-known designers; thanks to his reputation, I'm now aware of several of them. I recognize the ambivalence I personally would feel if someone famous "stole" my art, reposted it, and my original post was subsequently found and exploded in engagement, but never to the level of the post of the person who "stole" it (a hypothetical analogous to the subject at hand). By extension, I recognize that this isn't a perfectly clean practice.
If you read the blog, some of his work was explicit collaborations, though. Evidently, some people saw value in his "theft" and were happy to leave the doors unlocked.
And then there is, of course, the "macro-level" elephant in the room: the fact that he was a black man in a role mostly occupied by white people, in an industry with hundreds of years of history of the same kind of "theft" that he engaged in - often not of young creatives in stable and affluent Western democracies, but poor artisans in communities whose entire historical trajectory could have been changed with the proper attribution and remuneration for their work.
For better or worse, Virgil Abloh's career exists in and is recognized within that context, and his "theft" is tolerated because of the way criticism of it would seem to impugn the industry at-large, and perhaps force changes within it that would be rather uncomfortable for all involved. Much easier to just celebrate him as a visionary. Are they being true to the realities or just lying big? shrug Either way, don't hate the player...
(The important thing is that GGP is technically wrong :).)
(I expect disagreement, please just do it thoughtfully, based on what I actually wrote.)
The main reason Abloh could work this way was because his buddy Kanye West was famous and this gave the work huge exposure and crucially exposure to a newer audience. That's why fashion companies liked it, it was a new market.
Otherwise this "elevation" of other past work is extremely common practice in arts. Every other art student does recontextualisation even brands do lots of self-referential work. That is why much of the fashion world never cared much about Abloh. It was just not very novel or interesting to them.
About him being black. I think fashion industry is one of the most diverse and black lgbtq+ friendly industries there is but it's extremely elitist. So I doubt anyone cared that he was black. More likely they were annoyed about him being outsider with no formal education who exploded on the scene mostly thanks to his connections and popularity. While the work was always kinda mid.
The modern fashion industry as we know it has always had black workers and designers, but it was essentially unheard of for a black man to be named the artistic director of a major legacy fashion house. Particularly for businesses that touch the luxury space, much of the last few centuries have involved taking as much as can be taken from non-white, non-male artists and artisans without being forced to give credit or, god forbid, a leadership role. Abloh's ascension to just such a leadership role at Louis Vuitton was objectively a watershed moment.
As you say, "elevation" and appropriation are extremely common practices in fashion in particular, so the (passive-aggressive) ire he inspires in some circles would have to be based on something other than the way he worked. I don't think it was his professional background, either, considering that he had an advanced creative degree (in architecture) and several years of experience building brands independently and interning under established businesses.
Certainly, "elitism" gets closest to describing the true source, but I'll note that there is no fundamental disagreement or mutual exclusivity between that and "racism"; in fact, they often come paired. The latter, as we know, often distorts perception, leading to things like incorrect reads of Abloh's career and work as "not sophisticated," or "not influential," or "not novel or interesting," or as "kinda mid."
Some (not 100%) of this was from lesser-known designers; thanks to his reputation, I'm now aware of several of them. I recognize the ambivalence I personally would feel if someone famous "stole" my art, reposted it, and my original post was subsequently found and exploded in engagement, but never to the level of the post of the person who "stole" it (a hypothetical analogous to the subject at hand). By extension, I recognize that this isn't a perfectly clean practice.
If you read the blog, some of his work was explicit collaborations, though. Evidently, some people saw value in his "theft" and were happy to leave the doors unlocked.
And then there is, of course, the "macro-level" elephant in the room: the fact that he was a black man in a role mostly occupied by white people, in an industry with hundreds of years of history of the same kind of "theft" that he engaged in - often not of young creatives in stable and affluent Western democracies, but poor artisans in communities whose entire historical trajectory could have been changed with the proper attribution and remuneration for their work.
For better or worse, Virgil Abloh's career exists in and is recognized within that context, and his "theft" is tolerated because of the way criticism of it would seem to impugn the industry at-large, and perhaps force changes within it that would be rather uncomfortable for all involved. Much easier to just celebrate him as a visionary. Are they being true to the realities or just lying big? shrug Either way, don't hate the player...
(The important thing is that GGP is technically wrong :).)
(I expect disagreement, please just do it thoughtfully, based on what I actually wrote.)