I don’t think Chanel needs to abandon what some people dismiss as “outdated Parisian tropes.” Those signatures.. the jacket silhouette , the lightness, the tweeds, the ease, the optimistic color, (who knew his color theory would be worse than Virginie?!) are the brand’s visual language. Modernization doesn’t have to mean erasure of what was before. What he had to add doesn’t seem to be of substance though either
And I’m sorry, but I can’t get over that squirrel bag. It’s the kind of thing a middle-American customer with a very specific taste level would buy, or worse, something her husband would think is “quirky” and gift her for the holidays. Thank god my sales associate days are over. Several of the other pieces, because they lack any pop of color or signature whimsy, could be straight from a museum gift shop. That beaded fringe poodle bag is dreadful.
Then there’s the subway. Yes, New Yorkers of all income levels, including the uber wealthy, take the subway. But there’s nuance here…the women who actually buy hoards of Chanel ready-to-wear are not typically commuting daily on the train, sweating through extreme temperatures, dodging crowds, and navigating the underground city. As my friend who worked at Jeffrey New York used to say, “You want the woman who walks in with perfectly coifed hair and flawless makeup that usually means she has a driver and a different lifestyle.” It sounds snobbish, but it reflects a very real truth: those women aren’t arriving from the subway platform. They’re arriving from controlled bubbles, and insulation from the city’s harsh elements.
Chanel is built on fantasy and world building. If they wanted a train motif, they should’ve created a Chanel train: a transformed subway car, a constructed set, something cinematic and dreamlike. Not just the MTA as is. It flattens the brand instead of elevating it.
I just don’t see how this direction can be sustainable long term. Chanel’s power is in evolution, not in Blazy pretending it’s a completely different house.
