After the scandal that plagued the House of Dior, Bernard Arnault was interviewed to discuss the direction that he wanted to take the house to in light of the scenario. The problem that nobody could have anticipated but came to be a serious issue was that the house had become terribly dependent on the star power of one person.

Indeed, the 80s in particular had glorified designers to celebrity status, heralding their presence as representatives of the face and image of the house, making them as important as the clothes that come from their creativity.

It’s not to say that good work and creative genius shouldn’t be appreciated. That the biggest labels are founded by powerful visions from singular individuals is a fact we live with. It is the genius of Chanel, Dior, Balenciaga, Givenchy, et cetera, that makes the label what it is. The creativity is from the essence of the vision and point of view of the founding designer.

But as a business grows successfully it outlives the founder and becomes a representational entity of carrying the vision forward. People may be buying the designers’ ideas but not the designer him/herself.  And while, for Mr. Arnault the motivation was due to the problem faced when the scandal erupted and created a PR nightmare, it inadvertently brought it into step with or century and the possibilities being tested via our new technological structures.

While Dior has a new face at the helm, the primary focus will not be on the designer but on the house itself to avoid dependence on one person to carry the label forward. Of course it is never one person solely who designs. As the company gets bigger it becomes a team, with the designer acting as creative director to shape direction and edit contributions so that the collections remain on point with the designers’ vision. Thus the designer may have vision and a god eye, but may no longer be the sole source of genius that makes their label successful, even if it bears their name.

Celebrated genius the late Alexander McQueen did not solely design (although the house would not exist without his pure vision), for Sarah Burton had a hand for years within the team and contributed to the overall vision we tend to attribute to one person. However, it was only after his untimely demise and her close involvement with the process that the house allowed her to continue the label’s good name to critical acclaim. And unless we are actually in the design lab we may never know how many voices contribute to the chorus of a good collection that it continues to produce today. But anyone is the design business knows there is never one person doing all the work, especially when it gets to the impressive level of an IPO.

That Mr. Arnault has publicly acknowledged the decision to focus on the label generally speaks of a new way to look at design as presented to the public, as one more collaboratively. And that falls in line with how our technology is seeking advantage today. Newer efforts in design may be showing us where value is placed; if the individual was elevated in our last century, the group is being explored as the new standard.

Martin Margiela, while utilizing the name, does not actually have participation from its founding designer but rather is a collaborative effort from a team that is shrouded in mystery. The exhibition at Somerset House in the UK featured a “portrait” of the team: all faceless images assembled in one group, including the founding designer somewhere amongst the crowd that becomes the label. It was not celebrity of one but the amalgamation of several that produced the collections, and this continues on today.

Some lesser known and newer labels (such as Cut Your Own Bias, ModCloth, Velvet Brigade) have been exploring the concept of crowdsourcing, where various people collaborate on components from design to assembly; companies such as ShopMyLabel, Threadless and Shapeways allow consumers to dictate the merchandise; and companies such as Fashionstake have created platforms to support crowdsourcing as the new design business model. The excitement is that more people are involved, making the design process more democratic and accessibly participatory. Further, rather than focusing on one individual they promote openly that the effort is collaborative. Even some of the larger labels, such as Burberry and David Lam, have been dabbling with aspects of audience participation in shaping some of their design decisions and finding value in collaboration with their customer base.

Could we be seeing the end of the star designer and the move towards more democratic design? That may not be quite the case, for people look to celebrity and the singular designer as focus will eventually make a return. But how the star appears (when rock star celebrity designer personalities come back in vogue)may not be as it has in the past, and you can count on the symbiotic relationship between us and our technology as shaping the way things are to be. That may be more than a singular expectation.