Chloé F/W 08.09 Paris

[chloehandbags]

Originally Posted by chloehandbags

ITA with your first and last points, but I don't agree that the flimsy, abstract, reconstructed clothing he did last season was the template of the Chloe girl, at all, personally.

Just realised that 'strongly asymmetric' would have been a better way of describing it, than abstract, as I don't think the abstraction was the problem.

[disco54]

the press release is written in such a corny way lol

[caliboy672180]

its fine but its just not "cool girl" clothes.

glad its not so marni-esque tho

[chessmess]

Chloehandbags i DO feel you are too harsh towards him as a designer. Hes 3 seasons in and hes still finding his identity and this is abotu as girly as it cant get so i dont understand why your are unhappy. Marni has never seemed asexual to me, it is a brand that juxtaposes sex and art imo. The clothes arent overtly sexy but more of a personal sexy and stiffness is anythign but marni...

No, i would not liek to see chloe makign marni clothes, but i dont beleive that any of his collection have been strictly marni for chloe... They have been juxtapositions of what he sees as the chloe girl and his own design aesthetic. Hes obviously tryign his best to do soemthign new for the brand but its people liek YOU who dont even give him a chance that make him do soemthing like this collection. I want him to incorporate his aesthetic into the "chloe" identity which as far as i beleive, is VERY VAGUE (girly, flirty?, feminine). I thought i made that pretty clear through my posts but i guess i obviously had to spell it out for you...

I think you need to lighten up to be honest. Chloe is not the only girly, flirty brand out there, like you said (was it you?), sonia rykiel, phillip lim, are all providing flirty girly clothes so look towards them. In my opinion it sounds like you were not in love with CHLOE but phoebe philo's vision for chloe. And shes gone, so i think its time to get used to it. Chloe girls are fun flirty whatever, but theres not only a single way to identify with that personality so i dont get why you are so close minded about his visions. Why cant you be excited about the evolution of brand that will OBVIOUSLY never be the same as when phoebe was creative director... You searchign for soemthing that isnt comign back, and i think you need to get used to that.

[yogini108]

oh my gosh its a miracle. Like many of you, i am in love with chloe again!

[disco54]

Originally Posted by chessmess

Chloehandbags i DO feel you are too harsh towards him as a designer. Hes 3 seasons in and hes still finding his identity and this is abotu as girly as it cant get so i dont understand why your are unhappy. Marni has never seemed asexual to me, it is a brand that juxtaposes sex and art imo. The clothes arent overtly sexy but more of a personal sexy and stiffness is anythign but marni...

No, i would not liek to see chloe makign marni clothes, but i dont beleive that any of his collection have been strictly marni for chloe... They have been juxtapositions of what he sees as the chloe girl and his own design aesthetic. Hes obviously tryign his best to do soemthign new for the brand but its people liek YOU who dont even give him a chance that make him do soemthing like this collection. I want him to incorporate his aesthetic into the "chloe" identity which as far as i beleive, is VERY VAGUE (girly, flirty?, feminine). I thought i made that pretty clear through my posts but i guess i obviously had to spell it out for you...

I think you need to lighten up to be honest. Chloe is not the only girly, flirty brand out there, like you said (was it you?), sonia rykiel, phillip lim, are all providing flirty girly clothes so look towards them. In my opinion it sounds like you were not in love with CHLOE but phoebe philo's vision for chloe. And shes gone, so i think its time to get used to it. Chloe girls are fun flirty whatever, but theres not only a single way to identify with that personality so i dont get why you are so close minded about his visions. Why cant you be excited about the evolution of brand that will OBVIOUSLY never be the same as when phoebe was creative director... You searchign for soemthing that isnt comign back, and i think you need to get used to that.

Chloe isnt harsh, ironically you seem to be , she is basically telling the reality of the situation. PAM is a great designer whatever but catryn horyn , put it best when she said he is a square peg in a round hole .Another thing 3 collections in , one should have a firm grip of things , there lots of designers who would love to be in his position and who are capable of fast moving, sexy yet girly easy access money spinners , which to put it bluntly is what chloe's USP has been . I should know I worked in sales at their store for 2 years, so I know the Chloe customer . While this collection is an improvement , its still very helter skelter .

[chessmess]

Originally Posted by disco54

Chloe isnt harsh, ironically you seem to be , she is basically telling the reality of the situation. PAM is a great designer whatever but catryn horyn , put it best when she said he is a square peg in a round hole .Another thing 3 collections in , one should have a firm grip of things , there lots of designers who would love to be in his position and who are capable of fast moving, sexy yet girly easy access money spinners , which to put it bluntly is what chloe's USP has been . I should know I worked in sales at their store for 2 years, so I know the Chloe customer . While this collection is an improvement , its still very helter skelter .

what i was tryign to say through that post is that that was phoebes vision of the chloe girl. And phoebe is gone so obviously visions are going to change. I think his first season was severly sexy, even maybe too much so. He toned it down for a perfect collection the last season then he made this...

but so many people didnt even give him a chance and thats why i think he has pretty much deserted his aesthetic for the aesthetic of the "chloe girl" which was actually phoebe's vision. thats what im angry about and what im trying to get across in the posts.

im only retaliating in this fashion because i find the orignal poster to be sort of rude.

