Matthieu Blazy - Designer, Creative Director of Chanel

[Monsieur Cristobal]

It feels like it's been 10 years since Matthieu Blazy was named CD at Chanel 🥳
His whole career at Chanel has already been analyzed 🤣

 

[FashionFanatico]

Happy for him. And sad, because his Bottega Veneta touched me in a way that most of the other big luxury brands couldn't the last few years.
Honestly I don't know why. Maybe just an instant connection you have with a likeminded person you meet and the feeling of some kind of understanding you share from the first encounter aka first collection. it's hard to explain. But you know when you feel it.

There were as many hits and misses at BV, a lot of repetition of the same, but you witnessed there is someone that loves to try new things and create with a team, not only phoning it in for himself or for putting on a show for celebrities or social media. Most of his designs are made to make you look better.

Celebrating the crafts seems what Blazy loves the most, that's why I am curious what he will do with the limitless possibilities at Chanel.

He's only 40 now. it's the perfect age for a big promotion and to view the future from that lens. At this age you learned to fight to stand your ground, you have some kind of signature, but are still willing to evolve your style. You are still kind of connected to the youth culture and have an understanding of the demands of the youngsters while respecting the values of the elders, Every generation must be different in order to keep up with the times, that's why I think Chanel made a smart decision to choose him over some «fashion dinosaur» that was cheered here so hard for the job.

Looking forward to his tenure, even it will not be a walk in the park. we can expect quite a shake-up inside and outside of the house that's for sure.
But wasn't it high time for such thing at Chanel? I was bored to death the last years with most of what happened at 31, Rue Cambon.

 

[MulletProof]

I always use that expression but we have the designers we deserve.

There’s a reason why that wave of designers is rising. We have this media that are fully integrated in our lives, the way people consume fashion is out of control and it’s almost funny to see that something as elitist as HF is generating that much conversations and engagement beyond platforms like TFS.

And I think there’s a huge difference between Blazy and Sabato. And I don’t agree with this idea of « Yes Men » and corporatism. Just because the aesthetic is not pleasing us doesnt mean that it´s motivated by corporastim. Sabato's work is boring itself and im not sure corporatism like that numbers are plunging.

We have so few examples of success in fashion driven by corporatism. Even when it´s disguised as creative, it doesn´t work when there´s a lack of vision.

Excuse me as I make this deeper than you intended but that comes from the good ol' 'we have the government we deserve', from your homeboy de Maistre, who was as anti-change and conservative as they come. It's a pretty flawed expression that, historically, is recycled by those with the upper hand in society, to defend the status quo, gaslight and blame the consequences of their tight grip on society, on the group at a disadvantage, with less say or power, attributing the stillness to their mediocrity, their inability to resist and change their own conditions. It goes from flawed to ?? when applied to a field that is the definition of unadulterated capitalism (fashion), a field that relies on aggressive marketing, that in a relatively small number of years, has absorbed and eroded everything on its path to consolidate itself into monopolies, decimating competitiveness, and not talking about monopoly 1 vs. monopoly 2 but competitiveness on the very premise of fashion design: design.

The way people consume fashion depends on socioeconomic context, political climate, you name it, but their behavior is very much regulated and redirected by the main players in it, those with the bigger budgets to manipulate opinion, to phase out critical thinking, depict rebelliousness or any appetite for smaller, non-commercial, unknown, independence or difference as the appetite of the 'maybe not so wealthy' and ignorant, who want different because maybe they just can't afford sameness. That has been the default campaign by the main conglomerates post 2008, they jumped like vultures on the state of the industry and have indoctrinated old and younger generations (through the media!) into understanding that you are essentially a loser if you have not been validated by their corporate touch.

