lets not get caught up in Chloe's past, what's so exciting about this change is what's to come. Each designer offered the label their interpretation and stuck their necks out to do so. what suits me isnt the same as what suits [most] others and I celebrate that in my personal style choices from various Chloe collection's.... so lets not castigate any of the Chloe designers until we're ready to fill their shoes....and I've always found some awesome ones!
chloehandbags
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,452
- Reaction score
- 2
Yes, I see what you mean, but are they? Or do they just (without prejudice) see collections that are, clearly, inferior and/or less suited to the enduring house aesthetic and then, logically, reference back to when they last felt things were on-track?
What I'm trying to say is, how can you tell the difference between someone who is prejudiced against change of any kind and someone who, genuinely, doesn't rate the Chloe collections since Phoebe left?
Surely, it will only be possible to tell, one way or the other, when someone produces a Chloe collection that is, truly, worthy of the name and considering that there are always very varying opinions, on here, about almost every collection shown, I'm not even sure that you will know, for sure, then, will you? As it may still be down to a matter of taste.
Turning it around for a moment (I hope it's a safe assumption for me to make that you are a current Marni fan, from your name?) - imagine Consuela Castiglioni left, and after two rather disappointing collections, an ex-Chloe designer came along and instead of respecting the Marni aesthetic, he/she imposed his/her will onto Marni (either intentionally, or through a complete lack of awareness of the brand and whilst Chloe was still, simultaneously, producing what you viewed to be their typical Chloe collections). Assuming you didn't like the 'new' direction being taken at Marni and so said that you missed Castiglioni (because you, understandably, did), how would you like it if people, especially Chloe fans, started accusing you of being against change and said that you would never accept any designer other than Castiglioni and posted things like;
'It's a vicious cycle of refusing to accept change at the house of Marni and its going to go on and on and on...? ...
'?Would you like it, or would you feel somewhat attacked and/or patronised?
Think about it from our POV, first we had to endure five consecutive substandard collections, at least two of the last three of which were also irrelevant and virtually unwearable (from our perspective, as fairly long-term Chloe customers, at least) and then, when we have the nerve to criticise, or comment that we wish the last good designer was back, we appear to be under attack from Marni fans, for not appreciating PMA's supposed 'newness' and vision and for not sucking up all the Marni mushy pea-flavoured goodness, like good little Marni-clones!
I'm joking, of course, but really, it's pretty ridiculous.
With all due respect, so what if they do?
They say that because they feel it is true (and in my [and many other people's] opinion, it is true).
I simply can't understand why you insist that people not liking something as much as they did something else, that they viewed as far better, automatically, means that they are refusing to accept change? It doesn't make any sense, to me.
I don't like Brussel sprouts, I prefer broccoli, or peas; but that doesn't mean I am refusing to accept change by not liking sprouts, does it?
I just don't like the flavour.
Just as I didn't like the 'flavour' of the team's and Yvan's and then PMA's collections, half as much as I did Philo's. That doesn't mean that I've only ever liked the 'flavour' of Philo's work for Chloe (by any means), or that I haven't liked the 'flavour' of other ground-breaking collections, at other houses, over the last five seasons; or that I won't like the 'flavour' of Hannah's work.
People will never embrace another designer at the reigns of Chloe. It's a huge assumption but a true one, based on popular opinion on past non-Philo collections
Like most huge assumptions, it appears to be based on nothing but prejudice and skewed logic, though.
As I say, I still don't see how people not liking the five non-Philo collections, since she left, proves anything of the sort?
Many Chloe girls loved Philo's work, of course, but that doesn't mean that nobody else could take her place. It just means that hers are big shoes to fill.
When one is left with nothing, one tends to look back to the last thing that made one happy; it's human nature to do so (and there's nothing wrong with it). But that doesn't mean that nothing else could make one happy, ever again.
I agree that, given the choice, if you took a straw poll, most Chloe fans (including me) would vote to have Philo back at Chloe over another relative unknown, but that is because she was the last good and relevant designer at the house, so she is a safe bet; not because we are against all change on principle.
Secondly, I have no idea what these paragraphs are on about. What do you mean I think that 'no one can say that they dislike someones work just in case people may think that they are stuck in a rut?'???I don't get what you are accusing me of! lol
What I mean is that, as you freely admit that you immediately assume that anyone who says they prefer Philo's work at Chloe is against change and is incapable of ever embracing a new designer's work, however good it is; how can anyone ever say they don't like something 'new', as much as they liked something that came before, without you making that huge assumption about them (or, is this assumption only reserved for Chloe fans?
