Designer & Fashion Insiders Behavior (PLEASE READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING)

[Lola701]

Sh!t! I hadn't thought that far. Am I ready for the boomers and their relentless entitlement, which will only be magnified with old age? Hell no!
So many of Karl's peers had perished under the Aids crisis and I sometimes wonder if Karl's views would've been more normalised or palatable if they we're still around. Halston and Perry Ellis, for instance, made some pretty messed-up remarks, I feel like that wouldn't change. Just look at Armani, after all. There is of course an octogenarian exception and he actually proves your 'exit' theory correct. Valentino Garavani. He's just a campy yet cultured snob, always has been, and confines his commentary on the more superficial topics. Railing against flip flops when his company sells them, lol, stuff like that.

I’m sure his views would have been different if Jacques was still alive...
I mean he gained weight when he died.

I’*m still a bit surprised by how his hatery for Berge is still as strong as it was. A lot of people didn’t liked Berge but I feel like he is more bitter towards Berge than he was towards Yves...
You gives too much importance to Demna my dear ahahah

Speaking of Valentino, he seems more fragile than Karl. For someone who has retired 10 years ago and who is living the best life, it’s surprising.

 

[Benn98]

I’m sure his views would have been different if Jacques was still alive...
I mean he gained weight when he died.

I’*m still a bit surprised by how his hatery for Berge is still as strong as it was. A lot of people didn’t liked Berge but I feel like he is more bitter towards Berge than he was towards Yves...
You gives too much importance to Demna my dear ahahah

Speaking of Valentino, he seems more fragile than Karl. For someone who has retired 10 years ago and who is living the best life, it’s surprising.

I never got why Jacques drew so many people to him, even after reading the controversial biography last year. Lagerfeld was deeply in love and Yves was smitten or horny or both, yet ultimately my takeaway from Jacques was that he was a very toxic individual. Yes, he was a libertine and quite enigmatic, which I suppose many found fascinating. But that's not enough for an individual. At least not for me, personally. The writer drew an interesting correlation between Jacques and the social media stars of today, and that was quite accurate if you ask me.
So do you suppose he would have had different views if Jacques was still alive? I dunno. It's not so much that what he's saying comes from being jaded. It's more outdated. I firmly believe these are his actual views and maybe 30 years ago it wouldn't seem out of place because of course society was different.
The relentless hatred for Bergé stems from his consistently 'Calvinist' outlook...... his words, not mine. The idea that Bergé continued in more ways than one to serve as YSL's major trump card (before, during, and after Jacques) for so many years would naturally put him off.

As for Valentino, you're right. It seems he took his retirement seriously. But it was also never really in his nature to be outrageous or divisive. Bitchy, yes. That much can be gathered by his boldness to take part in The Devil Wears Prada. We never expect his views on politics and the like despite the fact that Valentino probably had way more contact with the Washington establishment than Karl. Also, he used to move a lot in the heirress/aristocratic circles and that society considered it low classy to talk politics and culture willy nilly. Not putting him on a pedestal because I never quite liked him nor his brand.

 

[Lola701]

^^
You know we have a problem in France...
In a way we takes fashion too seriously and sometimes put our designers in a piedestal. So, we are always interviewing designers everytime on magazines, on TV about everything and anything. Just to tell you, even before I was born Karl was on TV talking about various things from his connection to the Grimaldi to Cinema because of Stephane Audran or whatever.

The same for Azzedine, Paco Rabanne, Gaultier, Rykiel, Mugler...etc.

We have this tendency to ask to people who are somehow disconnected to everyday life to speak about subjects that matters for the majority.

It’s like when Karl was asked about the Syrian refugees. I don’t know if in other countries this type of question will be asked to a designer.

The other day, Karl was in a TV show with Rousteing, Marant and Jacquemus and i was even surprised that the host only asked fashion-related questions.

Valentino was lucky because in a way people see Italian designers as characters. They are a bit OTT and their OTTiness kinda protect them for being ask «*serious*» questions... Apart for Miuccia.

 

[Benn98]

That's interesting Lola, still, in a way I can understand why the media will always run to Karl for a soundbite on culture and politics. Especially when you consider his 'social commentary' driven Chanel presentations. That half-baked 'women's march' staging, for instance. They shouldn't though, because he's not really contributing to meaningful thought. We must know that by now, after all the crazy commentary. So what we're getting time and time again is him being cranky for the sake of being cranky. Unnecessary. We have bigger fish to fry......

