For large watch maisons, change is taboo. It is frightening, because it would run counter to the “heritage” and “tradition” found in every press kit they send out to copy/paste-inclined journalists. In my view, it is far more interesting to assert coherent, bold, contemporary aesthetic choices than to rest one’s legitimacy solely on reputation and your blast from the past.
Because if we want to have new icons – a must if this industry is to thrive and survive in the long run – watch brands must dare to be experimental when it comes to design.
But why are icons necessary? How can we get there? And why is it such a taboo to break away from one, as recently seen with the Nautilus?
We need new icons to attract more young collectors and watch lovers, to ensure longevity. We also need to have parallel universes of icons to cater to different tastes. While some want historical icons, many collectors are drawn to new, strong designs. This also gives them the opportunity to be the first generation to elevate a watch into an icon. Because an icon is created by the watch community, it is not something that can be decided by a brand.
Only a few brands today can truly claim to have created icons in recent years: the H. Moser & Cie. Streamliner; F.P.Journe’s Chronomètre à Résonance, whose subtly balanced dials convey a sense of mastered complexity; and the geometrically stacked, yet ultra-thin Octo Finissimo from Bvlgari, are some of the few that will remain in the history books as a turning point in contemporary watch design.
Why are we not seeing new icons from the large brands? To me it is because they don’t dare to evolve from their past. But if you want your brand to remain relevant 20 years from now, you must dare to be experimental – even if you already have a historical icon. Why is creating something new such a taboo for most brands? Is it because of the complexity and slow decision-making processes of the large groups they belong to? Or is it simply fear of change, framed by the relentless rhythm of quarterly releases demanded by publicly listed companies?
Interestingly, the experimentation is alive and kicking – also at the large brands – when it comes to technical solutions. But why do mainstream brands keep putting ground-breaking, patented inventions in cases with 50-60 years of history? Here I think brands – of any size and age – should take a long, good look at the new wave of “indie” watchmaking – which I would put in two categories: 1. highly accessible, affordable, and borderless, with strong designs that are beginning to challenge the established order; 2. ultra-high-end independent watchmakers producing genuine marvels of art. And they have two things in common: creativity and design.
This shows that the world is ready for new design icons – and we need the large houses to create them in volumes. Change, creativity and lust for design experimentation are no longer decorative elements. They are the engine of positive, sustainable change.
