Virginie Viard, her CHANEL Departure, and the Miseducation of Fashion
After five years of controversy, could Virginie Viard's departure from CHANEL reveal anything about the misogynistic traits of the fashion business?
“Vitriolic,” is the word I’d choose to describe most of the Internet's response to Virginie Viard’s work ever since she debuted as CHANEL’s Creative Director back in May 2019 after Lagerfeld’s passing.
After a couple of seasons of hits and misses, then, the word “uninspiring” started popping up in reviews and op-eds.
I remember my very own moment of disengagement. It was the Cruise ‘22 show, a collection partly inspired by Chanel’s friendship with Jean Cocteau; Viard had mentioned Cocteau’s 1960 film Testament of Orpheus as one of the main references, and I was excited.
But it ended up falling flat for me.
The clothes, the show, the styling, everything felt, well… uninspiring.
In the coming years, as usual, I’d keep up with CHANEL. But, after each collection, I’d end up asking myself the same question as Peggy Lee. Is that all there is?
Left: a still from Cocteau's 1960 "Testament of Orpheus." Right: the finale of the CHANEL Cruise 2022 runway show taking over the Carrières de Lumières in the South of France.
The Big Question Is…
Five years later, the announcement that Viard was leaving the brand was received with no shock. The majority of the comments below the Diet Prada and Style Not Com posts, in fact, indicated relief. The big question ailing the industry now is, who will fill those leather booties?
I would much rather entertain a larger query: what kept us from appreciating Virginie and her work?
It’s not like she was unprepared, or unqualified. After all, Lagerfeld famously called her “his right arm…and left arm.”
The numbers weren’t failing either.
As of last month, BoF reported revenues of up to 16%. And, while 9% of that came from leather goods and fragrances, CHANEL’s chief financial officer, Philippe Blondiaux, highlighted:
“Since Virginie [Viard] took over from Karl…the fashion business has been multiplied by 2.2.”
Viard’s designs were often perceived as matronly, outdated and “uninspiring,” yet, the rising sales proved otherwise.
Let’s Talk About the M Word—Misogyny
Photo by Mauricio Herrerabarría
My first CHANEL fashion show was for the Spring/Summer 2015 collection.
Early morning, on the shuttle to the Concorde metro station, I made conversation with another guest; we rambled about the possible runway themes—Karl Lagerlfeld was famous for large productions, fashion shows that would feature space rockets, glaciers, coral reefs, life-size airports or supermarkets.
That morning, inside the Grand Palais, a replica of Paris awaited.
The main performance: a feminist protest.
The collection, an Impressionist fever dream, was full of vibrancy and psychedelic watercolour prints and flowers; 70s-inspired, it was pants galore.
The models supposedly did their own make-up. And Gisele Bündchen walked the runway in an unforgiving, almond-and-white-striped knitted dress—a vision I’ll never forget.
I confess mixed feelings about whole the idea now: a high dramatization of a feminist protest orchestrated by a (self-hating gay) man known for his misogynistic remarks who, at the helm of a global luxury brand, was partially responsible for the beauty standards that continue to obfuscate the lives of so many—all for the sake of putting up a show that would trick women into believing that the brand actually cared about their priorities.
Returning to this memory, though, makes me think of a silent truth that fashion likes to keep to itself. The reason why big luxury brands often lean toward male (gay) designers as leaders of their creative teams is because their creative processes, on many occasions, often start from a Platonic view, a hyperbolical idea of what a woman should or could be.
While this distorted perception of feminity can indeed help women find some sort of empowerment, it is also part of the secret solution that male CEOs and businessmen use to erode the soil, preventing other sensibilities and representations from growing and blossoming.
Charles Frederick Worth, the father of haute couture, first designed for his wife, romanticizing her curves and best features, eventually becoming the personal couturier to Empress Eugénie; Christian Dior escaped from the tensions of WWI in the family garden, and saw women themselves as delicate flowers, causing him to spend a lifetime designing his own Garden of Eden with organza, silk crêpe and wool; Alexander McQueen’s Amazons responded to Lee’s idealization of his sister, who was beaten up by her husband multiple times in front of him; Mugler literally brought to life comic heroines and villains with his extravagant constructions.
Women, on their part, sketch with empathy-coloured pencils, borrowing from their lived experiences to enhance life through cut and fabric. There’s still fantasy behind the caftan, but one that is more democratic and grounded on real priorities: comfort, efficiency, versatility, self-worth, and so many others.
