meet Marcus Teo.. creative director Georg Jensen

Once upon a time Georg Jensen was known as the ultimate resource for modern contemporary sterling silver jewelry and home accessories. Into its second century of life, the company has decided to recapture the luster of what once was with the hiring of David Chu as CEO and now with the addition of Marcus Teo.  The globetrotting  Marcus Teo is the subject of today’s meet and greet and he has been extremely forthcoming via the series of question posed to him. He tells us of what we can expect from him in the future and some of his past and some of his private life.

First is the press release announcing his arrival to the fabled brand which is sort of a mission statement  and then we get to know him in deeper detail, the slideshow offers a small glimpse in to his past  and what makes him tick as a creative force in fashion.

Please meet Marcus Teo..

Marcus Teo Joining Georg Jenson
American Vogue contributing sittings editor and prior editor of W magazine’s men’s portfolio, Marcus Teo will collaborate with David Chu, Georg Jensen’s chief executive officer and chief creative officer, to launch a men’s jewellery and watch collection. He will take on the title of vice president and creative director. “I’ll be working on all aspects of creative,” Teo told press. He will continue in his freelance role at American Vogue, as “it keeps my interest and inspiration going,” he said. The Collaboration is not to only to introduce a men’s collection (not only jewelry but leather goods, accessories etc.) but to shine the spotlight on all Jewelry, Home, Silverware and the hallowed Holloware collection

. 

Q-What is your big picture plan for Georg Jensen? And who are you targeting as your customer?

The House of Georg Jensen is a House of Art & Design. It is not only a store for beautiful jewelry, or a purveyor of fine home décor or a gallery of collectible silver. It is all that as well as an active participant in the vital and vibrant world of Art and Design. Georg Jensen himself was an artist; a sculptor who was also a great silversmith. Back in 1904, before artists even thought of collaborations, Jensen invited his artist friends to design and he turned their work into masterpieces. It was the beginning of a fruitful practice. This became the Georg Jensen tradition, working with artists through every Design Period, from Art Nouveau to Art Deco, through the Danish golden age of design during the mid-century. All the way through the 70s, 80s and now. The tradition continues with some of the world’s best Design powerhouses. My big picture is to continue this tradition of collaboration – to shed light on the rich heritage and also to create a constant and current dialogue with the Art and Design world.

The Jensen customer has always been someone who appreciates art and craft, who values the beauty of design and creation. Our jewelry customer knows that they are investing in wearable art and our Home and Silver customers are welcoming art into their homes. My target is to extend our culture of value in art and design to the vast demographic that appreciates design. Through social media like Pinterest and various blogs, the design aficionados have grown in huge numbers. I want them to be participants in the Georg Jensen culture – as both customers and collaborators.

Q-Do you believe that Georg Jensen can be restored to its once reverential status among international luxury retailers? And why?

A little dusting can uncover huge treasure troves. Our archives hold some of the giants in Design and art. We have produced and created some of the most reverential pieces as well as the most modern objects of their time. Living in an age where the Design periods co-exist seamlessly, our vast trove of goods have become modern collector’s gold. My task is to reintroduce these vibrant items of jewelry and Home design goods as well as our Silver treasures. In addition, we continue the ongoing conversation as we collaborate with the design powerhouses of now. In this two prong approach, we speak to international luxury retailers with our desirable goods as well as create a modern dialogue with a new and growing luxury-appreciating audience.

Q- What was your most favorite assignment during your career and why?

There have been so many! One that had left a lasting impression was my very first shoot as the Fashion Director of W Magazine’s Men’s portfolio. Dennis Freedman had commissioned fine art photographer Rodney Smith to shoot for us. I was doing my first sitting – shooting at Parc de Sceaux a little south of Paris. The handsome clothes, the great models, the almost mathematical structure of the park – all came together with precision through Rodney’s lens. The moment when all the effort and work behind the scenes culminate on one perfect photo, that is the moment I pine for. When it happens as it did for the first time on this shoot, everything is as it should be.

Q- What are your current observations about fashion? men’s .. women’s??

I have always been interested in Fashion, but by way of Film School. My appreciation has been for the craft of making clothes and the effect it creates, like what costume does in movies and theatre. It creates characters. Fashion is interesting to me because men and women become characters when they put clothes on. I have been an accidental tourist in the rise of menswear because of W’s Men’s Portfolio. I was interested in fashion but I was more interested in creating a general interest book. Art, Design, Sport, the Lives of others – that’s what I am interested in. Currently in fashion, I applaud the drive that the young designers still have in making it. The world of fashion has made more friends and fans in the last 10 years. It used to be so far removed. But, it has also become ore competitive and big business. For every Nicholas Ghesquiere or Alexander Wang out there making it, there’s a lot more struggling to get their amazing collections out. I think I am a fan of the designers. I think it takes guts to put yourself in this arena. Obviously, there are good collections and bad ones. There always have been.

