Céline S/S 11 Paris

[Tentacl Ventricl]

I see it's still all going off and handbags at 30 paces in the Gimmethatbag, Uemarasan, Chloehandbags gender politics, free will - determinism dialogue. Just surrendering and calling it the wet dream discussion is admittedly less of a mouthful.

As the creative director I highly doubt she would have sent anything down the runway she wasn't sure about.

I agree, this collection is not as sexed up as some would like, perhaps that's what blocking them. But I would like to think Celine is for the modern woman that does not dress to be sexy, only for herself. Unfortunately that disqualifies most women. Oh well, their loss.

If we bring to the forefront of our minds the fact that Celine SS10 and AW10/11 has been a resounding commercial success story, there's something of a tautology in what you're saying here Mutterlein.

You seem to be agreeing that SS11 is relatively less sexy in comparison with SS10 but then denying that the sensuality of Phoebe's first two Celine collections was an integral part of their success. I'm sorry but I think most people would say that SS10 Celine was sexy. Tastefully so yes but sexy nevertheless. And clearly with that SS10 collection Phoebe did tap into what women want. It was commercially spot on, a buyer's wet dream. Quite simply - sex sells. [and as an aside to the gender politics dialogue do note that that is a gender neutral mantra]

View attachment 555801

View attachment 555803

edit - how infuriating that my attachments wont appear. I have mailed the administrator in attempt to fix it.

In figure 1 we see that for SS11 (right hand image) Phoebe's treatment of leather has become relatively less sculpted to the body. The weight looks heavier. It's a roomier, less sensual silhouette. Stiffer, more forbidding somehow. If this makes sense, SS11 is further removed from Versace, it's less bodycon. It's less commercial.

In figure 2 SS11 on the right shows more nipple but there's no question in my mind which image most people would find sexier. Again the SS10 is characterised by how bodycon it is. SS11 is altogether an easier, slouchier silhouette. SS10 is just that bit more luxe and uptown. By comparison it's a bit more Versace/Gucci, a bit more Milanese. It's more commercial. In SS10 Phoebe delivered perfectly 'what women want'. SS11 remains up for grabs on that score.

But Mutterlein it was really this part that got me thinking - As the creative director I highly doubt she would have sent anything down the runway she wasn't sure about.

It begs the question can a creative director at a PPR or LVMH brand always do exactly what they want. Prey tell those who are in the first hand know about such group politics, but I imagine the answer is no they can't. No, surely within such big congolmerates what the designer produces is directed to an extent by overall commercial strategy. It isn't just about the whim of Phoebe it's about brand positioning within group strategy. And so, I'm afraid Chloehandbags, it's two men in particular - Francois Pinault and Bernard Arnault - who are influential in discerning and delivering what women want. And if you're going to try to tell us those two don't know 'what women want' then think again.

It leaves the question what has gone on here for SS11 brand positioning at Celine. You take a winning formula then you break it? Off the back of a commercially successful collection you then deliver something very different, a collection which, on the face of it, is less obviously commercial, a bit more leftfield. I have a theory as to why but I'll break off and deliver that later as my posts can tend to get so long as to be impenetrable.

Oh - I'll just add here the thought about there being less bags on the SS11 Celine runway (I take it on trust that whoever noted less bags this season was right as I've not counted). We all know that PPR and LVMH are geared up to peddle leathergoods, eyewear and scent much moreso than garments. It's where margin and volume lies, where the mid market feels most comfortable about acquiring a slice of the brand. So is less bags on a runway to be read as a sign - a statement that this is intended as a less commercial offering, not so directly 'about' sales more about brand positioning and perception...

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I see it's still all going off and handbags at 30 paces in the Gimmethatbag, Uemarasan, Chloehandbags gender politics, free will - determinism dialogue. Just surrendering and calling it the wet dream discussion is admittedly less of a mouthful.



If we bring to the forefront of our minds the fact that Celine SS10 and AW10/11 has been a resounding commercial success story, there's something of a tautology in what you're saying here Mutterlein.

You seem to be agreeing that SS11 is relatively less sexy in comparison with SS10 but then denying that the sensuality of Phoebe's first two Celine collections was an integral part of their success. I'm sorry but I think most people would say that SS10 Celine was sexy. Tastefully so yes but sexy nevertheless. And clearly with that SS10 collection Phoebe did tap into what women want. It was commercially spot on, a buyer's wet dream. Quite simply - sex sells. [and as an aside to the gender politics dialogue do note that that is a gender neutral mantra]

View attachment 555801

View attachment 555803

edit - how infuriating that my attachments wont appear. I have mailed the administrator in attempt to fix it.