It is not my intention to promote such a “Men Are From Mars, Women Are from Venus” divide; I’m not saying this (mostly male) idealistic perspective is completely defective either.
What I’m trying to articulate is that there should always be enough space for all perspectives to persevere, and even intertwine.
Maria Grazia Chiuri, who’s been directing Dior since 2016, has led the brand to exorbitant success, focusing on craftsmanship and sorority. Her journey began with public outcry, calling her designs “matronly” and “boring.”
In a November 2023 conference, Stella McCartney, a leader in sustainable and ethical design asked the crowd, “Why is it increasingly difficult for women to secure seats on the boards of brands or land positions as creative directors?”
Marine Serre, the French designer who won the 2017 LVMH Prize, was the guest designer on this year's Pitti Uomo—the most prestigious menswear trade show. The NYTimes has described her design philosophy as a prime example of an "eco futurist ideology of fashion." In 2023, her business reported a global sales growth of 20%. (Photos courtesy of Pitti Uomo)
Whatever Happened to Virginie Viard?
No details about her departure were provided. No context or motivation.
My instinct tells me there’s an urgent need at CHANEL to entice younger audiences. Especially now that beauty will soon become a pivotal part of the business. “Converting more of [the] beauty business to retail after decades operating the division on a wholesale model,” detailed Blondiaux.
But GenZ’s perception of CHANEL is not the best either.
Between trapping Margot Robbie’s soul and hiking handbag prices, younger generations only have Timothee Chalamet as the face of “Bleu” to anchor themselves to the brand. And that, my Huckleberry friend, will not guarantee crowds at the beauty counter.
Viard’s designs were just not bringing in the buzz required to sell luxury to the mainstream; Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption (1) couldn’t be fulfilled.
A big name as the Creative Director probably won’t do it either. But if this person’s direction feels poignant, and the designs end up on magazine covers and red carpets, drawing (positive) comments and likes and shares on social media, then, it won’t be that difficult for the brand to make the consumer dream again about becoming the belle of the ball, obviously clad in something with an interlocked double-C.
Then and only then, two bottles of Les Beiges foundation, three Rouge Coco lipsticks, and four vials of Les Vernis (Pirate and Sun Drop are my favourite summer shades by the way) won’t ring as such a ridiculous splurge.
New Perspectives, More Perspectives
Women Dressing Women, a recent fashion exhibition at New York’s MET Museum (November 2023-March 2024) acknowledged and examined the rich history of female fashion designers and their practices.
Co-curated by Mellissa Huber, the exhibition was divided into segments that narrowed in on the “key notions that underlie the historical trajectory of women working in fashion”: anonymity, visibility, agency, and absence/omission.
These keywords not only outline the milestones still ahead, but also imply that conservators, curators, museums, cultural institutions, and society at large are looking for ways to conjugate the words “history” and “heritage” with “everyone.”
“Contemporary designs […] emphasize how dress has served as a site of political and bodily expression and address lived experiences that have often been overlooked within high fashion, such as pregnancy and disability,” reads the exhibition catalogue.
There’s a questioning happening, but also a lot of entitlement.
While eco-chambers lead us to a state of constant agreement, we overlook anything that doesn’t match our freak and we mute it instantly, condemning the knowledge that the foreign might offer to a distant drawer. We comply with the public discourse, calling Viard’s collections “boring,” without even wondering if boring is the right word to describe the work—and if so, then, why?
I start going through five years’ worth of fashion shows, watching carefully to see if I can finally connect with Viard.
At first, everything comes off as average. But I fight my bias, my miseducation.
Yes, the models don’t look statuesque like I’m used to like to perceive them—as unattainable.
Viard’s models walk with the nonchalance that a patriarchal society loves to hate: the unencumbered strut of a woman minding her own business, self-assured and unafraid to accept that, sometimes, fighting for the spotlight is itself a sign of insecurity.
I come to the unexpected conclusion that Viard’s stint at CHANEL might be the closest we will ever get to the sensibility that kickstarted the legacy of Gabrielle ‘Coco,’ that of making high-quality fashion for the woman who walks the walk; pragmatic clothes to unlock the greatest potential of whoever looking not to worry about any hem or stitch getting in the way.
Wouldn’t you consider that… inspiring?
Further Readings
Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, 1899.