I know that for years many people fought for society or culture to give more of a 'serious' edge to fashion. But what they probably didn't foresaw was that the spotlight would go firmly on its creators - designers, photographers, artists etc as a result. And designers were stupid enough to fall for the ploy and lapped up the celebrity-like attention which turned them into stars. Now they're seeing the twisted side of it all, which is why others are starting to shun the media. They're not just asked about the creative process of constructing a dress, but also issues beyond fashion such as whether they would allow a certain first lady of questionable morals to wear it. I see no problem with them no longer being afforded the luxury to exist as some shielded entity oblivious of social thought. They contribute so much to the public at large that I'm surprised they've been dismissed that much, until now. And anyway, when you're incorporating social commentary into your work (collections, campaigns, presentations etc), then it must mean you've given it some thought and formed opinions of your own (I should hope!) All the more reason for your moral or ethical reflection to be questioned.

The Americans had it with Melania, we had it when Alexandra Shulman and other key figures publicly opposed the Brexit vote. I'm not sure about Italy, but I know that in Germany it's still very much defined, which I find so backwards for a country which pride itself on being so progressive.

 

[Lola701]

^^
It’s interesting that you’re mentioning the «*women’s march of spring summer 2015*» because it was only seen as it abroad.
For French people, it was just a demonstration at a fashion show because we are known for it. I remember the day of the there was actually demonstrations for whatever.

But I know that it offended a lot of people from the British press and some Americans were offended. It wasn’t even mentionned as a controversy here.

Karl is intelligent and has a lot of knowledge even if sometimes he is making his dumb comments. That’s why he is invited. He is a «*bon client*».

I think that Melanie and The Brexit were subjects that were above people as individuals. It was about politics and with politics, people sees themselves more as citizen than individuals so they are willing to stand-up and see the bigger picture.

In France the fashion community stood-up for Macron who was against Marine LePen and even more because between the Brexit and Trump we didn’t want to repeat the disaster.

I think that MeToo as a movement is too much about individualism and we also have gaps between our westerns societies. Americans have their very decisive way to react to something and in Latin countries, it’s slightly different.
It’s about individual stories but we are expected to speak with one voice and within that voice, anyone who use the word «*but*» is somehow seen as the black sheep.

I’ve just seen the post on James Scully’s IG and somehow I was disappointed that he would use the same weapon as Karl to attack Karl. I think that we are in a era where we should educate people and told them why they are wrong and why their comment are stupid.

Calling for Boycott is pointless. I’m willing to boycott a predator, not someone who thinks different from me...

But the translation of what Karl said about the models is so harsh in English. Pulled shouldn’t have been the word use when looking at the whole sentence.

 

[WilliamsLe010919]

the man speaks his mind. i respect him for that.
I agree with him about the MeToo movement got out of hands and now just being ridiculous. I mean it's never been easier to destroy someone's reputation and career. you just have to open your phone, tweet that you were abused/attacked by person X Y Z and the world would turn on them without the need to have any evidence and proof.

I don't think Chanel would have any damage after this because let's be frank: Chanel doesn't need any celebrity dressed in Chanel to create hype to sell stuffs.

 

[Fantomette]

When it comes to the differences between the U.S. and France in the MeToo movement, I'll add that the "name and shame" is an aspect of the american culture that french people, especially from the same generation as Catherine Deneuve, find dangerous.
During the WW2, many citizens avenged grudges with neighbours or coworkers by sending letters to the Gestapo accusing them of illegal activities or resistance. As a result, Baby Boomers in France are particularly concerned by the idea that a public accusation on internet could ruin a person's life.
(It was unnecessary: the women who used the french hashtag rarely named the person who abused them, even though the wording of the hashtag encouraged them to.)

The other day, Karl was in a TV show with Rousteing, Marant and Jacquemus and i was even surprised that the host only asked fashion-related questions.

