Renaud Dutreil, Chairman of LVMH in North America, started the evening off by simply saying that “most of the 60 LVMH brands were born from the labor and love of artisans…It’s a subject close to Bernard Arnault’s heart – and to my heart.” (Arnault, of course, is the company’s chairman and CEO.)

The goal of this initiative between LVMH and Parsons The New School for Design was “to promote the oftentimes overlooked work of the skilled craftsperson and to ensure that their unique knowledge is understood and carried forth by a new generation.”

Students from Parsons had six weeks to interview local New York-area artisans and do their research before translating that experience into design work of their own; some of them were featured in a short documentary film produced by @radical.media, which had some noteworthy sound bites.

Unlike in the old days when people in small towns had a proximity and ready access and exposure to craftsmen, metalwork artisan Jean Wiart commented in the film that today “we are extremely remote from the production aspect – what we wear, what we use.” One student noted that “the genesis of luxury is craft.” Renaud Dutreil added that “the school of artisanry is really a school of respect. We have to respect artisans.”

Moderator Kurt Andersen, host of the public radio program Studio 360, accurately portrayed artisanry as “a religious calling.” And he characterized artisans as individuals who are “doing something with that sense of passion…you would do it whether you were being paid or not.” The flip side, he observed, is that “nowadays, everything is artisanal – the butcher is artisanal….it’s the adjective du jour.”

Andersen added that “there’s a great overlap between luxury and artisanry… but they aren’t the same things.” Panelist Ulrich Wohn, president and CEO of Tag Heuer North America maintained the “you can never sell luxury…it’s really in the eye of the beholder.”

Andersen asked if “the fraught relationship between art and craft” is changing. Panelist Holly Hotchner, director of the Museum of Arts and Design in New York City, was of the opinion that it had changed, but “there was a reticence on the part of young artists to look at tradition.” Indeed the decorative arts were not valued by people for many years, and Hotchner bemoaned the fact that unlike Europe, “America is extraordinarily behind” in giving economic support to artisans, craftsmen and artists.

Panelist Simon Collins, the dean of the School of  Fashion at Parsons, asserted that even though his graduates would be using computers to design, “we don’t train computer technicians; we train designers… there has to be the raw hands-on experience.”

Panelist Lev Glazman, CEO and co-founder of Fresh, observed that artisan-made goods create an emotional connection with the consumer. Andersen said that “in an age when so much is virtual, people, have a desire for something that is a tactile, sensual experience.” Ulrich Wohn of Tag Heuer said that the economic downturn has precipitated “a reordering of priorities. People are looking for that authentic experience…for that legitimacy.” Hence, “the whole realm of heritage is more important today.”

LVMH knows all too well that artisans have been the driving force behind many of its illustrious brands — which includes Fendi, Berluti and Hublot. This is one of LVMH’s social responsibility initiatives in New York City and around the world. And I, for one, applaud it. There will also be a panel discussion at the Times Center on artisanry’s “Past, Present and Future” on June 22, which I’ll be attending.

The LVMH program brought 23 teams of Parsons students from diverse disciplines together with local artisans working in areas ranging from architectural and ceramic arts to graphic arts. Through an extensive collaboration with the artisans, the student teams created original fashion ensembles and short documentary films, which were previewed in February, during New York City’s Fashion Week.

Renaud Dutreil, chairman of LVMH in North America, said:

“This exhibit allows us to expose thousands of New Yorkers and visitors to the City to the enormous talent of our local artisans and to see the work of our next generation of design talent come alive. The designs created by the Parsons’ students reflect exceptional vision and innovation as well as an understanding of the importance of craftsmanship and precision in creating a work of art. In artisanry, like in luxury, it takes skill, talent and hours of precise and passionate work to create every product.  It is important that the next generation of design talent understands their responsibility in ensuring that the traditions and heritage of craftsmanship survive.”

Decorative Painter Osmundo Echevarria in his studio

Claire-Aude Staraci, a spokeswoman for the company, added that the artisans in the project were selected among hundreds of New York Artisans.

“The ones selected were so inspired and eager to transmit their knowledge to the next generation embodied in this project by the Parsons students. They were also very articulate about their art and processes, which added a critical educational component in the project.  It was a tough decision but an important one considering that teams of 5-6 students each were assigned to one master artisan whom they spent many hours with in their studios, watching and learning from the artisan’s work and life experiences.”

