INTERVIEW
POSITION
TIME
LOCATION
DANIIL GRITSENKO
40.7128° N, 74.0060° W
03.23.26, 12:30PM EST
NEW YORK, USA
In this interview, we sit down with Daniil Gritsenko, known online as @easternspy: a writer, editor, and fashion commentator whose work moves between archival research, garment literacy, and contemporary fashion media. The conversation examines his formation through early internet fashion culture, the ways he learned to read garments through resale and research, the role of storytelling and accessibility in fashion commentary, and how knowledge, authenticity, and archival meaning are shaped in today’s digital and secondhand landscape.
"PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF LOOKING AT PRETTY THINGS."
L
Hi everyone. Welcome to FORM. My name is Leo. In this series, we sit down with creatives, historians, and cultural figures shaping how fashion is interpreted and remembered. Today we are joined by Daniil Gritsenko, a fashion editor and writer at Highsnobiety. You might know him online as @easternspy. Daniil, it’s a pleasure to have you. So, for those encountering you for the first time, how would you introduce yourself? Where did you grow up, and what early influences shaped your perception of fashion?
D
Thank you for having me. That’s a big one. I grew up in Eastern Europe. I grew up in Russia, and I moved to the US. For people who don’t know me, I’ve always been interested in certain pockets of fashion and in digging deeper into them. I think it all started, like it did for many of us, with good old streetwear and with brands that got me interested in sub-niches like skating, Supreme, Palace, all of those ones. Then you start digging deeper into the culture, the references, and all of that, and you end up in deeper, darker places of fashion, I guess.
L
Definitely. There’s a lot of cross-pollination between streetwear and high fashion. I think in 2016 or 2017, a lot of us more or less experienced the same thing. On that note, when did fashion begin to feel like more than clothing to you? Was that shift gradual, or was there a particular moment when you became conscious of it?
D
Yeah, one hundred percent. For me, it was when I got some of my first streetwear pieces, like Palace and Supreme, and was able to sell those pieces and get my hands on something more subversive.
L
What would be an example?
D
Something like Raf Simons, for example. That was probably the intro for me into learning about designers, learning about fashion, and more specifically menswear fashion, which was still very fresh back then. I learned the most from being on Grailed and checking listings, checking all these different designers whose names sounded cool to me, the brands they were behind, and even looking at the descriptions of the pieces: how users were publishing them, where they said the pieces were from, what collections they were from. That’s really how it was for me.
L
Definitely. For a lot of us growing up around that time, Grailed was a resource first and foremost. That was the early inception. The internet, Reddit, and that fashion space were the main ones for us. Aside from that, what helped shape the way you learned to read garments so closely? Was that something you developed gradually? I know you just talked about Grailed, but beyond that, what really built the foundation, or took it further?
D
I think once I started reading more of these listings published on marketplaces that were curating specific menswear, avant-garde, and archival pieces, I started following sellers on social media who were known for having crazy inventories. They would have archival Raf Simons, Rick Owens, Carol Christian Poell, and other things that were almost confusing to someone just entering the fashion world. You’d think, “People really wear that?” and then start learning more about it. Those curators and sellers on those platforms made me dig deeper. I would DM some of them, chat with them, and ask them more about certain pieces. Also, back in the day, you had to authenticate a lot of things yourself, so it would start with reaching out and asking, “Can you help me authenticate this Raf Simons piece?” Then they would go into where it was from, where it came from, and the chain of events behind it. These pieces were so limited that people knew where they had come from before they acquired them. Like a blockchain of avant-garde pieces. That was definitely the next step.
L
When you’re studying clothes or designers, what main thing do you want to learn? Does knowing the story behind the clothes change how people think about them or see them?
D
For me, it’s important to know the time period a piece comes from, because it’s important to know what was happening during that time. It helps you understand what influenced the designer, where the culture was shifting at the time, and how that was reflected in the collection.
L
At what point, when you were learning about all these new designers and aspects of design, did you decide to pick up commentary, critique, or editorial for yourself?
