Matthieu Blazy - Designer, Creative Director of Chanel

[Cocteau Stone]

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.

I personally take this approach myself though, as both a designer and textile artist. Having also worked in certain other environments as well, associating things with art becomes really patronising.

We understand the weight it holds when calling something art because it bears such a strong aura and association with a sense of worth. But the word itself has become rather meaningless. The same idea of a witty one liner such as “it’s just clothes” denigrating
the practice can also be applied to when someone says “it’s art, you won’t get it”. It also adds pressure, gives it more weight than it needs to by imposing an insurmountable amount of bias on something whilst disregarding discipline.

I appreciate fashion that has storytelling and thought behind it and having a strong intention/conviction (that’s how we get silhouettes and niches), but at some point you have to understand that it’s clothes. Something that still has to navigate itself on the body. That doesn’t mean I’m viewing it as a product only; in essence, as long as it works and navigates well on the body (disregarding taste), it’s clothes and can exist as fashion. To me to call something and look at something as just clothes in fashion takes the seriousness out of it and also brings it back to its core underpinnings. Fabric, materiality and handiwork. I prefer to associate it all with crafts than art personally. Still doesn’t mean it should be solely looked at as just product.

Sometimes I just find the analysis of disciplines being so closely linked to the term “art” becomes a disservice. It more often than not takes it somewhere to where it doesn’t need to be and over complicates things.

 

[Lola701]

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

For me it’s just another generic collaboration with an artist. I think maybe the idea of intellectual is personal to everybody.
For me cerebral fashion is when the intention is supposed to have more though than what the end up result may look like. The intention behind what Rei Kawakubo does is always grander than the result which could be seen by a naive eye as just a pile of stuff. The same with Miuccia doing collections about things she hates. But at the end it materializes as a skirt.

I don’t see a posture in Matthieu’s work. I think he has many, maybe too much ideas and that a brand like Chanel could actually help him refine that nature in his work.

Loving contemporary Art is not a sin and integrating in a work is not intellectual to me.

Karl discovered the Memphis movement, bought the whole catalogue, made a collection out of it. Was it intellectual? At that time, it was the edgiest thing.

But then I think Blazy is guilty by association but I think being French is an advantage for him at Chanel. Dior and Alaia are new territories for Pieter and Raf after all,
When you are French and our generation, you cannot escape Chanel. Even more Chanel by Karl. Everybody got their favorite eras of his work. But then again, his aesthetic and his ideas will be a strength to take enough distance with Karl and Coco and deliver a personal interpretation.

But then again. I loved Haider at Tom Ford. Something that a lot of members hated for those reasons.
Karl said that fabulous thing: my job is to make believe it’s Chanel. That will be Blazy’s new job.

 

[proseccotabis]

For me it’s just another generic collaboration with an artist. I think maybe the idea of intellectual is personal to everybody.
For me cerebral fashion is when the intention is supposed to have more though than what the end up result may look like. The intention behind what Rei Kawakubo does is always grander than the result which could be seen by a naive eye as just a pile of stuff. The same with Miuccia doing collections about things she hates. But at the end it materializes as a skirt.

I don’t see a posture in Matthieu’s work. I think he has many, maybe too much ideas and that a brand like Chanel could actually help him refine that nature in his work.

Loving contemporary Art is not a sin and integrating in a work is not intellectual to me.

Karl discovered the Memphis movement, bought the whole catalogue, made a collection out of it. Was it intellectual? At that time, it was the edgiest thing.

But then I think Blazy is guilty by association but I think being French is an advantage for him at Chanel. Dior and Alaia are new territories for Pieter and Raf after all,
When you are French and our generation, you cannot escape Chanel. Even more Chanel by Karl. Everybody got their favorite eras of his work. But then again, his aesthetic and his ideas will be a strength to take enough distance with Karl and Coco and deliver a personal interpretation.

But then again. I loved Haider at Tom Ford. Something that a lot of members hated for those reasons.
Karl said that fabulous thing: my job is to make believe it’s Chanel. That will be Blazy’s new job.

The thing about Karl though is he decided to stick with the Memphis movement. That to me is quite intellectual, without jumping bridges and having idea diarrhea. Blazy loved Pesce for like 3 months and then started loving the animal caricature chairs and that didnt even reflect in his designs, but reflected on the prices. i frankly think his customers dont care about this artsy fartsy direction.
Maybe im old fashioned or arent open to changes in such iconic and established brands such as Chanel, but for me its difficult to imagine someone respecting Karls legacy. Again ill be happy to be proven wrong!