Silversmith Valentin Yotkov creating one of his pieces

The web site is a fantastic spotlight on these artisans. It  includes videos of Valentin Yotkov, a master silversmith who hails from Bulgaria and uses the same tools and techniques employed hundreds of years ago; master clockmaker David Munro, who draws from the tradition of French precision horology of the 18^th and 19^th centuries; and Les Metailliers Champenois, a metalwork studio in Paterson, NJ responsible for the recreation of the Statue of Liberty’s torch.

Patrick Fenton of Swayspace letterpress print shop poses the question: “Are we losing something through our advances in technology?” And Ornamental metalwork artisan Jean Wiart, who apprenticed with his father, states in his video:

“I consider something beautiful that is well-made, well-engineered, well-fabricated. We are in a world of visual(s), and it is my responsibility to make sure that was is looking good is good in itself as well…My workers, like myself, are extremely aware that they are part of a chain – of a chain of unforgotten traditions that trace back for centuries — of  refined techniques and tricks of the trade that has been transmitted orally for hundreds of years.”

This storied Florentine label has long been associated with status handbags and shoes, and sexy globetrotting clothes. So it’s refreshing to see an emphasis on its heritage with a program the company calls its “Artisan Corner.”

Gucci's Artisan Corner

Throughout this year, Gucci’s artisans will travel to select Gucci stores, where they will be stationed at custom-built workstations with their sewing machines, leather stand and metal tools. Customers get to observe them assembling some of the house’s most iconic handbags.

An accompanying video will highlight the fact that these artisans’ skills are handed down through a family’s generations. Founder Guccio Gucci would be proud!

So far, they’ve been featured at Gucci stores in Tokyo, Osaka, Rome, Paris, San Francisco, Beverly Hills, Chicago and New York. Visit the Facebook page for more photos.

There are those who believe that to be a credible custom clothier one must actually be a tailor and make the clothing …. To me it is impossible to be a great craftsman responsible for making the clothes and a ‘front’ man responsible for sales, marketing, and administration. Artisan craftsmen have very special skills, but they are not all encompassing. However, there persists a tradition in New York of custom tailors who “do it all.”

That got me thinking — so I asked menswear writer Bruce Boyer, my friend and adviser on all things sartorial, to contribute this guest post with some background on the topic:

Ever since the early 1960s, when the Designer Movement in menswear began with Pierre Cardin, John Weitz, and Bill Blass, there has been something of an ongoing discussion about the true custom tailor versus the haute couture menswear designer. As the price of high-end designer gear escalated over the years to approach — and in some instances eclipse — the price of a bespoke suit, that discussion has only intensified. I’ve had this discussion often over the ensuing years with both real tailors and designers (who can be thought of as haute couture “front men”). Each usually feels the other is unnecessary. The designer feels the tailor is merely a technician and has a minimal taste level and therefore can offer no style guidance to the customer. The tailor, on his side of it, feels the designer has no training or technical ability and therefore is more like a hemorrhoid: a needless, painful addition.

Writer Bruce Boyer (care of The Sartorialist)

The old tradition in tailoring was that the tailor simply did what the customer wanted. This was an acceptable modus operandi because most men who frequented tailors knew exactly what they wanted. But as the tailoring firms grew in size and reputation — particularly on Savile Row (at the end of the 19th century, Poole’s alone was employing 300 tailors) — and as those in the middle classes got a bit more money, the “front man” came into his own. Usually these were young, sophisticated men just down from Oxford or Cambridge where they had a wide range of friends whom they were expected to steer to their tailors). The firms employed these young fellows because they were well connected, charming, chic, and spoke well. They worked the front of the shop, and the technicians were called in after the cloth and styling had been chosen.

I don’t mean to obfuscate, but I tend to agree with both sides of this issue, not because I’ve got the world’s greatest diplomatic skills, but because both sides are right. Tailors are highly trained technicians with great skill and craftsmanship. It takes more years of training, apprenticeship, and practice to become a credible journeyman tailor than it does to become a physician. But many (either tailors or physicians) have no sense of taste or style because they simply don’t travel in the same circles as their illustrious clients or understand their lifestyles, interests, or point of view. On the other kid-gloved hand, most haute couture men’s designers couldn’t even sew on a button if you stuck a Berreta up their nose. But they may well have a high level of taste, go golfing with their clients, or be invited to dinner, and have their own exquisitely developed sense of style.

