Matthieu Blazy - Designer, Creative Director of Chanel

[Nimsay]

I’ve been saying it for a while - there’s a real shift happening. Gen Z is coming online, and they want ads that feel upbeat, aspirational, and rich. They’re drawn to smiling, happy, successful energy - not the moody, heroin-chic, back-alley aesthetic that used to define fashion campaigns from the 90s to now. Pre-90s models always smiled and looked happy.

 

[Creative]

I’ve been saying it for a while - there’s a real shift happening. Gen Z is coming online, and they want ads that feel upbeat, aspirational, and rich. They’re drawn to smiling, happy, successful energy - not the moody, heroin-chic, back-alley aesthetic that used to define fashion campaigns from the 90s to now. Pre-90s models always smiled and looked happy.

Hmm, I don’t know.

I don’t think it’s gen z commenting. I feel they are an empty generation (in general) with very few interests aside from TikTok and very basic things. And I don’t mean it in a bad way or complaining, it’s just what I see.

Gen z cares about the looks in TikTok, the expensive products, but I doubt they see the shows. At most viral moments like this one that pop up in their for you pages and their opinions are mostly based on this short wow moments.

I don’t know how many gen z are writing here and you saw how everybody (except a few nice haters) were wowed by that moment.

I feel it’s a little bit lair du temps.

I was in the Poiret exhibit and the young girls and guys were just taking pictures of themselves to post on Instagram to show they were there but they were not even looking at the garments.

I believe it’s just something from this era. We like short moments that are full of a certain feeling, it can be good or bad, but has to be very eye catching and short. Quality, details, art… I feel we don’t pay attention to that anymore and brands know it.

 

[tricotineacetat]

Hmm, I don’t know.

I don’t think it’s gen z commenting. I feel they are an empty generation (in general) with very few interests aside from TikTok and very basic things. And I don’t mean it in a bad way or complaining, it’s just what I see.

Gen z cares about the looks in TikTok, the expensive products, but I doubt they see the shows. At most viral moments like this one that pop up in their for you pages and their opinions are mostly based on this short wow moments.

I don’t know how many gen z are writing here and you saw how everybody (except a few nice haters) were wowed by that moment.

I feel it’s a little bit lair du temps.

I was in the Poiret exhibit and the young girls and guys were just taking pictures of themselves to post on Instagram to show they were there but they were not even looking at the garments.

I believe it’s just something from this era. We like short moments that are full of a certain feeling, it can be good or bad, but has to be very eye catching and short. Quality, details, art… I feel we don’t pay attention to that anymore and brands know it.

What I can say with certainty is that a lot of Gen Z kids I met aren't as much invested into diving deep into researching and educating themselves as me and my friends did when we got interested in fashion as well as other contemporary culture disciplines like movie, music and art - Where I would travel to the next largest city just so that I could see Yohji Yamamoto, Alaia and Comme des Garcons up close, a lot of kids today seem to relate only to the things 'of their generation'.

I find it interesting to observe how a relatively analogue way of living yields a different approch than growing up with every all the knowledge of your proposal.

 

[Grets]

I think there is this Gen Z observing fashion online vs previous generations being able to save and save up but eventually being able to buy a product. All Gen Z really has is the beauty/fragrances or going the vintage way. Sure there are nepo babies buying. Millennial fashion enthusiasts could just barely afford luxury, but they still could. So there is so much emphasis on fashion being about the show, the dream and entertainment value from the show and seeing their fav celebrity/influencer. Paradoxically, shows from the 90s-00s even 10s were more magical than a lot of what we get today from luxury brands.

 

[style_expert]

I think the discourse around that whole moment is both interesting and exhausting.

I agree with Lola that the idea of “joy” in a high-fashion context is quite underused. But more than joy, I think the image they’re trying to project is also humane — a reminder that, in the end, fashion is created by, made by, modeled by, and yes, marketed by humans. In this age of AI and whatnot, perhaps that, in itself, is something to be joyful about.

