Virginie Viard - Designer

[alwaysademo]

If anything male designers have it ten times harder. Just the announcement of their appointment to a design position these days is enough to send the internet and press into meltdown mode. Case in point : Seán McGirr. These people have to fight against literal mobs in order to just legitimise and validate not only their appointment but also just their right to exist in the industry. No one would dare to criticise the appointment of a woman to a prominent design position in this cultural climate in the same way. You would be cancelled within one second. Do you think that is a healthy and fair and progressive society? I don't think so.

I digress. What I take issue with, is with what exactly the author of that Granary article is trying to say? That we should have praised Viard's work regardless of how bad it was simply because she is a female at a "fashion powerhouse" and that we should lower our expectations because it's not fair to her given recent history? Or that we should be (falsely) and hyper critical towards male designers just to balance out the criticisms of Viard's work? What is the end goal of her thought piece? Why can't she just accept the fact that Viard's Chanel oeuvre was not good?

Agreed.

 

[MulletProof]

I'm sorry but I don't understand a single word of what you have written here? I would love to respond to your points, but, with all due respect, everything you wrote is so poorly worded and confusing to me that I shan't even attempt it.

Trust me, I don’t take offense. I know obscurantism dominates fashion these days. You are actually trying to respond to my points, making an effort (despite zero critical thinking or notions of what context means) in five paragraphs, and confused even by your own intent and what is driving your response. I know fashion’s your passion and anything out of ‘Chanel-Virginie-Chanel-Virginie’ will go over your head but the most simplified, watered-down explanation is that it was the type of commentary when a female designer unequivocally or debatably fails. Not that she’s a woman, or that she’s talented or that men suffer, or that men do not receive criticism.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I think the caustic, hostile criticism of Virginie is a combination of the misogny, the commercialism of the clothes, and the fact that many of her collections were truly abysmally. Each compounded the other.

But instead of people hating on the clothes they chose instead to hate on her.

I hated her collections. HATED THEM. But I must admit that the way she was publicly disparaged crossed the line.

 

[Caffeine]

Why is it so hard?
- If you are a CREATIVE director, and you can't CREATE, then you deserve the criticism.
- If you are a female designer and you keep making clothes that makes runway models look 10lbs heavier, then you can't make clothes women want - or in reality, your boutique alternation specialists will have to take on the work load which in turn, will eat into margins.

Why can't we criticize her? Let's stop this victim thing...when it comes to fashion results, it's pure meritocracy. If you sell fewer garments and the ones you sell are logo Tshirts priced at $3,000 a piece, it's not good. Who cares if you have a penis or not.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

And the mere suggestion that male designers have it harder than women is GASLIGHTING.

Clearly spoken by someone who's never worked in the industry.

 

[susseinmcswanny]

Wait what’s going on

 

[MulletProof]

Why can't we criticize her? m

No one said she can’t be criticised. We’ve all criticised her and some of us have explicitly said she’s not above criticism and in my case, that her designs are abominable. Maybe you missed some of the posts (I know some were reported and removed) but they did come with sexist tones and in the case of Maria Grazia, someone even said something about her only getting the job because she menstruates (different wording). That’s where this debate stemmed from. Yes, not all commentary was like this and sure, that ovaries comment came from someone that belongs to a departing generation, but it still brings a question that is not ‘bizarre’ at all on why is commentary towards female designers like this, so damn unhinged, and male designers never ever hear something downright homophobic. Even this ‘hmm you may want to rephrase that’ has them clutching their pearls like ‘how dare you question gay men!’.. so now we have a debate on why oh why do they feel above questioning, it really isn’t a human right to design womenswear.

 

[tomtakesphotos]

STOP putting that bikini as a questionable design, it's been referenced so many times soo many times, it's iconic, most of the questionable things Karl said or did were iconic, it's a worse crime to be boring ALWAYS

 

[NakedAndAfraid]

Lock her up! Lock her up!

 

[Caffeine]

No one said she can’t be criticised. We’ve all criticised her and some of us have explicitly said she’s not above criticism and in my case, that her designs are abominable. Maybe you missed some of the posts (I know some were reported and removed) but they did come with sexist tones and in the case of Maria Grazia, someone even said something about her only getting the job because she menstruates (different wording). That’s where this debate stemmed from. Yes, not all commentary was like this and sure, that ovaries comment came from someone that belongs to a departing generation, but it still brings a question that is not ‘bizarre’ at all on why is commentary towards female designers like this, so damn unhinged, and male designers never ever hear something downright homophobic. Even this ‘hmm you may want to rephrase that’ has them clutching their pearls like ‘how dare you question gay men!’.. so now we have a debate on why oh why do they feel above questioning, it really isn’t a human right to design womenswear.

No I didn't see them, but my entire point is that we should leave identity politics aside. The only relevant identity is "creative director".