 

[PDFSD]

I personally take this approach myself though, as both a designer and textile artist. Having also worked in certain other environments as well, associating things with art becomes really patronising.

We understand the weight it holds when calling something art because it bears such a strong aura and association with a sense of worth. But the word itself has become rather meaningless. The same idea of a witty one liner such as “it’s just clothes” denigrating
the practice can also be applied to when someone says “it’s art, you won’t get it”. It also adds pressure, gives it more weight than it needs to by imposing an insurmountable amount of bias on something whilst disregarding discipline.

I appreciate fashion that has storytelling and thought behind it and having a strong intention/conviction (that’s how we get silhouettes and niches), but at some point you have to understand that it’s clothes. Something that still has to navigate itself on the body. That doesn’t mean I’m viewing it as a product only; in essence, as long as it works and navigates well on the body (disregarding taste), it’s clothes and can exist as fashion. To me to call something and look at something as just clothes in fashion takes the seriousness out of it and also brings it back to its core underpinnings. Fabric, materiality and handiwork. I prefer to associate it all with crafts than art personally. Still doesn’t mean it should be solely looked at as just product.

Sometimes I just find the analysis of disciplines being so closely linked to the term “art” becomes a disservice. It more often than not takes it somewhere to where it doesn’t need to be and over complicates things.

oh for me fashion doesn't have to be art or arty as there are many ways to go about making fashion even without narrative or just influenced by mood or music or sub culture etc

ALAIA was not Arty it was technic and romance of the female body and woman lives that they lived in the clothes,
versace is pure lust and showing wealth and abundance of more larger than life feeling sexy and strong confident doing it. etc etc

YSL by Yves or Gucci (tom ford) ect where all not intellectual but not stupid either.

here i was speaking of the sub group of arty fashion aka intellectual superficial ones like BLazy ( The Trio ) ones that align them self with high art as to have an halo on their creative output to be as same quality of authenticity or integrity of make or voice.

Wait and you will see : Authenticity will become the new currency

in a world flooded by Ai generated content products, being genuinely human will become even more valuable , beauce authentic connection builds trust and emotional connections ...people how can make complex topics easy to understand sound and act like humans process things and questions things and create things AI cant replicate people who are real about their failures not only victories.

for me these are basic foundations of creation making things of value to culture so the others can copy and make just product with out soul.

the value of ideas is as important as: if these pants makes my butt look fat, or i need breathable stretchy golfing pants or the dress that just makes you look like a million dollars.

in the end everything men/woman made started with an idea even if the proupse was just beauty which also has scientific value that way we know if a fruit looks ugly and rotten to not eat it ect

 

[PDFSD]

For me it’s just another generic collaboration with an artist. I think maybe the idea of intellectual is personal to everybody.
For me cerebral fashion is when the intention is supposed to have more though than what the end up result may look like. The intention behind what Rei Kawakubo does is always grander than the result which could be seen by a naive eye as just a pile of stuff. The same with Miuccia doing collections about things she hates. But at the end it materializes as a skirt.

I don’t see a posture in Matthieu’s work. I think he has many, maybe too much ideas and that a brand like Chanel could actually help him refine that nature in his work.

Loving contemporary Art is not a sin and integrating in a work is not intellectual to me.

Karl discovered the Memphis movement, bought the whole catalogue, made a collection out of it. Was it intellectual? At that time, it was the edgiest thing.

But then I think Blazy is guilty by association but I think being French is an advantage for him at Chanel. Dior and Alaia are new territories for Pieter and Raf after all,
When you are French and our generation, you cannot escape Chanel. Even more Chanel by Karl. Everybody got their favorite eras of his work. But then again, his aesthetic and his ideas will be a strength to take enough distance with Karl and Coco and deliver a personal interpretation.

But then again. I loved Haider at Tom Ford. Something that a lot of members hated for those reasons.
Karl said that fabulous thing: my job is to make believe it’s Chanel. That will be Blazy’s new job.

Loving contemporary Art is not a sin and integrating in a work is not intellectual to me.

Totally ok with loving any type of art for one's house etc

but there is a difference with liking something and adopting it in your work and not saying anything but just for aesthetics reasons, is it any better than Hedi cosplay youth fashions ? (that for me at least has 30 year of constancy of obsession and explanations to it)

is it any better than quiet luxury cosplaying looking wealth without knowing how to hold a fork and a knife or the deffice betwen csahem and acrylic ?
integrating esthetics just for visuals interest is not progress when your creating.

in this sense JWA is more clever and consistent in proving his commitment to being artsy and have some meaning even if its forced often.