D
I think as soon as I started learning things that I found really fascinating, things I didn’t expect to know or learn, whether from talking to people online or in person, I started wondering if those things would be interesting to other people too. The sources of information can be different, and the information itself might not be that different, but the presentation of the information is what is important today. I thought I should find a way to present information in a way that felt unique to me and could get someone who wasn’t already deep enough in this ninth circle of hell of fashion interested enough to go deeper immediately. TikTok, and people in lockdown, definitely helped get that out faster, because a lot of people who owned these pieces started sharing them, and the algorithm shows things to people faster than you can communicate. But I still wanted to communicate it myself.
L
That makes sense. Accessibility is everything, especially when you’re just getting into this. I wish when we were starting out that we had more creators like you putting out information in that way and making it more digestible. On that note, when you’re making short-form content and picking a topic, how do you decide what information needs to stay in and what can be left out without losing the point?
D
That’s a very good question. I try to think about someone who is not so deep in it and is just starting out. Some vocabulary, certain names, or references might not be familiar to them. If I talk about a collection, I make sure to give some background on the designer, the year of the collection, and maybe the name of the collection. You can’t assume that the person stumbling across your content already knows the collection name, who it’s from, or what you’re referencing immediately. You and I probably know, but a lot of people don’t. So I try to make the language more accessible to people who are new to it.
L
Definitely. Fashion information is everywhere now, and people can identify references, images, and names instantly. How is real knowledge built, and does the sheer volume of information deepen discourse or make it harder to trust?
D
That’s a question everyone is talking about. A lot of people who are deep in this think it’s not always good that so many new people are entering, because the sources get mismatched and the narrative can start changing. It becomes like a broken phone with some of this content. I think it’s always good to question everything you see, because even I might not be one hundred percent accurate when I make my content. Google is still there. Other search engines are still there. So I hope that when someone like me creates content for people who are just entering this world, we also get called out on the things we don’t mention or aren’t exactly correct about, and that there’s some discourse in the comments or DMs. Once someone learns about something and wants to know more, they should absolutely read other sources. Social media makes that access much easier, but I think everyone should fact-check everything. That’s my angle on it.
L
In the current resale and archival landscape, people often seem to look for proof before meaning, specifically things like authenticity, rarity, or what era a piece came from. Do you think fashion culture has become too dependent on verification, or is that just the condition of the market now? Are people trying to find value in authenticity, an era, or rarity rather than in the story behind the piece or why it matters now?
D
If we’re talking specifically about authenticity, verification is just confirming whether the item, this historic item that has history and information behind it, is actually the item. You wouldn’t want, as an art dealer, to buy a very expensive artwork and then find out it was fake, because you’re buying into the story and history behind it. It’s similar with these things. There’s nothing wrong with looking for verification of how rare something is. Obviously, some people make money based on the rarity of items. But I kind of exclude what’s around the item and look at the item itself. It has history, it has meaning to people, and that’s what’s important. Things outside of that, the industry moving around it, shouldn’t matter too much.
L
More so, do people attach surface-level value to authenticity, rarity, a specific era, or a certain price point? We saw, in the early 2020s, items like Raf Simons parkas selling for well over twenty thousand, while beautiful collections from elsewhere got left out because of hype or the implied value of those other items.
D
I see what you mean. Fashion is very cyclical, as we all know. People who know their stuff and know what they’re dealing with won’t really pay attention to hype around a certain item unless they’re trying to make money. They know the understated pieces or overlooked collections, and they’ll hold on to them until the next cycle comes around. If they want to profit from that, they can sell then. But people who really know and are just enjoying fashion, not reselling, usually don’t care about that. It might be annoying to people trying to make money, but the people who are just enjoying it don’t care.
L
Where do you fall on that spectrum?
