Chanel Pre-Fall 2026 New York

[PDFSD]

I think it cheapens his legacy by situating him somewhere between caricature and saint.

Karl Lagerfeld originally wanted to be a caricaturist, illustrator, and portrait artist, but famously stated he ended up becoming a caricature of himself. He viewed his signature persona as a deliberate "mask" or armor, likening it to the "Carnival of Venice" that lasted all year, a carefully crafted facade for his public life.

google is still free.

 

[fruitdots]

Karl Lagerfeld originally wanted to be a caricaturist, illustrator, and portrait artist, but famously stated he ended up becoming a caricature of himself. He viewed his signature persona as a deliberate "mask" or armor, likening it to the "Carnival of Venice" that lasted all year, a carefully crafted facade for his public life.

google is still free.

Not sure what sort of point you think you're making here. Yes, Karl became a caricature of himself and did so as a sort of armor. Now that he's dead, I think we have a duty to get through the armor—to evaluate the work on its own terms, to find areas of strength and moments of banality or kitsch. That's what is interesting to me about fashion, not the game of canonization people seem to want to play here.

 

[Lola701]

In 2013 Paris-Dallas show Karl Lagerfeld was 77 years old , what's blazy excuse at 41 years old doing ugly basic jeans ?

I don’t find those jeans ugly. Maybe if they was done by someone else the opinion would have been different.
I mean there are clearly ugly looks to discuss in this collection. If the opening look is the most offensive, I take it.
I would wear that entire look. Clearly not spending the Chanel money on them but I would wear it…

Am I missing something?

 

[Avonlea]

I don’t find those jeans ugly. Maybe if they was done by someone else the opinion would have been different.

Had Frida shown them under her name, you would be the first to trash them lol (and rightfully so)

 

[PDFSD]

This just feels like an inadequate approach. If you're beginning with something amorphous like "vision," and then proceeding to the details, you're missing the fact that a collection *is* an arrangement of details. When I'm looking at one I'm trying to see both—the micro and the macro. But I'm also trying to figure out which details (i.e. garments) will become representative of the collection overall, because that's *also* how high fashion works. Different looks and pieces will make their way into magazines, onto red carpets, into permanent collections, etc, and in those contexts there's a sort of synecdoche at play. A museum like the MET Costume Institute buys pieces to stand-in for whole collections, or even periods, of a designer's work. Tthat's because looking back, we do remember specific garments and connect them to whole collections.

And the idea that one could talk about an artist (or designer) without talking about the *stuff*—the literal material content of aesthetic production—is absurd. Of course I am talking about them as stuff, because that's what art and fashion are. There's no "vision" or "artist" floating above in the realm of ideas. You have to work through layers of elements, whether that means garments or paintings, or even hemlines or brushstrokes. The point of view is *in* the details, it *is* the stuff. You're not going to understand any sort of cultural work or text if you can't look at it closely. Why would fashion be any different?

amorphous is Blazy´s non linear approach which i call no vision or in plain english directionless /chaotic.
a arrangement of details starts with having a point of view, a vision for where you want to take things then results of process informs that as well.
before you see the micro you see first the macro you can't change the law of physics lol

i dont care for the fragmentation of a collection post show that's normal, i speaking of the starting point of creation on high level not what happens after.

sorry i do remember collection as a whole by their creative concept/title then some details sure.

i am not interested to look at stuff at first level when it comes to high fashion when discussing the impression of a show or a brand overhaul, like i said it comes later , later mean not excluding it but not as first topic of analyzing a collection or reviewing it.

you can look at every thing closely but if you don't understand what the bigger picture means your no closer to clearity.

 

[Caffeine]

Ill fitted. Many jeans have too much fabric around the crotch area.
I didn't think too much about it until I went to Vogue to see the entire collection.

 

[Caffeine]

It's a NEW YORK themed collection. Do you think we'd be getting this if it were Métiers d'art Singapore or Buenos Aires? Of course not. What we're getting is Chanel routed through her American inspirations and through the American fashion she helped inspire.

I see little New York in this. For the 10th time, New Yorkers don't wear stilettos. Not on the subway at least. I don't even see them outside black tie events.

It is the New York in MB's imagination. Maybe some people believe it, but it is not convincing.