A suit by Anderson & Sheppard

So, what to do? The solution taken by many men interested in the more rarefied heights of accoutrement is to rely on those tried-and-true tailoring firms (Anderson & Sheppard, Caraceni, Poole’s, Nino Corvato, Leonard Logsdail, etc) because the styling is a known commodity, is already “set” (i.e., there’s a house style, and both the customer and the tailor know what this is, which avoids misunderstandings all around). There is a carefree certainty: neither the customer nor the tailor has to make any but the smaller decisions of detailing. When a man thinks about going to a new tailor, what he must know is merely what the preferred house style is.

But, again, should a man need real guidance, he must understand that most tailors will not deviate from their accustomed house style, regardless of what they may tell a prospective customer. They’re accustomed to cutting their cloth a certain way, fitting their customers a certain way, seeing their customers in a certain silhouette. The customer must find a tailor who agrees with him, because the tailor will undoubtedly not be persuaded to change the habits of a lifetime.

Designers are more given to experiment and often more concerned with styling. They also may be more sensitive to aesthetic concerns: does the shade of that blue worsted fabric you’re eying really suit your complexion? Might not a slightly longer or shorter jacket give you a better line and thinner appearance? Should you, at 5′ 4″ and 260 lbs, really be wearing that large a plaid pattern?

Master tailor Nino Corvato

I wouldn’t want to make a case for one or the other. It may simply come down to this: if you know exactly what you want, find the tailor who can do it for you. If you need guidance, you may want someone with a highly developed sense of style. I’m sure this will not endear me to either camp, but there you are. It’s like going to church, isn’t it? Many people attend and there’s a lot going on — but that doesn’t mean everybody understands it all.

Postscript: In my humble opinion, Nino Corvato (a character in MEN OF THE CLOTH) is an exceptional tailor who doesn’t need a “front man” because he’s in the enviable position of not having to “market” his services. And while he has his own “house style” or expression, he’s always willing to try new things to please his clients (within boundaries of good taste and reason).

I also knew that Gay Talese favored Brioni suits and was interviewed for the book Brioni: Fifty Years of Style. I recently watched an interesting video interview with him online in which he maintained that one of the lessons he took from his father was to approach his work as a writer in a way that is “not done quickly or casually, because it had to withstand time.” Needless to say, I share that view, for I’ve spent a great deal of time getting to know my characters and their craft, and building a trust and rapport with them.

In the article for the Vanity Fair site, “The Scion, the Stitch, and the Wardrobe,” he reminisces about his father, and his father’s cousin, Antonio Cristiani, a successful tailor in Paris. Talese characterizes these craftsmen as “an endangered species” — and indeed they are. He writes, “I’m mainly interested in is the aesthetics of the tailoring profession, and my small part within it as a patron, a preservationist, and an advocate of the perfect fit— and the idea that measurements can alter the mind.”

And here he expresses a sentiment I’m trying awfully hard to get across in my film: “When I’m wearing one of my custom suits, I’m in harmony with my highest ideals, my worship of great workmanship.”

(Photo of Daniel Storto by Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times)

The president of the Gloversville Chamber of Commerce pointed out that “When the last of the old-timers retired, their skills went with them.” Then seven years ago, Daniel Storto, a Seventh Avenue designer (born to a family of immigrant Italian tailors) transplanted himself to Gloversville. Vogue editor Hamish Bowles calls him “the haute couturier of gloves.”

Storto worked for many years with the late legendary designer Geoffrey Beene, and with the likes of Dries Van Noten and smaller labels like Duckie Brown. The Times piece said that “He makes beautiful unlined lamb suede gloves that connoisseurs order by the half-dozen, apparently undaunted by prices that start at $450 a pair.” In 2007 his L.O.V.E. gloves were a cover feature story in American Craft magazine.

Here’s the emotional heart of this story: Storto said “I thought I was a glove maker, but I wasn’t a glove maker at all until I met the old-timers. Until I came here, I had no idea what you could do with the craft.” Those old-timers were  so “inspired by his efforts to elevate their craft” that “many of them made him a gift of their tools.”

And my favorite anecdote: “The maul he uses daily to make die cuts on leather once belonged to Joe Pagano, a craftsman from one of the Neapolitan dynasties that trace their history as glove makers to the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.”