In figure 1 we see that for SS11 (right hand image) Phoebe's treatment of leather has become relatively less sculpted to the body. The weight looks heavier. It's a roomier, less sensual silhouette. Stiffer, more forbidding somehow. If this makes sense, SS11 is further removed from Versace, it's less bodycon. It's less commercial.

In figure 2 SS11 on the right shows more nipple but there's no question in my mind which image most people would find sexier. Again the SS10 is characterised by how bodycon it is. SS11 is altogether an easier, slouchier silhouette. SS10 is just that bit more luxe and uptown. By comparison it's a bit more Versace/Gucci, a bit more Milanese. It's more commercial. In SS10 Phoebe delivered perfectly 'what women want'. SS11 remains up for grabs on that score.

But Mutterlein it was really this part that got me thinking - As the creative director I highly doubt she would have sent anything down the runway she wasn't sure about.

It begs the question can a creative director at a PPR or LVMH brand always do exactly what they want. Prey tell those who are in the first hand know about such group politics, but I imagine the answer is no they can't. No, surely within such big congolmerates what the designer produces is directed to an extent by overall commercial strategy. It isn't just about the whim of Phoebe it's about brand positioning within group strategy. And so, I'm afraid Chloehandbags, it's two men in particular - Francois Pinault and Bernard Arnault - who are influential in discerning and delivering what women want. And if you're going to try to tell us those two don't know 'what women want' then think again.

It leaves the question what has gone on here for SS11 brand positioning at Celine. You take a winning formula then you break it? Off the back of a commercially successful collection you then deliver something very different, a collection which, on the face of it, is less obviously commercial, a bit more leftfield. I have a theory as to why but I'll break off and deliver that later as my posts can tend to get so long as to be impenetrable.

Oh - I'll just add here the thought about there being less bags on the SS11 Celine runway (I take it on trust that whoever noted less bags this season was right as I've not counted). We all know that PPR and LVMH are geared up to peddle leathergoods, eyewear and scent much moreso than garments. It's where margin and volume lies, where the mid market feels most comfortable about acquiring a slice of the brand. So is less bags on a runway to be read as a sign - a statement that this is intended as a less commercial offering, not so directly 'about' sales more about brand positioning and perception...

Well, I haven't denied anything, I never actually made any reference to her other collections, and I'm not totally convinced they are relevant when discussing this one. But I guess I will now... SS 10 and AW 10, commercial successes? I suppose. But when you consider how selective their accounts are and when you consider that in the small scheme of things not many people are actually wearing the clothes, a "commercial" success is relative. And, if an item sells out but you only had 10 units to begin with its meaning is not so important. It's the tote bags the editors actually bought. I think you're putting to much emphasis on its commercial aspect and not that it was simply right for the times. But of course, there are all the Mango, Zara, and H&M knock-offs her collections spawned, I suppose that says something about it's desirability and commercial viability, more than you think. Maybe it was right for S/S 2010, for a debut, but maybe for S/S 2011 she wanted something that wouldn't and couldn't be knocked off so easily. Maybe the Celine woman is also the kind that doesn't want her look on high street either, sex or no sex.

The thing is, I don't see this loose and more relaxed look that much of a change in direction, if anything I only think she's getting closer to the real deal. And you know what? Maybe the Celine woman will wear her sexy leather shell from last season with her new slouchy pants from this one? Maybe she is not a trend driven fashion victim and expects her clothes to last more than 6 months? It's a continuation of an idea, not a totally new one. First she cleaned things up now she's letting it relax.

As far as Philo's responsibilities to LVMH, please keep the following in mind:

- LVMH built and developed a London studio just for her
- They also gave her shares in the company's stock
- And they have given her total carte blanche including creative direction for campaigns.
- You can only imagine what they had to pay her to lure her out and work for them.

She knows what her duties are, she knows what is expected of her. I am 100% certain Philo shows only what she wants to show. LVMH would not have enabled her to the extent they have if that's not precisely what they wanted. They have spent a lot of money to get her ideas, they want to see them realized.

As far the bags on the runway. We all know they are going to sell a ton of them, like almost every other luxury brand, so why put it on the runway? It's not an accessories trade show. It's FASHION week!