Multiple waves of designers have come in the past 50 years, at the same time, they tended to coexist just fine and given the amount of people, the bar was higher not just in 'vision', but technical knowledge, too. Thinking that comparisons with the past stem from nostalgia when, if you have followed fashion for more than 15 years (and you have), you know the highly monopolistic direction it's taken and that the pillar of a monopoly is to reduce consumer choice, seems like an effort to justify a commercial direction that matches personal taste, and that's okay, but looking at the previous state of the industry can be pretty educational, it teaches you about the potential fashion still has and how this 'wave' is hardly a wave, these are just nearly identical guys appointed nearly identical jobs that consist of making a bit of noise, putting the company in the mouths of people, make anyone with any income spend on it (under the fantasy that it's 'elitist'), do it again and again for a few years, escort them out and bring on someone new that can do the same but without smelling old. That was definitely not the requirement of the waves that brought everything from Yohji, Wauchob, Cavalli to the guys from Dsquared. An aesthetic, whether personal taste or not, is completely separate from the corporate dynamics that dominate fashion right now and leave room for nothing else, and their spokespeople (aka. 'designers'/creative directors) deserve all the criticism, yes, they're just some vanilla guys with beautiful dreams, but they still take part in all of the above.. their business decisions, skills, successes and failures are not above any questioning with that degree of marketing and consumerism involved.

 

[tricotineacetat]

Excuse me as I make this deeper than you intended but that comes from the good ol' 'we have the government we deserve', from your homeboy de Maistre, who was as anti-change and conservative as they come. It's a pretty flawed expression that, historically, is recycled by those with the upper hand in society, to defend the status quo, gaslight and blame the consequences of their tight grip on society, on the group at a disadvantage, with less say or power, attributing the stillness to their mediocrity, their inability to resist and change their own conditions. It goes from flawed to ?? when applied to a field that is the definition of unadulterated capitalism (fashion), a field that relies on aggressive marketing, that in a relatively small number of years, has absorbed and eroded everything on its path to consolidate itself into monopolies, decimating competitiveness, and not talking about monopoly 1 vs. monopoly 2 but competitiveness on the very premise of fashion design: design.

The way people consume fashion depends on socioeconomic context, political climate, you name it, but their behavior is very much regulated and redirected by the main players in it, those with the bigger budgets to manipulate opinion, to phase out critical thinking, depict rebelliousness or any appetite for smaller, non-commercial, unknown, independence or difference as the appetite of the 'maybe not so wealthy' and ignorant, who want different because maybe they just can't afford sameness. That has been the default campaign by the main conglomerates post 2008, they jumped like vultures on the state of the industry and have indoctrinated old and younger generations (through the media!) into understanding that you are essentially a loser if you have not been validated by their corporate touch.

Multiple waves of designers have come in the past 50 years, at the same time, they tended to coexist just fine and given the amount of people, the bar was higher not just in 'vision', but technical knowledge, too. Thinking that comparisons with the past stem from nostalgia when, if you have followed fashion for more than 15 years (and you have), you know the highly monopolistic direction it's taken and that the pillar of a monopoly is to reduce consumer choice, seems like an effort to justify a commercial direction that matches personal taste, and that's okay, but looking at the previous state of the industry can be pretty educational, it teaches you about the potential fashion still has and how this 'wave' is hardly a wave, these are just nearly identical guys appointed nearly identical jobs that consist of making a bit of noise, putting the company in the mouths of people, make anyone with any income spend on it (under the fantasy that it's 'elitist'), do it again and again for a few years, escort them out and bring on someone new that can do the same but without smelling old. That was definitely not the requirement of the waves that brought everything from Yohji, Wauchob, Cavalli to the guys from Dsquared. An aesthetic, whether personal taste or not, is completely separate from the corporate dynamics that dominate fashion right now and leave room for nothing else, and their spokespeople (aka. 'designers'/creative directors) deserve all the criticism, yes, they're just some vanilla guys with beautiful dreams, but they still take part in all of the above.. their business decisions, skills, successes and failures are not above any questioning with that degree of marketing and consumerism involved.

AMEN.

 

[Monsieur Cristobal]

Excuse me as I make this deeper than you intended but that comes from the good ol' 'we have the government we deserve', from your homeboy de Maistre, who was as anti-change and conservative as they come. It's a pretty flawed expression that, historically, is recycled by those with the upper hand in society, to defend the status quo, gaslight and blame the consequences of their tight grip on society, on the group at a disadvantage, with less say or power, attributing the stillness to their mediocrity, their inability to resist and change their own conditions. It goes from flawed to ?? when applied to a field that is the definition of unadulterated capitalism (fashion), a field that relies on aggressive marketing, that in a relatively small number of years, has absorbed and eroded everything on its path to consolidate itself into monopolies, decimating competitiveness, and not talking about monopoly 1 vs. monopoly 2 but competitiveness on the very premise of fashion design: design.