“I wanted to pay him, but he wouldn’t let me,” Mr. Storto told The Times. “He told me: ‘That’s the history. The tools get passed down from glove maker to glove maker, and you’re it.’ ”

And Storto apparently enjoys the laidback lifestyle in Gloversville. “There really are more important things in life” than making money, he said. Spoken like a true artisan.

It’s sad to say, but the famous “petites mains” of the French luxury goods sector are struggling mightily and  the French government may have to step in to provide economic aid to these craftsmen. This sector is so intimately ties with France’s image and longstanding reputation as a fashion mecca, that it’s troubling to contemplate what would happen without the existence of these artisans. The number of “highly skilled” artisans employed in the country has reportedly dropped 80 %.

France is now considering tax breaks and new labeling rules that would highlight “the origin or artisanal nature” of a product (which  I think is a great idea). And then there’s Chanel, which has wisely been buying a number of these artisans in an attempt to preserve its ability to create those most elaborate couture gowns.  It’s interesting that Chanel actually requires that its own products be sourced in France.

Airing on HBO tonight (with repeat broadcasts through November) this HBO documentary directed by Marc Levin is filled with a nostalgia for a bygone era of American clothing manufacturing, sidewalks crowded with workers pushing racks of clothes down Seventh Avenue, showrooms bustling with department store buyers and garmentos driving a hard bargain….kind of how I remember it all when I was a men’s wear market editor.

The black and white archival footage of sweat shops, Ellis Island and the Lower East side neighborhood of countless immigrants is unforgettable. And listening to Stan Herman (past president of the Council of Fashion Designers of America) recount how all the tailors would literally stream out of 530 and 550 Seventh Avenue is hard to imagine when they’ve now been reduced to the barest trickle.

Against the backdrop of unprecedented losses in U. S. manufacturing jobs, Bruce Raynor, the former General President of the labor union UNITE HERE, reminds us in “Schmatta” that “the garment unions provided for an entree into the middle class. So many lawyers and doctors and politicians and Supreme Court justices — they’re one generation out of the garment factories in New York.”

And as we find ourselves in the middle of the Congressional debates on health care reform, Raynor tells us that “the garment industries were really precursors to many of the programs in the New Deal. Social Security, pensions were adopted by the New Deal on a societal basis. It was the lifting of those workers from poverty to the middle class that revolutionized America.” Indeed.

Even though I worked for years at Fairchild, the media company covering the fashion industry, watching this film is the first time I’ve seen a history of the U.S. garment industry that synthesizes so many major turning points: the the strides achieved by the labor union movement; the beginning of the government’s move toward deregulation and the breaking of unions in the Reagan era; the uproar over the conditions in sweat shops abroad; the signing of NAFTA during the Clinton years (and the devastating effect on domestic clothing manufacturing); the rise of celebrity designers; and the financial meltdown of recent memory.

Waterford maintains that it is “the leading brand of premium crystal.” Its web site has a page that features the artisans who create Waterford products (its engraver and master cutters who have worked there for decades). One of those artisans is master cutter Tom Power who began his career there in 1969. His bio says that “One of his great works includes the Waterford Crystal Ball, lowered at the Times Square New Year’s celebration in New York.” Waterford was founded in 1783 in the port town of Waterford, Ireland.

What the site won’t tell you is that on January 5, 2009, parts of the company, including the main Irish and UK operations, were placed in receivership after the heavily-indebted firm failed to find a buyer. The Waterford crystal factory in Kilbarry, Ireland ceased operating and 480 people lost their jobs. But guess what? Those workers continued going to their “jobs” and literally occupied the factory for months, hoping for a solution.

The New York Times reported that “The crystal company has posted huge losses in the past few years, and much of its manufacturing is already done in factories in cheaper countries abroad. The workers fear that all their experience and all their expertise, not to mention the long history of crystal-making in Waterford, are in danger of disappearing.”

“If it’s mass-produced, the craftsmanship we have here could be lost forever, so we’re fighting for that as well,” one worker told the Times. Sean Egan was an engraver “who had been an apprentice at the factory for a decade, from age 15 to 25, before he was allowed to wield his tools unsupervised. He is 50 now. ‘It’s extremely hard to learn, and machines can’t do it,’ he said. It’s like playing the piano. You can learn three chords and get away with it, but if you want to learn classical piano, you have to practice all the time.”