 

[Deleted member 7575]

It's a continuation of an idea, not a totally new one. First she cleaned things up now she's letting it relax.

to clarify:

She's working with the same language that she did last season and now she's created something new to say with it. And it doesn't make last season obsolete, they can co-exist. It doesn't have to be one way or the other. And to respond to chloehandbags, it doesn't have to be one woman or the other. But this season she is addressing that other woman.

 

[Tentacl Ventricl]

 

[Deleted member 7575]

be sure to credit your images!

 

[Uemarasan]

And now I completely regret introducing the metaphor of a wet dream as it's bandied about left and right! By the way, Tentacl Ventricl, I would never own a handbag. It will be messengers at 30 paces for me. By the way, Mutterlein has been wielding a mean handbag in this feminism discussion, too, so credit where it's due!

Chloehandbags, I think you are misunderstanding what I've been saying all along in this thread. I am not trying to impose a certain way of dressing on women. On the contrary, I think I've been very generous when I state in my previous post that:

"Fashion should be permitted to be fantastic, real, emotional, cerebral, sexy, feminine, masculine, and minimal all at the same time."

So I do not know where you are getting the idea that I am telling someone what to wear. I am simply telling Gimmethatbag that the way she chooses to dress is NOT the only way to dress. I hope that's clear enough. There is no need to add further to what I am saying. I do not even want to go into how this is obviously a semantic argument we're having with "supposed to" versus "has to". I want to discuss fashion, not logic. Can we actually move on to discussing the collection?

 

[Uemarasan]

Oh, and just to pick up on the notion of men dressing women or women dressing men, it's very interesting to me that, historically speaking, it's usually been female fashion designers who've unloosed the shapes and silhouettes of clothes for women, who've allowed female bodies to breathe and relax. Madeleine Vionnet and her bias cut, Coco Chanel and her disdain of corsetry, Rei Kawakubo and her deconstructed garments, and now, dare I suggest, Phoebe Philo and the new Celine.

 

[liny]

Wow, I can see the discussion got really lively here.

I can see how the collection can look a little boring (it didn't get my pulse racing the way the fall collection did) but I do love some of the subtle elements of the individual pieces, especially the tuxedo touches - the multi-coloured striped cummerbands, the slit-sleeve cape-jacket, the piping on the trousers.

I also like how she's moved the clothes away from the body for a more relaxed silhouette which is really more practical for warm weather, but the trousers still look very smart to me. I also like the construction of the boxy tops - again, they're not innovative, but they have that impeccable construction you look at a luxury house for (I don't believe we look at luxury brands strictly for innovation, it's also about craftsmanship).

The woven pieces are also intriguing - they're an interesting take on knits for summer. I especially liked the tank.

Primary colours are great! I loved the colour pops at Jil Sander and I really hate camel, and I love that designers are looking at colour blocking as an expression of minimalism. And everyone I know who saw the collection seemed to hate the prints, but I loved them, though perhaps not worn together.

Im interested in how she develops these themes in coming collections. I love designers who throw things out for us to think about (Raf Simons, Nicholas Ghesquiere) but I also love designers who ruminate on a theme and take subtle elements further with each collection. I don't think Phoebe Philo is the best at this (I prefer Alber Elbaz, Stefano Pilati and Dries Van Noten for this) but I feel like she's trying, and at the very least, delivering some very thoughtfully beautiful clothing at the same time.

 

[chloehandbags]

I see it's still all going off and handbags at 30 paces in the Gimmethatbag, Uemarasan, Chloehandbags gender politics, free will - determinism dialogue. Just surrendering and calling it the wet dream discussion is admittedly less of a mouthful.

And so, I'm afraid Chloehandbags, it's two men in particular - Francois Pinault and Bernard Arnault - who are influential in discerning and delivering what women want. And if you're going to try to tell us those two don't know 'what women want' then think again.

I'm not saying that men don't, necessarily, know what women want (assuming they've consulted with enough of them!), or aren't entitled to their opinion (some of my favourite designers are men, after all).

I'm just pointing out the irony that, surely, exists when a collection is described as 'feminist', not by women but by men and then, when a woman dares to say she doesn't like it and doesn't want to wear it, it is then also (largely) men who are the ones trying to foist it onto her, despite her protestations.

I just think it's utterly bizarre that anything, which is foisted onto unwilling women by men, could ever be described as 'feminist'; however 'liberating' it may, or may not, be to wear.

