Do You Fear for the Future of Chanel?

[Phuel]

^^^ Admirable personal style usually doesn’t translate well to admirable designer LOL Melanie Ward’s styling for Helmut never quite translated even memorably when she became fashion director away from Helmut. And when she produced her own designs for that one hot second, it cemented to me that except for her work with Helmut, she was rather forgettable.

People like Virginie/Edward Enninful/Kris Van Assche are constant remainders that the bestest, mostest elite privileges and experiences, and advantages of exclusive network mean absolutely nothing in terms of their work when the raw, god-given creative talent isn’t there in the first place. Nothing they’ve produced as leads is worthy of remembrance. And unfortunately, an individual could come from nothing, nowhere is a nobody and brimming with creative and skilled talent— but, if they’re not exposed or have the advantages of influential network, all that talent will likely never be nurtured and become something to remember. Talent and hard work is never enough, unfortunately.

I was watching that Christy Turlington’s version of Madonna’s Truth or Dare doc Catwalk, and she said something that is the summation of many’s ascension to fame and influence: She was first photographed by Arthur Elgort for Vogue when newly discovered, and from there, he introduced her to other industry-photographers and her entry into this rarified world. Of course, she is also the most gorgeous woman in the world and a great model, so that helped. But it's the perfect timing, that momentary conjunction of talent and opportunity meeting, that will propel a talent to legend. I’ll always mention Helmut a-matter-of-factly saying to Tim Blanks that it was luck alongside hard work that put him where he was (and he never mentioned talent... of which the man was so well endowed with).

You know, of course just because someone is heading the most fabled houses and supported by the most powerful corporation, doesn’t;t mean that they’re the most talented. However, just because someone isn’t heading the most fabled houses and supported by the most powerful corporation, doesn’t mean that they’re not talented. Again, I’ve learned and more and gained insight from some members here than I ever would IRL, or some paid propaganda-piece from some fashion journalist hyping Kim Jones.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ For me, there's also fate ... more exactly, I think we come here with gifts and a plan. Christy was meant to be a supermodel, and that's why everything unfolded the way it did. Karl and Alber were meant to be designers. Virginie, perhaps, was meant to be a #2 ...

 

[Lola701]

Gatekeepers are lynched as elitists/racists/misogynists blah blah blah by the commoners that have overrun the industry as an excuse for their lesser “talents”. These people only ever invest the effort into their hustle for fame and fortune these days, to dress and be GBF with the latest celeb— but they don’t bother investing the blood/sweat/tears with their design.

I kept thinking all day about that part of your commentary…

I believe in exclusivity, in excellence and in high standards. But I also believe that those quality we should promote were overshadowed with politics. Because this is the issue…Race, gender and the way people are treated are political discussions but we can have those discussions while maintaining the standard.


The question is: where is the barometer of excellence?

The people who were supposed to be the gatekeepers of fashion were criticized for not being open. I often say it but when I started to work in fashion, it was a whole different world. Corporatism didn’t exist in fashion in the early 00’s because everything was very informal.
When I hear about elitism…Of course you needed to come from a rich family to be able to work on a thing a silly as a button for 1 month because for some reason, you are passionate about buttons!
Fashion is seen as glamorous from the outside but when you start and you really want to make it, you start doing very silly things.

Nepotism doesn’t take you that far in fashion. You don’t create a career solely thanks to nepotism…Look at Julia Roitfeld.

Racism and misoginy are issues, serious ones. But you can create opportunities for people and address issues while looking for the best. And it was never done…

Some of the best schools in the world gives scholarships for non-privileged people to access those schools. What is required? Excellence…


Fashion has always been a popularity contest but it was not all that. Because at some point, you have to prove yourself to the world and to the industry. This industry is tough.

