Christian Dior Pre-Fall 2023 Mumbai

[Deleted member 7575]

I understand that, and that makes more sense. Thank you for explaining.

I just think it is difficult for me to see genuine sincerity in such a corporately governed art form. Yes, I agree that the collections I referenced were sometimes OTT and border-lining on stereotypes, but in a strange way that felt weirdly more authentic from the designer’s pov. It was how they interpreted the culture, even if it was from a slightly misguided lens.

In MGC’s case, she (to me atleast) epitomises the safe business driven form that her collections take. So it is personally difficult for me to see “oh they are making clothes for Indian customers” as a symbol of their love, gratitude and genuine appreciation for Indian people and culture, it’s more about expanding a customer base. I’m not totally mad at that, it is a business and I’m glad its broadening it’s customer base but for me, whose interaction with fashion has largely been based on the artistic rather than commercial intention, it stops me from enjoying the clothes as much.

With all that being said, I’m glad Indian craftsmanship is getting more acknowledgement from Western fashion media with this collection, it’s not enough on it’s own imo, and some of it is… Questionable… (Yes, Suzy Menkes.) But I suppose it’s a start at least.

And again this is personal, not everyone will interact with the industry the same way

All fashion is a commercial exercise.

The idea that some designers are somehow nobler than others because they are less commercial is erroneous.

All designers must sell things in order to make money to pay salaries and fund operations otherwise they close up shop.

It also should be noted that most modern Indian women still prefer to wear traditional Indian clothing and this is why Chiuri designed the collection in this manner. The collection is an earnest exercise in trying to appeal and cater towards the needs and tates of an Indian clientele. All of the hullabaloo about Indian craftsmanship and Chanakya is in order to seduce and appeal to (rich) Indian women.

This is essentially the exact opposite of the designers you mentioned who used Indian culture in a very superficial way as a decorative motif or theme. They appropriated it one season and threw it away the next. At best their clothes would be amusing to an Indian customer, at worst they would be offensive and off putting.

The idea that Chiuri's take, which is backed up by a lot of genuine work to understand and appreciate the culture, is somehow worse than the designers you mentioned is ...funny.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

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.

Maybe for Hermès but certainly not the Indian themed collections under his own label.

And when Chanel wanted to target a specific market they usually took the collection there (Korean, Texas, etc).

 

[ozztara]

All fashion is a commercial exercise.

The idea that some designers are somehow nobler than others because they are less commercial is erroneous.

All designers must sell things in order to make money to pay salaries and fund operations otherwise they close up shop.

It also should be noted that most modern Indian women still prefer to wear traditional Indian clothing and this is why Chiuri designed the collection in this manner. The collection is an earnest exercise in trying to appeal and cater towards the needs and tates of an Indian clientele. All of the hullabaloo about Indian craftsmanship and Chanakya is in order to seduce and appeal to (rich) Indian women.

This is essentially the exact opposite of the designers you mentioned who used Indian culture in a very superficial way as a decorative motif or theme. They appropriated it one season and threw it away the next. At best their clothes would be amusing to an Indian customer, at worst they would be offensive and off putting.

The idea that Chiuri's take, which is backed up by a lot of genuine work to understand and appreciate the culture, is somehow worse than the designers you mentioned is ...funny.

You have cleared a lot of things up for me so thank you, but I think you have misunderstood me slightly, which is honestly my fault probably so I'll just clarify.

Firstly, I don't think MGC is worse designer, at least not due to this

I am not so up myself to believe fashion can ever seperate itself from buisness. But I would feel negligent not talking about the rapid increase of commercial interest as a context point. This is not exclusive to fashion for me. And I certainly don't think designers are more 'noble' for being less commercial, the ones I had mentioned had a lot of commerical success so idk bro.

'Nobility' in fashion is a pretty scarce concept anyway, given what the industry is. But yeah, I don't think any designer I mentioned is more noble, and I don't even think that period (in which commercial interest just had a different focus), as more 'noble' or artistically driven.