I think we must always remember that men very often have their own hidden (or not so hidden!) agenda, when they try to make women wear certain things (or try to make them 'choose' to wear certain things - supposedly for themselves) and that it is not only men who wish women to dress in a provocative fashion, for their own amusement, that may have an agenda.

Hence my earlier yashmak reference...

It leaves the question what has gone on here for SS11 brand positioning at Celine. You take a winning formula then you break it? Off the back of a commercially successful collection you then deliver something very different, a collection which, on the face of it, is less obviously commercial, a bit more leftfield. I have a theory as to why but I'll break off and deliver that later as my posts can tend to get so long as to be impenetrable.

Oh - I'll just add here the thought about there being less bags on the SS11 Celine runway (I take it on trust that whoever noted less bags this season was right as I've not counted). We all know that PPR and LVMH are geared up to peddle leathergoods, eyewear and scent much moreso than garments. It's where margin and volume lies, where the mid market feels most comfortable about acquiring a slice of the brand. So is less bags on a runway to be read as a sign - a statement that this is intended as a less commercial offering, not so directly 'about' sales more about brand positioning and perception...

Yes - or that's what I think they're up to, anyway?

I think they think we'll think; 'Oh, no 'it' bags on the Celine runway this season, how delightfully non-commercial and sophisticated Celine must be!' and then run off to buy our Celine bag!

What they may not know (and what most people probably don't realise), is that scientific studies have been conducted (yes, that's where the research funding has been going!) and women who primarily like handbags have been found to have higher IQs, on average, than women who primarily like shoes.

Strange, perhaps, but true...

 

[chloehandbags]

Oh and while we're (or I'm still!) on the subject of 'tyranny' (re. the YSL thread), I think it could just as well be said that any tyranny there may be has largely come from the anti-classical beauty crowd, over the last few decades, rather than the other way around.

This is despite them being in the minority, as you suggest Uemarasan - so it's not even a democratic tyranny (if such a thing exists?!).

Modern artists have largely usurped classical, figurative artists, despite the fact that, these days, many (if not most) of them cannot draw, paint or sculpt at all and pay other people to do any of that for them!

That's when they're not just sawing calves in half, instead, of course.

I think it's safe to say that there's been a hell of a lot of style over substance and (bringing it back to the post above, to an extent) marketing over honesty/true talent lately.

 

[chloehandbags]

^ Not that I'm trying to say that I don't think that Phoebe is a true talent, BTW, because I do still think she is; despite not having been overly wowed by her work at Celine, so far.

 

[Tentacl Ventricl]

I think they think we'll think; 'Oh, no 'it' bags on the Celine runway this season, how delightfully non-commercial and sophisticated Celine must be!' and then run off to buy our Celine bag!

What they may not know (and what most people probably don't realise), is that scientific studies have been conducted (yes, that's where the research funding has been going!) and women who primarily like handbags have been found to have higher IQs, on average, than women who primarily like shoes.

Strange, perhaps, but true...

Excellent stuff Chloehandbags

Not to get sidetracked but I love that sort of research thanks for sharing and would hazard, at the risk of getting myself into trouble, a thought or two on why. Quite simple really - one's bag is where one holds the tools of an organised life whereas shoes, aside from the simple commonplace practicalities of protecting the feet, merely adjust the appearance of the wearer's legs and derriere. So a bag has a cerebral connection whereas a shoe is more pure guttural physicality. Idealism/Materialism. Maybe.

I also find it fascinating as to why, apparently, a consumer will more readily lay out a 3 or 4 figure sum on a luxury brand it bag than on a jacket or dress.
It all has a finite longevity in terms of it's power to impress as a 'now' item so it's not as if one would necessarily get more use from one than another.

Maybe it's just a case of margins are higher on bags so it's what Bernard and Francois want to tell women to buy.

It's also interesting as to how the brands operate their retail spaces differentially. Ie in London at Westfield for the most part the luxury brand stores are similar to the airport concessions - just leathergoods and eyewear, scarse a garment in sight - whereas in Sloane Street they do actually have clothes for sale. Different kind of customer I guess. Yes Westfield is quite shoe heavy.

 

[Tentacl Ventricl]

Yes, so my theory on brand positioning and why Celine seems to have gone more leftfield this season. I decided yesterday that this is all a bit obvious so perhaps I wouldn't bother to write it but maybe not so..