Blazy is (french) Belgian as Pieter and Raf , he is not a French designer even in his approach to design language , even if he is most decorative of the trio , this guy is not mister couture frufru.
That he speaks French is and advantage for sure , does he speak Chanel we don't know yet that's as close as it get for his advantages.

i think his quest for modernity will help Chanel for sure not him being french because he does not embody french codes towards fashion creation at all.

 

[jeanclaude]

Fashion is like a fart, if you force it, then it becomes into sh*t.

 

[PDFSD]

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 don't see hate, what is see is scepticism and annoyance with empty approach while pretending to be saying something more meaningful when its just meanlinges product disguised as being more.

you can't borrow esthetics from and art group that is based on posing (life) questions or even questions like what is art etc and then just use the look of it to varnish your product and don't have the guts to say why your using this esthetics or make any sense of all you do into an longer or ongoing research.

but then doing an UFO adv & then next kids bean animal bags the next ...like be diesel than ...but no!!!! that is low brow....

he is hired based of his previous work as well and since we did not see the Chanel project this is all we have to debate on if will be something great or not or in between. :-)

i agree on the KL liking him or not is not important even if funny to read the ideas on it in comments.

 

[blueorchid]

i don't see hate, what is see is scepticism and annoyance with empty approach while pretending to be saying something more meaningful when its just meanlinges product disguised as being more.

What am I missing? That's the ENTIRE pretense of the fashion industry. Trying to convince us that bits and pieces different textiles, leather, beads, thread, etc. are... "meaningful" when that's all they are. With a 500% mark up.

but then doing an UFO adv & then next kids bean animal bags the next ...like be diesel than ...but no!!!! that is low brow....

I suppose it's inconsistent, perhaps... but *personally* I don't think either of these campaigns are particularly intellectual? What's intellectual about Area 51? What's intellectual about cute bean bag chairs? I guess they're... conceptual, but intellectual? I don't think so. I feel like users are SCREAMING that he's an eViL intellectual from the rooftops and I just... I'm not totally sold on that argument.



models / numero / fashion gone rogue

Also, if you think YSL didn't design "intellectual" fashion... ya gotta look at some of his collections again. I'm sorry, but you can't say he wasn't an "intellectual." Maybe more heartfelt and grounded in clothing as a wearable item than other designers, but come on...

There seems to be an association with "intellectual" and inauthenticity, insincerity, pretension, etc., which are false equivalencies. Why is it that "intellectual" fashion is often-perceived as less sincere than cloying gLaMoUr fashion, which can be just as insincere and inauthentic as "intellectual" fashion.

 

[HigthaVandah]

I guess now that Hedi is out, the existential conversations about where art, craft, and fetish each begin and end will take place in reference to the idea of Chanel?

 

[Lola701]

Also, if you think YSL didn't design "intellectual" fashion... ya gotta look at some of his collections again. I'm sorry, but you can't say he wasn't an "intellectual." Maybe more heartfelt and grounded in clothing as a wearable item than other designers, but come on...

There seems to be an association with "intellectual" and inauthenticity, insincerity, pretension, etc., which are false equivalencies. Why is it that "intellectual" fashion is often-perceived as less sincere than cloying gLaMoUr fashion, which can be just as insincere and inauthentic as "intellectual" fashion.

It’s weird but for me, Yves wasn’t intellectual at all. I actually think that the concept of intellectualism came with People like Elsa Schiaparelli, Paco Rabanne, Pierre Cardin, Roberto Capucci and was later championed by the Japanese.

Yves for me was a very instinctive designer who after all evolved in a very closed world. When Yves did the Mondrian dress and even all his ventures into « Art » it was rather naive and not very impressive in concept. I don’t sense any sort of depth thinking in his approach of design. But at the same time, he complained about how it was a torture for him to design these beautiful creations while mentioning Proust…I don’t know.

Karl had a lot of culture, a touch of cynism, understood his time. But he wasn’t an intellectual designer either.

The designers that I mentioned or considered as intellectual are the ones who though about fashion beyond it practical, technical or social form, even if it was purely to push the limits of esthétisme.

But I agree with you with that idea of intellectualism in fashion being perceived as inauthentic. But I think it comes from the Art Gallerist fantasy nurtured by the industry for years that was mostly born in the 90’s. That idea that those people who are so serious and consumed by their appreciation of a certain type of Art and became the arbiter of taste against what was seen as the pure purpose of fashion (DELIVER BEAUTY) created an instant rejection against that form of fashion.

In a way, Blazy is an heir of that era. Cette mode profonde incarnated by Margiela and all the school of design from that world.

