One of the biggest stories coming out of the Golden Globes, the first official red carpet event of the year, was not about an award snub or surprise, but rather an accessory on Zendaya’s left ring finger.

A week before, on Dec. 31, the pop star Dua Lipa posted a carousel on Instagram that included a photo of her holding a drink with a round cut diamond set on a chunky gold band on her left hand. (Her previous post was a rare pic of her canoodling with the actor Callum Turner. They first sparked romance rumors in January 2024.)

And on Jan. 1, the actress Chloë Grace Moretz posted a photo of what seemed to be her hand interlocked with that of her partner, the model Kate Harrison, both wearing diamond rings. Ms. Moretz has been very private about her relationship with Ms. Harrison, though the two fueled dating rumors in December 2018, when TMZ photographed them in Malibu.

None of these women have spoken publicly about an engagement — there was no flashy announcement nor confirmation. But that has not stopped the internet from going wild. Fan-made compilations and headlines citing confirmation from “anonymous sources close to the couple” swirled on the internet.

Can a celebrity ever just wear a ring on her ring finger without being hounded?

“Absolutely not,” said Moya Luckett, a media historian and professor of celebrity culture at N.Y.U. “We’ve gotten to a point now where everyone is so good at analyzing all these clues, including lots of red herrings. That’s something that just comes with the territory in a digital media age.”

From a public relations perspective, the speculation is not only expected, but desired. “If you’re a celebrity, the press should be talking about you,” said Anita Chatterjee, the founder of A-Game Public Relations, a firm based in New York. “I’d be worried if one of my clients wore something like that and there was no speculation.”

Zendaya, who was nominated for a Golden Globe Award for her role in “Challengers,” met her partner, Tom Holland, on the set of “Spider-Man: Homecoming” in 2016 as he was playing the superhero and she was co-starring as his love interest. They denied dating rumors for years, until paparazzi photos published by Page Six in July 2021 showed the two kissing in a car. The couple rarely share details about their relationship save for a few comments and social media posts.

Some have speculated that the ring was the work of the jewelry designer Jessica McCormack, who also designed an engagement ring for the actress Zoë Kravitz. On her website, Ms. McCormack has a ring similar to the one Zendaya flashed at the Golden Globes. Ann Grimmett, the vice president of merchandising at Jared Jeweler, said that the ring Zendaya wore appeared to be a five-karat old mine cut that costs around $120,000.

In the past year, Dr. Luckett said she had noticed that now, for many celebrities, “the luxury is to withhold yourself — you don’t want to be too available, and information shouldn’t be available.” It’s a way for celebrities to build mystique and differentiate themselves from quotidian influencers, she added.

“The key figure, in some ways, is Kylie Jenner,” Dr. Luckett said, “who has gone from being ubiquitous to sort of having this relationship with Timothée Chalamet that started off as, ‘Is it or isn’t it?’”

It is on trend for a celebrity couple to try to live their personal lives out of the public eye until they decide to throw their fans a bone — a tactic to control the narrative of their lives in the age of digital media.

“Today we have much more of this sort of citizen journalist ethos — everyone’s free to comment,” Dr. Luckett said, whereas before, “there was much more of an institutional structure where studios, management and the press all work together to control what information came out.”

Take, for example, Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck’s engagements. For their first engagement in 2002, Ms. Lopez revealed the news in a television interview with Diane Sawyer in a media ecosystem where information came from the top. The second time around, Ms. Lopez made the reveal in a newsletter that she shared on social media.

According to Ms. Chatterjee, celebrities are careful about what they say when they do open up about their personal lives, and there’s a strategy behind each message.

“We want to control the messaging, and there’s a time for saying everything,” Ms. Chatterjee said. “You want to stay in the press. This could be a good way of hinting at it until she’s ready to talk about it, if she is really engaged.”

Representatives for Zendaya, Ms. Lipa and Ms. Moretz did not immediately respond to requests for comments. People magazine reported confirmation of Zendaya’s engagement from an undisclosed family source.

Not every celebrity is as reticent. A month ago, Selena Gomez took the route of the dramatic social media reveal, kicking off engagement season with an Instagram post flaunting her marquise diamond ring and a caption about her engagement to Benny Blanco, the record producer and songwriter.

The couple made an appearance at the Golden Globes. Ms. Gomez followed that as a guest on “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” and her engagement came up several times. She seemed visibly uncomfortable, though, when Mr. Kimmel gave her a “daddy saddle” as an engagement gift.

This year will be a year of seismic change in fashion. That much is a given.

Or actually, it is a given that this will be a year of seismic change in fashion personnel. Starting this month, new designers at eight global brands, including Calvin Klein and Chanel, will be making their runway debuts. As they will at Bottega Veneta, Lanvin, Givenchy, Tom Ford, Alberta Ferretti and Dries Van Noten — with the possibility of more open spots being filled at Fendi, Maison Margiela, Helmut Lang and Carven in the coming months.