For those who want gossip about Anna Wintour : at one point, the interviewer mentioned a dinner organized by President Macron gathering 150 designers and creators. Lagarfeld said Wintour was delighted by the dinner despite the fact that she initially wanted to cancel and only went because the officials insisted for her to come. Marant replied to him that it was false and that Wintour wasn't even supposed to be invited. She added that Wintour actually pressured the american embassy in order to be invited, which made Rousteing gasp. They gossiped about that for a couple minutes, it was funny to watch

 

[Benn98]

For those who want gossip about Anna Wintour : at one point, the interviewer mentioned a dinner organized by President Macron gathering 150 designers and creators. Lagarfeld said Wintour was delighted by the dinner despite the fact that she initially wanted to cancel and only went because the officials insisted for her to come. Marant replied to him that it was false and that Wintour wasn't even supposed to be invited. She added that Wintour actually pressured the american embassy in order to be invited, which made Rousteing gasp. They gossiped about that for a couple minutes, it was funny to watch

No more Isabel Marant in US Vogue then. I need to see this, not because I question you, but because it sounds absolutely hilarious. Also Karl is supposed to be Anna's chum. Oh well, with friends in fashion who needs enemies?

 

[Fantomette]

The whole interview is here but the moment about Wintour is between 21'32" and 23'26". Even for those who don't understand french, seeing Isabel Marant when she talks about it is funny
(From what I understand, the event was held for creators but the presence of Anna Wintour forced them to invite other non-designers, like the editor in chief of the french Elle.)

 

[Lola701]

The funniest thing about that was to see that Isabel was more concerned about hurting Karl’s feelings than spilling the tea about Anna!
And Karl is trying his hardest to defend Anna.
Considering the Queen thing during LFW, I can totally believe Isabel’s version.

As if someone of her stature would decline an invite at The Elysée Palace.
I didn’t saw Emmanuelle Alt on the various posts that night. I wonder if she was there...

 

[BetteT]

I’ve seen the interview translated. I can’t say that he showed disdain but the questions are sensationalistic and when translated it’s even weirder.

The part where is talking about Karl Templer comes as totally different from what can be understand in French.
.....

Karl is intelligent and has a lot of knowledge even if sometimes he is making his dumb comments. That’s why he is invited. He is a «*bon client*».

.....

But the translation of what Karl said about the models is so harsh in English. Pulled shouldn’t have been the word use when looking at the whole sentence.

The tones in this translated interview are completely different to the original French. Whereas in the original French I raised eyebrows at some of his most scandalous comments, mainly those relating to the #MeToo movement, and perhaps chuckled when I knew he was obviously speaking in overtly-exaggerated French sarcasm about something else, the English translation is rage-inducing.

Thank you Lola and Growl, for sharing the French viewpoint about this type of interview and Karl's comments. In addition, sarcasm (if that what some of it was) is almost impossible to detect in written statements ... you can only pick it up from hearing and seeing it.

And I agree that the word "pulling" was a bit odd as the word of choice ... and that there is the possibility that it was not an inappropriate gesture, but a normal one. I was a stylist ... and yes, we tugged and pulled at garments, including underwear ... just to get everything to lay flat and unoticed. So ... unless I was there, I really don't know what happened.

I think I forgot that something is often lost in the translation ... and I think that it might not have been as bad as my "American" mind thinks it was. Thank you both for pointing that out.

 

[dsamg]

I agree that the 'pulling on her skirt' comment was very misinterpreted - I don't believe that he was showing disdain for victims of sexual assault, just talking about how every accusation now can get so blown up. He is allowed to have an opinion about the movement. I was the biggest advocate of MeToo in the beginning until ridiculous stories like the one about Aziz came out and we were supposed to think that every bad date is assault.

In particular, in the context of fashion, many could see that MeToo was not necessarily a positive thing when that sh*tmodelmgmt list came out. A list compiled only from Instagram direct messages portraying many people in the industry as black-and-white sexual predators. Not only did no one have a chance to defend themselves, there was no explanation to any of the stories. That isn't progressive and positive. It is unjust, unfair and could have caused irreparable damage to a few innocent people.

In my opinion, the movement has gotten to a point where it is often insulting for actual victims of sexual assault. So although most of the things he says are downright ridiculous and cringe worthy, I think many empathetic and rational people could understand how someone could be fed up.