I don’t have a strong opinion on whether it was fabricated. Chanel is a nearly $20 billion business, so it’s understandable to assume nothing is left to coincidence. As a model, to do that final twirl and smile throughout the runway — when all the other models weren’t — shows she has a lot of confidence and a special relationship with MB, likely stemming back to his Bottega Veneta days. To say she was instructed to perform like that seems doubtful, though I also can’t entirely rule out the possibility.

In the end, it created a “viral” moment — one that felt both genuine and perhaps slightly performative. It was executed brilliantly, I have to say. It was, I guess, the cherry on top after the show and a way to make a runway bow more of a moment too.

 

[Caffeine]

Re: younger gen. The Facebook "like" button has forever changed the generation. See Haidt's book.
I am not judging but it is worthy to note that this generation shares a different taste, does things differently, and has different values.

As I wrote in a different thread, designing for heterosexual women and mothers today is a traditional idea, not an avant guard idea. This is a fundamental change. As fashion pushes "forward", the traditional idea has to be left behind.

But how big is the fashion market without heterosexual women and mothers?

I will finally note that Gen Alpha is reversing. They are more religious and more "traditional". Gen Z might be one anomaly once the Gen Alphas grow up.

P.s. yes Gen Z spends less time to dig into things. In my industry where people dig into company filings diligently, most Gen Z would skip the process. There is AI trading that interprets buzz words within seconds and executes on them, even if the speaker didn't meant it. (Humans can still interpret with context and tone more accurately than AI right now.) So the market now can move for mistaken reasons. Understanding why they happen in important, no matter what industry we are talking about.

 

[tricotineacetat]

Re: younger gen. The Facebook "like" button has forever changed the generation. See Haidt's book.
I am not judging but it is worthy to note that this generation shares a different taste, does things differently, and has different values.

As I wrote in a different thread, designing for heterosexual women and mothers today is a traditional idea, not an avant guard idea. This is a fundamental change. As fashion pushes "forward", the traditional idea has to be left behind.

But how big is the fashion market without heterosexual women and mothers?

I will finally note that Gen Alpha is reversing. They are more religious and more "traditional". Gen Z might be one anomaly once the Gen Alphas grow up.

P.s. yes Gen Z spends less time to dig into things. In my industry where people dig into company filings diligently, most Gen Z would skip the process. There is AI trading that interprets buzz words within seconds and executes on them, even if the speaker didn't meant it. (Humans can still interpret with context and tone more accurately than AI right now.) So the market now can move for mistaken reasons. Understanding why they happen in important, no matter what industry we are talking about.

Sexual orientation aside, It baffles me how a lot of the luxury womenswear propositions in our today's time feel like a return to outdated ideas of a woman as a glorified Barbie doll to play dress up with - With the fashion serving more like costumes and identities to change at will and less with the intent to provide the customer a canvas to express their style and support an active lifestyle (a lot of that might also have to do with fashion media and PR promoting full-look policies, whereas in the past, wearing one designer from head to toe was seen with a lack of originality).

I might account that to the sensitivity I gained from a menswear background, where a lot of the design choices have a background in utility and functional usage, something people that informed the design of Helmut Lang and Jil Sander to a large degree.

Their careers are forever linked to a time of less pronounced binaries of gender, images of a woman that had that androgynous ease that would later also find resonance in the work of designers like Nicolas Ghesquière and Hedi Slimane.

 

[psychopsist]

A little late replying to several different points, but I wanna comment on this whole topic again. Sorry in advance for the length lol!

I said earlier, but I’ve been on stage and in front of cameras plenty in my life. I can agree that with performance arts(modeling, acting, singing, instrumentation, dance, etc)… there’s always some awareness of the audience and some intentionality around how you want to make them feel and what you want to make them think. There is usually some kind of director, conductor, photographer, choreographer, and often all of the above- giving you guidance, credence, and even direct instructions.

