Virginie Viard - Designer, Creative Director of Chanel

[tourbillions]

her designs definitely doesnt desrve all this drama. would make people think she has done something at all.

 

[KoV]

This thread/discourse has reached a stage where I very genuinely have no idea what some people are trying to say anymore or what their POV is. Are they for or against misogyny? Who can say?! 'Twas fun while it lasted!

 

[aracic]

Daily friendly reminder that some of Karl's "designs" were also... questionable 😭

The man worked for like sixty years, across multiple brands 😩 Of course there were misses. McQueen had misses, Galliano had misses. Everyone has misses. That doesn't negate Karl's genius, which he was. Despite his colorful character.

 

[GoldenTribe]

I can't edit the other one any more so this post is a big mug of metaphorical hot cocoa for Mody in the spirit of all getting along.

 

[Caffeine]

The man worked for more constantly for like sixty years, across multiple brands 😩 Of course there were misses. McQueen had misses, Galliano had misses. Everyone has misses. That doesn't negate Karl's genius, which he was. Despite his colorful character.

Karl elevated the brand, and the new crew, VV included, did the opposite.
One should be allowed to share his or her views without being labeled with all kinds of things. If we can't take an online forum, how can we take on the real world?

 

[Salvatore]

Daily friendly reminder that some of Karl's "designs" were also... questionable 😭
View attachment 1278074
View attachment 1278075

View attachment 1278076

https://www.purseblog.com/accessories/chanel-tv-belt/

I am sorry, but these are kind of fun and funny !

 

[alwaysademo]

just a thought but maybe VV was in her own way going for her version of punk/ anticonformist/ enfant terrible in the new 20s by staying humbly pretty, but it just didn't hit the mark design wise therefore didn't register? it sure takes more balls to be a traditionalist now than a viral showman.

 

[LadyJunon]

just a thought but maybe VV was in her own way going for her version of punk/ anticonformist/ enfant terrible in the new 20s by staying humbly pretty, but it just didn't hit the mark design wise therefore didn't register? it sure takes more balls to be a traditionalist now than a viral showman.

A understated, classical era would've worked for Chanel. But for that to work, it requires a certain level of technical skills, something that she lacked throughout her whole tenure. That's what distinguishes MGC's Dior (heinous image direction aside) than Viard's Chanel.

 

[DILF]

Jokes aside, I particularly enjoyed her Carrières de Lumières Cruise collection and the Château des Dames Métiers d'art, and I revisit those shows periodically. The settings and music certainly helped.

 

[PDFSD]

1granary

​

 

[Frederic01]

^^ That "article" is absolutely ridiculous. Whoever wrote that article has no idea whatsoever what is going on within the fashion industry and clearly gets their fashion news from TikTok and the like. Add to that, they write under such a Twitter-influenced lens, you can't help but laugh.

First of all these two artistic directors are being scrutinised due to the houses that they work at. Pure and Simple. The legacy of Christian Dior and Gabrielle Chanel respectively, are incredibly important, not only to people who admire fashion, but to the world in general. The weight of the legacy and the history means that people have big expectations, especially in France where art and culture is valued and regarded in such high esteem. If they were working at Chloe or Paco Rabanne, no one would be as critical. No one would even care. It's because we as a society care deeply about Dior and Chanel and we (rightfully) expect these brands to be the best of best.

Virginie simply did not rise to the occasion during her tenure. Plain and simple. Her work was not artful or inspired or unique - it was commercial and that was it, which is absolutely fine, but don't expect the public at large to fawn over her simply because she is a woman? That is absurd. Her skillset has nothing to do with her gender. If Phoebe Philo took over from Karl Lagerfeld I am sure she would be getting mountains of good press and rave reviews and public admiration. It's because we all know she would rise to the occasion and design something deserving of the Chanel name.

Second of all, male designers are equally criticised. Look at Stefano Pilati, or Hedi Slimane, or Raf Simons, or Sabato de Sarno, etc etc. The criticism is even across the board. I would even say, it is worse, because you don't have the equivalent of these radical feminists rushing to defend their work regardless of what they do, as it often the case with Maria Grazia Chiuri for example.

To write that the critique of Maria Grazia and Virginie carries "a different tone compared to their male counterparts" is an absolute and egregious lie. Look at how badly Tom Ford was criticised for example, by Yves Saint Laurent himself, when he debuted at YSL. Saint Laurent wrote him an open letter that said "In 13 minutes on the runway you have destroyed 40 years of my career." and released it to the press. And Hedi Slimane when he arrived at Celine? The industry was so against his work that there were pages and pages of articles about how he was misogynistic and how he has destroyed the legacy of Celine in one show and how he undermined women's rights, all because he .... put short skirts and dresses on the runway? LOL.