 

[EdithV]

I find the response to the Aziz story so disappointing, as if r*pe is the only assault people are 'allowed' to feel bad about. The woman who came forward spoke about telling him 'no' and gave indications she was uncomfortable with his behaviour, but according to many she deserved it because she went up to his flat. That's not a 'bad date'- that's harassment and the fact people can't or refuse to see that is why it needs to be discussed. No one deserves to be treated that way no matter the circumstance. I feel enormous respect and empathy for all those who have came forward and hope the MeToo movement continues to prosper, no matter who may try to discredit it.

 

[TheVeed]

I am not sure why you are so triggered. He is right. I am fed up with metoo also. This thing is beyond ridiculous.

I find this comment so baffling. How can one be 'fed up' with #metoo? What, exactly, is ridiculous about people standing up against r*pists/molesters/sexual harassers, and the abuse of power?

 

[dior_couture1245]

I find this comment so baffling. How can one be 'fed up' with #metoo? What, exactly, is ridiculous about people standing up against r*pists/molesters/sexual harassers, and the abuse of power?

In principle, everyone agrees that this is a positive shift.

However, the movement has been handled very poorly. As one user correctly pointed out, all it takes is someone to log onto twitter, draft up an accusation and the accused is immediately guilty - regardless of whether or not it is true. I always hear the argument “why would anyone lie about being abused?” It’s a fair enough question, but it shows a naive and shallow understanding of how dark, twisted and venegful people can be. People spread rumors all the time with clear intentions of doing serious reputation damage...out of revenge, spite, scorn, unhappiness...human psychology is extremely complex, people. That kind of rumor mill isn’t something exclusive to the elementary school playground. I am by no means saying every accusation is false, of course.

The court of public opinion rarely cares for evidence - instead, they’re happy to add another name to the list and slap each other on the backs for another job well done...”we caught another one!”

That’s all fine and well when you happen to agree with the movement’s aims...but consider when another movement inevitably gains momentum in the future, one you may vehemently disagree with. What happens when you find yourself on the receiving end of an accusation and you are in a position in which neither the identity of your accuser or the evidence is revealed. You simply wake up one day and you’re on the front page. There’s no possible way to defend yourself. You’re ruined.

Yes. Those who have suffered abuse also have their lives ruined. The critique of #metoo is not about belittling victims or defending abusers. The critique of #metoo is that the safeguards of the legal system (the concept of innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial, the right to face your accuser, the need for evidence, etc.) are being thrown out the window. These safeguards are meant to protect the innocent...both the wrongfuly abused and the falsely accused. Many accusations are clearly true - but the only way we can concsluively say they are true is with evidence and proper trials (ie, Harvey Weinstein and the details of the New Yorker article). But without evidence and investigation, we cannot, with any clear conscious, say we know for sure the truth.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I don't think anyone is saying that criticism of this or any movement is unwarranted or disallowed. It's the throwing the baby out with the bath water that I, and I think some others, object to. "Someone told one story I didn't think fit the #metoo model, so I'm sick of the whole movement." Right ... let's go back to the way things were, where women and men tell their stories and aren't believed, and the powerful and perverted continue to get away with their sh!t. Is that what people mean when they say they're fed up, or make statements that attempt to discredit the entire movement? It must be, right?

The possibility of an inaccurate accusation is nothing new. An accusation of child sexual abuse, even if later proved untrue (super difficult to do, obviously), can ruin someone's whole life and business. That has been true for a long time.

 

[dior_couture1245]

I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying.

If we all want to claim concern for the innocent...we have to be equally as concerned for the wrongfully abused as we are for the falsely accused. Both are as innocent as the other. Conversely, those who consciously falsely accuse are as guilty as those who knowingly abuse.

Furthermore...your response is also so indicative of the general attitude I speak of that is so troubling...in essence; “you’re allowed to critique....BUT HOW DARE YOU CRITIQUE!” So which is it? Also, your supposition that anyone’s distaste for #metoo is based on someone’s “story I didn’t think fit the #metoo model” is also missing the point. It’s about these accusations being properly evidenced and investigated and if necessary, being brought to a fair trial. An accusation debuted on Twitter is simply not gonna cut it for me. And it shouldn’t cut it for you, either.