However my point is exactly this: a fashion show is show. I do not hold it to the standard that what im seeing needs to be 100% “real” and 100% spontaneous. A fashion show is beautiful, or funny, or joyful, or ominous, or moody or gritty, or whatever else, because of the work that everyone put into telling a believable and compelling story through the clothes, the styling, the set, the lighting, the music, and the modeling. I am not going to avoid describing a song as “heartwrenching” because it was recorded in a studio and not literally the moment the singer broke up with their ex. I’m not going to avoid describing a line in a play or comedic performance as hilarious because the jokes came from a script. I’m not going to avoid calling a family photo adorable because we posed for it and picked the best one to frame. And I am not going to avoid describing a moment on a runway as cute because it was signed off on by the money people🤷🏾‍♀️If I wanted to watch the facial expressions and walking strides of everyday people in their natural habitat with no intervention, I’d go to a park, not the Chanel livestream. When I am seated for a show, I accept it as one.

Now, it is absolutely fair for people to disagree on what is touching vs cheesy, what is funny vs flat or offensive, etc. But the reason I stepped in is because it just seemed like a bunch of people came up to a crowd exiting a movie theater and said, “you know that wasn’t real right.” I think stating the obvious like that is wayyyy more insulting to the intelligence of the average person(especially of the average person discussing on here), than Chanel wanting to be seen as warm is. I mean, many of you have expressed that you wanna put your Karl’s Chanel jacket on and head to the office looking like you mean business. I could call you a mindless brand zombie with no interests beyond the way you want people at work to look at you- I mean, at least the models are being paid, right? But obviously, I think that’s a silly and uncharitable assessment. Reality is simply more complicated, and contains layers.

Speaking of, I also wanted to provide the insight that from the performer’s POV- like yes you have directions, maybe strict ones, you have a script, blocking, and so on… but you are still a human person. When I smile, it is my smile, when I cry it is my tears, when I walk it is my legs, when I dance it is my hips. And unlike say, being in a trash bag commercial, fashion is actually cool, artistic, elite, etc. Especially a brand like Chanel. Unless it’s really a miserable time in your life or the bosses are abusive I think you’d approach being told you’re a closer who gets a fun special bow as wow my time to shine yayyy🤩 and not “omg ugggghhh fine I guess I’ll twirl since I need to make rent🙄.” So that’s another reason that even if it was choreographed, I still find it misplaced to believe it lacked real underlying feeling. Being on a stage or in front of a camera usually isnt equivalent to being held at gunpoint. I honestly think “fun” is one of the easiest emotions to have be made “real” through performance. Like the person in that wacky yogurt ad doing a cartwheel probably was enjoying themselves. Not a life free of all burdens, but just some momentary delight. IMO, the same goes for here w Awar.

I’m a gen z fashion lover btw! And Gen Alpha is age only 1–14 rn lol.

 

[Caffeine]

One practical reason I can think of: the androgynous ease is difficult for women with bigger breasts, and vice versa. Women's shapes vary greatly that each style has its market ;-)

 

[Nimsay]

Unisex only makes sense for inexpensive basics like Uniqlo. No one cares beyond that - no one’s spending real money on clothes that aren’t tailored.

Ultimately we are witnessing the end of postmodernism. Traditions are back. Subversion is out out.

People don’t seem to understand that Gen Z isn’t chasing an “active lifestyle.” They don’t want pockets - they expect their breadwinner husbands to pay for things. They’re not shoving sneakers into tote bags or dressing for the rat race. The whole idea of practicality in fashion, that postmodern demand for utility, is over. Helmut Lang and Jil Sander feel dated now because that era of function-as-fashion is gone.

Its about exquisite craft and whimsy now. Very turn of the century.

 

[tricotineacetat]

One practical reason I can think of: the androgynous ease is difficult for women with bigger breasts, and vice versa. Women's shapes vary greatly that each style has its market ;-)

True, and I may add that Jil Sander‘s trousers notoriously don‘t work on all markets and body types.