The way people consume fashion depends on socioeconomic context, political climate, you name it, but their behavior is very much regulated and redirected by the main players in it, those with the bigger budgets to manipulate opinion, to phase out critical thinking, depict rebelliousness or any appetite for smaller, non-commercial, unknown, independence or difference as the appetite of the 'maybe not so wealthy' and ignorant, who want different because maybe they just can't afford sameness. That has been the default campaign by the main conglomerates post 2008, they jumped like vultures on the state of the industry and have indoctrinated old and younger generations (through the media!) into understanding that you are essentially a loser if you have not been validated by their corporate touch.

Multiple waves of designers have come in the past 50 years, at the same time, they tended to coexist just fine and given the amount of people, the bar was higher not just in 'vision', but technical knowledge, too. Thinking that comparisons with the past stem from nostalgia when, if you have followed fashion for more than 15 years (and you have), you know the highly monopolistic direction it's taken and that the pillar of a monopoly is to reduce consumer choice, seems like an effort to justify a commercial direction that matches personal taste, and that's okay, but looking at the previous state of the industry can be pretty educational, it teaches you about the potential fashion still has and how this 'wave' is hardly a wave, these are just nearly identical guys appointed nearly identical jobs that consist of making a bit of noise, putting the company in the mouths of people, make anyone with any income spend on it (under the fantasy that it's 'elitist'), do it again and again for a few years, escort them out and bring on someone new that can do the same but without smelling old. That was definitely not the requirement of the waves that brought everything from Yohji, Wauchob, Cavalli to the guys from Dsquared. An aesthetic, whether personal taste or not, is completely separate from the corporate dynamics that dominate fashion right now and leave room for nothing else, and their spokespeople (aka. 'designers'/creative directors) deserve all the criticism, yes, they're just some vanilla guys with beautiful dreams, but they still take part in all of the above.. their business decisions, skills, successes and failures are not above any questioning with that degree of marketing and consumerism involved.

Excuse me as I make this deeper than you intended but that comes from the good ol' 'we have the government we deserve', from your homeboy de Maistre, who was as anti-change and conservative as they come. It's a pretty flawed expression that, historically, is recycled by those with the upper hand in society, to defend the status quo, gaslight and blame the consequences of their tight grip on society, on the group at a disadvantage, with less say or power, attributing the stillness to their mediocrity, their inability to resist and change their own conditions. It goes from flawed to ?? when applied to a field that is the definition of unadulterated capitalism (fashion), a field that relies on aggressive marketing, that in a relatively small number of years, has absorbed and eroded everything on its path to consolidate itself into monopolies, decimating competitiveness, and not talking about monopoly 1 vs. monopoly 2 but competitiveness on the very premise of fashion design: design.

The way people consume fashion depends on socioeconomic context, political climate, you name it, but their behavior is very much regulated and redirected by the main players in it, those with the bigger budgets to manipulate opinion, to phase out critical thinking, depict rebelliousness or any appetite for smaller, non-commercial, unknown, independence or difference as the appetite of the 'maybe not so wealthy' and ignorant, who want different because maybe they just can't afford sameness. That has been the default campaign by the main conglomerates post 2008, they jumped like vultures on the state of the industry and have indoctrinated old and younger generations (through the media!) into understanding that you are essentially a loser if you have not been validated by their corporate touch.

Multiple waves of designers have come in the past 50 years, at the same time, they tended to coexist just fine and given the amount of people, the bar was higher not just in 'vision', but technical knowledge, too. Thinking that comparisons with the past stem from nostalgia when, if you have followed fashion for more than 15 years (and you have), you know the highly monopolistic direction it's taken and that the pillar of a monopoly is to reduce consumer choice, seems like an effort to justify a commercial direction that matches personal taste, and that's okay, but looking at the previous state of the industry can be pretty educational, it teaches you about the potential fashion still has and how this 'wave' is hardly a wave, these are just nearly identical guys appointed nearly identical jobs that consist of making a bit of noise, putting the company in the mouths of people, make anyone with any income spend on it (under the fantasy that it's 'elitist'), do it again and again for a few years, escort them out and bring on someone new that can do the same but without smelling old. That was definitely not the requirement of the waves that brought everything from Yohji, Wauchob, Cavalli to the guys from Dsquared. An aesthetic, whether personal taste or not, is completely separate from the corporate dynamics that dominate fashion right now and leave room for nothing else, and their spokespeople (aka. 'designers'/creative directors) deserve all the criticism, yes, they're just some vanilla guys with beautiful dreams, but they still take part in all of the above.. their business decisions, skills, successes and failures are not above any questioning with that degree of marketing and consumerism involved.