‘Maybe we did not had the good gatekeepers and that’s it. They were too interested in behind being in their world instead of thinking about the future.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ That’s exactly it, Lola: High fashion should obsess over just a silly button— rather than worrying over headcount and representation, and appeasing the masses. Because the talent that will obsess over such a minuscule detail, will also obsess, demand, expect every other component of their design to be impeccably, immaculately and immeasurably inspected and presented to the highest of standards. Nowadays, just looking at something as fleeting, as disposable as a monthly publication, or a campaign, and it’s become not only the standard of the lowest, but the work of inexperienced, amateur and common fodder that looks hilariously like the kind of aesthetic that was all over ModelMayhem in 2007: Look at the new Max Mara campaign select by Ethan, where Natalia’s head is so sloppily composited onto the body, like the avatar of a video game. Or the supposedly ELLE UK September issue with the unbelievably heinous and amateur overlay that— I can guarantee you, is not done by human hands, but AI. That brand of sloppiness is now the standard of the industry. So much so that whenever someone/something of just slightly above mediocrity (and whose basic level of creativity wouldn’t even get a passing glance just 10 years ago)— like Anthony Vaccarello's YSL, has emerged in this dire era as a leading vision LOL

Race has become this overly-sensitive-- and equally exploitive critic-proof thorn on fashion’s side that frankly, has no place in such a creative, and exclusive realm— for the simple fact that high fashion does not represent everybody. But corporate greed has become so unabashedly dominant in this era, and when this discovery that virtual signalling is so profitable, then the corporate wolves in sheep’s clothing stoop to no limits in exploiting the commoner’s mantra of “inclusivity and diversity”. No one wants to admit it, however, truth is because of the floodgates unleashing with such a huge headcount of representation, the standards have plummeted to such lows as never before seen in the industry. Looking back in this era of fashion other than headcount representation, there’s nothing else that has progressed the creative and technical progress. Nothing.

 

[Drusilla_]

ok so journalist Dana Thomas claims to have dropped a scoop on Chanel in here (going by reactions to her tweet about it), I tried to subscribe but can't make it work, does anyone know what this is about? Like I think we can guess Virginie's time at the helm might be winding down since it'll be five years in 2024 but the hint seems to be that it's a celeb taking over? and not Ghesquiere as we hoped.

Fashion's Revolving Door

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ Why in the world are there multiple typos in the part we can read ... surely WWD can afford a copy editor.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to the dark side.

Virginie Viard is obviously a Sith lord.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

^ Why in the world are there multiple typos in the part we can read ... surely WWD can afford a copy editor.

Read closer. That's not WWD.

 

[Gonzalo]

No , Chanel on the label .

 

[avonlea002]

Tina Knowles

 

[LadyJunon]

I really find the whole current situation at Chanel to be quite a shame, especially for the fact that it's one of the few larger houses that exist outside of LVMH/Richemont/Kering. It would be an immense shame for Chanel to lose that. While I know that Chanel is independent, I still can't quite grasp what makes Chanel (as a house, as an entity) so appealing to me as an aspiring designer, especially when my opinions on fashion houses depend so heavily on the current creative director's work. It would be an immense shame for Chanel to lose that.

It just that the actual clothing sucks. Viard fails to realise that the line between classicly beautiful and matronly bland lies in the play of proportions. Her tailleur work looks deflated and threadbare, her flou work looks heavy and flat, every hemline, cuff and neckline placement looks so indecisive as if it was supposed to be a few inches longer or shorter. It feels like Saint Laurent is doing Chanel better than Chanel themselves without much effort. Vaccarello would probably pull off that pretty, classic aesthetic with more wit and assertiveness too, but a house like Chanel needs someone more inventive than that.

I hope that we get a "Third Golden Age of Chanel" with full independence. We really need it in this depressing fashion climate. Otherwise, I hope get to see the creation and growth of a smaller Chanel-like house, like we almost did with Yves Saint Laurent and Neo-Balenciaga.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Read closer. That's not WWD.

I work in comms and we're frequently involved with people's "personal" blogs and other posts that are work-related. Journalist or no, clearly help is needed ...

 

[Phuel]

I really find the whole current situation at Chanel to be quite a shame, especially for the fact that it's one of the few larger houses that exist outside of LVMH/Richemont/Kering. It would be an immense shame for Chanel to lose that. While I know that Chanel is independent, I still can't quite grasp what makes Chanel (as a house, as an entity) so appealing to me as an aspiring designer, especially when my opinions on fashion houses depend so heavily on the current creative director's work. It would be an immense shame for Chanel to lose that.

It just that the actual clothing sucks. Viard fails to realise that the line between classicly beautiful and matronly bland lies in the play of proportions. Her tailleur work looks deflated and threadbare, her flou work looks heavy and flat, every hemline, cuff and neckline placement looks so indecisive as if it was supposed to be a few inches longer or shorter. It feels like Saint Laurent is doing Chanel better than Chanel themselves without much effort. Vaccarello would probably pull off that pretty, classic aesthetic with more wit and assertiveness too, but a house like Chanel needs someone more inventive than that.

