I know I'm kind of late to the party about the rebranding but here are my two cents:
When I was told that there was a rebranding happening a couple of months ago, I thought it would be moving in the same direction that Volvo took Polestar, which is very much so in the direction that @Inkinsurgent is speaking of: architectural firms and art galleries.
Why Veilance stood out to me in the first place is that it was the embodiment of that Gibsonian idea of "wearable architecture" and this was visible in every part of the brand. Veilance was akin to architecture in its design in its peculiar and innovative patterning and functional material choices. The promotional material (like the example provided by @damagedroid) was meticulously designed to present Veilance's commitment to augment the body in a way that I find reminiscent of Arthur Erickson's commitment to augment human interaction with physical spaces.
this new ethos feels derivative of a change made by other fashion brands like Burberry which are trying to get a little more 'with the times'. The shift just feels uninspired, like Veilance is no longer a trailblazer and has become more concerned with the muses of the fashion industry than ever before.
Veilance was important because it treated itself more like architecture than fashion. This change of branding says that this is no longer the case.