Those were hard words but they were true.
It is the type of merciless, sharp analyze that you cannot read anywhere else because journalism itself has been bought by those same conglomerates.

Since it is Matthieu's thread, my superficial impressions after meeting him once in a professional context are that he is a reserved person but a determined one, and that he is very curious about the technical aspects of the garments, about the construction.

More impressions once he shows his next collection, most probably at Chanel, because he hasn't been yet officially appointed.

 

[Deleted member 170196]

Excuse me as I make this deeper than you intended but that comes from the good ol' 'we have the government we deserve', from your homeboy de Maistre, who was as anti-change and conservative as they come. It's a pretty flawed expression that, historically, is recycled by those with the upper hand in society, to defend the status quo, gaslight and blame the consequences of their tight grip on society, on the group at a disadvantage, with less say or power, attributing the stillness to their mediocrity, their inability to resist and change their own conditions. It goes from flawed to ?? when applied to a field that is the definition of unadulterated capitalism (fashion), a field that relies on aggressive marketing, that in a relatively small number of years, has absorbed and eroded everything on its path to consolidate itself into monopolies, decimating competitiveness, and not talking about monopoly 1 vs. monopoly 2 but competitiveness on the very premise of fashion design: design.

The way people consume fashion depends on socioeconomic context, political climate, you name it, but their behavior is very much regulated and redirected by the main players in it, those with the bigger budgets to manipulate opinion, to phase out critical thinking, depict rebelliousness or any appetite for smaller, non-commercial, unknown, independence or difference as the appetite of the 'maybe not so wealthy' and ignorant, who want different because maybe they just can't afford sameness. That has been the default campaign by the main conglomerates post 2008, they jumped like vultures on the state of the industry and have indoctrinated old and younger generations (through the media!) into understanding that you are essentially a loser if you have not been validated by their corporate touch.

Multiple waves of designers have come in the past 50 years, at the same time, they tended to coexist just fine and given the amount of people, the bar was higher not just in 'vision', but technical knowledge, too. Thinking that comparisons with the past stem from nostalgia when, if you have followed fashion for more than 15 years (and you have), you know the highly monopolistic direction it's taken and that the pillar of a monopoly is to reduce consumer choice, seems like an effort to justify a commercial direction that matches personal taste, and that's okay, but looking at the previous state of the industry can be pretty educational, it teaches you about the potential fashion still has and how this 'wave' is hardly a wave, these are just nearly identical guys appointed nearly identical jobs that consist of making a bit of noise, putting the company in the mouths of people, make anyone with any income spend on it (under the fantasy that it's 'elitist'), do it again and again for a few years, escort them out and bring on someone new that can do the same but without smelling old. That was definitely not the requirement of the waves that brought everything from Yohji, Wauchob, Cavalli to the guys from Dsquared. An aesthetic, whether personal taste or not, is completely separate from the corporate dynamics that dominate fashion right now and leave room for nothing else, and their spokespeople (aka. 'designers'/creative directors) deserve all the criticism, yes, they're just some vanilla guys with beautiful dreams, but they still take part in all of the above.. their business decisions, skills, successes and failures are not above any questioning with that degree of marketing and consumerism involved.

100%. A very well put statement and sharp analysis. Thank you!

 

[PDFSD]

Very curious for his total vision for the clothes, the sets, the campaigns.

this is the part that he is actually weak at and lacks: a total vision that connects idea´s and product and culture zeitgeist under one brand.