It is comforting to know that Zoran is out there somewhere not giving a hoot about how commercial he could have been but sticking to his instincts.

Q- Can you explain what a sittings editor does and as a stylist how much of the finished product are you responsible for?

I studied Film.  That is a highly collaborative field. It takes the sum of different parts to make the perfect image. In portraiture and fashion photography, one is always trying to achieve the perfect shot. This could be bringing out the personality in portraiture or creating the Decisive or Indecisive moment. A great sittings editor pulls together the different elements – the right clothes, the models, the subjects, the location, the time of day and collaborates closely with the Photographer – who is the Director and who is the Cinematographer? The roles vary with the Photographer. I always go in excited to collaborate, to work with a few to create the image. When it all falls in place, my job as a sittings editor is done. My role as a stylist uses Fashion and costume to elicit an emotion, to tell a story. Depending on the day and the photographer, I have been surprised and moved to tears. On other days, I have to take control of the situation and act as a director. The point is to stay collaborative. I am Always responsible for my finished product!

Q-Who are your style icons/idols/inspirations and why?

On a personal style level, Bryan Ferry and Michael Chow. Look at Bryan Ferry! Rock Star with sartorial tendencies. Never the pretty boy but always a chic Man. Michael Chow is an icon of Food, Art and Design. A quick study into his esthetic life will reveal the most sublime choices. And Never Boring. Always keep it interesting. A couple of years ago, I did a Mr. Chow inspired story for GQ. I had permission and was shooting in his restaurant. He was in the neigbourhood and decided to drop by. While my model was evocating Chow’s sharply-dressed persona, the real Mr. Chow showed up in black t-shirt, light linen shorts, black socks and black canvas sneakers – the antithesis of dressed up but startlingly perfect.

Q-What advice would you offer to those who are just starting their career in the fashion business?

Absorb Culture. Study Sociology. Devour History. Learn about Design. In fact, study anything but fashion. Unless you are planning to be a designer, then make sure you learn the craft.

Q- Where is your ideal home and why?

Everywhere I have lived seems to lead the way to the ideal home. From the Colonial home in Malaysia to the Corbusier shrine in London to my own undertakings in New York City. They all contain traces of the past and also elements of where they are. I am quite adaptable but I cannot wait to adapt to a house near water. The Ocean or a Lake is what I find rapturous.

Q-what is your most treasured possession in terms of wardrobe?

A pair of Helmut Lang jeans that was given to me by Helmut. It has gone through several Weights of me!

Q-if you could rewrite your own history, how would you alter it and why?

I wouldn’t. I have lived in 3 continents and have learnt so much. If I was wiser back then, I still would have been learning something during that time.

I suppose I would be a tad taller if I could rewrite something!

 www.marcusteo.com

THE FLUX OF FASHION .. 2013

Being that I am unable to sleep until pen gets to paper, I must begin this telling now, whether I want to or not.  During the past 2  months, I have written what seems to be innumerable reviews of everything from seasons that never really existed on the calendar to haute couture to the seemingly endless fashion train that began with men’s in January  and just ended with the Paris Collections this past week.

Having been a player in the game of fashion for more decades than I truly care to admit to and always having been an avid , if not voracious reader of all media  concerning the” business,” this season it struck me in a most blatant way that indeed the “game” had changed drastically on every level possible.  The “players” whom will account for the team of fashion; editors, reviewers, designers, conglomerate  giants that own large chunks, if not all,  of many design firms, and the re-emergence of many design “brands” who were revered in the annals of fashion history and have been so called re-imagined to supposedly fit into the so called current world of global fashion.

What is seemingly ignored is that the fashion business has emerged as one big incestuous family business which involves “intermarriage” of family members, wife swapping of sorts, auditions  for successful pairings and even genetically enhanced reproduction; of course all spoken about rather metaphorically but it is all there if one chooses to merely examine it rather than dissect it.

Having just finished Grace Coddington: A Memoir just prior to beginning this whirlwind of writing and visual overload, the words that constantly came back ringing in my head was “I liked it better when fashion came first!”  Well, indeed I did like it much better then as well.  This is not to say that fashion was never a business or to be taken seriously but given the degree of incestuous intermarriage involved today, the business of fashion MUST be taken far more seriously than ever before.  Today no matter where you show, we are involved in a global business that has never ever been as widely distributed nor taken as seriously as it is now.  My question is really very simple: “How much did we ”pay” for this to happen?”  For me the price has outweighed the end result and on a day to day basis, I am reminded that this is no longer the business of those who had fairy tales beginnings and meteoric rises to fame and fashion superstars.  Today is it very simply who has got the biggest wallet behind them, the biggest media machine working on their behalf and under what awning is your business …. Whether literally in the business of manufacture or media.

