Matthieu Blazy - Designer, Creative Director of Chanel

[proseccotabis]

I suspect he may have liked him. Karl loved French people and Blazy is still quite imo a typical French guy.
I think there’s a disconnect between the perception of Blazy’s work, the reality of his work, the perception of his personality and the reality of his personality.
He does comes across as someone likeable and I’m sure he will be liked by the premiere and the atelier. Those were important things for Karl.

As for fashion, I don’t know. Karl liked Phoebe at Celine, JWA at Loewe. Blazy is in that world and he worked for Celine. Should we assume that he would have loved his work? RAF was invited to Chanel shows. I remember I saw him at the Carroussel show but at that time he wasn’t the huge star he became later at JS. And it’s known around Paris that Karl had dinners with RAF.
But then, Karl was quite welcoming of designers and was known to sending flowers, organizing dinners or finding ways to get to know them.

But I remember Karl talking his hate for intellectual designers. I have always though that it was about designers having a public persona than a perception of an aesthetic. He loved CDG and Miuccia. They are perceived as intellectuals by a lot of people.

An interesting take for sure!
I am pretty certain that Karl would have loved Blazy as a person. as a designer and a creative director? not so much. I think if we disregard Matthieu s input at Celine and Margiela he would have found him very bland because of his current work at bottega . that's too intellectual, but in my eyes its a pseudo take on intellectualism because he needs to tick boxes in his job. having said that Blazy is under insane scrutiny already and he has such huge shoes to fill in such an iconic maison at Chanel, and i personally feel that no matter what he does in Chanel he will be eaten alive by all of us here on tfs and in media lol mdr

 

[proseccotabis]

Interesting question, but easy answer: he would’ve hated Blazy. Karl was all about honesty, easiness, lightness, unpretentiousness, “non-intellectualism”…

This guy is a Raf in disguise. And don’t get me wrong, I do like some of his products, but he is basic and pretentious as far as I can see.

you have hit the nail on the head, dear Creative. as you have probably noticed through our conversations in various threads here I feel the same way as you. I find Blazy's interviews and work in relation to Bottega very heavy and difficult to focus on, there is no thread that unites all the ideas in his collections and in his interviews. by the end of his shows brain and eyes are tired. needless to say his shoes ( in comparison to DL and his teams') are horrendously uncomfortable .
Raf is a little more versatile in my eyes in terms of design ( i loved his JS. #momitsjustaphase) . but what unites him and blazy is that there is no poetry in their designs and there is no women they envision when they design. they are ice cold as people also.

 

[Lola701]

I think there's a difference between "like the designer at a different brand" and "like the designer succeeding him at Chanel". I remember Jeremy and Haider has been named successors but not sure if Hedi also made the cut.

But it was more of a recognition than a real wish no? I don’t actually think that Karl wanted any of them to replace him lol.

An interesting take for sure!
I am pretty certain that Karl would have loved Blazy as a person. as a designer and a creative director? not so much. I think if we disregard Matthieu s input at Celine and Margiela he would have found him very bland because of his current work at bottega . that's too intellectual, but in my eyes its a pseudo take on intellectualism because he needs to tick boxes in his job. having said that Blazy is under insane scrutiny already and he has such huge shoes to fill in such an iconic maison at Chanel, and i personally feel that no matter what he does in Chanel he will be eaten alive by all of us here on tfs and in media lol mdr

i dont find his work intellectual at all. Yes he is into craft but there’s nothing intellectual about a pair of leather jeans or leather pompom made out of scraps of leather.
Even his work at Margiela.
For me intellectual is a posture created by the press to appreciate something.
Maybe he is cerebral but for that I would need to know his process as a designer.

 

[proseccotabis]

But it was more of a recognition than a real wish no? I don’t actually think that Karl wanted any of them to replace him lol.

i dont find his work intellectual at all. Yes he is into craft but there’s nothing intellectual about a pair of leather jeans or leather pompom made out of scraps of leather.
Even his work at Margiela.
For me intellectual is a posture created by the press to appreciate something.
Maybe he is cerebral but for that I would need to know his process as a designer.

its not intellectual, but him and bv teams are trying to make it look like it is. thru campaigns and those animal chairs as well lol.
i was so bored by him at bottega that im excited to see Louise's work

 

[blueorchid]

its not intellectual, but him and bv teams are trying to make it look like it is. thru campaigns and those animal chairs as well lol.
i was so bored by him at bottega that im excited to see Louise's work

How is that "fake" intellectual? I don't get it. I'm not reading "intellectual" from anything, including that campaign.