I hope that we get a "Third Golden Age of Chanel" with full independence. We really need it in this depressing fashion climate. Otherwise, I hope get to see the creation and growth of a smaller Chanel-like house, like we almost did with Yves Saint Laurent and Neo-Balenciaga.

They've all been infected by the outlet virus.

Not being insensitive to all the Karl’s Chanel faithfuls and Lola— however, it’s rather entertaining to see how quickly a sad, discount-looking, dumpy-frumpy trainwreck Virginie’s Chanel has become, and how she impressively outdoes herself in mediocrity every season. The fastfashion-blandness, the outlet-mediocrity force is strong between her/Mathew Williams/Kim Jones: The Holy Trinity of Medicocrity.

 

[Nimsay]

Well, whom is going to Chanel.

if i were to pick someone - it would be Giambattista Valli. He knows HC. It will be dull but feature flattering silhouttes and fabric choices - an improvement.

His clothes already look like Chanel’s cousin who married an Oligarch.

 

[MulletProof]

Some of the best schools in the world gives scholarships for non-privileged people to access those schools. What is required? Excellence.

Squeezing myself into this Chanel conversation for one quick commercial break. Imma let you finish lol, but this is a super ambiguous term that gets passed around as if it meant something so simple you either have it or you don't, and it is often used to justify exclusion (e.g. Georg Baselitz and his opinion of women in painting).

Education is systematized everywhere. Within this formality and regardless of the type of system, excellence means excelling in academic achievements and performance. Achievements and performance are the result of a strong academic foundation, discipline and practice. A strong academic foundation means well-funded schools, teachers with continual training and decent salaries, and a child who is able to fully take advantage of these resources as a student. This means you have safe public spaces, extracurricular activities, a safe community and a safe commute that facilitates the gradual process of education, a household that is above the poverty line and not compromised by exclusion, food insecurity, abuse, addiction, immigration trauma, domestic violence, crime, etc.

In adolescence, schools are also the place where you get your early notions of politics, authority, social order, your own identity and place in society. Some realise they're quite privileged, quicker to learn than the rest, you name it. For others, the revelations are quite bleak, they realise that most in school are not as financially limited as they are, that most never hear comments on the way they look or ethnic origin but somehow they continually do. Circling back to 'achievements and performance', psychosocial development in youth impacts performance. So if excellence is a 10, subtract 4 points for the poor performers affected by all of the above, and you're now at a 6.

It's a complex issue that the government is solely responsible for, but the private sector should assist (given the way they 'assist' influencing politics) with awareness of its limits. They won't single-handedly fix the government's failure to integrate women/minorities, but they can create initiatives with long-term impact: I think the IFM's effort to get students up to speed is well-intentioned, it acknowledges socioeconomic disparities (and not excellence) in the scholarship qualification process. The problem is that they're frugal and instead of offering a 2-month intensive, they really thought 2 weeks can miraculously instill the rigor of high-quality education that was absent for 15 years. Unsurprisingly, only 10 students enroll in these courses and out of 10, only 5 get in.

I don't know if there are initiatives on this by LVMH or Kering for the many underfunded schools in France, but it is actually so cheap (certainly not the budget to restore a church ) to get a tax cut from creating art fairs for underfunded schools, committing to restocking their supplies, keep an eye on the development of some kids with artistic inclinations, nurture their potential, etc. That's how you address the issue while looking for the best. You start building from the ground up. It's a slow process that gets you less praise than a parade on how you have someone 'different' in your staff, but it's beneficial for everyone within 10 years.