)?As you admit, yourself, they can't and so, they are, apparently, doomed by you (and those like you) to be immediately dumped into the category of 'refusing to accept change'; just for stating their honest opinion.
Presumably, the only logical way for someone to avoid being, unceremoniously, thrown in with the troglodytes, is for them to, indiscriminantly, embrace (or pretend to embrace) all change; good, bad and indifferent?
How discerning.
I'm sorry if I offended you and/or if it was an unfair assumption(!), but you appeared to be arguing from the perspective of liking PMA's work for Chloe and what with that and the name, it seemed like a logical one.
BTW, may I suggest that if you don't like people making assumptions about you, that you try not to make them about others?
I like what he did in terms of transition because I personally believe that the dwelling on Philo at Chloe was getting frustrating, to say at the least. He pushed it foward and this is what I respect
As I've said, before, I believe that Chloe was getting stale in the 2 seasons after Philo left, too, but I don't believe that Paulo pushed the house forward.
Backwards and off at a complete tangent, perhaps, but definitely not forward.
Last edited by a moderator:
IAWTC. The arguments that have been going on within this thread only illustrate the great diversity of Chloe fans. There are people who love McCartney's direction, people who love Philo, people who love Andersson's vision, even people who fondly recall the days of Karl, and Gaby Aghion.
Each of these designers have had a different take on what Chloe "is," and that can be a good thing because although we all have different tastes and beliefs of what Chloe should be, we can enjoy what Chloe was at a particular period of time.
What I've always liked about Chloe is that, no matter the precise look of one of the collections, Chloe is a reputable brand that no matter what comes off as being carefully designed, marketable, and stylish. I liked the more-distant past, when Chloe wasn't as highly commercial. I liked the days of Philo, when Chloe started promoting itself through very popular print advertisements, even if that made it a little *too* likeable with the masses (I always love when a good designer isn't TOO appealing to the mainstream). I have respect for each of the collections, even I'm not the biggest fan of every one, or think that things are going in the wrong direction.
Because I know little to nothing about the new designer, I'm just going to hope for the best and see what happens. Chloe DOES seem to be, as someone said earlier, a revolving door of designers and I do think if things don't settle down soon the house will be in danger.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind it and I wouldn't feel patronized because I wouldn't be dwelling on the past
I, personally, embrace change in design houses because I know that there is no point of being nostalgic in fashion. It moves and changes every six seasons - I try to detach myself from some kind of permanent fixation
I wouldn't mind if Castiglioni left to be honest. Marni changes all the time; even when Castiglioni was there and did a complete 360, I was shocked but I didn't go into how good 'the past' has been. I don't do this and thats why I can't understand these dedicated Tom-Ford-for-Gucci fans and Philo-for-Chloe fans.
(I don't like Brussel sprouts either!)Liking something is completely different to accepting change, imo, this is what I'm getting at.
Agree!
You [people in general] don't have to necessarily like the change, but you accept what the reality of the situation is.
This is what I'm saying; its irrelevant whether people like PMA's work for Chloe or not - its about whether they're willing to let go of the past. I'm trying to stress the fact that what Philo did was hers and it will never be like that again.
It is going around in circles to criticize every Chloe designer and compare them to Philo.
Hope I cleared a few things up! 
chloehandbags
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,452
- Reaction score
- 2
To be honest, I wouldn't mind it and I wouldn't feel patronized because I wouldn't be dwelling on the past
I, personally, embrace change in design houses because I know that there is no point of being nostalgic in fashion. It moves and changes every six seasons - I try to detach myself from some kind of permanent fixation
So, you like anything anyone churns out, as long as it's 'new' (as far as anything is new in fashion)?
It is impossible for you to be disappointed, or dislike something? I presume you know that by saying that, you are, effectively, admitting to having no discernment, whatsoever?
Admitting to enjoying one collection, but not the next, or one designer's work and not the next, does not by any means, necessarily, imply a permanent fixation, you know; it is far more likely to indicate a good eye, a mind of one's own and an ability to form an opinion.