 

[PDFSD]

Not sure what sort of point you think you're making here. Yes, Karl became a caricature of himself and did so as a sort of armor. Now that he's dead, I think we have a duty to get through the armor—to evaluate the work on its own terms, to find areas of strength and moments of banality or kitsch. That's what is interesting to me about fashion, not the game of canonization people seem to want to play here.

no we don't have a duty to go beyond as it is what it is, his public persona and private person has been documented and written about and filmed,
i don't need more dissection of any mystery, he was a worker and got on with his life he embraced kitch as well as intelligent conversations all in its own appropriate time etc

he had bad collections and many good ones and what i value about Karl is less to do with the collections was more his work ethic and humor and constant drive to reinvent himself and not complan or be over dramatic with things in live yet be grand with luxuries .

i am well informed about is contributions and his status to me its clear.

new Chanel should be better than his and not repeat past mistakes that's what i am about.

even cathy horn says it:

Did Blazy’s subway show work? The answer is no. The problem wasn’t that the setting was unglamorous, though it was, or even that showing luxury clothes there might verge on insensitive. Blazy and the Chanel team made it convincingly clear that they were treating the disused Bowery station as a set. The problem was the expression wasn’t artistic. We were essentially an audience looking at 81 models, or characters, as they crisscrossed a platform. Was there really a strong idea here? As a show, it failed, in my view, to lift off and leave you with a sense of wonder or joy — as Blazy’s October show did.

Instead, it would have been far more effective and surprising if the audience had been sitting in a large empty space and, through the use of choreography and sound and lighting effects, we understood that we were meant to be on a chaotic platform for all the hours of a day. Our imaginations could do the work. Indeed, think of Marc Jacobs’s great show in February 2020, his collaboration with the dancer Karole Armitage, when the models evoked the energy of New York — without a set — and actually flowed into the audience, making us part of the action.

That level of artistry — starting from an abstract concept — would naturally have followed, if not surpassed, the buoyant effect of October.

vision

 

[fruitdots]

amorphous is Blazy´s non linear approach which i call no vision or in plain english directionless /chaotic.
a arrangement of details starts with having a point of view, a vision for where you want to take things then results of process informs that as well.
before you see the micro you see first the macro you can't change the law of physics lol

i dont care for the fragmentation of a collection post show that's normal, i speaking of the starting point of creation on high level not what happens after.

sorry i do remember collection as a whole by their creative concept/title then some details sure.

i am not interested to look at stuff at first level when it comes to high fashion when discussing the impression of a show or a brand overhaul, like i said it comes later , later mean not excluding it but not as first topic of analyzing a collection or reviewing it.

you can look at every thing closely but if you don't understand what the bigger picture means your no closer to clearity.

The macro doesn't exist without the micro; that would make also make it amorphous, like an empty sack. The point is that the two co-constitute one another. I don't think any designers work top-down from vision/idea/sketch to execution, in a fully linear manner. The method is far more like the scientific method—a designer has an idea, often emerging as a question about a *detail* like fabric or cut, and then tries to work through that idea with the ateliers, etc. Some ideas succeed, some don't, but a collection is never some pre-formed, idealist unity. We're talking about craft, technique, and experimentation; none of those things come down from above. Rather, they come from trying to figure out how to do X with Y.

And even though I think the analogy with fashion is a flawed one, the "laws of physics," weren't "discovered" all at once—scientific "laws" come from decades, if not centuries, of mistakes and failures and hypotheses. So yeah, people did see the micro before the macro in that context, hence the whole story of the Apple falling on Newton's head.

 

[fruitdots]

I see little New York in this. For the 10th time, New Yorkers don't wear stilettos. Not on the subway at least. I don't even see them outside black tie events.

It is the New York in MB's imagination. Maybe some people believe it, but it is not convincing.

I think that's probably on you, since your New York is a matter of shoe wear, and Blazy's is drawing very clearly from decades of American design.

 

[Grets]

“You may well do a very graphic, stripped-back Chanel collection at some point,” I said. “You’ve got time.”
“And maybe we will,” he said.

Or maybe the fashion world doesn't need another Raf x Phoebe graphic-stripped back designer. His graphic CK era use of colour I can't stand.