It started with the analysis I did of DeCarnin at Balmain. Obviously he's taken the brand from quite Lady to punked out Rockchick in the space of 9 seasons. And let's face it is there any brand out there that's getting 'older' in it's positioning.

But I noticed that the SS collections are where he really pushes the edge. Whilst there's a general movement of the positioning over time it oscillates with the last two AW collections getting smarter and dressier again.

That may be quite a bit to do with purely the nature of winter dressing. It's party season, there's more darkness, you want to glam it up a bit, a few more sequins.

But I think there's also this. I read somewhere that 70% of all retail sales happens in the weeks around December. So whilst, garment sales don't drive the luxury brands balance sheets you might well sell more clothes from your AW collections. Hence they get a bit more commercial.

Particularly in a recession, actual sales of SS collection garments are so weak you may as well wave the white flag on commercial sales of garments. Instead you use a SS collection moreso to take the brand positioning where you want it - younger, cooler, edgier.

I think you can see this oscillation in the relative commerciality of SS/AW in a lot of brands recently. Ie Balenciaga the last two SS collections have gone very 'street'. On the Balenciaga thread a poster was lamenting the disappearance of an older Balenciaga aesthetic which I found looked rather 'Lady' although I think it does swing back there a bit more in AW. And Louis Vuitton's recent positioning has veered dramatically from being clubby in SS and much more classic in AW.

So I'm grateful to you Mutterlein for your insight that Philo has a carte blanche deal with Celine and I've no reason to doubt that but I just pick up that there's this context of commercial strategy informing what designers put out from season to season. No doubt Phoebe well understands that that is the context in which she operates. I'm just hazarding a guess as to why this happens but I definitely think that the context is there to be read.

SS10 Celine being Phoebe's column inch laden return was an aberration but now for SS11 she's joining this industry rythmn that you use SS principally to draw kudos to the brand, to reposition it, to make it cooler and younger so you give your work more ease, or more street, or more club or rock it out more. AW you bring it back a bit more to accomodate your older more traditional customer base and you might actually sell a few more garments too so it'll feel relatively less challenging, more commercial.

I think that often even the people who post on here feel pretty damn disorientated by the speed of change in the language of fashion. Disorientation is of course another part of the masterplan. People who are secure in the thought they have everything they need is the last thing consumerism wants. I think the more we can read the strategy of PPR, LVMH etc the less disoriented we become, the more we get to deconstructing the game.

As I say, just a theory based on observation and happy to be proven wrong. I should really have sought out some sales figures 'departmentally' so to speak shoes/bags/eyewear/scent/clothes across brands, across seasons, year on year. I seem to remember having a look at the LVMH accounts a while back though and it didn't give anywhere near that level of detail.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I just think it's utterly bizarre that anything, which is foisted onto unwilling women by men, could ever be described as 'feminist'; however 'liberating' it may, or may not, be to wear.

Oh give me a break. Nothing was foisted on you. This collection was designed by a woman, it is being praised by women, and it is women buyers and customers that will ultimately have the final say. Please.

 

[chloehandbags]

Excellent stuff Chloehandbags

Thanks - I don't know about that, but I thought I ought to mention it, as I know there is somewhat of a culture, on here, of indiscriminately looking down one's nose at anyone with the word 'bag' in their name.

I thought I should point out that we're not all brainless bimbos.

I may be - but we're not all!

Not to get sidetracked but I love that sort of research thanks for sharing and would hazard, at the risk of getting myself into trouble, a thought or two on why. Quite simple really - one's bag is where one holds the tools of an organised life whereas shoes, aside from the simple commonplace practicalities of protecting the feet, merely adjust the appearance of the wearer's legs and derriere. So a bag has a cerebral connection whereas a shoe is more pure guttural physicality. Idealism/Materialism. Maybe.

Yes, maybe? I don't know.

I definitely wouldn't say that there's anything unintelligent about any of the women I've met, who particularly like shoes, either, personally; but you could be right.

Certainly, I think the purchase of a bag is, generally, less about improving one's physical appearance (although, I don't think there's much doubt that the right bag for one's body type can be flattering - you know, so a bag with a long strap will elongate the body and so on) and more about obtaining an object of desire (or even, depending on the bag, a piece of portable art).

After all, you carry a bag, rather than wear it in the true sense of the word, so it's far easier to look at it, yourself, while it's in use, than it is a pair of shoes.

So, it can almost be like buying a painting, or a sculpture, or something, TBH - only a painting that you can take everywhere with you!