Well, if you never look back to better days, especially in times of turmoil, you are extremely unusual. That's fair enough, I suppose, but I don't understand why you view not looking to the past as a positive thing?
Have you never heard the phrase; 'Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.', or; 'History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are.'?
If no one ever looked back, in fashion, where would we be? Constantly wasting our time reinventing the wheel (or the skirt!), that's where.
There is nothing, truly, new in fashion, so to not look back for helpful pointers, or even just to see how the truly talented went about making things, would be pretty silly, wouldn't it?
It is only natural that people look back to Tom Ford and Philo, as there has been very little in the way of good fashion produced at the houses they left, in the interim, to block their view.
Whereas, really good designers are far less missed when their successors are as good, or even better than them (Stella McCartney would, obviously, be an apt example, in this case).
Looking back also doesn't, necessarily, mean that these people are permanently stuck in another era, as what most of them are missing is what they imagine the designer could have produced today.
So, they are missing what they imagine could have been; not, necessarily, what was.
Have you never split up with someone and then, later, regretted it (perhaps after a row with a new partner!)? If so, haven't you then imagined what could have been with the old partner?
If not, then you really are extremely unusual.
Liking something is completely different to accepting change, imo, this is what I'm getting at.
LOL! Who does?!
ITA that liking (or not liking) something 'new' is completely different to accepting (or not accepting) change.
That's exactly what I'm trying to get at, too; that the two are not, necessarily, linked.
You [people in general] don't have to necessarily like the change, but you accept what the reality of the situation is.
This is what I'm saying; its irrelevant whether people like PMA's work for Chloe or not - its about whether they're willing to let go of the past. I'm trying to stress the fact that what Philo did was hers and it will never be like that again.
It is going around in circles to criticize every Chloe designer and compare them to Philo.
Yes, you have (thanks!
) and I think that's a fair enough point, except, how would people like Ralph Toledano know, for sure, what people miss, unless they point to what and/or who they liked last? Unless customers are prepared to send in their own drawings and/or pics from the archives and/or suggestions for new collections, how else can they indicate what sort of thing they like, without pointing to its last incarnation (which, by now, will probably be its predecessor, of course)?
Incidentally, you mentioned in another post, re. the fragrance ad, that you; 'don't know how you can exactly style someone when they're naked'.
Apart from all the things Mutterlein mentioned, I think it should also be noted that the advert with the sample strip also includes, on the reverse, a photo of the bottle (the Chloe logo reflected in an apple-shaped, clear lucite mirror), surrounded by dressing table paraphernalia, circa 1977 -1982. A chunky white plastic comb with a hook (very important to have the hook, to clearly convey the era referenced), plastic jewellery (including a distinctive grasshopper pin and what looks like a rainbow perspex haircomb), a false eyelash ('casually' discarded on a vintage, pearlised, plastic compact lid), writing paper and just a hint of the present day, with a laptop in the corner, with its distinctive USB cable connector lying next to the bottle.
However nonchalant this all looks, to the casual observer, none of this happened by accident, it was all carefully planned to tap into the typical Chloe girl's subconscious and it is the epitome of extremely clever and effective styling, IMO.
This is the sort of thing that these women would have seen on their older sister, or young aunt's, dressing table, when they were small children. These are the simple things that seemed impossibly mature and therefore, desirable, to a little girl at that time.
These are the things that they forgot they wanted.
Last edited by a moderator:
So, you like anything anyone churns out, as long as it's 'new' (as far as anything is new in fashion)?
Yes, with houses like Gucci or Chloe or Valentino, each with their own respective new designers, I rarely feel disappointed. To be honest, I love how passionate people are in criticizing them and I feel like as a person, morally, I have to be on the other side, supporting them.
Good quote!
But in reference to Chloe, I think this would mean going back to what Gaby Aghion intended and subsequently designed. I don't feel like Philo or McCartney were necessarily true to the aesthetic of Chloe, but they interpreted it in a very commerical, marketable and alluring image.
This would be ideal but of course very unlikely! But this is also what I'm critical of; people are so quick to judge but once they are put in a tight position, they get abusive and reluctant.
After having this discussion actually, I wanted to ask everyone here, Chloe fans especially, what collection best defined the Chloe aesthetic and what they expect from the House of Chloe in the future!
