The first thing to register about this show is what wasn't said. Neither Stefano Gabbana nor Domenico Dolce commented on the all-white casting that generated headlines after their January menswear show. What they offered instead was a casting adjustment — more than a third of the womenswear looks were modelled by women of colour — and a statement about identity. 'Our collections speak to us, our identity, our values,' they said after the show. 'We never wanted to follow trends.' The framing is deliberate: 'identity' is the word that absorbs all criticism without conceding any of it. The show itself was almost entirely black — the achromatics of the headline — punctuated by a red shoe, a scarlet lip, and a pretty green doctor's bag. The Sicilian widow and the mistress were both present, as they have been since Dolce & Gabbana founded the brand in 1985. The new addition was a gen Z hipster in baggy ripped-denim jeans and a satin bra-top — a demographic acknowledgment delivered with the brand's characteristic lack of subtlety. Crucifix earrings and Cinema Paradiso-style baker-boy hats were among the accessories. The fur was fake, which in Milan — unlike London and New York, which have both banned animal fur on the catwalk — is still a voluntary choice rather than a required one. The underwear-as-outerwear story is where the show found its sharpest expression. Dolce & Gabbana have been doing this since the early 1990s; it is one of their most consistent signatures. Saturday's version focused on the knicker: almost half the models had theirs on display under sheer lace dresses, and one model wore a white shirt tucked into bloomers. The now-routine creative language of 'liberating' the garment aside, what's actually happening here is brand vocabulary reinforcement — the same vocabulary that has been running for thirty-plus years, refreshed with a contemporary silhouette. The controversy record is long and specific. In 2012, models wore earrings reminiscent of blackamoor artworks, prompting accusations of romanticising slavery. In 2015, the brand listed 'slave sandals with pompoms' on its website before renaming them 'decorative flat sandals.' The designers called IVF babies 'synthetic' and said they did not support gay parents' right to adopt. Their 2018 China campaign — depicting a Chinese model struggling to eat Italian food with chopsticks — backfired severely, with the brand being pulled from most Chinese-owned sites, allegedly costing it a third of its business. The brand rarely engages with the criticism. This is not oversight; it is a consistent policy. The consistent policy produces consistent results. Despite — or alongside, or possibly because of — the controversies, Dolce & Gabbana generates almost €2bn (£1.8bn) in annual revenues and remains the most-worn menswear brand on the red carpet. The front row on Saturday was its own editorial statement: Lauren Sánchez, who wore Dolce & Gabbana at her wedding to Jeff Bezos, was absent. Melania Trump, who chose the brand for both of her official White House portraits, was also not there. Madonna arrived half an hour late in teal gloves, sat down next to Anna Wintour, and her music played overhead. The symbolism is almost too neat: the brand's most enduring cultural ally, arriving late, unbothered. The question the show raises is not whether Dolce & Gabbana's identity is coherent — it clearly is — but whether coherence and commercial success are sufficient answers to the criticism the brand accumulates. The Italian archetypes on which they founded the brand in 1985 have not substantially evolved. The macho Italian beefcake for men, the Sicilian widow and mistress for women, now supplemented by the gen Z hipster, remain the cast of characters. At €2bn in annual revenue and counting, the market's answer appears to be yes. Whether that answer holds as the client base ages and a younger generation inherits the luxury market is the question the brand's casting adjustment gestures toward, without quite committing to.