Thirdly, to write "Virginie's exit from CHANEL is seen as a call for youthfulness in a brand that hasn't been expected to be youthful for decades before her." She can't be serious? Karl Lagerfeld has been literally OBSESSED with making Chanel youthful since the 1990s. This writer clearly has no understanding of the Chanel archive. I suggest that she start by reading a few books about the history of Chanel instead of scrolling from Twitter and trying to start some kind of war on the internet.

1996.


1995

VOGUE RUNWAY

 

[alwaysademo]

^^ That "article" is absolutely ridiculous. Whoever wrote that article has no idea whatsoever what is going on within the fashion industry and clearly gets their fashion news from TikTok and the like. Add to that, they write under such a Twitter-influenced lens, you can't help but laugh.

First of all these two artistic directors are being scrutinised due to the houses that they work at. Pure and Simple. The legacy of Christian Dior and Gabrielle Chanel respectively, are incredibly important, not only to people who admire fashion, but to the world in general. The weight of the legacy and the history means that people have big expectations, especially in France where art and culture is valued and regarded in such high esteem. If they were working at Chloe or Paco Rabanne, no one would be as critical. No one would even care. It's because we as a society care deeply about Dior and Chanel and we (rightfully) expect these brands to be the best of best.

Second of all, male designers are equally criticised. Look at Stefano Pilati, or Hedi Slimane, or Raf Simons, or Sabato de Sarno, etc etc. The criticism is even across the board. I would even say, it is worse, because you don't have the equivalent of these radical feminists rushing to defend their work regardless of what they do, as it often the case with Maria Grazia Chiuri for example.

To write that the critique of Maria Grazia and Virginie carries "a different tone compared to their male counterparts" is an absolute and egregious lie. Look at how badly Tom Ford was criticised for example, by Yves Saint Laurent himself, when he debuted at YSL. Saint Laurent wrote him an open letter that said "In 13 minutes on the runway you have destroyed 40 years of my career." and released it to the press. And Hedi Slimane when he arrived at Celine? The industry was so against his work that there were pages and pages of articles about how he was misogynistic and how he has destroyed the legacy of Celine and fashion, all because he .... put short skirts and dresses on the runway? LOL.

Thirdly, to write "Virginie's exit from CHANEL is seen as a call for youthfulness in a brand that hasn't been expected to be youthful for decades before her." She can't be serious? Karl Lagerfeld has been literally OBSESSED with making Chanel youthful since the 1990s. This writer clearly has no understanding of the Chanel archive. I suggest that she start by reading a few books about the history of Chanel instead of scrolling from Twitter and trying to start some kind of war on the internet.

1996.
View attachment 1278615

1995
View attachment 1278616
VOGUE RUNWAY

Women design for their own needs, or at least what they and their own tribe aspire to wear, at the moment they design it. Coco Chanel was revolutionary when she was young because she was able to voice her female vision through clothes that resonated with a lot of other women. Coco in the 60's did the suits that at the time was deemed matronly and dusty, and now it's a international staple for the affluent lady. Phoebe Philo was the same. Her Chloé was fun fresh and witty, her Céline sharp smart innovative, and now it's more discreet and daring. It's inherently a personal process to them to make clothes. Thus, the criticism, while fair for both men and women, must hit harder on the women, as it reflects how the world responds to their identity as a woman.
Male designers often have partners but not families, and it's not like they can picture themselves wear these clothes so they're able to go do the outrageous things without internal conflict. For them they can disassociate themselves from their creation, it's a healthier process. For women it's built in. You are the clothes you wear.

I do think it's simply fair though to judge men and women just the same. May the strong woman rise.

 

[Frederic01]

Women design for their own needs, or at least what they and their own tribe aspire to wear, at the moment they design it. Coco Chanel was revolutionary when she was young because she was able to voice her female vision through clothes that resonated with a lot of other women. Coco in the 60's did the suits that at the time was deemed matronly and dusty, and now it's a international staple for the affluent lady. Phoebe Philo was the same. Her Chloé was fun fresh and witty, her Céline sharp smart innovative, and now it's more discreet and daring. It's inherently a personal process to them to make clothes. Thus, the criticism, while fair for both men and women, must hit harder on the women, as it reflects how the world responds to their identity as a woman.
Male designers often have partners but not families, and it's not like they can picture themselves wear these clothes so they're able to go do the outrageous things without internal conflict. For them they can disassociate themselves from their creation, it's a healthier process. For women it's built in. You are the clothes you wear.

