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.