Sheesh! Whether that power shift will translate into seismic change in what we wear is a different question.

There has been much speculation as to the source of the turmoil. Much blame has focused on a slowdown in luxury spending (especially in China), as well as global political and economic uncertainty, which has led to a game of Blame the Designer (when in doubt, blame the designer), which led to Change the Designer.

There is a tendency, in such an environment, to play it safe. To fall back into the comfort of a camel coat and assume that what sold well in the past will sell well in the future. To focus on the commercial over the creative.

This would be a mistake.

It is time for a fashion revolution. The kind of revolution that Coco Chanel created in the 1920s, when she transformed the little black dress, uniform of the serving class, into a status symbol of liberation, apparently causing Paul Poiret to clutch his breast in horror and declare: “What has Chanel invented? Deluxe poverty.” Her clients resembled “little undernourished telegraph clerks,” he sneered.

The kind of revolution that Christian Dior wrought in the postwar era, when he scandalized the world with the New Look, in all its lavishly skirted, wasp-waist glory, inciting riots in the streets against the sheer excess of material. The kind that Yves Saint Laurent ignited during the upheavals of the 1960s, when he adapted the male tuxedo for women, causing Nan Kempner to be cast out of La Côte Basque for the crime of wearing pants.

And the kind that Rei Kawakubo of Comme des Garçons created when she treated darkness and destruction like precious skins as the Cold War collapsed and Francis Fukuyama declared the end of history. Ms. Kawakubo was castigated for promoting “Hiroshima chic,” even as her embrace of the flawed forever shifted ideas about beauty and the body.

Just as, when the millennium turned, Thom Browne was widely mocked for putting grown-up men in short pants (or just plain old shorts) and shrunken jackets. Until those shrink-wrapped gray suits changed not just proportions, but the very meaning of “uniform.”

Such designs horrified and thrilled in equal measure, but they also rose to the challenge of a changed world and a changing sense of how people dressed — not just at the moment they appeared, but forever after.

Fashion is essentially a story of what the paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge called “punctuated equilibrium,” a theory positing that significant change comes in spurts that interrupt lengthy periods of stability or slow evolution. It’s how we got L.B.D.s, the New Look, pants, the possibilities of destruction.

Out of chaos came creativity. That’s where we are now: at a mass inflection point when the world order is in flux, social mores are shifting, the A.I. era is dawning and it’s not clear how everything will be resolved. The first quarter of the 21st century, with the ascent of streetwear and athleisure, is over. There is a hunger for the defining next.

Hence the outsize reaction to the Maison Margiela couture show last January, when John Galliano, then the house’s designer, offered up a phantasmagorical underworld full of exploding flesh and extraordinary tailoring that was so unlike the current made-for-the-’gram runway that it provoked fits of foot-stomping ecstasy in its audience.

Those clothes were not actually new; they were newly dramatized versions of work Mr. Galliano had done before — throwbacks, with their extreme corsetry and theatricality, to late-20th-century fashion fabulousness. It was the applause more than the actual silhouettes (which haven’t remotely filtered out into the general population) that was telling: the clearly voracious appetite for something that didn’t look or feel like all the things that had come before.

It was a sign, if any were needed, that the door is wide-open for someone to stop reinventing history and start inventing; to create the thing we didn’t know we wanted, the thing that is impossible to predict, because, by definition, if you can predict it, it isn’t a surprise.

There are designers who are clearly trying: Demna, with his inversion of luxury semiotics at Balenciaga; Jonathan Anderson, with his surreal craftiness at Loewe. These are designers who twist not just items but proportions. Some of their work has jarred the status quo and produced moments of viral indignation (especially Demna, with his haute Ikea bags and eroded sneakers), but as yet, neither has produced a paradigm shift. Wouldn’t that be something to see?

Here’s hoping the new crop tries, that new names and new brains actually make some new clothes, even if at old houses. Thanks to our wildly connected world, the possibilities for one crazy idea of what it means to look modern, to alter the mass sense of self, are almost limitless.

Here’s hoping they seize the moment not to dutifully respect the so-called codes of the house — enough with the codes of the house — but to embrace the abstract ethos of their brands, not the literal shapes from the archives. Not to merely tweak the mold, but to break it and reinvent it. If outrage is the result that’s not necessarily a bad thing, because it’s often an outrage when you see something that challenges your ideas of proper dress.

But it’s an outrage with a purpose. And if there is another lesson that history offers, it is that such outrage eventually pays off.

Until then, it takes courage for executives and backers to withstand the initial backlash and opprobrium; it takes time for the eye, and wardrobe, to adjust. The problem is that time and forbearance are luxuries rarely offered to designers today. If they are to rise to the occasion, if they are to do the unexpected, they must be granted the space and support to do it.

So c’mon, fashion. Surprise us. Enchant us. Shock us. I dare you.