I do think it's simply fair though to judge men and women just the same. May the strong woman rise.

I think you're reducing female designers to bygone stereotype that their designs differentiate them from their male counterparts simply because they created them with the idea that they, or their "tribe" as you say, aspire to wear it. This is a very damaging viewpoint.

Female designers can, and often do, design things purely for design sake that often they themselves would never wear and their "tribe" would never aspire to wearing either. Just take a look at some of Miuccia Prada's shows, or Phoebe Philo's shows, or Rei Kawakubo.

Creativity is creativity, pure and simple.

Just because you are able to wear the clothes, does not make the design process more personal. Clothing can be deeply intimate and personal to a designer without having the end result of needing to be worn. What you're alluding to is quite bizarre. It's like saying that female designers cannot compare to male designers when designing menswear because they aren't able to deeply understand mens clothes as they won't have the same
"internal conflict" as their male counterparts and can "disassociate themselves from their creation".

Sorry but this is ridiculous.

Miuccia Prada's early Prada menswear collections can attest to this. She understood the desire for frivolity and expressiveness that men desired deep-down better than her male counterparts, all whilst never having worn the clothes or aspired to do so.

 

[Lola701]

On YouTube someone once pointed out in the comment section of a couture show by Karl: "Let's be honest, the set helps every year." and I echo this sentiment a lot. Everyone looked to the Chanel défilés as the industry standard and that helped glorify Karl's designs. Pavlovsky himself admitted that these shows used to be the bulk of the marketing budget.

The Grand Palais is still undergoing renovation so perhaps when that's done the spectacle runways will return. Perhaps the C-suites were trying to save money by watering down the shows, which in turn made us criticize her designs even more.

The HC SS2008 had a fabulous collection but a horrible set.
The FW2009 collection had a great set but the collection wasn’t that great.

I don’t think the season where the had the Max screen, it was a great set. The collection was hits and misses.

Karl had a vision and the sets were part of a vision. When the sets informed the clothes or vice-versa, when there was a dialogue, it worked wonderfully.

Of course, it helped in terms of marketing and story telling. I don’t know if anyone remembers what FW2013 was but if I say the globe collection, you immediately remembers everything.
I don’t know if anyone remembers what SS 2005 was but I if I say the Redcarpet collection, you get it.

 

[alwaysademo]

I think you're reducing female designers to bygone stereotype that their designs differentiate them from their male counterparts simply because they created them with the idea that they, or their "tribe" as you say, aspire to wear it. This is a very damaging viewpoint.

Female designers can, and often do, design things purely for design sake that often they themselves would never wear and their "tribe" would never aspire to wearing either. Just take a look at some of Miuccia Prada's shows, or Phoebe Philo's shows, or Rei Kawakubo.

Creativity is creativity, pure and simple.

Just because you are able to wear the clothes, does not make the design process more personal. Clothing can be deeply intimate and personal to a designer without having the end result of needing to be worn. What you're alluding to is quite bizarre. It's like saying that female designers cannot compare to male designers when designing menswear because they aren't able to deeply understand mens clothes as they won't have the same
"internal conflict" as their male counterparts and can "disassociate themselves from their creation".

Sorry but this is ridiculous.

Miuccia Prada's early Prada menswear collections can attest to this. She understood the desire for frivolity and expressiveness that men desired deep-down better than her male counterparts, all whilst never having worn the clothes or aspired to do so.

I was alluding to what 1Granary wrote, and I look at your reply and I think you actually agree with them more than you think.
The 3 female designers you mentioned: Rei, Phoebe and Miuccia, all decided to have a house of their own. It is personal to them to own what they make, and create their own environment. Designing for houses like Chanel and Dior the climate will be different. Judging from her work, VV is neither steely nor creative enough for these houses.

I did not reduce anyone to anything: female designers of the 20th century anywhere understood how men viewed women in society, and how often looks contributed to one's success. Generally, if you have a chance to design at a big house and you're a woman, you would naturally think: "oh, this is how i prefer women who are like me to dress." That's where I think the process becomes personal.