I personally have been very disappointed with what has been going on with Chloe lately, especially after I've seen the clothes on racks and thought "What ugliness!" instantly. What I think the signature of Chloe was that particular nude color, which turns a little yellowish under some lights, but has that ballet-slipper pink shade in it. When I see that color accompanied with some frills, I still think of Chloe immediately.
Having said that, I can safely say that my favorite Chloe collection ever was the Fall 2004. The ochre, the forget-me-not blue, the soft greys and the browns... I still remember how excited I felt when I saw the runway. It was all so Edward Hopper.
Having said that, I can safely say that my favorite Chloe collection ever was the Fall 2004. The ochre, the forget-me-not blue, the soft greys and the browns... I still remember how excited I felt when I saw the runway. It was all so Edward Hopper.
liashoes
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,368
- Reaction score
- 4
Guardian.co.uk
A hard act to follow
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]For a designer taking over at a well-established fashion house, it's the biggest challenge: how to express their creative vision while maintaining the label's original identity. Hadley Freeman looks at those who have pulled it off recently - and those who haven't[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Friday March 14, 2008
The Guardian
[/FONT] The end, when it finally came, was not surprising but a shame. On Monday the French fashion house Chloé announced that Paulo Melim Andersson, the company's chief designer, was to stand down after a mere three seasons in the job. "Paulo is a truly talented designer and we would like to thank him for his contribution ... I am totally confident that he will have a very successful career," said the firm's chairman and chief executive, Ralph Toledano, smiling politely as the knife nestled that little bit deeper between Andersson's shoulder blades.
Certainly, there had been problems at Chloé. Ever since the departure of the very popular Phoebe Philo, under whose aegis the label became the choice of self-consciously cool twenty- and thirtysomethings and photogenic celebrities, there had been a feeling that Chloé was slipping. The International Herald Tribune described the most recent collection, which showed in Paris a fortnight ago, as "awkward", while Cathy Horyn, fashion editor of the New York Times, said bluntly: "Paulo Melim Andersson cannot create a look that is either uniquely Chloé or interesting.""It was incredibly difficult for someone to step into Phoebe's shoes," says Harriet Quick, fashion features editor of Vogue. "She was so much the embodiment of that look that she had coined and had made successful. She was strongly associated with the Chloé pieces that people loved, such as the beautiful blouses, the great trousers and that whole innocent look. Paulo tried to give it more of an arty spin with complex cutting techniques, which some people liked and some didn't." Bridget Cosgrave, buying director of the luxury fashion chain Matches, admits that there had been "huge concern" among retailers when Philo left the company back in 2006 and, "Yes, the business did then decline. When Paulo came in, he was in a tricky position because he had to be different in order to take the business forward, but at the same time stay true to its original appeal."
And that sums up what is becoming a growing problem in the fashion business, one that is particularly evident this season. How do you step into someone else's shoes and keep their customers happy and retain the label's identity, without just churning out pastiches of what came before?
This season alone, Marco Zanini took over at Halston, Stuart Vevers became creative director at Loewe, Avsh Alom Gur assumed duties at Ossie Clarke, Esteban Cortazar started at Emanuel Ungaro, and Alessandra Facchinetti arrived at Valentino, all with varying degrees of success. As if to remind everyone how tricky this kind of fashion ventriloquism can be, Facchinetti had previously worked as creative director at Gucci, but been sacked after two seasons because her designs were seen as insufficiently Gucci. Falling too far on the other side of the fence, Gur's pieces for Ossie Clarke were widely deemed to be little more than period costumes, impossible to wear outside a 70s revival party.
Vevers' collection for Loewe, at least, managed to be both elegant and true to the label's look, although he unquestionably had it easier as the Spanish label has a far less defined and therefore restrictive style than Ossie Clarke. But Vevers also knew what he was in for, having taken over at Mulberry three years ago after the departure of its original and very popular creative director, Nicholas Knightley.
"There is a certain awkwardness in taking over from someone else but I'm a designer who likes to work with what a brand already has," says Vevers. "I do have my own aesthetic but it's not one that is all-encompassing and I just use it to enhance what is already there. It probably ends up being 50/50."
Facchinetti also seems to have hit on that delicate balance this time round with her autumn/winter collection for Valentino. After the show, Valentino's very protective business partner, Giancarlo Giametti, said happily that Facchinetti "respected a master [but] it looked pretty and modern".
