News & views
Blog /
14 November 2008/
Chanel. The latest victim of (brand) self-absorption?
by Juan Ramírez at 9:13 pm 14 November 2008
Filed under: Architecture, Art, Branding, Cobranding, Identity, Luxury, Typography
Tags: Architecture, Branding, Chanel, Zaha Hadid
The past weekend was the last opportunity for people in New York to see the Chanel Mobile Art in Central Park. A futuristic nomad art centre imagined by Karl Lagerfeld and designed by Zaha Hadid to celebrate the anniversary of Chanel’s 2.55, the very same iconic quilted bag that warranted a double spread on Wally’s latest book, and so named because it was first issued in February 1955. I took the A train uptown to see what this was about.
The ephemeral pavilion, designed to move across continents and pop-up in the capitals of capitalism (cities with the highest Chanel handbag per capita), started its journey in the UK where it was built. It then was shipped to Hong Kong where, like a spacecraft, it landed on top of a building. Tokyo followed before appearing in New York’s Central Park. It is now off to Moscow, London and Paris.
Both the container and its contents exude very expensive and progressive sophistication. For example, the pavilion employed new materials and explored innovative construction techniques for each piece had to fit together like a giant jigsaw puzzle to be transported in 55 sea containers. The interior is a carefully managed multi-sensorial exercise that includes a soundtrack-guided tour. The selection of artists is correct lacking something extraordinary with only a few truly remarkable pieces.
As a brand observer, I couldn’t help to see this initiative as a formidably subtle product placement done in a refined way that retorts to the overexploited but lucrative formula of art + commerce. In Chanel’s case this formula makes wonders, delivering Chanel’s brand story through a masterful combination of thought-provoking art, avant-garde architecture, cosmopolitanism and glamour. A perfect execution of cobranding that pushes the boundaries between commercial brands like Chanel and cultural brands like Zaha Hadid or Yoko Ono.
Chanel’s big aspiration to understand and shape the zeitgeist is admirable. But, inevitably it makes you wonder how one of the most radical and interesting brand initiatives of these days could quickly become an exercise of intellectual irrelevance? The answer is self-absorption. A mindset many brands are familiar with. In these dire times with the world’s worst food crisis since the 1970s, an economic meltdown of epic proportions and unemployment rates soaring in the US, austerity and frugality are rapidly pervading our thoughts and behaviour. One of its harshest critics, Nicolai Ouroussoff from the New York Times puts it bluntly in this paragraph: “Yet if devoting so much intellectual effort to such a dubious undertaking might have seemed indulgent a year ago, today it looks delusional”.
Ironically, this sentiment was also reflected in one of the art pieces exhibited – Yoko Ono’s wish-tree – where visitors would tie their petitions to a tree, a lot of which were condemning the lavishness of the event as an insensitive display of excess and conspicuous consumption. It was here where I had a laugh. My personal ‘contribution’ to the art world was a typographic reinterpretation of the brand’s iconic logo, the interlocked Cs. This is a refined version of my sketches:
The visit to this shrine lasted 40 minutes, and at the end of it I couldn’t help but think what a beautiful visual metaphor it was of the bubble most luxury and fashion brands live in.
Juan Pablo Ramirez, Juan Pablo Ramirez,
I must preface by admitting that I did not get a chance to enter the pavilion. At the time, I was so turned off by Chanel’s sponsorship that I discredited the project altogether. So, everything I say about the exhibit should be taken with a grain of salt. Having watched these two videos, I regret not seeing the pavilion.
I’ve never really been a fan of Zaha Hadid’s work. I can respect it. I love the biomorphic thing that she does. Reminds me of Bjorks video for All is Full of Love, directed by Chris Cunningham. Her buildings are robotic and organic at the same time. However, I tend to think that architecture should be about the needs of the space and not the desire of the architect to create a sculpture. Having said that, I found the second video on this post to be beautiful. I understand her more. Her buildings are alive and need to consume. In an eerie way, her pavilion seemed to lure people in and use them for it’s self-interests. This is ironic considering the artists relationship with Chanel.
In my opinion, many collaborations between artists and major luxury brands are tacky. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that great art often needs sponsorships in order to exist. For example, I love the Brooklyn Academy of Music and one of their largest sponsors is Altria, maker of cigarettes and heart-clogging food. However, I feel that luxury brands should back-up and allow the art to take the lead. My fear is that the masses will not be able to differentiate between a marketing message and a high-art message. This collaboration was at its heart, a marketing initiative. However, sometimes the message is obvious and becomes art in itself. One must think of Andy Warhol and Takashi Murakami. These two artists were/are clear about their intentions and the whole idea of cobranding sort-of becomes art in itself. I think this is why the Chanel Hadid collaboration failed.
To me, Chanel and Hadid do not share similar brand attributes. It’s not clear how they could use one another. Other than the matching seams of a Chanel purse with those of the pavilion, I don’t get it (remember, I didn’t enter the pavilion). But aside from the exhibit, I don’t see where these two brands (Hadid and Chanel) share similar attributes or personality traits. I’d venture to say that both the Hadid and Chanel brands were damaged by the collaboration. Hadid appears to have sold out on some level, whereas Chanel seem to be straying away from the brand’s core strengths. I think a more understandable partnership would have been between Hadid and Prada.
Having said all this, Hadid’s pavilion was a gorgeous sculpture and the second video on this post was well-done. I can’t say that I am a fan of Chanel but I respect their attempt at trying something new. Maybe next time they should focus on their brand’s core differentiating qualities and build from there, instead of just picking a cool architect to make a cool building for their fierce purse.
Comment by JR Little — 11/18/2008 @ 7:40 pm