I also find it fascinating as to why, apparently, a consumer will more readily lay out a 3 or 4 figure sum on a luxury brand it bag than on a jacket or dress.
It all has a finite longevity in terms of it's power to impress as a 'now' item so it's not as if one would necessarily get more use from one than another.

Well, this is a huge subject (believe it, or not!) and not to try to speak for everyone but, from what I've heard, I think most designer bag buyers think of bags (especially non 'it' bags) as something that they will use for years (although, whether they actually do, or not, may be another matter!).

Although bags (especially 'it' bags) can and do date, eventually, I think it's safe to say that most don't date as quickly as a piece of clothing?

Even if your bag is no longer in production (and many will be, because design houses will often continue to produce them for years, or even decades - whereas, they usually only produce a certain style of clothing for one season, of course, don't they?), there will normally still be at least one fairly similar style of bag in production, somewhere else.

So, most bag owners probably don't feel so style-sensitive that they have to abandon a bag they like, as soon as the bag ceases to be current and almost certainly not as soon as the season is over.

In the case of bags other than 'it' bags, I think the idea is to either buy something one views as a 'classic' (I know that word is a minefield, but they mean by that something that's been around for decades and has, for the most part, stood the test of time), or to buy something you really love (not worrying whether it is part of a trend, or not) and assume that, if you really love it, it will transcend trends for you.

Again, I suppose we come back to the idea of many bag buyers buying, primarily, for their own pleasure and approval; rather than for the pleasure/approval of others?

If you're not buying with the idea of impressing with your up-to-the-minute style, then why worry when it ceases to be up-to-the-minute?

When listing their priorities, a lot of bag-buyers will cite things like quality of design, materials and manufacture and very often, how current/fashionable something is, barely gets a look in.

Some people are very keen on things like the age and history of the design house in question, too.

Also, I think quite a lot of bag-lovers really don't mind, too much, if a bag does date visually, as they may look at themselves as collectors, to a certain extent and perhaps they feel that places them and their collection above fashion, to some degree, anyway?

Of course, once you've assured yourself that you will love your bag forever, for whatever reason(s), you can then also continue to assure yourself that a bag won't normally wear out (physically) as quickly as most garments will and almost certainly not as quickly as a pair of shoes.

Then there's the thorny subject of weight (which is also a feminist issue, of course!) - realistically, most young and early middle-aged women do not remain exactly the same weight for any length of time.

There are very often pregnancy and post-pregnancy times to consider, of course and also, just the natural fluctuations (whether greater or smaller) that a lot of women experience.

Imagine buying a pair of $2,000+ trousers, just to find you're pregnant two months later?

Whereas, your bag will always fit and even if it doesn't fit in with your baby-friendly lifestyle, it will wait for you.

Either that, or you can sell it and know you will normally get more for it than you would have done for those barely worn trousers...

Maybe it's just a case of margins are higher on bags so it's what Bernard and Francois want to tell women to buy.

Probably.

As I said on another thread, these days, even when they go on sale, they are still very often significantly more expensive than they would have been at full price, a few years ago (and certainly, when you take into account the quality and place of manufacture).

With a few brands, people will still pay up (and often, absolutely ridiculous amounts!), as they know they can get the vast majority of their money back if/when they come to sell, again; but the majority of brands simply aren't in that league, of course.

So, I think it's safe to say that most people are far more reticent to buy, especially at full price, than they once may have been.

It's also interesting as to how the brands operate their retail spaces differentially. Ie in London at Westfield for the most part the luxury brand stores are similar to the airport concessions - just leather goods and eyewear, scarse a garment in sight - whereas in Sloane Street they do actually have clothes for sale. Different kind of customer I guess. Yes Westfield is quite shoe heavy.

Yes, I guess so.

Even if the leather goods and other accessories are the bread and butter for the house, I still think it's a great shame that (especially) the ones that are part of the current collection aren't always sold with the clothes, as I think (ideally) one should be able to, at least, view them within the context of the designer's entire vision.

 

[chloehandbags]

Oh give me a break. Nothing was foisted on you. This collection was designed by a woman, it is being praised by women, and it is women buyers and customers that will ultimately have the final say. Please.

I wasn't talking about anything having been foisted on me.

BTW, what happened to the feminist standpoint, Mutterlein?

 

[chloehandbags]

Yes, so my theory on brand positioning and why Celine seems to have gone more leftfield this season. I decided yesterday that this is all a bit obvious so perhaps I wouldn't bother to write it but maybe not so..