It's a difficult compromise for a company: on the one hand, it wants a new and exciting designer to bring a fresh audience and interest to the label; on the other, it doesn't want some scallywag to trample all over its legacy. Givenchy has a particularly tricky history in this regard. Both Alexander MacQueen and Julien Macdonald worked there, and neither seems to have particularly happy memories. The current designer, Riccardo Tisci, has alienated critics with his drop-crotch skinny trousers and gladiator sandals, which don't sit happily with the memories of the ladylike dresses that Hubert de Givenchy created for Audrey Hepburn. The reason that labels such as Givenchy were so exciting when they emerged may have been that their clothes looked so new - but that doesn't necessarily mean customers still want them to be seen as avant-garde. After all, if a designer makes an old label look too modern, it no longer looks like the label.
But if it's so tricky to carry on, why not just shut down the label when a designer leaves? "The thing with these old houses, particularly the Parisian ones, is you already have the retail in place: the shops, the cosmetics business, the perfumes," says Quick. "Financially, these are very important sides to the business that no one would just shut down."
One designer who everyone agrees has been able to combine a respect for the past with something more modern is Nicolas Ghesquière, who has been at Balenciaga since 1997. With his egg-like shapes and luxury fabrics, his designs show the influence of the original designer, Cristóbal Balenciaga, who died in 1968, but look undeniably modern. Stefano Pilati at Yves Saint Laurent, Alber Elbaz at Lanvin and Olivier Theyskens at Nina Ricci have also achieved this double-hander recently.
None of which will be of much consolation to Andersson. The real shame of it is that his last collection, many felt, was by far his best yet and getting closer to the Chloé look. "It takes a while for a designer to find his way but in the current economic climate there is just more pressure to get there quickly," says Quick.
So now it's the turn of Hannah MacGibbon, the young British designer who is taking over at Chloé. Hopes are high for her because she worked at the company under Philo, a point the company's chief executive Ralph Toledano was keen to emphasise in his announcement: "Hannah has been an integral part of our company for many years and we look forward to the overall creative vision she will bring to the growing world of Chloé." The words that matter in that sentence were "world of Chloé", not "creative vision".
A hard act to follow
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]For a designer taking over at a well-established fashion house, it's the biggest challenge: how to express their creative vision while maintaining the label's original identity. Hadley Freeman looks at those who have pulled it off recently - and those who haven't[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Friday March 14, 2008
The Guardian
[/FONT] The end, when it finally came, was not surprising but a shame. On Monday the French fashion house Chloé announced that Paulo Melim Andersson, the company's chief designer, was to stand down after a mere three seasons in the job. "Paulo is a truly talented designer and we would like to thank him for his contribution ... I am totally confident that he will have a very successful career," said the firm's chairman and chief executive, Ralph Toledano, smiling politely as the knife nestled that little bit deeper between Andersson's shoulder blades.
Certainly, there had been problems at Chloé. Ever since the departure of the very popular Phoebe Philo, under whose aegis the label became the choice of self-consciously cool twenty- and thirtysomethings and photogenic celebrities, there had been a feeling that Chloé was slipping. The International Herald Tribune described the most recent collection, which showed in Paris a fortnight ago, as "awkward", while Cathy Horyn, fashion editor of the New York Times, said bluntly: "Paulo Melim Andersson cannot create a look that is either uniquely Chloé or interesting.""It was incredibly difficult for someone to step into Phoebe's shoes," says Harriet Quick, fashion features editor of Vogue. "She was so much the embodiment of that look that she had coined and had made successful. She was strongly associated with the Chloé pieces that people loved, such as the beautiful blouses, the great trousers and that whole innocent look. Paulo tried to give it more of an arty spin with complex cutting techniques, which some people liked and some didn't." Bridget Cosgrave, buying director of the luxury fashion chain Matches, admits that there had been "huge concern" among retailers when Philo left the company back in 2006 and, "Yes, the business did then decline. When Paulo came in, he was in a tricky position because he had to be different in order to take the business forward, but at the same time stay true to its original appeal."
And that sums up what is becoming a growing problem in the fashion business, one that is particularly evident this season. How do you step into someone else's shoes and keep their customers happy and retain the label's identity, without just churning out pastiches of what came before?
