Stanley Kubrick said just after completing EYES WIDE SHUT (shortly before his death) that he based the film on a common expression, only in reverse.  When I heard of Lee’s passing (aka Alexander McQueen), I immediately was drawn to this parallel.

 

The name Alexander McQueen offered over a decade of pictures, moreover fantasies and images, meant to provoke further thought; such visions drew many a time from the past but could rarely be classified as anything less than incomparable and forward reaching.

 

McQueen indeed was a “true” designer (unlike brand managers, simply referencing company archives or historical eras).  His influences were his own creativity and references, his interpretation of his life up to a certain point.

 

True designers are rare and are challenged all the same to produce a commercially saleable product, because, think about it, if the product never makes it (visibly) to market it can never become a source of influence.

 

However, this struggle manifests itself in different ways, from the paranoid reclusiveness of a Martin Margiela to the seemingly endless whimsical tastes of  a  Galliano or a Gaultier.  As clear as McQueen’s genius and artistic integrity was his personal battle with dualities: black vs white, joy vs sadness, goth vs femininity, and art vs commerciality.

 

Whether or not Lee was able to achieve this equilibrium kept audiences, press and industry leaders on the edge of their seats for over a decade, and his suicide  only serves to extend that debate far beyond simply the fashion or creative arts industries.

 

The description of McQueen’s apparent suicide (by hanging) left us all with one final “picture,” arguably his most staggering to date and certainly his most perplexing.  And while Lee’s fate is certain, that of his namesake business and the corporation behind it have been left with one final duality to balance: survival or death?  This is a challenge only someone as visionary as Lee would be equipped to handle.