When I mentioned authenticity, I mainly meant that through the lens of my own experience (which I emphasised) and how I interpret what those designers did - which is long and boring and is a deeply relative basis on how I discuss fashion. But it has become increasingly difficult for me to distinguish designer and brand/company. Especially with Dior. As such I find it easier to attribute corporate motovations to, (which frequently antithesises genuine efforts to appreciate culture), however I am willing to admit this may be a point that is both more emotional, but also heavily relative.

Regardless I am happy to cite MGC as one of the best designers of our era. Although she is not always to my personal taste she is excellent at what she does, and I feel like this collection solidified that because I did honestly like it lol

You have clarified a lot about the aims of the collection, so thanks for that. I suppose to me personally it just felt strange; my orignal post talks about the location as if showing the collection in India devalued the 'power of the clothes' (cringing at myself for not finding a better phrase lol), but as you have explained it I understand it to be a more zealous celebration/appreciation of India.

Where I interpreted it wrong potentially was that I almost found it too zealous.To me, using Indian craftsmanship as a sudden USP, as hammered in media coverage and marketing when India has held up fashion for decades seemed somewhat performative and almost a cue that this was tailored to Western buyers. But perhaps I misinterpreted that and I'm happy to accept that, I would much rather assume this is genuine. I guess time will tell and if they continue to highlight/uplift Indian practices

Thanks for adding to my understanding, I just wanted to explain why I thought what I thought. But I definitely do not pedestal other designers, and jump on the MGC hate train on every opportunity, it's a pretty sad one lmao

 

[jeanclaude]

One thing is for sure: this collection has been really controversial here in TFS!

 

[susseinmcswanny]

Maybe she is secretly a genius for producing something so mid to the point of controversy. Or maybe it says less about her and more about the internet.

 

[tricotineacetat]

All fashion is a commercial exercise.

The idea that some designers are somehow nobler than others because they are less commercial is erroneous.

All designers must sell things in order to make money to pay salaries and fund operations otherwise they close up shop.

It also should be noted that most modern Indian women still prefer to wear traditional Indian clothing and this is why Chiuri designed the collection in this manner. The collection is an earnest exercise in trying to appeal and cater towards the needs and tates of an Indian clientele. All of the hullabaloo about Indian craftsmanship and Chanakya is in order to seduce and appeal to (rich) Indian women.

This is essentially the exact opposite of the designers you mentioned who used Indian culture in a very superficial way as a decorative motif or theme. They appropriated it one season and threw it away the next. At best their clothes would be amusing to an Indian customer, at worst they would be offensive and off putting.

The idea that Chiuri's take, which is backed up by a lot of genuine work to understand and appreciate the culture, is somehow worse than the designers you mentioned is ...funny.

When you look at designers like McQueen, their aim was never first and foremost to grow their fashion houses into worldwide juggernaut operations but to do what was necessary (as in: pleasing the investors who handsomely funded his flights of fancy) to uphold the business that allowed them to create the body of work they became known for. I don't think the question ever asked itself whether or not some of the collections and imagery he designed were considered offensive or suitable on particular markets, but with a brand like Dior that is surely driven by the ambition to outpower Chanel as THE most iconic 'maison couture', they cannot afford to position themselves too much in a way so that it would have difficulties to appeal to any lucrative market out there.

It's no surprise to me therefor that Maria Grazia Chiuri designs these kind of collections and that they did not appoint a designer with a more distinct point of view for this chapter of expansion Dior has embarked for - I would highly doubt a designer as uncompromising as Hedi Slimane, who can prove a successful track record at Saint Laurent and Celine, would have been up to dilute his point of view so that women on emerging markets would want to buy into his youth-driven fashion imagery. Maria Grazia's point of view is polite, smooth around the edges and inoffensive and that is something that appeals to the majority of luxury goods customers who are conservative and not very much 'fashion followers'.