D
It’s interesting, because my start with fashion came out of reselling, and reselling came out of the need to pay my tuition. I moved to the US and couldn’t get an actual job until I had my documents and everything, so I was reselling through my parents’ Social Security number. I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be saying this. Maybe I’ll get in trouble. So I definitely came from the side of making money off it and understanding where things were going, where they were headed, and what the trends were. But as I acquired some of these pieces, I actually decided to hold on to the ones I really enjoyed and resonated with the most. Money is money, but sometimes if you resonate with something and you like it a lot, you keep it. I think a lot of curators feel the same way. Sometimes you buy something to resell it, and then you get it and think, “Wow, I really want to keep it,” so you keep it. In other cases, you buy it and end up reselling it for a lot of money. I know so many people who still say, to this day, “I wish I didn’t sell my Rick Owens Dunks,” or something like that. When you really like something, you keep it.
L
All the clothes I’ve sold over the years have become my sleep paralysis demon, and they haunt me. I fully understand. In 2026, is there anything that really resonates with you? Is there anything you’re especially infatuated with?
D
If we’re talking about more archival high-fashion stuff, I’d say things I would go for now are nineties Prada, old Helmut Lang, some older activewear, and one of my always-go-tos is old Comme des Garçons. I love Rei Kawakubo. You can’t go wrong with that. But really, it’s pieces I can wear for years to come, not just because a certain trend is coming around. That’s contradictory for me to say because I just mentioned the nineties broadly, and minimalism is so back right now. But I try to stay away from that and get pieces I can see myself wearing for years, because I’m getting to a point where I’m trying to develop a uniform.
L
I’m on the same lines. It’s good to break the trend cycle and look ahead at what’s timeless and what makes sense for you five or ten years from now. On that note, when you get your hands on archival pieces, should they be preserved as historical artifacts, or worn to maintain their relevance?
D
I believe in wearing everything you purchase for yourself, as much as possible, because you’re creating history by wearing it, in a way, for yourself and for others around you. If it’s just sitting in your closet, how are people going to find out it exists? Sure, you can post that you have it, or put it on TikTok, or list it for sale, but that won’t do it enough justice.
L
I never thought of our bodies being documents for these clothes to live through and get a second life. That’s really cool. One question I have for you: when you think about the body of work you’re building, what do you hope it adds to fashion research? What did you feel was missing when you first entered this space that you now want to make available to other people?
D
I hope, as I mentioned in the beginning, that it gets more people interested in the more historic side of things, and with more context. I think what was missing was the “why” behind why things were happening the way they were in fashion in the nineties, the early 2000s, and so on. Obviously we know why some designers made certain collections, but there still isn’t enough information about what influenced them and what shaped their work. I think the sociology side of it, and maybe even some psychology, is what was missing from the context of fashion, archival fashion, the historic side of things, and all these subgenres of fashion. I still think it’s missing. It’s something I’m trying to balance. You’re trying to bring something new into it, but not overwhelm people with niche facts. You don’t want to be the “actually” guy. You’re trying to make it accessible without compromising the deeper stories behind it.
L
It’s a balancing act between being to the point and laying out facts, while also making sure it stays accessible and digestible. As social media continues to evolve, how do you see yourself fitting into that? Would you have any interest in doing long-form content? I know you do editorial and writing for Highsnobiety, but on your own, aside from the areas where people are currently consuming your content, is there anywhere you’d be interested in expanding?
D
That’s a good question. I don’t think my strength is in longer formats. I think there are people who are much better at that than I am. I found my strength in nailing short-form video content, and I might just stay true to that. Maybe I’ll expand into other formats where I can interview people within the industry who can share more information than just me. But I think the way social media stands now, people are tired of looking at pretty things. People need more context. People want more context, whether it’s the historic aspect of things or just something fun and funny. If you go to some editorial pages or brand pages, the things that underperform the most are often the ones that just look pretty. I think people want more context because people our age have much more media literacy. We’re quick to spot where there’s advertising or when something is just trying to look pretty, and we’re kind of desensitized to that. So we want something true, raw, interesting, engaging, and so on.
L
That’s very well said. It’s been great talking to you, Daniil. Thank you very much. Where can people find you?
D
Just my Instagram. Hit me up on Instagram. That’s where I live. @easternspy.