 I am no economist or business wizard or fashion prodigy but I am keenly aware that with our global expansion and with the incessant drive to be bigger and newer and trendier and most embraced by the public and media, we as a business have made a huge trade off in terms of our “quality of life.”  What once passed as greatness in times gone by is now looked upon as being not commercially acceptable and conversely.  It is difficult to extrapolate talent, meaning it is no easy task to ask what would have happened if Balenciaga started in the year 2000 and the same goes for Armani or Charles James, Anne Klein or  or even Claire McCardell … ponder it!  Conversely, would “designers” like Marc Jacobs, Alexander Wang, Jil Sander or Raf Simons be anything more than designers of uniforms if they had begun or even had a trajectory path 50 to 75 years ago… ponder it.

But I digress here and want to return to the incestuous way of life that now is the new modus operandi of how we know the fashion business in it current incarnation.  First let’s look at the designers themselves who are either hugely recognized and part of some huge ass conglomerate that winds up owning many of them either in total or becoming  a controlling force in that designer’s business.   For a little lesson, let’s talk LVMH who now either totally owns or retains controlling interests in Marc Jacobs, Louis Vuitton, Berluti, Dior, Maxime Simoens, Celine, Loewe, Fendi, Donna Karan, Givenchy, Kenzo and more.  On the competitive side there is PPR who owns Balenciaga, Gucci, Saint Laurent, Bottega Veneta, McQueen, Stella McCartney, Chris Kane and Brioni to name a few.  Then there are the mega independents such as Prada group, Dolce & Gabbana, Ralph Lauren, Ferragamo, Kors  and Valentino, to name a few,  who may be publicly held but still basically driven by the namesake designer.  I would have to say that this is a reasonable core portion of the players that make up the higher end of fashion and control immeasurable and at times endless amounts of advertising dollars.

For decades and decades, there were publications who were regarded as the absolute last word as to who was the”it” designer who had the “it” look and who was going to be fashion’s next sweetheart.  The fact is that those days were heady and quite thrilling to be part of as while not always as rational as they were supposed to be in their choices, the publications, critics, editors and reviewers were of a special breed.  They were considered to be voyeurs of sorts, clairvoyants, taste makers, the epitome of good taste and while you didn’t necessarily agree with them, each one had an opinion and a point of view.  Today the pervasive M.O. is me too and we can’t really not like the collection as what happens if we piss them off and they pull their advertising?  Today we get nonreviews where writers spend more verbiage on inspirations and venue than on collections.  The other possibility is getting reviews which speak to some high minded invisible ideal and has not one iota of relevance to what was seen on the runway.  In essence, there are no longer opinions, there are fawning, evasive, wildly imaginative creative writing exercises that in the big picture reflects the finances of fashion rather than the fashion itself.

On the more editorial side of things we have Conde Nast who now controls/owns Vogue, WWD, Details, GQ, Vanity Fair, Style.com and most recently a large stake in Farfetch which is an internet shopping portal.  Yes, they are a media power house and if you look at it in a certain light, a rather bright one at that, they control to great degree what fashion is looked upon favorably if at all as many of the so called reviews that have any gravitas are controlled by one HUGE mother ship.  Are you getting the picture?  Yes there is Hearst and newspapers and many niche magazines out there but Conde Nast owns the outlets that count and are most notable.

The next influence that they court is the next step after the reviews which  is  the editorial content that appears in the hardcopy magazines for each title.  Chances are, the most heavily featured are the largest advertising contributors or whomever the new flavor of the month might be despite their lack of financial clout or talent.  So now let’s look at what constitutes editorial exposure which used to be uber visuals that featured clothes that the reader might be able to see, might lust for or just ogle in amazement; think Veruschka and Vreeland, think Avedon and Hutton, Mellen and think mega movie star covers not Lady Gaga and Terry Richardson snap shots and models who look like they are barely past puberty and frozen in time, let alone that the photos are more for mood boards than for the readers of fashion magazines  to see the actual clothes.  yes, kiddies, once upon a time you could actually see the whole dress including shoes, and models looked like they might plausibly own the clothes rather than digging them out of mom’s closet and then there are the clothes themselves that spun dreams and inspired awe in the reader.  Today, there are times when you have no clue what you are looking at let alone any interest to find out what it is and chances are it is just some other thing from another of their top advertisers. At a time when information far outweighs its need, you would think that magazines would be much more concerned with the reality of selling clothes and not just pretty pictures of indeterminable origin.