My point was rather to say that a background in menswear design can often lead to a different perspective on designing clothes for women - Based on the fact that pattern cutting and tailoring techniques are quite different and that certain design details really serve functional purposes (the depth of pockets as well as the absence/presence of interior pockets in outerwear come to mind).

End customers might want to hear something else from a designer to be enticed to buy a piece of clothing, but I remember how often Jil Sander (as well as Cristobal Balenciaga!) would mention the fine tuning of silhouettes by means of providing more freedom of movement in the cut of a sleeve when asked about the process of designing a collection.

The way clothes feel on the body by means of cut and fabrication is such an underestimated quality but also one that really reveals a sense of excellence and know-how.

 

[tricotineacetat]

Unisex only makes sense for inexpensive basics like Uniqlo. No one cares beyond that - no one’s spending real money on clothes that aren’t tailored.

Ultimately we are witnessing the end of postmodernism. Traditions are back. Subversion is out out.

People don’t seem to understand that Gen Z isn’t chasing an “active lifestyle.” They don’t want pockets - they expect their breadwinner husbands to pay for things. They’re not shoving sneakers into tote bags or dressing for the rat race. The whole idea of practicality in fashion, that postmodern demand for utility, is over. Helmut Lang and Jil Sander feel dated now because that era of function-as-fashion is gone.

Its about exquisite craft and whimsy now. Very turn of the century.

I never spoke of unisex clothing in my prior message. What I was saying had more to do with the fact that the cut and make from a men‘s tailoring background is different from womenswear and that a whole lineage of designers have employed those methods in one way or another to propose a different kind of womenswear with a whole other expression - Mainly the Japanese and the Belgians but even a designer like Lemaire.

Luckily not all designers need to cater to the same audiences - But while we‘re at it, I don’t think Hedi Slimane‘s ongoing popularity and influence has gone anywhere in recent years - Let alone his undisputed mastery of cut and tailoring, which is very much in the same tradition as Helmut Lang.

I‘m really at peace if the majority of mindless consumers want equally dumb design. You can perhaps buy a sense of belonging with fashion but luckily not sophistication and elegance.

 

[Kanzai]

Unisex only makes sense for inexpensive basics like Uniqlo. No one cares beyond that - no one’s spending real money on clothes that aren’t tailored.

Ultimately we are witnessing the end of postmodernism. Traditions are back. Subversion is out out.

People don’t seem to understand that Gen Z isn’t chasing an “active lifestyle.” They don’t want pockets - they expect their breadwinner husbands to pay for things. They’re not shoving sneakers into tote bags or dressing for the rat race. The whole idea of practicality in fashion, that postmodern demand for utility, is over. Helmut Lang and Jil Sander feel dated now because that era of function-as-fashion is gone.

Its about exquisite craft and whimsy now. Very turn of the century.

LOL, As a devoted Armani fan — who values the space and relationship between the body and the clothes - the movement of clothes, your comment gives me a good laugh. Since when were Helmut Lang and Jil Sander considered postmodern? Because they stripped away the frivolity, used restrainted color palettes, and clean cuts?

And since we’re in a Chanel related thread, do you even know what Gabrielle Chanel stood for in fashion? Her entire philosophy was the opposite of everything you just said man.

 

[tricotineacetat]

LOL, As a devoted Armani fan — who values the space and relationship between the body and the clothes - the movement of clothes, your comment gives me a good laugh. Since when were Helmut Lang and Jil Sander considered postmodern? Because they stripped away the frivolity, used restrainted color palettes, and clean cuts?

And since we’re in a Chanel related thread, do you even know what Gabrielle Chanel stood for in fashion? Her entire philosophy was the opposite of everything you just said man.

Thank you, I couldn't have put that in better (and more precise) words as you just did. ❤️