I don’t do fashion, I am Fashion. “I don’t do fashion. I am Fashion.”
Jenna Weisberg 2 For many, the name Chanel embodies elegance, glamour, and luxury, but there is more to the name than the adjectives that describe it. Rather, there is vast meaning behind the legendary fashion designer’s rise to her legacy—a legacy that she herself created. From rags to riches, the story of Gabrielle Bonheur “Coco” Chanel did not begin with a lovely childhood; and, Chanel saw to it that her past would not control her future. In order to insure that, Chanel lied about her upbringing (she even denied the existence of her siblings) by embellishing on the truth or completely making up a story that she felt best suited her (Wallis, 7). These fables, or “Chanelore,” (Karbo, 13) only made her admirers more entranced. It was her reinvention of her life story that led to her experiences, which were ultimately translated into her work and creations. Nonetheless, these revised anecdotes are essential to her success, as is the reason for creating them. As Marcel Haedrich, former editor-in-chief of Marie Claire, wrote, “she was herself a Chanel creation,” (Mackrell, 9). If she hadn’t recreated her past, a tool that allowed her to believe she was worthy of her achievements, she may not have become the legend she is today. To understand more, one must first know Chanel’s true history. Chanel’s father, Albert Chanel, was a traveling salesman of such things as wine, buttons, hats, and kitchen aprons. In 1881, at the age of twenty-five, Albert met Chanel’s mother, Jeanne Devolle, when she was just seventeen and still living in her parents’ home. Unmarried at the time, Chanel was born on August 19, 1883 in a hospice in Saumur, France. Albert was not present. Her name, Gabrielle, was given to her by the hospice staff. That, along with her illegitimacy, caused resentment of her background. At the time, to be an illegitimate child was looked down upon. To further complicate things, her birth was recorded with no documents, and the birth certificate was not signed
Jenna Weisberg 3 because two illiterate hospice employees did not know what they were doing. Furthermore, no one knew how to spell Chanel, so the deputy mayor François Poitou improvised and spelled it Chasnel (Madsen, 4). When Chanel was twelve, her mother died of Tuberculosis. Another accompanied that loss. Chanel’s father was unable to provide for her and her siblings, and none of their relatives could help either. As a result, Albert farmed out his sons for child labor, and sent Chanel and her sisters to an orphanage run by sisters of the Congregation of the Sacred Heart of Mary at Aubazine. Chanel told the other children at the orphanage that her father went to America and was coming back for her and her sisters when he was prosperous. In truth, he had promised he would return for his children, but unfortunately never did (Wallis, 8-9). Chanel had started creating her past at a young age. For it to start so early, it is only natural that it would become a trait embedded in her personality. Starting at the orphanage, Chanel would go through life making up her past to fit in with whatever character she needed or wanted to be at a given time. Chanel had love-hate feelings about the nuns and the orphanage. The cleanliness and orderliness of the place, as well as the simplicity in the whitewashed walls, black doors, and the uniforms of white blouses and black skirts satisfied her. That summed up Aubazine. White and black. She also enjoyed spending time alone. On the other hand, she hated the nuns’ belief system that “love was a luxury and childhood a sin,” as well as her sense of surrender to the rules and activities that took place beyond the cold stonewalls of the orphanage (Madsen, 14). This tendency to have contradicting views would continue throughout Chanel’s life. Perhaps because Chanel found things she loved about a place and life she hated so much it caused her to be in conflict with herself. Or, Chanel possibly
Jenna Weisberg 4 tried to find a balance. Maybe she hated the atmosphere of the orphanage—the lack of color and family— to the point that subconsciously she gravitated towards that lack of color and solitude, the very aspects that she hated. For whatever psychological reason it occurred, the act of being contradictory became another personality trait that started at the orphanage. When reinterpreting her life, Chanel would take the austerity of Aubazine and her childhood with the nuns and turn it into the source of her perseverance. She had said that, “under nastiness looms strength, under pride a taste for success and a passion for grandeur,” (Madsen, 11). It is her poor upbringing that fueled her desire for triumph, and the seamstress skills she was taught by the nuns and her aunt, Louise, that took part in allowing her to achieve it. The nuns had taught Chanel how to sew dutifully, but Louise showed her how to sew with creativity. On school holidays, Chanel would stay with Louise, her sister, Adrienne, and their parents, Henri-Adrien and Virginie of her father’s side. From Louise, Chanel became skilled in sewing straight pleats, making fringes, and embellishing blouses (Madsen, 15-16). Still, the key skill that Chanel acquired is one that cannot be taught. The foundation of her skills facilitated her keen eye and ability to sew with imagination. The combination of her seamstress skills with her bold personality and daring, but innovative, ideas greatly contributed to her success. At 18, Chanel and her older sister, Julie, left the monastery and went to a boarding school Moulins. Her other sister, Antoinette, left the orphanage and met up with them a year later. The girls worked to pay for the cost of school and depended on charity to pay for temporary housing and food. Chanel and Adrienne worked in a tailor’s shop. By the age of twenty, Chanel had the status of a talented dressmaker. Other than working hard in