When it comes to MGC, I have another anecdote to share as a consumer who happen to love fashion. The recent jackets from VV tend to require "surgeries" including re-cutting the shoulders to make them less oversized. Most people here know that re-engineering the shoulders is a lot more costly than simply taking in the back or shorten the sleeves (from the shoulder seams). When you make big shoulders for social media girls, the real life women need more help from the tailors. My alteration sheets filled out by my trustworthy seamstress recently have been very lengthy and on average from the time I pay for a jacket to the time I wear it, it takes around a month or two and 2 to 3 fittings. These are all "free" of course but this is partly why the retail price has to be raised to maintain the same gross margin. My sense is that the alterations of late are getting more elaborate. VV's dress making and pattern cutting seem to be all over the place.

MGCS's Dior needs much less work. The Bar jacket wasn't changed all that much, at least around the shoulders. Any alternations are contained. There is continuity to the silhouette (thank you for not making those giant social media shoulders) and the level of quality. Putting the two side by side, maybe MGC is boring in comparison? But she is just a lot more reliable.

 

[GoldenTribe]

It might be possible to tolerate a certain person's relentless, unilateral self-obsessed dogma if it weren't punctuated with creepy generalizations about gay men, bizarrely (intentionally?) ironic comments about men's bodies, and generally strewn with the mindless hypocrisy of rigid religious thinking.

Does an aggrieved pathological feminist ever consider that she is the mirror image of an irredeemable hateful misogynist? (Quick, femsplain why she isn't! Make sure you begin with, "For hundreds of years...")

A woman who repeatedly insists that no man could possibly understand her special valuable point of view because only women understand women's problems, that person has to be aggressively dishonest or psychotically ignorant to make pompous declarations about whether or not men experience homophobia.

Virginia Viard shouldn't have to put up with sexism. Neither should any other women. Neither should any man. Blow my mind my finding some masturbatory reason to disagree.

 

[Mody]

No I didn't see them, but my entire point is that we should leave identity politics aside. The only relevant identity is "creative director".

When it comes to MGC, I have another anecdote to share as a consumer who happen to love fashion. The recent jackets from VV tend to require "surgeries" including re-cutting the shoulders to make them less oversized. Most people here know that re-engineering the shoulders is a lot more costly than simply taking in the back or shorten the sleeves (from the shoulder seams). When you make big shoulders for social media girls, the real life women need more help from the tailors. My alteration sheets filled out by my trustworthy seamstress recently have been very lengthy and on average from the time I pay for a jacket to the time I wear it, it takes around a month or two and 2 to 3 fittings. These are all "free" of course but this is partly why the retail price has to be raised to maintain the same gross margin. My sense is that the alterations of late are getting more elaborate. VV's dress making and pattern cutting seem to be all over the place.

MGCS's Dior needs much less work. The Bar jacket wasn't changed all that much, at least around the shoulders. Any alternations are contained. There is continuity to the silhouette (thank you for not making those giant social media shoulders) and the level of quality. Putting the two side by side, maybe MGC is boring in comparison? But she is just a lot more reliable.

Do you feel the fabric changes? I read that the fabric has been thinner since maybe 2022, and the change would make further alteration down the line pretty impossible.
(The OP was alluding that Leena was responsible for the quality drop of Chanel, and the main reason for VV's exist that the most of the colleges she worked for over the past 20 some years all been let go. Although this is pretty unrelated to what you have posted )

 

[Deleted member 116957]

STOP putting that bikini as a questionable design, it's been referenced so many times soo many times, it's iconic, most of the questionable things Karl said or did were iconic, it's a worse crime to be boring ALWAYS

Being "iconic" doesn't mean that it was a) good or b) beyond criticism.

 

[KoV]

Why can't we criticize her? Let's stop this victim thing...when it comes to fashion results, it's pure meritocracy. If you sell fewer garments and the ones you sell are logo Tshirts priced at $3,000 a piece, it's not good. Who cares if you have a penis or not.

Since when? And if that were true, wouldn’t VV and MGC be above criticism, since sales continued to grow under their tenures? I know, I know, prices have rises but they have at Loewe and LV too, but that’s rarely brought into the conversation when discussing JA and NG’s success and the respective brands’ rising revenues.


I will say even though I really disagree with the nasty tone of much of the criticism shown towards VV and MGC, I don’t think it’s so much more extreme than what I’ve seen directed at Sabato or the new McQueen guy. At least on here. Maybe? I’ve had different people ignored at different times, so I may be oblivious. Elsewhere, it’s the Wild Wild West and though I’m not really clued into what people are saying about VV, if it’s horrible and misogynistic… that would be very on brand for the internet.

 

[Deleted member 116957]

It might be possible to tolerate a certain person's relentless, unilateral self-obsessed dogma if it weren't punctuated with creepy generalizations about gay men, bizarrely (intentionally?) ironic comments about men's bodies, and generally strewn with the mindless hypocrisy of rigid religious thinking.