Yes his Chanel will look modern and i even can see him wow with craft and Chanel´s ability with material and technical know how and production.

and to be fair that's enough to make just Chanel feel and look modern and the clarity of Chanel as a house and a brand is strong enough , VV also just did clothes with an vague idea for the season and did not have. strong vision in sets and campaigns and a Chanel woman etc

the average 99% Chanel shopper don't care they just want Chanel and it does not matter who is designing it, at BV most shoppers also don't know Blazy is there as with VV at her time at Chanel.

Blazy is the supermarket of modern ideas, but i wonder if Chanel that became so big and is already a supermarket of goods didn't need someone with a more singular vision to cut off the excess fat and realign it both in vision and product quality that reflects its high price and heritage, that now is causing troubles with clients not wanting to spend 10k on the classic bag ......(which the Chanel management now regrets raising prices)

resulting in this winter season in creating waitlist for a beauty vanity case bag that is only available at the beauty chanel stores..... because the price is way lower than the average Chanel bag available in the fashion Chanel stores.

I truly feel more of more is not the way to go forward for brands even as big or strong as Chanel, the fatigue and disappointment with luxury goods is a growing wave that again will last a few years before things change again because some brand found a new formula to attract clients.

Blazy is a short term solution to Chanel´s longer term problem.

(Raf did not change his stripes post his Jil Sander exploration in womens wear going to Dior CK nor Prada )

Designer are human we dont change drastically no matter the outside conditions , our desires and obsessions are there ingrained in us.

 

[PDFSD]

Gucci has no leverage... Hedi would ask for more ownership than Tom did when they showed him the door.

MMMmmmmmmm..... Alessandro and even Frida had same oversight on fashion product stores and beauty and image and Tom had same power and even more....... they could show him the door only after kering as (then PPR ) bought majority to shave the brand from LVMH and they disagree on how much Tom had a saying in all the brands they bought etc it was not about Gucci only.

it not the same issue for power tom had power of the kering group brands as well he selected who to buy etc

 

[Lola701]

Excuse me as I make this deeper than you intended but that comes from the good ol' 'we have the government we deserve', from your homeboy de Maistre, who was as anti-change and conservative as they come. It's a pretty flawed expression that, historically, is recycled by those with the upper hand in society, to defend the status quo, gaslight and blame the consequences of their tight grip on society, on the group at a disadvantage, with less say or power, attributing the stillness to their mediocrity, their inability to resist and change their own conditions. It goes from flawed to ?? when applied to a field that is the definition of unadulterated capitalism (fashion), a field that relies on aggressive marketing, that in a relatively small number of years, has absorbed and eroded everything on its path to consolidate itself into monopolies, decimating competitiveness, and not talking about monopoly 1 vs. monopoly 2 but competitiveness on the very premise of fashion design: design.

The way people consume fashion depends on socioeconomic context, political climate, you name it, but their behavior is very much regulated and redirected by the main players in it, those with the bigger budgets to manipulate opinion, to phase out critical thinking, depict rebelliousness or any appetite for smaller, non-commercial, unknown, independence or difference as the appetite of the 'maybe not so wealthy' and ignorant, who want different because maybe they just can't afford sameness. That has been the default campaign by the main conglomerates post 2008, they jumped like vultures on the state of the industry and have indoctrinated old and younger generations (through the media!) into understanding that you are essentially a loser if you have not been validated by their corporate touch.

Multiple waves of designers have come in the past 50 years, at the same time, they tended to coexist just fine and given the amount of people, the bar was higher not just in 'vision', but technical knowledge, too. Thinking that comparisons with the past stem from nostalgia when, if you have followed fashion for more than 15 years (and you have), you know the highly monopolistic direction it's taken and that the pillar of a monopoly is to reduce consumer choice, seems like an effort to justify a commercial direction that matches personal taste, and that's okay, but looking at the previous state of the industry can be pretty educational, it teaches you about the potential fashion still has and how this 'wave' is hardly a wave, these are just nearly identical guys appointed nearly identical jobs that consist of making a bit of noise, putting the company in the mouths of people, make anyone with any income spend on it (under the fantasy that it's 'elitist'), do it again and again for a few years, escort them out and bring on someone new that can do the same but without smelling old. That was definitely not the requirement of the waves that brought everything from Yohji, Wauchob, Cavalli to the guys from Dsquared. An aesthetic, whether personal taste or not, is completely separate from the corporate dynamics that dominate fashion right now and leave room for nothing else, and their spokespeople (aka. 'designers'/creative directors) deserve all the criticism, yes, they're just some vanilla guys with beautiful dreams, but they still take part in all of the above.. their business decisions, skills, successes and failures are not above any questioning with that degree of marketing and consumerism involved.