Jenna Weisberg 5 the shop, Chanel and her sisters became the entertainment for young cavalry officers who enjoyed the company of “The Three Graces,” as the “sisters”—which they pretended to be—were called, while they had their suits tailored (Wallis, 9). The young officers invited the “sisters” to events including concerts at the café, La Rotonde. While one of the singers was resting her voice, Chanel, who desired to be a singer, got on stage to fill in the time slot between performances. Although her voice was not spectacular, she gave a commendable performance to a song, “Qui qu’a vu Coco?” (“Who has seen Coco?”), about a young Parisian lady who lost her dog at the Trocadéro amusement park (across from the Eiffel Tower). Her performance became routine. Thus, she got her nickname, “Coco.” A few years later, Chanel became involved with Etienne Balsan, an army officer and a wealthy French socialite. When Etienne left the army, he invited Chanel to stay at his home, Royallieu, when she was exposed to the members of French high society that Etienne surrounded himself with. The role she played in Etienne’s life was that of a wife figure, yet it was not to become true because she was not an acceptable suitor. Because she was already seen as untraditional, with her short hair, small breasts, and slim hips, and lack of typical sex appeal, Chanel’s modified life stories became crucial to her attempt to fit in (Wallis, 12). Chanel intentionally rebelled against the “wife” role because at the time men traditionally wanted to be the masculine figure that worked and have their wives need them. Chanel would never choose a man over her work, and most definitely would not let a man think she needs him (Karbo, 76). Chanel’s lover after Etienne, Boy Capel, ended up funding her first real shop, Chanel Modes, in Paris in 1910.
Jenna Weisberg 6 When she finally paid him back, their romance began to fade. Boy was one of those traditional men (Karbo, 66). While dating Etienne, Chanel attended and wore her own creations to the lavish parties he threw and the sporting events he hosted at the Royallieu. The aristocrat women at these affairs would ask Chanel where she bought her hats. The actress Emilienne d’ Alencon, Etienne’s former girlfriend, was one of the first women to place an order for a hat. More and more high society women started to order her hats and pay attention to her designs (Wallis, 14). One can say that Chanel happened to be at the right places, at the right times, while dating the right man and thus, her success came from luck. Yes, Chanel had luck, but these women would not have wanted her hat designs unless they truly found them fascinating and without her talent, she would not have made sales. When looking at her creations, one can see that Chanel’s personality is thrown into every aspect of her designs. This can be due to the fact that her life was not what one would expect her luxurious name to have had. Difficulties that she experienced gave her the desire to live her life in a completely different way. Chanel’s design aesthetic has a yin and yang quality to it. As mentioned, Chanel had a penchant for being contradictory. What is amazing is that these contradictions seen in her work happen to work harmoniously together. This aspect is a true trademark of Chanel’s fashions and possibly what makes them so classic and timeless. Even her inspiration from men’s clothing was a direct contradiction. She was freeing women from the former constraints of typical clothing, but dressing them in garments that mirrored a feminine version of the clothing she borrowed—rather, the clothing she reworked—from her lover Boy Capel’s closet. “She built her wardrobe to fit
Jenna Weisberg 7 her needs,” explains Paul Morand, a friend of Chanel’s (Karbo, 51). Chanel was known for having tomboyish femininity. Her body was slender, with a small bust and lack of curvy hips, yet she portrayed a sense of pure elegance and grace. Since she made clothes according to what she wanted to wear, and see other women wear, it seems fit that she would draw inspiration from clothing that suited her body type, particularly, the type of clothes that men wore. The fabric Chanel used to make most of her garments, including the iconic suits, was jersey. Her use of this fabric was initially because it could be bought in bulk for cheap. Then, after using it, she saw that jersey allowed her to make her suits flexible and comfortable. Before Chanel, this fabric was only used for under garments. Her use of a fabric made to be unseen on garments that are meant to make women look elegant and classic is a contradiction in and of itself. So is that fact that jersey is a cheap material, which ironically was used for a garment that was anything but cheap, in price and appearance (Bott, 12). Chanel’s desire for jersey could also be that is suggests an act of defiance. She was never one to do what everyone else did, and with the type of clothing women wore at the time, she was revolutionizing the way women dressed, in style and in fabric. Through her jewelry, Chanel displays multiple contradictions. Her creations of costume jewelry were meant to make woman look classy while refraining from portraying “arrogance in an era of overly easy luxury,” (Bott, 9). She, herself, wore pounds of jewelry every day, and was never seen without at least a string of pearls around her neck. This kind of look automatically exudes a sense of luxury and affluence. It seems silly that she would think fake jewelry made it seem otherwise. Then it happened.