I agree completely with the things you said in terms of creativity though. I was not defending VV's creativity, that's for sure. I was referring to the article, criticism for men and women do carry different tones, not necessarily out of mal-intent. It just does. I don't know why.

Thanks for your last point with Prada menswear. I'll think about that.

 

[MulletProof]

Just because you are able to wear the clothes, does not make the design process more personal. Clothing can be deeply intimate and personal to a designer without having the end result of needing to be worn. What you're alluding to is quite bizarre.

But it does. Just like not being able to wear the clothes comes from a deeply personal and highly social condition. Society determines who we are and our opportunities. Ask yourself, why are you, as a man, not wearing ALL of it? because, in addition to reasons only you know, it's social suicide, you cannot afford to make that decision unless you plan to reduce your social standing (not get invited to hang out, whispers, saying goodbye to promotions, being only able to get non-traditional jobs, mostly at night). It is cruel and unfair, yes. Claiming it is just creativity is a very superficial way of looking at fashion. It is creativity and it is applied arts, even when it's not entirely functional, it is functional enough to reach a runway through the movement of a living person, always.

I actually think the balance of twitter vs real life discourse might need some adjustment for you. This..

'we have the SAME experience as women when talking about womenswear!! you disagree?! JK ROWLING!! TERF!! RADICAL FEMINIST!!'


.. this is what's giving twitter. It does not happen in real life. You would not walk into, say, Bloomingdales, or any place that tends to be packed with women, go through the racks with this same loud and dismissive 'this female designer is laughable! what a stupid woman!.. they really gave her the job because she has ovaries lol' (stuff that has been said here) and expect that to go down well. I doubt anyone would tell you anything, except for slowly getting away from you thinking that's one unhinged dude and acting like they can't wait for you to stop being weird and leave. But if they did say 'well.. I think that's super sexist', you screaming 'this is an egregious lie! you're a radical feminist! are you JK Rowling?!'.. that's not the eye-opener you think it is. It really isn't a thing among women. If anything, I think that the average woman is far more critical in real life than online because spaces are a bit more segregated, it's not in written form and there's more freedom. These are insults coined by men, the more modern version of 'hysterical!' 'you're probably menstruating!', but with the phony intention of not making all out to be 'the same', and that there's just a category of unhappy, bitter, radicalised women that won't let you be and enjoy what you're entitled to. Which brings me to the question: what is not radical feminism for you? someone that just does the work and goes home but remains neutral and non-critical on her field or on who the major players are in it? is that a healthier version of 'feminism'? if this is applied outside of fashion, would it be the same, in say, finance?, and... just.. why is menswear design not as triggering for men? is it just less fun and exciting?

Like I said in my previous post, I think this reluctance to listen and this insistence to reduce any opinion from sexism within fashion (just to recap: yes we all know not all comments are sexist and that male designers face high scrutiny too, the debate came from the recurrence of sexism when it IS female designers).. that's not going to work on your favor in the long run. I don't know what 1 Granary is but 257k followers is not nothing. This used to be a topic on some obscure corners of the internet such as tfs and by very few. By pushing back without any interest (nor humility) in rewiring notions on womenswear and the politics behind it and its primary market, you're inadvertently contributing to a debate that is entering the mainstream and that will not benefit those you want to protect against all reason, in any way.

 

[KoV]

JK Rowling stays getting dragged into this

 

[tourbillions]

again so much drama as if she changed the course of fashion. its quite simple she didnt have the vision to move chanel forward, the suits probably put a little pressure on her. She didnt like it or has nothing more left to design so she quit.

Only thing that insta post got right was to compare her to mary grace. Leave rei, donatella, miuccia, phoebe, and burton out of that article. All very successful women designers but somehow the internet want to focus on the unskilled ones that are rightfully criticized. Instead of bringing up talented ones that has changed the fashion landscape.

 

[MulletProof]

^ that's nice and kumbaya enough so we all get along, but that post (and Lutz') is not about female presence in the history of womenswear but the type of criticism women receive when they don't perform well or seem to live up to certain standards.

 

[tourbillions]

they dont have to always perform well. if we focus on the bad ones ofcourse its easy to nitpick the criticisims they get and try to twist it for their "story" or for their reason to get offended. That is how woke people seem to operate. They find criticized or opressed "under-represented" individuals and zone-in on the criticism and totally forget the celebrated and successful ones coming from the same "under-represented" group. All to drive their angst and wokeness.

The tone of the article will not even be the same if they put examples of successful women designers. Which is why they didnt.