I 100% agree with your analysis.
I would say that I find it puzzling that Mathieu Blazy, out of all the worst names possible that could have been appointed at this role is the catalysis of those criticism that I think we all share….Even more when he hasn’t been appointed yet.

Corporatism has created that feeling of « disposable creativity » and we see it with Gucci, that idea of « a guy on a mission », a failing mission btw.

For me, there’s always a potential within any appointment and in a way I have a « deal with it » attitude with the state of fashion today.

Despite what comes with the role of a creative director today, I appreciate the fact that Chanel can take the risk of having someone like Blazy as CD. And it’s for the same reason that I support the work of Nicolas at Vuitton because it somehow contributes in elevating the standards (beyond selling) and creating a conversation.

There’s no avant garde anymore and the singular voices don’t have a strong POV anymore.

For me, the latest appointments we had are somehow what still keeps me interested in fashion (Peter Copping, Haider Ackermann , to some degree Ryder and the perspective of Blazy) because it keeps the perspective open to something more than commercialism.

There are some legends we all love but I do not think we look at their shows the same way. They are reassuring but at the same time, also alarming because we realize that we don’t have strong independent voices with consistency. If on top of that at big brands, the response is MGC, Virginie Viard, Sabato de Sarno, Kim Jones, we are doomed. And it’s not because their stuff is about commercialism but because it’s not about creativity.

I’m not a big fan of Daniel Roseberry’s Schiaparelli even if I loved his latest Couture collection (his best collection IMO) but I respect the fact that he is trying. There’s something more than the promise of sales.

And BTW, I command you for going deeper.

 

[Xone]

this is the part that he is actually weak at and lacks: a total vision that connects idea´s and product and culture zeitgeist under one brand.

That's the worst part of it, we don't need those dry uninspired images from BV at Chanel...from VV era i have always preferred the campaign than the actual collections,bc the campaigns sometimes hid how ugly the clothes were...

 

[PDFSD]

I 100% agree with your analysis.
I would say that I find it puzzling that Mathieu Blazy, out of all the worst names possible that could have been appointed at this role is the catalysis of those criticism that I think we all share….Even more when he hasn’t been appointed yet.

Corporatism has created that feeling of « disposable creativity » and we see it with Gucci, that idea of « a guy on a mission », a failing mission btw.

For me, there’s always a potential within any appointment and in a way I have a « deal with it » attitude with the state of fashion today.

Despite what comes with the role of a creative director today, I appreciate the fact that Chanel can take the risk of having someone like Blazy as CD. And it’s for the same reason that I support the work of Nicolas at Vuitton because it somehow contributes in elevating the standards (beyond selling) and creating a conversation.

There’s no avant garde anymore and the singular voices don’t have a strong POV anymore.

For me, the latest appointments we had are somehow what still keeps me interested in fashion (Peter Copping, Haider Ackermann , to some degree Ryder and the perspective of Blazy) because it keeps the perspective open to something more than commercialism.

There are some legends we all love but I do not think we look at their shows the same way. They are reassuring but at the same time, also alarming because we realize that we don’t have strong independent voices with consistency. If on top of that at big brands, the response is MGC, Virginie Viard, Sabato de Sarno, Kim Jones, we are doomed. And it’s not because their stuff is about commercialism but because it’s not about creativity.

I’m not a big fan of Daniel Roseberry’s Schiaparelli even if I loved his latest Couture collection (his best collection IMO) but I respect the fact that he is trying. There’s something more than the promise of sales.

And BTW, I command you for going deeper.

I don't think selling well and being also a strong creative director should be separated as a good qualities to have in one CD, i do think it's part of the skill set of being a good creative director ideally ...like NG at LV the reason why they are doing well is because he is pushing on development on all levels that helps everyday products be better (even if ugly many times) and gives the commercial collections lots of details to add on to basic or more commercial product this for me is related to his design skills and having a strong vision in order to push for wider product offering.