This season alone, Marco Zanini took over at Halston, Stuart Vevers became creative director at Loewe, Avsh Alom Gur assumed duties at Ossie Clarke, Esteban Cortazar started at Emanuel Ungaro, and Alessandra Facchinetti arrived at Valentino, all with varying degrees of success. As if to remind everyone how tricky this kind of fashion ventriloquism can be, Facchinetti had previously worked as creative director at Gucci, but been sacked after two seasons because her designs were seen as insufficiently Gucci. Falling too far on the other side of the fence, Gur's pieces for Ossie Clarke were widely deemed to be little more than period costumes, impossible to wear outside a 70s revival party.
Vevers' collection for Loewe, at least, managed to be both elegant and true to the label's look, although he unquestionably had it easier as the Spanish label has a far less defined and therefore restrictive style than Ossie Clarke. But Vevers also knew what he was in for, having taken over at Mulberry three years ago after the departure of its original and very popular creative director, Nicholas Knightley.
"There is a certain awkwardness in taking over from someone else but I'm a designer who likes to work with what a brand already has," says Vevers. "I do have my own aesthetic but it's not one that is all-encompassing and I just use it to enhance what is already there. It probably ends up being 50/50."
Facchinetti also seems to have hit on that delicate balance this time round with her autumn/winter collection for Valentino. After the show, Valentino's very protective business partner, Giancarlo Giametti, said happily that Facchinetti "respected a master [but] it looked pretty and modern".
It's a difficult compromise for a company: on the one hand, it wants a new and exciting designer to bring a fresh audience and interest to the label; on the other, it doesn't want some scallywag to trample all over its legacy. Givenchy has a particularly tricky history in this regard. Both Alexander MacQueen and Julien Macdonald worked there, and neither seems to have particularly happy memories. The current designer, Riccardo Tisci, has alienated critics with his drop-crotch skinny trousers and gladiator sandals, which don't sit happily with the memories of the ladylike dresses that Hubert de Givenchy created for Audrey Hepburn. The reason that labels such as Givenchy were so exciting when they emerged may have been that their clothes looked so new - but that doesn't necessarily mean customers still want them to be seen as avant-garde. After all, if a designer makes an old label look too modern, it no longer looks like the label.
But if it's so tricky to carry on, why not just shut down the label when a designer leaves? "The thing with these old houses, particularly the Parisian ones, is you already have the retail in place: the shops, the cosmetics business, the perfumes," says Quick. "Financially, these are very important sides to the business that no one would just shut down."
One designer who everyone agrees has been able to combine a respect for the past with something more modern is Nicolas Ghesquière, who has been at Balenciaga since 1997. With his egg-like shapes and luxury fabrics, his designs show the influence of the original designer, Cristóbal Balenciaga, who died in 1968, but look undeniably modern. Stefano Pilati at Yves Saint Laurent, Alber Elbaz at Lanvin and Olivier Theyskens at Nina Ricci have also achieved this double-hander recently.
None of which will be of much consolation to Andersson. The real shame of it is that his last collection, many felt, was by far his best yet and getting closer to the Chloé look. "It takes a while for a designer to find his way but in the current economic climate there is just more pressure to get there quickly," says Quick.
So now it's the turn of Hannah MacGibbon, the young British designer who is taking over at Chloé. Hopes are high for her because she worked at the company under Philo, a point the company's chief executive Ralph Toledano was keen to emphasise in his announcement: "Hannah has been an integral part of our company for many years and we look forward to the overall creative vision she will bring to the growing world of Chloé." The words that matter in that sentence were "world of Chloé", not "creative vision".
The only thing I'm worried about is that given Hannah MacGibbon's working history - she now works at Valentino, right? - that she will make Chloe really lady-like. At least PMA kept it young.
Q: will her first 'collection' be for Resort? If so, we could see her first vision for Chloe in May, right?
Q: will her first 'collection' be for Resort? If so, we could see her first vision for Chloe in May, right?
D
Deleted member 7575
Guest
No, she was at Valentino before she joined Chloe in 2001
disco54
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,025
- Reaction score
- 2,275
i think hannah will be an excellent fit ,the chloe ads for the chloe parfume are very nice , She had a lot to do with the development and campaign from what ive read
http://www.chloeparfum.co.uk/index.php?action=home
http://www.chloeparfum.co.uk/index.php?action=home
chloehandbags
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,452
- Reaction score
- 2
^^^ woahhhh that was a comprehensive post chloehandbags!!!