[chloehandbags]

Originally Posted by chessmess

Chloehandbags i DO feel you are too harsh towards him as a designer. Hes 3 seasons in and hes still finding his identity and this is abotu as girly as it cant get so i dont understand why your are unhappy.

I think you must be misunderstanding me, chessmess. When did I say I was unhappy with this collection?

I initially mentioned the fur coat (which, admittedly, I am not happy with, as a) I'm anti-fur and b) that coat looks worse than the seven year old faux fur original, IMO), but that's all I said about it and then, in my answer to you, I said I was; 'still in, at least, two minds' about this collection, but I have not said that I'm unhappy; mainly, because I'm not, on the whole.

Also, when did I say I liked girly? Answer? I didn't.

So, if this collection is; 'as girly as it cant get' (by which I assume you mean; 'is as girly as it can get'?) why should that, automatically, make me happy, anyway?

In my reply to you, I said I liked at least a little femininity/glamour in my look, but I didn't say anything about liking girly; or that this collection wasn't feminine and/or girly, did I?

Please reread my posts.

Marni has never seemed asexual to me, it is a brand that juxtaposes sex and art imo. The clothes arent overtly sexy but more of a personal sexy and stiffness is anythign but marni...

Well, that's your opinion, obviously. Perhaps 'uptight' would have been a better word than 'stiff'?

Anyway, if you could explain what 'a personal sexy' means, that might help me understand your point of view.

If you mean that Marni clothes turn you on, personally, in some way(?) - to me, sexy clothes are clothes that virtually everyone thinks are sexy to look at (to one degree, or another). Just because someone is turned on by something that most other people find asexual, doesn't make that item sexy.

Some people are turned on by dining chairs, for example, but that doesn't mean that dining chairs are inherently sexy.

No, i would not liek to see chloe makign marni clothes, but i dont beleive that any of his collection have been strictly marni for chloe... They have been juxtapositions of what he sees as the chloe girl and his own design aesthetic.

Fair enough, thanks for your answer.

Hes obviously tryign his best to do soemthign new for the brand but its people liek YOU who dont even give him a chance that make him do soemthing like this collection.

I appreciate that you're angry with me, for some reason, but can you please stop shouting 'YOU' at me?

I didn't make him produce this collection. I don't, by any means, have that power.

Presumably, the bottom line did?

I want him to incorporate his aesthetic into the "chloe" identity which as far as i beleive, is VERY VAGUE (girly, flirty?, feminine). I thought i made that pretty clear through my posts but i guess i obviously had to spell it out for you...

OK, now you're just being rude!

When did I say that I didn't understand what you want from PMA at Chloe? In fact, when did you even say what you wanted? All I can find that you said was; 'he didnt dismiss the brands identity completely but it was something new'.

Well, prior to this collection, I happen to disagree with your opinion on that, but I understand what you mean, perfectly well.

Incidentally, why are you singling me out to have a go at? There are plenty of other people on here who didn't think his previous Chloe collections hit the mark, either. Why pick on me?

I think you need to lighten up to be honest. Chloe is not the only girly, flirty brand out there, like you said (was it you?), sonia rykiel, phillip lim, are all providing flirty girly clothes so look towards them.[/

No, it wasn't me. You seem to think I'm the only one who has said anything on this subject, for some reason!

I suppose I should be flattered?

I'm not anti-girly, but I'm not really a girly-girl, either. I'm edgier than that.

But, given the choice, I would certainly rather look at a catwalk with pretty clothes on it (even if they are a little too saccharin for me, than ugly ones not that I'm saying that these clothes are ugly, by any means [so let's nip that possible assumption in the bud right now!]).

In my opinion it sounds like you were not in love with CHLOE but phoebe philo's vision for chloe.

That is simply not true.

I very much liked Philo's earlier take on Chloe, very much, but as her style softened (A/W '04 onwards), although I still appreciated her collections, I became slightly less interested on a personal level.

I really think you need to stop making assumptions about people you know very little about and frankly, seem disinterested in learning more about (as you, clearly, haven't read my posts properly and are even attributing things to me that I haven't said!).

And shes gone, so i think its time to get used to it. Chloe girls are fun flirty whatever, but theres not only a single way to identify with that personality so i dont get why you are so close minded about his visions. Why cant you be excited about the evolution of brand that will OBVIOUSLY never be the same as when phoebe was creative director... You searchign for soemthing that isnt comign back, and i think you need to get used to that.

I'm not closed-minded and I'm not searching for something that isn't coming back and I'm certainly not searching for a pale imitation of that.