Jenna Weisberg 8 Chanel went against her simplistic aesthetic and crossed over to the “frou-frou” side of jewelry (and fashion) she so loved to avoid. On November 1, 1932, Chanel presented her first fine jewelry collection. It was a period of time when the economy was going through a depression, and the International Diamond Guild asked Chanel to make a collection with the stone in attempt to help boost their sales (Bott, 94). The benefits of the exhibition would go towards children’s charities. Chanel accepted this request possibly because she had wished there was more done for her when she was a child. She also agreed to do it because she believed that “in a period of economic crisis, [there is] an instinctive desire for authenticity in all things.” Her feathers, constellations and bows made up of diamonds were considered worth the investment because of their timeless appeal (Mackrell, 34). For someone who designs under an aesthetic of simplicity, Chanel sure knew how to dazzle with flamboyant intricacies that scream glitz and glam. Nonetheless, Chanel wasn’t as taken aback by her profound creations as the viewers. She believed that the value of a precious gemstone is determined by the passion behind it. The Duke of Westminster had showered Chanel with gorgeous gifts, including an emerald. During an argument between them, Chanel threw the jewel into the sea. Because of his betrayal, the emerald became worthless. True to herself, Chanel was able to create the ultra feminine looks that Chanel embodies today with Karl Lagerfeld’s rendition of the brand, but that doesn’t take away her love for comfort and minimalism. Her simplistic looks, however, enable the jewelry to be highlighted, rather than look overdone (Bott, 104). In the 1930s, Chanel, not under any request, began to show designs with more girly attributes. Slim-fitting dresses, belted waistlines and flowing skirts replaced loose-
Jenna Weisberg 9 fitting tops, low waistlines and stiffer skits. Even her suits had frilly cuffs and cravat bows (Karbo, 125). By the 1960s, bolero jackets and gypsy style skirts, both with colorful embroidery were featured in collections. Chanel had originally claimed that she hated the bright colors her rivals like Paul Poiret and Elsa Schiaparelli would use (Wallis, 27). This transformation from simplicity and bleak colors—black, white, beige, and navy blue were her favorites—to details and bright colors could be a result of moving with the times and giving her customers what they want. Or, it could be a product of her trying to break from her past, not by falsifying her history, but by restraining from portraying it in her work. The famous perfume, Chanel No. 5, is the epitome of Chanel’s tendency to display contradictions through her work and her personality. Made up of 83 components, Chanel No. 5 is contained in a minimalistic bottle. The amount of ingredients makes the perfume expensive to produce, and the list includes Jasmine, the most expensive ingredient for fragrances. As Chanel had said, “A perfume should hit you… It should be intense, and it is the most costly ingredients that make a perfume intense,” (Bott, 157). It seems as though Chanel wanted her creations to appear simple, rather than be simple in structure, design, and production. In this case, the minimalistic bottle allows the content inside to be the star instead of the bottle, unlike most of the perfume bottles of her time. This technique of being simplistic in appearance but complex in structure is reflective of her childhood and her desire to reconstruct her past. She brushes her past off as though it is nothing, when really it caused her to feel the need to make things up. Her physical look and her design methods are both simple on the outside, but complex on the inside. A popular theme through Chanel’s collections is the contrast between white and black. This contrast is built from her other contradictions, or rather their origin. When