Tbh, when I watched the recent interview of Pieter Muller when he talked about Gianni Versace, I got that vibe. That air of superiority from a supposed intellectual designer over a more instinctive one. But his work at Alaia is the total representation of that. Suddenly, his approach to sexy has to be more than what it should be. His work feels inauthentic whereas when Azzedine approached it, the level of craftmanship, the attention to details and the references to masters of fashion elevated what could have been just seen as vulgar, as something with depth, without having to be validated as intellectual.

I have an issue when designers feels like frivolity can’t be done with depth.

 

[blueorchid]

It’s weird but for me, Yves wasn’t intellectual at all. I actually think that the concept of intellectualism came with People like Elsa Schiaparelli, Paco Rabanne, Pierre Cardin, Roberto Capucci and was later championed by the Japanese.

Yves for me was a very instinctive designer who after all evolved in a very closed world. When Yves did the Mondrian dress and even all his ventures into « Art » it was rather naive and not very impressive in concept. I don’t sense any sort of depth thinking in his approach of design. But at the same time, he complained about how it was a torture for him to design these beautiful creations while mentioning Proust…I don’t know.

I see your point about YSL, but I don’t know if I agree that a designer who’s instinctive can’t also flirt with intellectualism. I mean, I wasn’t saying he was particularly deep, but I think there was an attempt sometimes.

I’m going to disagree with Cardin being described as an “intellectual.” I think for sure he was playing with form, but he was backed by an extremely strong technique. He was conceptual, but intellectual? I don’t see it.

I just remembered… wasn’t Emanuel Ungaro considered an intellectual designer, too? At last when he first started I think, he might have been.

 

[Kanzai]

I guess there will be at least 300 comments for S/S 2026 Chanel thread given this nonstop debate lol

 

[blueorchid]

I guess there will be at least 300 comments for S/S 2026 Chanel thread given this nonstop debate lol

I'll save you time in the future, half the comments will be: He's sh*t, he's an INTELLECTUAL!!!


imgflip

 

[DK92]

Fashion is like a fart, if you force it, then it becomes into sh*t.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

 

[JohannesL]

I guess there will be at least 300 comments for S/S 2026 Chanel thread given this nonstop debate lol

“It is better not to talk about it because it was nothing at all.” --PB

 

[PDFSD]

What am I missing? That's the ENTIRE pretense of the fashion industry. Trying to convince us that bits and pieces different textiles, leather, beads, thread, etc. are... "meaningful" when that's all they are. With a 500% mark up.



I suppose it's inconsistent, perhaps... but *personally* I don't think either of these campaigns are particularly intellectual? What's intellectual about Area 51? What's intellectual about cute bean bag chairs? I guess they're... conceptual, but intellectual? I don't think so. I feel like users are SCREAMING that he's an eViL intellectual from the rooftops and I just... I'm not totally sold on that argument.

View attachment 1370276 View attachment 1370277
View attachment 1370279
models / numero / fashion gone rogue

Also, if you think YSL didn't design "intellectual" fashion... ya gotta look at some of his collections again. I'm sorry, but you can't say he wasn't an "intellectual." Maybe more heartfelt and grounded in clothing as a wearable item than other designers, but come on...

There seems to be an association with "intellectual" and inauthenticity, insincerity, pretension, etc., which are false equivalencies. Why is it that "intellectual" fashion is often-perceived as less sincere than cloying gLaMoUr fashion, which can be just as insincere and inauthentic as "intellectual" fashion.

i agree the outcome is not intellectual but the pretense is

YSL for me is emotional level does not mean he was not thinking deeply about his ideas ...even when he was designing with painters in mind he never made it more than the beauty of appreciating the art ....not how this art transforms or raises questions for society that he did with breaking the rules not by abusing an forced connection with modern art of his time.


one can argue beauty or the need for it is an intellectual thing as well etc that not my point for Yves.
I just can see Yves life and what he said (see quotes below) & made all be part of a true search and result while most CD´s now are constructed personalities and doing via curated tastes that dont show an point of view meaning what the F are you saying i often get when looking at a cd´s work for x brand.

like the BV Ad you show of the kids bean bags in an raw storage set with the model on it ...what is it supposed to say its just a accumulation of loose ideas but no bravery in final choice for what he stands for this ...just leaves it up to the viewer to care or not or just glamour for the bag the shoes ?

its not the hunger for narrative either for me, it's just not saying anything yet by lack of decision pretends that its something because its ambiguous and modern

just like zombie art it looks abstract and expensive and like something we know from a Christie's art catalog that's enough !!!!??? no its not for high fashion.

“Fashion is not an art, but needs an artist to exist.”
YSL

I just tried to be an artist in my own metier.