This whole debate makes me wonder just how many brands can be considered successful examples of niche luxury brands today because none of the big names (with all the attached compromises in creativity) really do nothing for me these days...

 

[Frederic01]

LOIC PRIGENT

 

[lowfive1715]

In the end, Dior will never be on the same level as Chanel. Its approach to overextend to consumers is a card that Chanel has never or ever will play. Chanel has always maintained the image of exclusivity by its price points alone. To truly compete with Chanel, Dior needs to reevaluate the meaning of “cache”.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

In the end, Dior will never be on the same level as Chanel. Its approach to overextend to consumers is a card that Chanel has never or ever will play. Chanel has always maintained the image of exclusivity by its price points alone. To truly compete with Chanel, Dior needs to reevaluate the meaning of “cache”.

What do you mean by "overextend"?

 

[yslforever]

What do you mean by "overextend"?

Dior real estate projects are really massive in Paris, there are absolutely everywhere, and are coming with another flagship in probably one the biggest building of the Champs-Elysée, and it's bigger than their historic HQ. You can't turn your head without seeing Dior shopping bags. They are truely playing Monopoly vs Kering.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Dior real estate projects are really massive in Paris, there are absolutely everywhere, and are coming with another flagship in probably one the biggest building of the Champs-Elysée, and it's bigger than their historic HQ. You can't turn your head without seeing Dior shopping bags. They are truely playing Monopoly vs Kering.

What does that have to do with the show in Mumbai?

Anyways, it's not like they're licensing their name out to a mattress company

The price is still pretty exclusive.

 

[yslforever]

What does that have to do with the show in Mumbai?

Anyways, it's not like they're licensing their name out to a mattress company

The price is still pretty exclusive.

It's certainly not exclusive if you see a brand at every street corner, whatever their price.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

It's certainly not exclusive if you see a brand at every street corner, whatever their price.

and like you don't see Chanel everywhere?

They sell Chanel at every department store in the Midwest.

 

[yslforever]

and like you don't see Chanel everywhere?

They sell Chanel at every department store in the Midwest.

Fortunately Chanel does not have menswear or mens accessories (so that eliminates half of the market). Chanel does not really have entry-levels items (like the CD Lounge, the Book Tote etc) and Chanel bags are easily twice the price of the Dior ones. So yes Chanel are a bit rarer in the streets, but that does not mean their tweeds, logos, quilts etc are less annoying.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Fortunately Chanel does not have menswear or mens accessories (so that eliminates half of the market). Chanel does not really have entry-levels items (like the CD Lounge, the Book Tote etc) and Chanel bags are easily twice the price of the Dior ones. So yes Chanel are a bit rarer in the streets, but that does not mean their tweeds, logos, quilts etc are less annoying.

I can guarantee you there are far more people in middle America wearing Chanel then Dior. Cube that after you factor in fragrance and cosmetics.

 

[Lola701]

Dior real estate projects are really massive in Paris, there are absolutely everywhere, and are coming with another flagship in probably one the biggest building of the Champs-Elysée, and it's bigger than their historic HQ. You can't turn your head without seeing Dior shopping bags. They are truely playing Monopoly vs Kering.

They have turned into a lifestyle brand…
So it actually make sense for them to have huge flagships…
And mind you they are in the « exclusive » side of Les Champs.

More than Dior being in Les Champs, my issue is Arnault and Pinault turning one side of Paris into a whole luxury mall.
Every restaurant, boulangerie or small family business that closes becomes a store. With now beauty dedicated stores, the smallest shop in the most prestigious era becomes a target for one of them.

But it’s true that in Europe you see a lot of Dior. The shoes alone, the booktotes, the branded RTW and the saddle for men. What is interesting in Paris is that you can see Dior in every arrondissement.

In England they have a Dior Outlet so it’s even more common…

Chanel, much like Hermes has always had a much more exclusive image. We all know that Chanel under Virginie is much more commercial than under Karl but you don’t deconstruct that image in that short amount of time.

