With a flurry of blue and a glint of silver, Tiffany & Co. and Nike this week revealed a highly-limited set of Air Force 1 sneakers, decked out with the jeweller’s signature hue. But what critics saw was all that black: while the footwear giant was granted access to Tiffany’s palette, the final product is largely fashioned from plain black suede. If it weren’t for the bespoke lettering on the tongue, a tiny metal ingot adorning the heel, or a US$400 ($560) price tag, the shoe could have come from a regular production run, some onlookers claimed.
Perhaps expectations were skewed. Visual artists cooked up alternatives days before the big reveal, posting virtual mock-ups with robin’s-egg blue splashed from lace to heel, speculating that something altogether more daring was in the works.
Then came the AI interpretations. Taking to Twitter after the official launch, Michael Miraflor, a fashion branding expert for US venture capital fund Hannah Grey, suggested it was this tide of fantastical, computer-generated imagery which made the real thing feel like a missed opportunity. “There were *so many* good and interesting/provocative takes on what the Tiffany’s x Nike collab had the potential to release,” he wrote, “that the actual product once revealed was a bit underwhelming.”
Miraflor posted a series of these AI-generated images, each showing a version of the shoe which never was. The broad intention was to show that technology is capable of producing feasible, even desirable, consumer goods, and that brands ought to consider the power of AI when designing their latest products. “It’s not fair to judge the actual product (for which a ton of work was no doubt put in by both brands) against the whimsical output of AI prompt engineers/artists,” he added, “but as AI art goes mainstream and people continue to play with brand IP… expectations will have to be considered.”
He is right, in one sense: it’s not fair to judge the final product against its AI competitors. That is because the real sneakers are better. Even the most ‘boring’ consumer product, designed either by humans or a focus group full of them, is inherently filled with more creative energy than a computer-generated clone.
Observation about Generative AI and consumer brand expectations:
There were *so many* good and interesting / provocative AI takes on what the Tiffany's x Nike collab had the potential to release… that the actual product once revealed was a bit underwhelming. pic.twitter.com/d09LDovZNW
— Michael J. Miraflor (@michaelmiraflor) January 31, 2023
There is no accounting for taste, but the imagery shared online, originally cooked up by NFT creator @rickdick__, does showcase the current limit of today’s generative technology. It appears the programs used have only a cursory handle on how shoelaces operate, and entrusting AI to design footwear is inherently problematic so long as it assumes the average person has at least 12 fingers. Even so, the problems go beyond the ugliness and impracticality of those AI mockups. It is totally feasible the next wave of updates will learn to tie its own laces, making aesthetic critiques easy, but futile. In truth, the future of AI-generated fashion feels entirely more depressing than those weird, rubbery cartoons.
Independent Australian fashion designers already rail against larger companies pilfering their designs, with little legal recourse available in cases where small businesses have not trademarked each distinct pattern they produce. As in AI startups that ‘draw’ portraits in the style of any artist, it is foreseeable that AI-generated fashion of the future will simply ingest imagery, videos, and trending TikToks to churn out the latest designs, training itself on massive data sets which flatten the work of individual designers. It is already hard enough for small labels to challenge the fast fashion giants. What will that process look like, when those brands can plausibly deny that any human plagiarised a design?
The supposed ‘inevitability’ of AI designs may also misunderstand what it is, exactly, that makes an object desirable. For better or worse, the Tiffany x Nike sneaker is destined to sell out near-instantly, and not through any fresh design additions. The Air Force 1 is already one of the most famous and beloved sneaker silhouettes of all time, while Tiffany’s brand cachet alone is enough to propel extremely expensive luxury goods into the hyper-sphere.
Fashion critics have long lamented how ‘streetwear’ aesthetics are now anything but ‘street’, with each season’s trends emerging like papal edicts from high-end retailers. Tiffany & Co. and Nike no doubt are contributors to the modern-day hype cycle themselves. Yet AI generation removes even this form of desirability.
It is one thing to have a defined style emerge organically from a subculture, but even a shred of authenticity exists in the Air Force 1, a basketball shoe that morphed into a daily-wear classic. The source of AI style is everything and nothing. It is intrinsically formless. Expecting consumers to spend their hard-earned money on the ghosts of good design, and for them to desire those products, is insulting.
It is understandable why Miraflor, and even casual observers, are intrigued by the promise of AI style. Its output is intriguing, at the very least, and there does at least exist the potential for real-world designers to use those tools as a sounding board for ideas. Nike itself is playing around the edges of the space with its NFT offering. Yet the fashion icons which modern consumers hold in the highest esteem earned their status in the real world after users imposed their own meaning upon them. AI can’t solve that.
Perhaps a deeper look at Nike’s back catalogue gets the point across. This isn’t the brand’s first ‘collaboration’ with Tiffany & Co. — officially, at least. In 2005, skateboarding brand Diamond Supply Co. worked with Nike SB, the company’s skate division, on a performance shoe co-opting the jeweller’s colour scheme. The ‘Diamond’ Dunks, released without any OK from Tiffany’s, became a cult hit. They remain some of the most desirable sneakers Nike has ever released. It was the contrast between high fashion and skateboarding which made the idea so compelling, and the chaotic mix of luxe aesthetics slamming onto asphalt. AI can’t manage that. It won’t. Instead, it will conjure fantasies unlikely to ever touch the ground.
Senior Business Journalist
Focused on the small business sector, David’s work covers the political, regulatory, and economic issues facing Australian entrepreneurs. Prior to joining SmartCompany, he was a reporter for Business Insider Australia. You can follow him on LinkedIn.