It started with the analysis I did of DeCarnin at Balmain. Obviously he's taken the brand from quite Lady to punked out Rockchick in the space of 9 seasons. And let's face it is there any brand out there that's getting 'older' in it's positioning.

Yes - Chloe!

Almost every season, in fact.

But I agree there probably aren't many others.

But I noticed that the SS collections are where he really pushes the edge. Whilst there's a general movement of the positioning over time it oscillates with the last two AW collections getting smarter and dressier again.

That may be quite a bit to do with purely the nature of winter dressing. It's party season, there's more darkness, you want to glam it up a bit, a few more sequins.

But I think there's also this. I read somewhere that 70% of all retail sales happens in the weeks around December. So whilst, garment sales don't drive the luxury brands balance sheets you might well sell more clothes from your AW collections. Hence they get a bit more commercial.

Particularly in a recession, actual sales of SS collection garments are so weak you may as well wave the white flag on commercial sales of garments. Instead you use a SS collection moreso to take the brand positioning where you want it - younger, cooler, edgier.

I think you can see this oscillation in the relative commerciality of SS/AW in a lot of brands recently. Ie Balenciaga the last two SS collections have gone very 'street'. On the Balenciaga thread a poster was lamenting the disappearance of an older Balenciaga aesthetic which I found looked rather 'Lady' although I think it does swing back there a bit more in AW. And Louis Vuitton's recent positioning has veered dramatically from being clubby in SS and much more classic in AW.

So I'm grateful to you Mutterlein for your insight that Philo has a carte blanche deal with Celine and I've no reason to doubt that but I just pick up that there's this context of commercial strategy informing what designers put out from season to season. No doubt Phoebe well understands that that is the context in which she operates. I'm just hazarding a guess as to why this happens but I definitely think that the context is there to be read.

SS10 Celine being Phoebe's column inch laden return was an aberration but now for SS11 she's joining this industry rythmn that you use SS principally to draw kudos to the brand, to reposition it, to make it cooler and younger so you give your work more ease, or more street, or more club or rock it out more. AW you bring it back a bit more to accomodate your older more traditional customer base and you might actually sell a few more garments too so it'll feel relatively less challenging, more commercial.

I think that often even the people who post on here feel pretty damn disorientated by the speed of change in the language of fashion. Disorientation is of course another part of the masterplan. People who are secure in the thought they have everything they need is the last thing consumerism wants. I think the more we can read the strategy of PPR, LVMH etc the less disoriented we become, the more we get to deconstructing the game.

As I say, just a theory based on observation and happy to be proven wrong. I should really have sought out some sales figures 'departmentally' so to speak shoes/bags/eyewear/scent/clothes across brands, across seasons, year on year. I seem to remember having a look at the LVMH accounts a while back though and it didn't give anywhere near that level of detail.

Some excellent observations, thank you for taking the time to make them.

ITA, BTW.

 

[Uemarasan]

Thanks to everyone for their input in this fascinating discussion, and even if we disagree, there is still insight to be gleaned from your posts. I believe I've already said my piece here, so I really don't have anything more to add. Clearly, I share most of Mutterlein's sentiments with regards to this collection and agree with her on nearly all her points. I'm already very much looking forward to F/W 2011.

Just a few clarifications:

Chloehandbags, the tyranny of the majority (not really a "democratic tyranny" because an ideal democracy does not belong to the majority) is best exemplified in political examples: segregation, and, until recently, gay marriage in the US. Not an exact or even appropriate analogy when it comes to fashion, but I think you already know what I mean when I use this term.

Let's not go into a discussion of the aesthetics of modern art because it will take us forever to thrash it out. You are opening a can of worms. You do know that even Monet challenged classicism and usurped long-held ideas about art? Maybe we can move to an art forum. I also don't know who these modern artists that you are referring to are (I'm guessing anyone with any connection to the Young British Artists or the Saatchi gallery, who are only a part of modern art) because modern art can't be so readily generalized and stereotyped in such a way. Bourgeois, Soulages, Tapies, Johns are only a few examples of highly respected, important, and talented modern artists (moreso in all respects than Hirst) who possess the skills that you say are lacking. In my experience it's usually the chic, the fashionable, the media-friendly artists that are subpar. I'm also sorry to say that a lot of the artists favored by the fashion industry are very poor representatives of modern art itself (Terence Koh). On the subject of process, even Michelangelo did not paint the Sistine Chapel alone, and it would be difficult to argue that his work does not bear his artistic stamp even if it was not solely created by him. The solitary artist is usually an illusion. So it is easy to offer a counterexample to your claims about modern art; quite frankly you are looking at it from a narrow perspective.

