The autonomy of eponymy

As a fashion publicist I grew tired of writing, "her eponymous label" or "his eponymous line" as more and more designers took to naming their brands after themselves. Indeed, at this year's Australian Fashion Week only six labels of the 40 holding individual shows are not related to the designer's name. It's not a new trend, (in fact eponymy dates back to the ancient Greeks, who would attribute rulers and politicians to their presiding era) and is certainly not confined to fashion. From Peter, Paul and Mary to Peter, Bjorn and John, musicians have long been self-titling, and if it's not the band name it's the album (Wilco's latest is called "Wilco the Album").

It's most dangerous in fashion though, where the designer is clearly saying this label is the embodiment of me. On the upside these 'owner-occupied' businesses allow creative freedom and a certain autonomy. But, whether they like it or not, designers become 24 hour brand ambassadors, and are often seen more as public identities than working designers. In most cases they self promote pretty well, (I've never seen anyone wear sass+bide as well as the girls do. Likewise Kirrily Johnston and Marnie Skillings), but it must put great pressure on the designers. It does get a tad boring though, especially when designers continue to reinvent themselves under the same eponymous label. For a more origninal, and slightly irreverent take, perhaps it should be Wayne Cooper 1, Wayne Cooper 2, and so on...