 

[Deleted member 167090]

having said that Blazy is under insane scrutiny already and he has such huge shoes to fill in such an iconic maison at Chanel, and i personally feel that no matter what he does in Chanel he will be eaten alive by all of us here on tfs and in media lol mdr

The myth and success of MGC's debut at Dior makes me feel that Matt has more blessing here if we go back to the rumor and Diorentino debut thread unlike Raf whose debut actually won over the press and TFS.

 

[Creative]

With all due respect, does it actually MATTER if Karl would like Blazy or not? It's not like he/Chanel seemed to care enough to have proper "succession" plans after his death.

I don't even know why we're supposed to hate him before he's shown a collection anymore... because he's an "intellectual"? Okay.

DoEs aNyTHiNg mAtTEr tHeN? Of course it does and of course it doesn’t. If you are gonna ask that question in a fashion forum, a total irrelevant matter for humans, I think you are in the wrong place. 🤣

Also, funny you think it doesn’t matter and you keep talking about it

It was a great question to be honest. Glad that Prosec came up with it.

 

[tourbillions]

i definitely dont see blazy and chanel lasting long. its a trial phase, maybe their first choices did not work out. He somehow managed to live under lee's shadows at bottega the whole time he is there. Never really had a moment where one would think bottega is under blazy and not lee anymore.

 

[Cocteau Stone]

Blazy is seemingly over-intellectualised but also against his will. Others seem to create that aura about him but he seems nice enough as a person and has a passion for craft, even if he gets over zealous with it (which is where the intellectualism starts to come in from external parties). Not helped being associated with Mulier and Simons, who ham it up too much either in word or design, or both.

"Intellectual designer" is always a weird take. It makes no sense and the term becomes oxymoronic. Just make good clothes for crying out loud. It's one thing to create a narrative, but to theorise it all to give it "meaning" for artistic value is pointless. Go work for a museum or art gallery if that is your take. It's just bits of fabric at the end of the day lets all just calm down, pop a xanny and hope he makes a good debut and some decent couture.

 

[tourbillions]

It's one thing to create a narrative, but to theorise it all to give it "meaning" for artistic value is pointless.

this is ok if his overly intellectual clothes actually made sense as a fashion proposition and not as costumes. Without any added artistic value to his clothes/collections then you end up with half-***ed experimentation that no one really would like to wear. Im still thinking what people bought and wore from his bottega.

 

[proseccotabis]

With all due respect, does it actually MATTER if Karl would like Blazy or not? It's not like he/Chanel seemed to care enough to have proper "succession" plans after his death.

I don't even know why we're supposed to hate him before he's shown a collection anymore... because he's an "intellectual"? Okay.

I see your point but Karl’s character was larger than life and we all know his commentary was sharp and memorable so I can’t help but think what would he say about his successor Blazy. In my opinion they have nothing in common as designers and humans and this is interesting to me because fashion has to continue to develop and change, so to fantasize a little bit about Karl’s potential reaction to MBs input at Chanel never hurt anyone

In my and everyone’s defense on this thread in re. Blazys “Intellectualism”: I’d rather try to decipher what characters like Simons, Rick Owens or the Antwerp 6 want to say via their work because I can’t digest blazys ultra pseudo intellectual take on what Bottega should be by presenting these stupid animal lounge chairs for example. During his tenure many customers that loved Bottega during DL era simply lost interest in the brand for so many reasons and one of them being is that we don’t need another hermes

 

[proseccotabis]

He somehow managed to live under lee's shadows at bottega the whole time he is there. Never really had a moment where one would think bottega is under blazy and not lee anymore.

And he would continue living in his shadow but his ambitions to be a CD were huge
One thing for sure HR team in bottega veneta never had a boring moment

 

[Cocteau Stone]

this is ok if his overly intellectual clothes actually made sense as a fashion proposition and not as costumes. Without any added artistic value to his clothes/collections then you end up with half-***ed experimentation that no one really would like to wear. Im still thinking what people bought and wore from his bottega.

Never said I viewed his collections as decent, but all they did present were propositions. Some were interesting with some great visual cues to what could have been great, most were lost and competing against each other. Certainly a role he took too seriously when it came from the craft and experimentation side of things.