Back to the other part of the discussion, fashion as a system is at such a laughable point in anything it relies on to feed itself, from art, culture, music, technology, environment, to politics and society. Its most powerful players and 'taste-makers' are meek with their taste (when they have any), they trail behind some 2015 trend from tumblr, after Zara, after what city kids were wearing in 2021. Music, art, technology, cinema, environment, all the same. So.... why would it be ANY different if they're pressed and expected to rise to the occasion and tackle something that the globalization era [they aggressively promote and benefit from] highlights, which is teams and works created exclusively, disproportionately by one type/race/gender of humans with nearly identical experiences when all they chase is every potential customer that exists on the surface of planet earth? why should their 'solution' and effort suddenly show us a system that is subpar everywhere else but unexpectedly brilliant and sensible in the most complex area of all? OF COURSE NOT. Of course they're going to be abysmally STUPID in their 'diversity' and representation efforts. They can't make a living without the gimmicks, why would they appease and appeal to the social media mob if it's not through the one language they know: the language of charade. So this 'oh no diversity killed fashion'.. yeah what else killed fashion? the gopniks? record-breaking temperatures?, no, fashion killed fashion, the suits and the people holding on to power since like 1989 'killed' fashion. Representation, just like the truly independent designer, is just roadkill and focusing on roadkill and blaming it for the reckless driver just makes me think there's some cognitive impairment that makes the surface look like quantum physics for the average fashion enthusiast, which brings me to the issue of exclusivity. Exclusivity was great for a few reasons but for many, it was a beautiful state to disguise their bovine level of ignorance as ethereal mystery. So the curtains got pulled and they're scrambling, and angry at getting busted and.. longing for the old days, no wonder.

 

[Lola701]

Squeezing myself into this Chanel conversation for one quick commercial break. Imma let you finish lol, but this is a super ambiguous term that gets passed around as if it meant something so simple you either have it or you don't, and it is often used to justify exclusion (e.g. Georg Baselitz and his opinion of women in painting).

Education is systematized everywhere. Within this formality and regardless of the type of system, excellence means excelling in academic achievements and performance. Achievements and performance are the result of a strong academic foundation, discipline and practice. A strong academic foundation means well-funded schools, teachers with continual training and decent salaries, and a child who is able to fully take advantage of these resources as a student. This means you have safe public spaces, extracurricular activities, a safe community and a safe commute that facilitates the gradual process of education, a household that is above the poverty line and not compromised by exclusion, food insecurity, abuse, addiction, immigration trauma, domestic violence, crime, etc.

In adolescence, schools are also the place where you get your early notions of politics, authority, social order, your own identity and place in society. Some realise they're quite privileged, quicker to learn than the rest, you name it. For others, the revelations are quite bleak, they realise that most in school are not as financially limited as they are, that most never hear comments on the way they look or ethnic origin but somehow they continually do. Circling back to 'achievements and performance', psychosocial development in youth impacts performance. So if excellence is a 10, subtract 4 points for the poor performers affected by all of the above, and you're now at a 6.

It's a complex issue that the government is solely responsible for, but the private sector should assist (given the way they 'assist' influencing politics) with awareness of its limits. They won't single-handedly fix the government's failure to integrate women/minorities, but they can create initiatives with long-term impact: I think the IFM's effort to get students up to speed is well-intentioned, it acknowledges socioeconomic disparities (and not excellence) in the scholarship qualification process. The problem is that they're frugal and instead of offering a 2-month intensive, they really thought 2 weeks can miraculously instill the rigor of high-quality education that was absent for 15 years. Unsurprisingly, only 10 students enroll in these courses and out of 10, only 5 get in.

I don't know if there are initiatives on this by LVMH or Kering for the many underfunded schools in France, but it is actually so cheap (certainly not the budget to restore a church ) to get a tax cut from creating art fairs for underfunded schools, committing to restocking their supplies, keep an eye on the development of some kids with artistic inclinations, nurture their potential, etc. That's how you address the issue while looking for the best. You start building from the ground up. It's a slow process that gets you less praise than a parade on how you have someone 'different' in your staff, but it's beneficial for everyone within 10 years.

Back to the other part of the discussion, fashion as a system is at such a laughable point in anything it relies on to feed itself, from art, culture, music, technology, environment, to politics and society. Its most powerful players and 'taste-makers' are meek with their taste (when they have any), they trail behind some 2015 trend from tumblr, after Zara, after what city kids were wearing in 2021. Music, art, technology, cinema, environment, all the same. So.... why would it be ANY different if they're pressed and expected to rise to the occasion and tackle something that the globalization era [they aggressively promote and benefit from] highlights, which is teams and works created exclusively, disproportionately by one type/race/gender of humans with nearly identical experiences when all they chase is every potential customer that exists on the surface of planet earth? why should their 'solution' and effort suddenly show us a system that is subpar everywhere else but unexpectedly brilliant and sensible in the most complex area of all? OF COURSE NOT. Of course they're going to be abysmally STUPID in their 'diversity' and representation efforts. They can't make a living without the gimmicks, why would they appease and appeal to the social media mob if it's not through the one language they know: the language of charade. So this 'oh no diversity killed fashion'.. yeah what else killed fashion? the gopniks? record-breaking temperatures?, no, fashion killed fashion, the suits and the people holding on to power since like 1989 'killed' fashion. Representation, just like the truly independent designer, is just roadkill and focusing on roadkill and blaming it for the reckless driver just makes me think there's some cognitive impairment that makes the surface look like quantum physics for the average fashion enthusiast, which brings me to the issue of exclusivity. Exclusivity was great for a few reasons but for many, it was a beautiful state to disguise their bovine level of ignorance as ethereal mystery. So the curtains got pulled and they're scrambling, and angry at getting busted and.. longing for the old days, no wonder.

