The big difference between those guys and Chiuri is that they were using India as a theme in, to be honest, a very hackneyed and cliché way for a Western customer. This, however, is an India-inspired collection designed for an Indian customer. And that is why it was shown in India.
Dior recognizes that India is a growing luxury market and it is laying down roots and ramping up its marketing.
Galliano and McQueen weren’t particularly targeting an Indian customer at the time but Gaultier for Hermes for example was, first for an international customer but also at the time when they dedicated a whole year of projects celebrating India for the opening of their store there if i remember well. It was in 2008…
Obviously Chanel was Chanel but with Indian touch for the international market even if Karl knew how to appeal to those « emerging markets ».
‘But more than that and that supposed vision of MGC designing for an Indian market, I simply just think that this is in line with her philosophy as a designer.
She is corporate indeed and she understand the needs of corporatism. Those needs are in logos and branded stuff but it’s safe to say that her design philosophy is very much into simple, practical and well made clothes in a very Italian and down to earth way. In a way she is similar to Frida Giannini more than to Virginie as people like to link them…
‘The real difference between the three is that MGC understand luxury maybe in the purest aspect because she touched Couture. The best embroideries in this collection are in the coats and the best looks are the non-embellished ones.
This is in line with her previous destinations collections. I don’t think the Marrakech collection was necessarily meant for the Maghrébine woman or the Middle East or that her Spanish collection necessarily spoke to a Latin customer.
‘For me it’s hard to connect to her work because it’s just clothes. I need more. Fashion is much more than that. And it’s weird because out of all the designers who have been at Dior, she is the only one who makes real, relatable clothes for the most part. Galliano excited us and made us dream but it was really about a special piece for a special occasion or really a statement. Even when he started doing more conservative stuff, it had a very formal pov. I hated Raf’s work but my favorite Dior bag, bad suit and pair of shoes are from his era…But still very formal.
‘With MGC, you can wear Dior at work, while travelling or hanging out and even at night. And it’s instant. The coat you see on the runway is the one you get to the boutique. You want that you buy that. It’s practical in a way that even American Sportswear ain’t. This is better than Michael Kors will ever be.
A different range of women can wear those clothes contrary to what people think. It’s less vulgar in terms of logos compared to Virginie’s Chanel….But it doesn’t feed us in terms of FASHION and in a way it’s sad.
‘Armani and Ralph Lauren can be boring but because it’s supported by a kind of mythology, it takes you somewhere.