But on the flipside... it's perfectly fine for gay men to make braindead criticisms of women (she has a job because she has ovaries!!!!), or generalizations that gay men love to design for women because ~women are strong~ AND ~"adore women because they adore beauty"~ (oh, we're dolls, our only value is in our beauty?), etc. It's a two way street.

 

[GoldenTribe]

But on the flipside... it's perfectly fine for gay men to make braindead criticisms of women (she has a job because she has ovaries!!!!), or generalizations that gay men love to design for women because ~women are strong~ BUT ~feminine~ (oh, we're dolls?), etc. It's a two way street.

You have responded to me twice now with sarcasm, but I will again reply in earnest: I don't respect men who attack or denigrate women, just like I don't respect women who denigrate men.

We all have to live together on one planet. A battle of the sexes benefits nobody. But in my lived experience in a western democracy, women are significantly more interested in publicly pitting the genders against one another, possibly because they are secure in the knowledge that the only politically correct outcome in 2024 is for Team Woman to win.

Nadege of Hermes in another thread mentioned that women in France could not have bank accounts until the 1970s. My immediate reaction to that was to think, holy crap that's brutally sexist! And it was closely followed by the realization that wow, that was fifty years ago! There are French women a decade older than me who weren't even born when that changed.

 

[Caffeine]

Do you feel the fabric changes? I read that the fabric has been thinner since maybe 2022, and the change would make further alteration down the line pretty impossible.
(The OP was alluding that Leena was responsible for the quality drop of Chanel, and the main reason for VV's exist that the most of the colleges she worked for over the past 20 some years all been let go. Although this is pretty unrelated to what you have posted )

Yes. I think I posted about the extra fabric in-between seams earlier.

It could totally be Leena's doing. Maybe the family wanted to shake things up, but every time when a business deviates from "long term greed", it will backfire. Chanel's turn is actually quite swift. Typically the last step is to raise prices w/ fewer pieces sold - this is true for all industries - and Chanel did just that.

since sales continued to grow under their tenures

There was an earlier discussion about this: They used higher prices and fewer units sold to generate higher revenue. In an ideal world, you raise prices by a bit but you want to sell more units due to strong demand - and you want to maintain the stronger demand than supply (Hermes). Chanel is the opposite right now. This is regarding RTW only.

 

[Overindulgence]

But on the flipside... it's perfectly fine for gay men to make braindead criticisms of women (she has a job because she has ovaries!!!!), or generalizations that gay men love to design for women because ~women are strong~ AND ~"adore women because they adore beauty"~ (oh, we're dolls, our only value is in our beauty?), etc. It's a two way street.

Well strength was mentioned so maybe beauty isn't the only value?

My issue is the critiques against the criticism and the "women design for women" generalization is it is all so selective (and often not based in context). Where was that energy for CWK, Bouchra Jarrar, Gabriela Hearst, Frida etc. during their tenures at brands and when they got sacked? Why is the "gay men are misogynist" point (which, as I've stated earlier, is a real issue for a certain portion of gay men) thrown when it's cases where the women creative directors decided to leave their roles at these houses on their own time, such as the case of VV and even Phoebe? It's like JK Rowling whose name just randomly started getting thrown around, these arguments kind of just appear in a space. And I'm not sure if certain customers really care like that or care to know...I don't think certain customers want to know or care that their goods are being designed by a gay man (or if the labels they flaunt was of a gay man). As long as the goods hold a specific type of social currency. A currency that is in part propelled and goes back to the vision and perception-building of a creative director.

And this is just my opinion, I will say one of the faults of the role of a creative director at big brands is that it is geared towards someone who are able to/will choose to focus on their job more than anything else and give 100% of themselves to their job (and yes, I am aware this is not the only career that requires that but we are talking about fashion). Some gay men [who are out because I know an earlier comment stated that gay men can have it easier in society because they can be in the closet...which is just..sad to read if you think that's a great situation to be in...but anyways] historically often have lower chances (or in some cases, desires) of a successful romantic and/or family life, hence, it factors into why the industry operates the way it does. Of course times have changed in some places a bit. Blazy and Mullier breaking up to focus on their careers signifies that choice to focus on their careers first. And when you want to focus on even one of those things, you kind of sometimes have to leave. I don't think these big brands are going to change that level of commitment any time soon. Classic case of don't hate the players, hate the game.

 

[GoldenTribe]

I was the person who brought up JK Rowling and it was a joke ........ except that she is also the poster child for clueless myopic self-righteous rich cis-het white women who parade around declaring without a shred of self-awareness or irony that rich, cis-het white *men* are the ultimate evil and the cause of all problems; a billionaire who spends her time attacking the trans community; not a classy figure or a paragon of tolerance.

 

[fenty]

No creative director is above criticism and I don't know why the Virginie Army Defense is NOW coming to her defense.. But it's really simple if, you design something that's of poor taste you'll receive a whole different reaction from what the people around you are saying and this is what sucks about designers or fashion as a whole, Yes Men are killing creativity.