I welcome a 'new' (if anything's really new) take on Chloe, I just question whether Paulo is the person to do it, as his personal aesthetic seems so at odds with the Chloe aesthetic; so Chloe fans are left wanting and/or he is forced into a position he may not be comfortable in, creatively speaking.

Do you see what I mean, now?

[chessmess]

and even more so, if a designer should have a firm grip within 3 seasons then that obviously means PAM is doing something right and the heads like what hes bringing to the table... or he would be gone by now...

[chessmess]

Originally Posted by chloehandbags

I think you must be misunderstanding me, chessmess. When did I say I was unhappy with this collection?

I initially mentioned the fur coat (which, admittedly, I am not happy with, as a) I'm anti-fur and b) that coat looks worse than the seven year old faux fur original, IMO), but that's all I said about it and then, in my answer to you, I said I was; 'still in, at least, two minds' about this collection, but I have not said that I'm unhappy; mainly, because I'm not, on the whole.

Also, when did I say I liked girly? Answer? I didn't.

So, if this collection is; 'as girly as it cant get' (by which I assume you mean; 'is as girly as it can get'?) why should that, automatically, make me happy, anyway?

In my reply to you, I said I liked at least a little femininity/glamour in my look, but I didn't say anything about liking girly; or that this collection wasn't feminine and/or girly, did I?

Please reread my posts.





Well, that's your opinion, obviously. Perhaps 'uptight' would have been a better word than 'stiff'?

Anyway, if you could explain what 'a personal sexy' means, that might help me understand your point of view.

If you mean that Marni clothes turn you on, personally, in some way(?) - to me, sexy clothes are clothes that virtually everyone thinks are sexy to look at. Just because someone is turned on by something that most other people find asexual, doesn't make that item sexy.

Some people are turned on by dining chairs, for example, but that doesn't mean that dining chairs are inherently sexy.





Fair enough, thanks for your answer.





I appreciate that you're angry with me, for some reason, but can you please stop shouting 'YOU' at me?

I didn't make him produce this collection. I don't, by any means, have that power.

Presumably, the bottom line did?





OK, now you're just being rude!

When did I say that I didn't understand what you want from PMA at Chloe? In fact, when did you even say what you wanted? All I can find that you said was; 'he didnt dismiss the brands identity completely but it was something new'.

Well, prior to this collection, I happen to disagree with your opinion on that, but I understand what you mean, perfectly well.

Incidentally, why are you singling me out to have a go at? There are plenty of other people on here who didn't think his previous Chloe collections hit the mark, either. Why pick on me?





No, it wasn't me. You seem to think I'm the only one who has said anything on this subject, for some reason!

I suppose I should be flattered?

I'm not anti-girly, but I'm not really a girly-girl, either. I'm edgier than that.

But, given the choice, I would certainly rather look at a catwalk with pretty clothes on it (even if they are a little too saccharin for me, than ugly ones not that I'm saying that these clothes are ugly, by any means [so let's nip that possible assumption in the bud right now!]).





That is simply not true.

I very much liked Philo's earlier take on Chloe, very much, but as her style softened (A/W '04 onwards), although I still appreciated her collections, I became slightly less interested on a personal level.

I really think you need to stop making assumptions about people you know very little about and frankly, seem disinterested in learning more about (as you, clearly, haven't read my posts properly and are even attributing things to me that I haven't said!).





I'm not closed-minded and I'm not searching for something that isn't coming back and I'm certainly not searching for a pale imitation of that.

I welcome a 'new' (if anything's really new) take on Chloe, I just question whether Paulo is the person to do it, as his personal aesthetic seems so at odds with the Chloe aesthetic; so Chloe fans are left wanting and/or he is forced into a position he may not be comfortable in, creatively speaking.

Do you see what I mean, now?

I guess i did assume thigns and i didnt mean to be rude, well i did but thats only because i thought you were doing the same.

It just seemed from your posts that you were into the phoebe girl, where as the deffinition of the chloe girl is really up to interpretation. Im sorry i sounded so rude.

i think marni is anything but uptight. Marni is perhaps the most artful brand in milan imo. Personal sexy i mean instead of being overtly sexy. its bringing on a new type of sexy with a new image.
thats what i meant.

sorry for being rude.
i guess we just have different ideas or im completely misunderstanding you. I just feel as though the customer as a whole didnt give PAM the fair chance he deserved and i guess i was taking it out on the person who was most verbal about this.

sorry

[disco54]

^^^^ so what , facchinetti was at gucci for 2-3 seasons than sacked , lars was at bill blass for a couple seasons than canned ,sometimes for the stability of the brand , ceos dont fire the designer after the first season because they fear that would make the house lose credibility.

[disco54]

Another thing all chloe girls , myself included were and will always be fond of phoebe philo , doesnt mean we wont give new designers a chance but you have to know your customer thats all , thats what made old chloe such a success.

[chessmess]

Im not gonna argue about this anymore.

[disco54]

no arguing just clarifying hun

[chessmess]

ok... thanks for the clarification then.