What is wonderful about my art is that dream and reality can become one. There is just one step between the two.

“I tried to show that fashion is an art. For that, I followed the counsel of my master Christian Dior and the imperishable lesson of Mademoiselle Chanel. I created for my era and I tried to foresee what tomorrow would be.”

Fashion is not something that exists in dresses only. Fashion is in the sky, in the street. Fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.

It pains me physically to see a woman victimized, rendered pathetic, by fashion.

Luxury is not the opposite of poverty, it is the opposite of vulgarity.​

all things that show his thinking that developed and refined or even changed during his career but its all very Yves.

 

[blueorchid]

like the BV Ad you show of the kids bean bags in an raw storage set with the model on it ...what is it supposed to say its just a accumulation of loose ideas but no bravery in final choice for what he stands for this ...just leaves it up to the viewer to care or not or just glamour for the bag the shoes ?

Why does it have to say anything? Why does it have to be BRAVE? What? I feel like you guys keep changing the goalposts when it comes to "intellectualism" and what it is in fashion, just to make Blazy fit this narrative in your head.

(Also... artists can be intellectuals... so what's your point with the Yves quotes? He's not an intellectual because you don't hate him. I mean, he fits the definition of intellectual in some of his interviews about fashion IMO.)

I don't give a f*ck about Blazy, but I kind of love how he sets people off...

 

[Lola701]

I see your point about YSL, but I don’t know if I agree that a designer who’s instinctive can’t also flirt with intellectualism. I mean, I wasn’t saying he was particularly deep, but I think there was an attempt sometimes.

I’m going to disagree with Cardin being described as an “intellectual.” I think for sure he was playing with form, but he was backed by an extremely strong technique. He was conceptual, but intellectual? I don’t see it.

I just remembered… wasn’t Emanuel Ungaro considered an intellectual designer, too? At last when he first started I think, he might have been.

No I think it’s possible to be both. I think Rei Kawakubo coming in the 80’s was that. There was an instinctive reactionary side to her work but also from a more intellectual standpoint, a comment on society and a desire to change or at least question the status quo or the lifestyle of women in the western world.

I just don’t think Yves was that way. But then I don’t pretend to be right, just an opinion lol.

About Cardin, wasn’t « conceptual » the word used back then to describe what would in fact become a certain idea of « intellectual »?

That’s why I prefer to use cerebral actually.

Emanuel Ungaro did speak like an intellectual. I mean I don’t know if you watched his interviews but went in some « envolées lyriques » that were kind of extraordinary.
But when I look at his early days, I’m always astonished by how bold his proposition was.

But I don’t think the question regarding intellectualism or instinct is there to discredit. That’s maybe the problem. Is that those terms are used to discredit or praise someone’s work when in fact I believe that the appreciation of someone’s work is totally emotional. When I look at Yves’s drapés in satin or chiffon or when I look at a pink coat from the CDG FW2012 collection, I have an emotional response that I don’t even want to explain.
Prada, Junya Watanabe and Dsquared2 sits on my wardrobe and from a fashion standpoint, they couldn’t be more opposite in terms of spectrum.

 

[JohannesL]

I just feel that we all are bored and his work is a bore so we finally find something else to talk about.

 

[PDFSD]

In a way, Blazy is an heir of that era. Cette mode profonde incarnated by Margiela and all the school of design from that world.

Tbh, when I watched the recent interview of Pieter Muller when he talked about Gianni Versace, I got that vibe. That air of superiority from a supposed intellectual designer over a more instinctive one. But his work at Alaia is the total representation of that. Suddenly, his approach to sexy has to be more than what it should be. His work feels inauthentic whereas when Azzedine approached it, the level of craftsmanship, the attention to details and the references to masters of fashion elevated what could have been just seen as vulgar, as something with depth, without having to be validated as intellectual.

I have an issue when designers feels like frivolity can’t be done with depth.

this 10000000000000000% agree

...its a general view of north europe school of design versus italian designers at houses even stylist and on set and designers from UK and belgium have this snob looking down at italian designers and this is from my IRL experiences ....and why early on writing here i expressed my feeling on Pieters approach to ALAIA and why BLazy is in same school of belgian designers of approach that the somehow have a problem to resolve when designing but never give real answers.

Prada is seen as the exception of course and blue print for many as margiela etc because the clothes come closest to reality of clothes not like comme is to far and cookie.

italian designers are good for industrial acc and dealing with factories they are closer to the making of actual product but the thinking is left to the north europeans

you can see it also when Hedi was more modernist thinking approach. north europe way to now his more instinctive approach its not as celebrated .
He is after all tunisian italian brazilian mix born in france :-)