Overall out of the three brands, Chanel is more expensive but because Hermes has that mystique around the brand and it top 3 bags, there’s a general idea that it’s out of reach.

In terms of quality, you pay the honest price when you buy real Dior RTW. It’s well made…They aren’t cutting cost like they do with Givenchy and Kenzo. Dior is the baby of Bernard Arnault and it’s treated as such…

 

[LadyJunon]

They have turned into a lifestyle brand…
So it actually make sense for them to have huge flagships…
And mind you they are in the « exclusive » side of Les Champs.

More than Dior being in Les Champs, my issue is Arnault and Pinault turning one side of Paris into a whole luxury mall.
Every restaurant, boulangerie or small family business that closes becomes a store. With now beauty dedicated stores, the smallest shop in the most prestigious era becomes a target for one of them.

But it’s true that in Europe you see a lot of Dior. The shoes alone, the booktotes, the branded RTW and the saddle for men. What is interesting in Paris is that you can see Dior in every arrondissement.

In England they have a Dior Outlet so it’s even more common…

Chanel, much like Hermes has always had a much more exclusive image. We all know that Chanel under Virginie is much more commercial than under Karl but you don’t deconstruct that image in that short amount of time.

Overall out of the three brands, Chanel is more expensive but because Hermes has that mystique around the brand and it top 3 bags, there’s a general idea that it’s out of reach.

In terms of quality, you pay the honest price when you buy real Dior RTW. It’s well made…They aren’t cutting cost like they do with Givenchy and Kenzo. Dior is the baby of Bernard Arnault and it’s treated as such…

I think that another factor in Chanel and Hermes' exclusivity is in their corporate foundation:

Both Chanel and Hermès are completely vertical, from the C-suites to the specialist factories. This means that these houses call their own shots and if they find themselves unhappy with their brand image, they can easily mold themselves to their own desires.

Dior, being a subsidiary, has to answer to LVMH. In the possibility, that after MGC, Dior has a period of suffering through a roundabout of weak creative director tenures or poor brand image, it could find itself being pushed towards the back of the Arnaultosphere. Dior may be Arnault's "golden child", but I have a feeling that the love may be conditional.

 

[MulletProof]

What does that have to do with the show in Mumbai?

Seriously. Why is this thread is so random. 'Controversy' because three people are talking. A brand losing 'exclusivity' because stores are popping up in a city that relies on the luxury goods sector, where the tourism goes after that as well. Since when is that a parameter? 'bUt iT's In EvErY cOrNeR!' yes.. in every corner of Paris, not Marrakesh.

Some should just befriend a woman for once, especially if harboring this intense obsession with women designing womenswear, you might as well benefit from learning a thing or two about its target demographic. People's wallets do not grow proportional to the number of stores a company opens. You're not talking about exclusivity but exposure. In that case, every woman can name a Chanel perfume and has probably owned at least one nail polish. I for one, can't recall the last time I saw a Dior nail polish. Would that settle this non-debate?. Hm, didn't think so: I think Maria Grazia is doing a terrible job and if Demna hadn't done that campaign, the Mumbai collection would be so much better!. Notre Dame's fire also added a lot of unwanted attention to the city and made Dior lose its cache. Recently the garbage situation presented Dior's bags in such a poor light and Maria did nothing about it. Uh, also, ever seen Loro Piana in New Delhi?.

 

[Nimsay]

I dont know - all the comments on the YT and other SM are only about the incredibleness of Indian music used in the show.

MGCS Dior is distinctly womanly. I can see why it sells well despite being painfully boring.

 

[LadyJunon]

I dont know - all the comments on the YT and other SM are only about the incredibleness of Indian music used in the show.

Can't blame them, the first few minutes of the soundtrack were heavenly. It's much better than the typical Jisoo worship these videos usually get.