Give me some time to read it !
chloehandbags
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,452
- Reaction score
- 2
That's an interesting perspective - why do you think you feel you have to defend them?
Good quote!
But in reference to Chloe, I think this would mean going back to what Gaby Aghion intended and subsequently designed. I don't feel like Philo or McCartney were necessarily true to the aesthetic of Chloe, but they interpreted it in a very commerical, marketable and alluring image.
I think, right from its launch in 1952, Chloe was always very commercial. In fact, it was probably the most commercial of all the French fashion houses, by virtue of it being the first French R-T-W only fashion house.
Gaby's intention was to create soft, body concious, off the rack clothing, that would be made from fine fabrics, but that women could actually afford to buy (as opposed to Haute Couture, which the vast majority of women couldn't afford, even if they saved up all year!) and really enjoy wearing.
It was intended to save them from the ineptitudes of the local seamstress (or from having to make all their own clothes)!
Stella and especially, Phoebe, very much followed that soft, wearable, (relatively) attainable luxury concept, IMO.
What exactly do you mean by; 'once they are put in a tight position, they get abusive and reluctant'?
What tight position are you referring to?
After having this discussion actually, I wanted to ask everyone here, Chloe fans especially, what collection best defined the Chloe aesthetic and what they expect from the House of Chloe in the future!
I don't know if I would want to try to state which collection best defined the Chloe aesthetic, per se, as the Chloe aesthetic is quite a broad one (soft [but not flimsy, or weak], fashion-forward, feminine, young in spirit [but not ageist], luxurious, body concious, flattering, adventurous, fun, individual and yet easy-to-wear) and one that reflects the current (or the soon-to-be current) zeitgeist. But amongst my personal favourites, are many of Karl Lagerfeld's creations (of which he said showed his softer side) of the mid-to-late '70s, the early '80s and the mid '90s, Stella McCartney's S/S '01 and A/W '01 - '02 collections and Philo's A/W '02 - '03, A/W '03 - '04 and S/S '04 collections.
If I had been designing the A/W '08 - '09 collection, I would have looked to Lagerfeld's early '80s designs for inspiration, personally; inverted triangles, strong but soft shoulders, elements of the masculine but done in a feminine way etc.
Some good examples of which can be found on this thread and in the archives on the Chloe website:
http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums/f116/1952-1990-s-chlo-58668.html
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 7575
Guest
chloehandbags is dead on
chloehandbags
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,452
- Reaction score
- 2
^ Thank you, Mutterlein, that's very kind of you.
D
Deleted member 7575
Guest
My favorite Chloe collection is Spring 2006, it really excelled at interpreting the brand's feminine and easy side but giving an extremely high sense of cool and sophistication. Lace applique and little girl silhouettes never had so much edge.
Phoebe was given credit for it but it's my suspicion that the team was already having a big hand in things. That collection still looks great 2 years later.
Phoebe was given credit for it but it's my suspicion that the team was already having a big hand in things. That collection still looks great 2 years later.
while paulo is talented in his own right, i don't think he was a good fit at chloe. the bags and shoes were horrible, and i didn't care for his interpretation of the brand.
he made it too complicated, so serious, too modern (techy materials), and too heavy handed.
looking forward to the change.
i did read that phoebe's team was responsible for much of s06 and f06, which were two amazing seasons. i will miss her though...her collections for chloe were just getting better and better over time.
he made it too complicated, so serious, too modern (techy materials), and too heavy handed.
looking forward to the change.
i did read that phoebe's team was responsible for much of s06 and f06, which were two amazing seasons. i will miss her though...her collections for chloe were just getting better and better over time.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree!
Chloe Spring 2006 was the best Chloe collection ever. It was innovative with the fabrics and it was interesting with it's styling. It was also boyish without being too androgynous. It was really a great collection, period.
Also, the shoes were possibly the most widely copied, interpreted, worn shoes EVER!
You have to admit that Phoebe had that ability to make girls swoon over her cool, nonchalant Chloe aesthetic B
blush:I think this is partly because she, like Stella, had that 'British beat'. She didn't take herself too seriously and she didn't feel that pressure of a [somewhat] bourgeoisie clientèle. The fact that she comes from a sort of bohemian-rock-English world makes her dynamic at Chloe work.
Similar Threads
