Matthieu Blazy - Designer, Creative Director of Chanel

[JohannesL]

I always feel that I am too poor to join TFS's gender war. Such discussion makes me feel that high fashion is still living in its privileged bubble as not every sex workers would ever dream about having a luxury handbag and most of them are having a hard life in those countries I have ever visited.

 

[Creative]

I always feel that I am too poor to join TFS's gender war. Such discussion makes me feel that high fashion is still living in its privileged bubble as not every sex workers would ever dream about having a luxury handbag and most of them are having a hard life in those countries I have ever visited.

Of course it is living in its privileged bubble, how would it not be? It is selling bags whose price is way higher than the monthly income of 95% of the population. High fashion is for people that have or can have access to certain type of means.

Being a worker at company you can earn 30K or 2M. Why would it be different for prostitut*s? 👀

 

[proseccotabis]

Being a worker at company you can earn 30K or 2M. Why would it be different for prostitut*s?

You think really well about brands... the only humans that earn 30k or 2m in a company are CEOs or the likes of Arnaults.. so i guess the employees earn less than se* industry workers

 

[yslforever]

I always feel that I am too poor to join TFS's gender war. Such discussion makes me feel that high fashion is still living in its privileged bubble as not every sex workers would ever dream about having a luxury handbag and most of them are having a hard life in those countries I have ever visited.

Tbh, this is not about fashion or high-fashion anymore, it's about brands and some of their products, (often perceived as luxury and expensive brands but that's debatable), used as social status-symbols (a tale as long as humanity), now some of those brands have diverged from fashion to become symbols like Creative said:
- Loro Piana = MENA's Uniqlo
- Dior monogram menswear = ghetto
- Chanel mini bags = insta-girls in bodycon dresses (the oversize trends never caught with them).

It's far from fashion, but still derivative.

It's trying to show-off some form of wealth or belonging to a community, some would consider this tackiness.
Chanel has always been on the verge between fashion and status symbol, Karl knew it and played it beautifully, Virginie much less, and the new Unilever management is very aware of the status symbols thing.

I hope MB is aware too, but he has never looked playfull to me. There is always something very forced, very designed.

 

[proseccotabis]

Tbh, this is not about fashion or high-fashion anymore, it's about brands and some of their products, (often perceived as luxury and expensive brands but that's debatable), used as social status-symbols (a tale as long as humanity), now some of those brands have diverged from fashion to become symbols like Creative said:
- Loro Piana = MENA's Uniqlo
- Dior monogram menswear = ghetto
- Chanel mini bags = insta-girls in bodycon dresses (the oversize trends never caught with them).

It's far from fashion, but still derivative.

It's trying to show-off some form of wealth or belonging to a community, some would consider this tackiness.
Chanel has always been on the verge between fashion and status symbol, Karl knew it and played it beautifully, Virginie much less, and the new Unilever management is very aware of the status symbols thing.

I hope MB is aware too, but he has never looked playfull to me. There is always something very forced, very designed.

To me its obvious that MB walked through thorns to get to the stars and stepped on whoever needs to be stepped on to be where he is now
you can see it in his work . what he does isnt groundbreaking nor exciting, its just posh and has an extortionate price tag attached to it because wOw ItS BoTtEgA bY MatThIeU.
His creations never made me feel anything at all

 

[blueorchid]

thank you for writing this ....

on both sides it's an interesting conversation for different reasons male /gay gaze and the female perspective on dressing for others and themselves etc or not ...

i do think the scale is disportionality on sl*t shaming how sexully free or direct woman want or can dress and in connection to what is considered chic or not chic or good or bad taste i have to say the matter of taste is all i am interested on here the most why some people se something as better as etc so thank you for bringing it up and others to give other perspective.

i think we should agree that what drives sales of luxury goods are a lot of illegal and unsavory actions that provide funds for these transactions its not just men gifting women Chanel bags ist everything under the rainbow.

i come to the conclusion that tackiness is much bigger part of fashion on all levels, we are blinded by our own taste levels /bubbles and social engineering of search for hierarchy among people types /tibes and codes.

hope to read more ideas and views on this here.

i think will be interesting to see how Matthieu´s general ig good taste will translate to a bigger Chanel crowd ...i do think why Chanel does well is that it has a high level of tackiness to it. this is say in the sense that you can always see its Chanel by logo or design and this KL played well with to always be on the borders of good & new tastes and what wider audiences can understand and want.

For me, I just find it a very boring and reductive way to comment on how women dress. I've certainly called designers, brands, celebs, trashy and tacky, etc. I'm not above it. But I find it does get a bit obnoxious at the part where people are seconds away from calling any woman with a 2.55 handbag a cum guzzling prostitution whores, I mean... yeah, yacht girls and escorts exist, I'm not denying that, but it just gets so f*cking excessive on here sometimes. And then you have the opposite problem in threads about designers like Phoebe Philo where aaaalllll the women who wear those clothes are just fake intellectuals!!! So, is not being a prostitute not enough? And then I have to listen to male designers discuss what brings them into fashion and half the stories are sappy sh*t like ~omg women are so sTrOnG!~ ~mY mOtHeR was so stylish~ so... okay? And, so what, in my experience a 2.55 handbag doesn't signal "prostitution wh*re" I've seen average women carry that bag while they're grocery shopping (I dunno, maybe they're instagram whores on a break from Ibiza, who knows). But it's so f*cking EXHAUSTING to read this misogynistic bullsh*t on tFS all the time. It feels like attacking just to attack, like certain users just want a chance to denigrate any woman who doesn't dress in a way that they like.

 

[Creative]

^Not me, tbh. I love the excess of classic prostitutes and how they inspired singers, artists, designers and whoever. I like everything that feels genuine.

The insta prostitution is what I find cringe and disgusting. And Chanel is very present there. People trying to be refined at all costs by showing off status symbols when they are not refined at all. And it’s true that almost everybody pretends to be something he/she’s not, that’s normal, but it comes to a point when it’s just embarrassing… Feels so desperate sometimes. Posting pictures flying private with the Chanel or the mini Kelly and the Cartiers… Also, as I said, it has nothing to do with gender, I don’t know why you keep saying it’s misogynist when we’ve talked about the instagays in Sabato’s thread who only care about posting nudes on Instagram or about the racaille that buys the KJ’s products. 🧐