 

[PDFSD]

I don’t find those jeans ugly. Maybe if they was done by someone else the opinion would have been different.
I mean there are clearly ugly looks to discuss in this collection. If the opening look is the most offensive, I take it.
I would wear that entire look. Clearly not spending the Chanel money on them but I would wear it…

Am I missing something?

i am not offended by the first look he always found ways to use and talk about people in the street his BV had 3 collection based on this milan street concept and with this nyc he found the excuse again to do it based of the coco story of passing by in nyc etc

its the trompe l'oeil look of its normal but its expensive .....its fine.
chanel has links with sports wear and using poor fabrics all fine
they sell many basic ski wear sneakers it not a chock this look .

i hate more the lack of refinement in cut and shapes and color and lack of concept in each collection and i don't see new i recognise to much.
he is too vague and his motives are not strong or convincing its all buried under craft and over styling and chaos

 

[fruitdots]

no we don't have a duty to go beyond as it is what it is, his public persona and private person has been documented and written about and filmed,
i don't need more dissection of any mystery, he was a worker and got on with his life he embraced kitch as well as intelligent conversations all in its own appropriate time etc

I didn't say anything about his private person—I'm not talking about biography. I'm talking about the work, and I'm interested in how it looks now from the perspective of the present. We now have the luxury of retrospection, so we can examine his whole career, or we can isolate specific moments or periods within his career. It's not at all as simple as being "what it is."

Would you say that to someone who was trying to curate a show representing Karl's career? A curator has to interpret and select, so as to convey a sense of narrative/movement/change in an artist or designer's work. They can't just fill a gallery with every single one of Picasso's Blue Period paintings (etc.) and say "it is what it is." That would be both banal and a logistical impossibility. They have to select and order material, and the same applies to Karl—now that he's dead we can sort through his whole career, micro and macro, to get a sense of his genuine contributions. That's essentially what was happening in the Costume Institute show; they had to present a coherent sense of his oeuvre in 150 pieces (including Fendi, etc). In doing so (and we could argue about whether they were successful or not), they necessarily presented an interpretation of Karl distinct from his own.

 

[Grets]

His clothes feel so stuffy. Sure when we see the influencers ohh-ing and ahh-ing when showing the close ups and how there is beading and strips of fabric but it looks so cumbersome and realistically no one would want to wear this on a subway.
Rather than proposing a new idea or look or style when it comes to womenswear, he's reheating his tromp loeil denim but now its silk and these "playful" apple bags or giraffe bags or peanut bags. It comes across as generic dad humour.
And it's so condescending to says things like the subway is for everyone because for $2.90 you are like everyone else meanwhile these models are wearing 6 figures worth of clothes, bags on bags and accessories in one look. When you go on the subway sure you might see fancy ladies going to the opera and maybe Hilary Clinton took the subway once or twice but you mostly see workers, janitors, teachers, nurses, waiters, cleaners. But there was little of that. Sure there was a student in a zip up sweater and maybe some ladies that might work an office job or a mom in denim. It's like he so wants to be humble and relateable, but he has completely ignored this reality of the real working class and yet also stripped the fantasy of the brand with this setting.

 

[rivegaucheface]

I see little New York in this. For the 10th time, New Yorkers don't wear stilettos. Not on the subway at least. I don't even see them outside black tie events.

It is the New York in MB's imagination. Maybe some people believe it, but it is not convincing.

Ah yes, Chanel, the famously pragmatic and practical brand. Which totally never existed as a realization of the creative designer's imagination. 100% rooted in reality at all times. Especially for women who schlep the subway.

 

[Alquimista]

The girls are fighting!! But I'm here thinking how stunning this dress is. Something Karl would never do too. I mean ORANGE lol I don't think Karl knew this colour existed.


Chanel.com

 

[Avonlea]

oompa loompa orange tiger

 

[FisforFrank]

Me before 2 years wearing this normcore sh..y zip quarter sweater from Marks & Spencer in grocery shopping on a gloomy day vs Matthieu 2026 masterpiece
Ok guys I think its time for me and for f...g MY fashion career

View attachment 1438924 View attachment 1438925

Here to comment this too🤣 exactly what I wore… Zara x Nanushka 😬 also
with Chanel costume jewelry like the runway look

 

[jeanclaude]

To me, the funniest thing about this collection is the "inspiration" Blazy had: Coco having a walk through NY city...when the result looks more like Elsa Schiaparelli having a walk through NY city (silly tiny hats included).

Is it intentionally made? Or is Blazy unable to differentiate between the styles of Coco and Elsa???

 

[susseinmcswanny]

I just noticed the Warhol hair hat ijbol