Beautifully written and quite fair comment even if I stand for that excellence thing. Maybe schools wasn’t a best example because the exclusion and elitism part comes from money…except if you are a very gifted genius that had open doors.

‘For me excellence in fashion can be achieved in so many ways. That’s why the gatekeepers failed. I can’t wake up one morning and say that I’m an architect. Everybody knows that beyond the visual aspect, technical knowledge is also very important. The easy route is to say « I studied architecture »…It gives you a creative cachet but in essence it don’t make you one.

I’m always so shocked on how finally people don’t have a clear knowledge of what is a designer. You would hear « he is a real designer because he can make the clothes », « he is not a real designer because he only draws ». Nobody expect Frank Gehry to go be a bricklayer. Nobody expect Pharrell Williams to play all the instruments in his productions to justify his title as a producer…

But without any judgement of taste, all these artistic endeavors only make sense because there’s a technical part. Even with a painting…

And maybe the issue is that people at the head of a system build something pyramidal where money is the only main value. But the reality is that going to CSM won’t make you excellent even if you have grades. You can excel while being self-taught.

Maybe It’s a language thing actually. Maybe the usual academic language is not suited for fashion.

 

[Nimsay]

Designers who can sew their own clothes understand them differently than one who doesnt. Frank Ghery is a great example - if he had to build his own designs they would probably be wholly different. If anything Demna would be most similar to Ghery...

We can see that disconnect with Victoria Beckham's unimaginative - and often heavy - construction. Versus Karl who didn't sew anything himself for 50 years but knew how it would be put together. Every collection he made had an innovative construction flourish because he knew how it was going to be made and where he could put the flourish in without making it frumpy.

Simply put; in Fashion where hand made clothes are the pinnacle then a designer who could sew the collection alone has to be the pinnacle as well...in architecture hand-made is considered the bottom. That's because a poorly sewn Hem won't collapse and kill everyone inside of it.

 

[Nimsay]

I just think Chanel is Karl. Karl is Chanel. They are so inextricably linked. Karl's adoration of Art Deco and German films like Dr Caligari really connected him to Gabrielle - at least stylistically.

Also Karl understood a stuffy old lady brand like Chanel needs ankle bracelet bags, needs hoop bags...

 

[Nimsay]

Revising my previous comment I think a team of Giambattista Valli and Marc Jacobs would be the ideal look. I'd make Marc CD - doing runway. GV be the Virginie - doing the store line. That way we would keep finely made whimsical iconoclastic Chanel styles and make the off-runway options have a touch more modernity.

Id prob make Virginie the CD of Eres.

 

[KaKe]

I really miss Karl and although in order to change one must move forward, but I have been disappointed with Virginie at Chanel. There's no sparkle, glamour or anything that makes it CHANEL!!!!

Why does it feel like we are back to how Chanel was before Karl joined and revived it?

What is wrong with going back to what Chanel was before karl? chanel is the greatest designer of all time, every single thing women wear today can be directly traced back to chanel. it was also a style for women with capital w. teenage models walking in chanel jackets looked absolutely ridiculous and they didn't embrace the style. karl made chanel a vulgar thing you only buy to show you have money, like a rolls royce and only the crud like emma roberts embraced it. she looked completely laughable in her scream queens show dressed as jackie o lol so embarrassing.

i'm more concerned with the perfume legacy of the brand. when you smell no 5 you are instantly transported to a young chanel, or no 19 which literally contains her soul. it's the last thing she ever worked on and you can feel her spirit in it, but thanks to reformulations they don't smell like they used to and it needs to stop.