Human nature has really not evolved all that much. The lessons of history are clearly hard learned, if retained at all. Lest we forget not that long ago in the scope of human history, women were burned at the stake for even the most casual of claims that she was a witch. Now some women are essentially burning men at the stake with as little evidence as those who once called them witches. (Again, I have to reclarify; those who ARE guilty should face justice)

Anyone of principle should be able to see that when safeguards to protect the innocent are thrown out to expidite punishment that affirms your ideology, it is extremely dangerous and, as history always proves, the tables will eventually turn, and you will, at some point, so desperately wish you were afforded those same safeguards you were so willing to do away not all that long before.

 

[Lola701]

I think that some people also needs to understand that different culture or education means different reaction.
I feel like in the US, calling out someone, see him lose his job is enough.

For me, I don’t think it helps anything. This is the problem with popular justice, it’s all very superficial. The goal is to change people’s behavior.

That’s exactly why people are kinda seeing the MeToo movement with a different eye. No one has been incarcerated, judged, punished in a legal way.

Ok Testino, Richardson, Weber and Demarchelier are not working but they are still rich, they are still enjoying their lives and i’m sure a lot of people are supporting them on the low.

So, what’s the point of this whole thing? Those are big industries with big personalities. I’m sure it’s worse in some regular companies were women or man dared to talk...

It’s very surface-based and it’s what I regret the most. And now i see that Mariah Carey’s ex-manager might sue her for sexual harrassement because she was naked in front of her? Come on!

 

[Les_Sucettes]

I find the response to the Aziz story so disappointing, as if r*pe is the only assault people are 'allowed' to feel bad about. The woman who came forward spoke about telling him 'no' and gave indications she was uncomfortable with his behaviour, but according to many she deserved it because she went up to his flat. That's not a 'bad date'- that's harassment and the fact people can't or refuse to see that is why it needs to be discussed. No one deserves to be treated that way no matter the circumstance. I feel enormous respect and empathy for all those who have came forward and hope the MeToo movement continues to prosper, no matter who may try to discredit it.

Actually she did not say no at all, she just went along with it. She's not a child, she was on a date, people will try it on, so what? Context is everything. She could have just stood up and left. Like most women have been doing all their lives. At no point was she in any way under any sort of duress. Actually, the way she tell the story makes him sound ridiculous and curiously harmless, so do not be surprised that people took a dim view of the fact she wants to be seen as a victim.

I think the MeToo movement was a watershed moment, it was hugely important, and a game changer, now it is diluted beyond recognition and the noise around it is so intense that in my opinion it just lost it's way, but I'm always suspicious of people in the public eye that go out of their way to criticise it. There is nothing to gain from it.

I find Karl funny in a way, he's totally unable to see that it is exactly because he is a fossil that he gets away with saying the most outrageous things. No one can muster any spark to be properly offended.

 

[Marc10]

I hear all the the time people who are critical of the #metoo movement and even before that bring this argument that if victims of sexual abuse are finally heard and believed, ultimately society will collapse because people will get wrongfully accused left and right. But I really need to ask: Where are these cases? Where are all these evil, vengeful women coming out of the woodwork to destroy the lives of oh so innocent men? Can anyone give a case of a woman jumping on twitter, crafting a made up abuse story and successfully achieving the demise of a man? The way some say it, we would be getting one of those every other day. The closest one could argue is the Aziz case which a) he confirmed the account b) never framed him as an abuser and c) like a member commented above, just because he didn't r*pe doesn't mean his behavior wasn't right.

In the fashion industry, all the recent accusations of misconduct were not brought up by some random on social media. They were carefully investigated by respected journalists of The New York Times and The Boston Globe, who not only did background checks to verify the accounts, but came with a string of different accusers from different periods of time all telling the same story, and painting a clear pattern behavior of those men.

But if you would only be convinced of the guilt of these men if a judge in a trial says so, you're hilariously naive about the scary flaws and bias of the judiciary system, or you just don't really care about the victim. Do you have any idea how many times women have braved themselves to speak up and seek justice, and got nothing? That even when they every evidence possible, the (white) men still gets off the hook? - the Brock Turner case always comes to mind. Then add on top of that if the men is rich and/or famous. You are rarely the winner. You are rarely believed.

Trust me, there's no joy in claiming to be a sexual assault victim. It's not something you do because all the cool kids are doing it, or because your ex-boyfriend broke your heart. When someone speak up, listen to them and let them be the innocent until proven guilty, not the accused.