“When Mr. Egan heard that he had lost his job and came to find the doors locked, he was filled with an outrage similar, he said, to that felt by people thrown out of their homes during the Irish famine. ‘That is no way to treat people, to stop them from coming into their own factory,’ he said.”

KPS Capital Partners, a private equity company based in New York, purchased Waterford Wedgwood in March, but the Kilbarry factory was not part of the sale. The irony is that the factory is one of southeast Ireland’s biggest tourist attractions, drawing about 350,000 visitors a year.

About a week ago, the remaining 170 Waterford workers were given their notice, the Irish Times reported. A spokesman for trade union Unite, which represents the staff, said it was a “sad day for the area and for Ireland.” Indeed.

And here’s a sobering statistic: it’s estimated that only 5 percent of the clothing sold nationally is made in the U.S. (mostly in NYC and LA). But because those products are more high-end, they represent 24 percent of total national sales.

“If you don’t have production in the garment center, there would be no reason for designers and suppliers to cluster in the district,” said Barbara Blair Randall, executive director of the Fashion Center Business Improvement District. “We’re down to 9,000 jobs.”

The Bloomberg administration is now considering designating one or more large buildings in the garment center solely for clothing production, the Times reported. And a group of “industry shop owners” have formed a group called Save the Garment Center. Designer Yeohlee Teng summed it up: “Access to manufacturers is profound. After all, fashion is about timing.”

CNN joined the chorus with a feature on NYC’s garment district and the loss of American manufacturing jobs. As in the Times piece, it credited the recession, rising rent and cheap labor overseas for destroying jobs in the garment district. And it cited an even lower percentage (3 %) of clothing sold in the States that is made here. The conclusion: “Manhattan’s apparel manufacturers see their future in high-end small batch production that designers don’t want to send overseas. It’s work that would preserve the 9,000 manufacturing jobs in the garment district.”

And then earlier this week I attended a panel during Independent Film Week here in Manhattan that was titled “Made in America: Putting a Human Face on a Changing Economy.” It featured the filmmakers of two HBO films: “The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant” and “Schmatta: Rags to Riches to Rags.” The latter film (airing October 19) covers the decline of NYC’s garment industry. One of its subjects is Joe Raico, a fabric cutter who is president of Local 10, the cutters’ union. He reiterated that “the garment industry was once one of the biggest employers in New York City. Most of those jobs are gone….How do I compete with someone who makes $5 a week? It’s impossible.”

Regarding his involvement in the film, Raico said “I was very happy to be doing something for working people.” Director/Producer Marc Levin added: “We used to admire working people…there were movies about them…We’ve got to redesign and refashion our values.”

Designer Nanette Lepore echoed Levin’s sentiment in a passionate piece she wrote last spring for The Huffington Post (which I wholeheartedly endorse) titled “Save the Garment Center.” Here’s an excerpt:

“I often think about the impact my family craftsmanship had on me. It gave me the tools I need to create and be fearless without limitations. Knowing that one has the potential to build something from a pile of raw materials is empowering. It’s a gift that our children might not receive.

Eighty percent of my products are made in America in a 10 block radius from my office in New York City’s Garment Center. They are assembled by skilled craftsmen who also immigrated here with a trade just like my family. I treasure being able to watch my product develop from a roll of fabric into a beautiful garment hanging in a shop. That garment was designed in my studio on 35th street, the pattern digitized on 38th street, then passed to a cutter around the corner, then bins of cut work trundled to a factory on 39th street, to then be sewn together. All the while each step being closely monitored by my staff.

My company alone keeps about 10 factories busy. Those factories make up about 300 jobs in New York City. However, the landlords, the restaurant and hotel union, and the developers want to annihilate our 100 year old Garment Center. Their vision is one sprawling, mall-type maze, from Time Square to Macy’s. The homogenizing and “mall-i-fying” of our city continues. The landlords are pushing hard against the city to free up the New York City Garment Center zoning.

But what of the pride of a nation that can create its own goods? What of the fate of the designers, manufacturers and tradesmen who set up shop in the Garment Center? Who decides these businesses are not important? Fashion and its spin offs are important to the NYC economy. There has never been a more critical time to buy American made products.

Let’s show the politicians that we are invested in saving our country’s manufacturing system! Send your comments to Mayor Bloomberg’s office. Take a stand!”