But I don’t see the clothes as existing as “intellectual”. Experimental, yes. Complicated, absolutely. Eccentric, sure. But intellectual is the wrong word I think. Sure the wearer may want to present in such a way because it adds aura but to make clothes as being “intellectual” doesn’t make a lot of sense. Same as Rei or Miuccia or Jil or even Haider and the like. It’s a pointed term that implies a lot but really doesn’t mean much and is used to cover up something else. How does one construct a garment “intellectually” anyways? Those that try to do that (Simons, Mulier, G Hearst…) lose sight of it all and forget they’re clothes at the end of the day and can also be looked at experimentations.

I’m not saying Blazy is not doing that, and he still needs to figure it out a bit but I’m also not expecting his Bottega at Chanel at all. It’s a completely different vernacular. In fact, the history alone is in contrast to each other in many ways. I’d say Blazy takes design a little too seriously at the moment, trying be a designer’s designer but has forgotten it still has to sell. Chanel I think (I hope) can kick that out of him a bit.

 

[tourbillions]

to make clothes as being “intellectual” doesn’t make a lot of sense.

oh i definitely agree, i dunno why, how, who, when this term started for blazy. Its such a reach seeing the mess some of his collections look like.

 

[Deleted member 167090]

Because real intellectuals don't work in fashion！Fashion people embrace the idea of intellectualism due to non-fashion people view them as everything but intellectual.

 

[Salvatore]

I think the word to describe Matthieu, Pieter, and Raf is « overthinker » which is not necessarily synonymous with intellectualism. With that overthinking comes a feeling of being overwrought and laboured which takes the lightness and joy out of a lot of what they do.

 

[PDFSD]

I think the word to describe Matthieu, Pieter, and Raf is « overthinker » which is not necessarily synonymous with intellectualism. With that overthinking comes a feeling of being overwrought and laboured which takes the lightness and joy out of a lot of what they do.

The Overthinkers, is great way to explain this trio even if it applies too most of the current modernist /pseudo intellectual designers out there.

An intellectual is someone who spends a lot of time studying and thinking about complicated ideas , yet these trio & co of overthinkers are not posing real question nor finishing their sentences with the outcome or explanation of there work via fashion shows or ads or collaborations etc it's just random drops of sound bites that never create a full song.

Anyone denying that modern art and intellectual or even surrealism in current fashion or even in the last 30 years has not been a thing!! (a Plague if you ask me ) needs fashion history classes and brush up on their research ASP!!!!

just to use the PRADA template of approach to posing questions & working with her dislikes, trying to find answers for modern life have all traces with her love for art and being intellectual or having thinkers around her in all type of disciplines.

your not going to say that Raf Blazy Pieter JW Anderson & co and even Phoebe has not been informed and shaped by this template, their houses their adv their design their art collections thing they sponsor, where they do fashion shows the inspirations are all dead in your face giveaways to where their mind is at.

simple example AZEDINE had art in his showroom etc and artist friends but he was not doing shows in Guggenheim and having his stores like art galleries filled with elite approved expensive art doing & presentations like women as walking sculptures etc let alone having Daria sit in an unfinished art gallery space like she is yet to be an unpacked art piece for ad campaign.

just all empty ideas just visual aligning your work with high art modern art so you have same hallo effect of being smart.

i see this writing away online that any critical thinking or possibility of wanting depth and quality in work produced nowadays, in art, fashion or architecture & movies is brushed away with some witty one liners of its only fashion its just clothes its just....etc !!

this constant ok with flattening of any art form to minimal just product , with only option is to like or not like.

its a crime to think ....its the future wait you will see.

 

[Deleted member 167090]

I have always enjoyed what @PDFSD wrote but maybe unlike other fields that are more accesible to general public, I, like ordinary people don't take it as serious like other fields especially when the intellectualism of modern art and high fashion are overwhelmed by the idea of consumerism and materialism.I think they are still a small world that speaks to those fashion people who consume them. Not going to lie, I enjoy reading more about the religious history of central aisa or even Noam Chomsky than how great was a designer's work. I speak this as someone who like fashion more than average people.

 

[tourbillions]

i think an intellectual designer who is quite successful is galliano. Every part of the look probably has some sort of reference that adds to the bigger picture. Sometimes it can be overthought but i find his shows "intellectual". Theres a purpose, there a lot of complicated idea for sure and ofcourse they take time.

 

[Deleted member 167090]

He is more like a real artist to me.