Dior with galliano had also this trickle down look at the saddle bag its extem idea /shape of a bag (even it was a copy of a 70´s gucci saddle bag) yet became so normal now for me its shows the skills of Galliano to not only make you dream but also sell allot and make new classics that is desired by many different people.

I might be in the minority here but i love the reality of high fashion used and worn and translated in real life moments, i don't enjoy fashion like a fantasy only movie or ig post or red carpet i personally find it restrictive and not interesting just flat.

i like when brands sell well and have hit product...even if i don't want it for me.... i hate when they don't sustain it and nurture longevity but replace it with mediocre merch.

i like things that are build to innovate and last long

 

[Nimsay]

Boring trends are making a comeback, much like they did in the '90s, and we look back on those times with nostalgia. The key is adaptation—without it, irrelevance is inevitable, so this debate feels pointless to me.

Ultimately, the market decides. People cast their votes with their dollars. Take Tom Ford as an example: his career faltered, along with the media outlets that defended his controversial designs, like the infamous necklace. The public made their stance clear, and in our free-market system, the loss of financial support forced both him and his defenders to now be unemployed and nowhere to be found in 2024.

 

[avonlea002]

Ultimately, the market decides. People cast their votes with their dollars. Take Tom Ford as an example: his career faltered, along with the media outlets that defended his controversial designs, like the infamous necklace. The public made their stance clear, and in our free-market system, the loss of financial support forced both him and his defenders to now be unemployed and nowhere to be found in 2024.

LOL what are you even talking about? Tom is "nowhere" to be found because he sold his brand, retired and enjoys being a billionaire. There was no loss of financial support.
Most people who were offended by penis necklace weren't his clients in the first place. We are talking about a man who did a campaign with a model showing her pubic hair, not to mention the perfume ads by Richardson.

 

[Living Proof]

On a slightly unrelated note, the news of Dario Vitale resigning came out barely hours after Lauren Sherman reported that he’s in the running to replace Blazy at Bottega. Is it safe to assume he got the job?

 

[Olaffo]

^ I think so, he is leaving end of Jan from Miu Miu which would make sense giving Blazy timeline and Christmas holidays etc. There is also possibility of him signing up contract with different brand and then we will have pretty generic announcement that he will replace x at y. I hope he got the job at Bottega tho.

 

[helmutnotdead]

it’s quite hilarious to me that the Weithermer brothers and Bruno Pavlovski saw this look and thought: oh yeah, let’s gonna give him the creative direction of the most important fashion brand that ever existed and let him being the successor of the most influential designer of all time.

 

[helmutnotdead]

like a lot of people here said: he will be fine. he's a very talented designer and quite charming if you ask me. that's not the part that scares the sh*t out of me. and I am very VERY grateful they picked a serious person to do the job and not a clown like Simon Jacquemus. That would have meant the end of Chanel.

But I am not convinced. I even thought it was a kind of joke when his name started to appear in the conversation. I just feel that he doesn't have the charisma and the range for a brand like Chanel. Why they decided to give it to him is beyond human understanding. U want to modernize Chanel? Call Ghesquiere! Can y'all imagine a couture collection with his technique and precision?. I don't feel touched by his BV either but somehow it makes more sense like that someone like him is in charge. He's a designer for that kind of brand. He would do wonders at Marni...

and in order to succeed, Matthieu has to be very sharp picking up his team. No Alastair, No the Thornfeldt girls. I'm sorry to say this but Chanel has no place for that kind of people doing that kind of look. He will need the best of the best.

Although I expected better from Chanel, I just wish him the best because at least he's a nice and hardworking guy. I'll give him one year: the first two rtw collections and their couture shows to have a proper opinion about his performance.

 

[helmutnotdead]

I can't believe they didn't give it to the best dressmaker and designer alive: Nicolas Ghesquiere.

absolutely criminal.

 

[TomBlanksFullFatMiuMiu]

No Alastair

Chanel needs CCD or Carine (not the lazy money job version tho)
Charlotte Stockdale might not be such a bad idea, regardless, they need someone full-time, not someone who comes in a week before the show

 

[GivenchyHomme]

I can't believe they didn't give it to the best dressmaker and designer alive: Nicolas Ghesquiere.

absolutely criminal.

Excuse me? Am I joke to you?



Museum at Fit