But the art world (I take it you mean painting and sculpture) and fashion world are vastly different even though they intersect and overlap. It will be difficult to collapse their aesthetics into a one-size-fits-all thesis, as you seem to be doing. Art is patronized and displayed in a context very much unlike fashion. People buy art and fashion for very different reasons. People will hang a Murakami in their house, but simply ask a woman what would she rather wear most of the time: a garment with three sleeves and various lumps and bumps or a simple skirt and tunic? What would she think is prettier? The majority still believe that the latter is typically more a thing of beauty, unless you're Bjork. But most women are not Bjork.

All these claims about modern art and classicism and beauty in art have to be pointedly relevant to help or complement the dialogue, so this will be the last I comment on these and dissect your arguments. And I wonder if this post was even worth it...

Signing out.

 

[Chris_Couture05]

I like this collection, Im not a fan of the leather looks or the prints. I like the loose fitting garments even though they are not extremly feminine I like the free flowing effect that it gives.

 

[chloehandbags]

Thanks to everyone for their input in this fascinating discussion, and even if we disagree, there is still insight to be gleaned from your posts. I believe I've already said my piece here, so I really don't have anything more to add. Clearly, I share most of Mutterlein's sentiments with regards to this collection and agree with her on nearly all her points. I'm already very much looking forward to F/W 2011.

Just a few clarifications:

Chloehandbags, the tyranny of the majority (not really a "democratic tyranny" because an ideal democracy does not belong to the majority) is best exemplified in political examples: segregation, and, until recently, gay marriage in the US. Not an exact or even appropriate analogy when it comes to fashion, but I think you already know what I mean when I use this term.

Let's not go into a discussion of the aesthetics of modern art because it will take us forever to thrash it out. You are opening a can of worms. You do know that even Monet challenged classicism and usurped long-held ideas about art? Maybe we can move to an art forum. I also don't know who these modern artists that you are referring to are (I'm guessing anyone with any connection to the Young British Artists or the Saatchi gallery, who are only a part of modern art) because modern art can't be so readily generalized and stereotyped in such a way. Bourgeois, Soulages, Tapies, Johns are only a few examples of highly respected, important, and talented modern artists (moreso in all respects than Hirst) who possess the skills that you say are lacking. In my experience it's usually the chic, the fashionable, the media-friendly artists that are subpar. I'm also sorry to say that a lot of the artists favored by the fashion industry are very poor representatives of modern art itself (Terence Koh). On the subject of process, even Michelangelo did not paint the Sistine Chapel alone, and it would be difficult to argue that his work does not bear his artistic stamp even if it was not solely created by him. The solitary artist is usually an illusion. So it is easy to offer a counterexample to your claims about modern art; quite frankly you are looking at it from a narrow perspective.

But the art world (I take it you mean painting and sculpture) and fashion world are vastly different even though they intersect and overlap. It will be difficult to collapse their aesthetics into a one-size-fits-all thesis, as you seem to be doing. Art is patronized and displayed in a context very much unlike fashion. People buy art and fashion for very different reasons. People will hang a Murakami in their house, but simply ask a woman what would she rather wear most of the time: a garment with three sleeves and various lumps and bumps or a simple skirt and tunic? What would she think is prettier? The majority still believe that the latter is typically more a thing of beauty, unless you're Bjork. But most women are not Bjork.

All these claims about modern art and classicism and beauty in art have to be pointedly relevant to help or complement the dialogue, so this will be the last I comment on these and dissect your arguments. And I wonder if this post was even worth it...

Signing out.

You make some very good points.

I know my post was very simplistic, but I was just trying to make a simple analogy - not write, yet another, sketchy dissertation (I've done quite enough of that, already!).

To try to continue to keep it simple, I would say that those artists who can/could draw and paint well and have proved as much, have every right to then strip back their own work to the bare bones, if they so desire (although, no one is obliged to like the result, if they do, of course)...

What I object to, is those who cannot, have not and do not, but still think, for some reason, that they have every right to produce (or have someone else produce!) something that may look similar to that, but which is actually not, as they had nothing to strip back to the bones in the first place.