Jenna Weisberg 10 talking about her past, Chanel would refer to the nuns at the orphanage as her aunts. She would give no name or physical description except that they were old maids always wearing black (Madsen, 10). With Chanel’s intention of subverting her past by creating stories that suited her, it seems that her love for the color black is her buried memories trying to resurface. Chanel took a color that was usually meant for morning and made it a color that can be worn at any time of day and at any occasion. Her inability to open up and come to peace with her true self is bottled into her work and her designs, making them the outlet for her sorrow. Such designs that echo this are the Little Black Dress (LBD) and her love of wearing strands of pearls with them. Chanel deemed that “Black comprises everything. So does white. They possess absolute beauty: They are in perfect harmony,” (Bott, 68). Chanel loved how the color of the white pearls and signature camellias highlighted the darkness of her tan skin, and how they popped against her LBDs and black jackets. Her adoration of using black and white together is a direct outcome of her suppression, seeing that the orphanage was nothing but black and white. The LBD exemplifies more than just her love for black and simplicity that is so deeply entrenched in her soul, but what seems to be her hidden desire for blurring societal class distinctions. Chanel believed that good haute couture should be copied. She used synthetic rayon in her LBDs, and other designs, to encourage other retailers to produce replicas of her clothing. With this democratic approach to women’s wear, Chanel not only aided in the progression of the ready-to-wear, mass produced market, but she improved “women’s quality of life, giving them a belief in their own dignity and independence,” (Mackrell, 37). Seeing it as a compliment, Chanel supported the idea of
Jenna Weisberg 11 copying her. It didn’t exactly hurt her business either because she and her customers knew that her atelier was the only fashion house that could execute her creations with perfection (Karbo, 181). Chanel’s aspiration to blend social classes together could be caused by the fact that she herself is a poor girl at heart living in a rich woman’s world. She felt the need to lie about her past in order to fit in with her present and future. As a result of suppressing her sorrow in her work, her past is once again trying to resurface through the garments she produces. Maybe she felt that by creating clothes that diminished a divided society, she no longer would have to pretend she was someone that she wasn’t. Being the private person that she was, her motives for her LBD can only be guessed. What is known is that it was in her nature to be contradictory whether she meant it or not. Her most prominent contradiction was her enjoyment in taking claim of other’s creations, while at the same time declaring she was a simple dressmaker with no business sense (Karbo, 98). Chanel tends to be known as the pioneer of many of her creations. However, some may say that Chanel is not truly an influential couturier, but merely a woman who possesses a knack for copying ideas and calling them her own. Because of this, Chanel’s success can be facilitated by a talent for reinvention rather than innovation. Although she may not have been the first to come up with ideas, she undoubtedly reinterpreted them and transformed them into concepts, thus replacing the original thoughts to the point that she could claim them as her own. The queen of the tailored suits was not the first to create such a look based on the military and working-class attire of men (English, 22). The king/founding father of haute couture, or high fashion, Charles Frederick Worth, produced suits for women that were
Jenna Weisberg 12 worn with a masculine-style blouse back in 1869 (Mackrell, 25). Chanel’s iconic suits were primarily inspired by John Redfern’s (a British couturier) first tailor-made suits for women in the late nineteenth century. The impeccable structure of her suits, as well as her use of jersey, is what bestows credit to her for making the style popular. Chanel constructed her suits from the inside out. The lining was given just as much attention as the outer layer. Material for both the skirt and the jacket are cut from the same fabric to insure that there is no variation in color, giving the suit a sense of flawlessness (Bott, 12). Another aspect that made Chanel’s suits innovative was the use of a gold chain along the hem lining that assured the jacket would have a perfect hang and verticality (Bott, 28). By having such a unique take on the suit, Chanel outdid Redfern, and proved she could obtain recognition for revolutionizing the way women dressed. Chanel wanted women to wear clothes that gave them comfort and ease of movement, therefore, desiring to have them fit like a second skin. In order to insure this, Chanel felt the most important part of the suit was the sleeves having an ideal fit. She would work and rework the sleeves until they fit perfectly (Buttolph, et al, 98). Their simplicity allowed them to be modified without changing the essential construction. Barbara Samuels, a professor for a course on the introduction of fashion business at Columbia College Chicago, says that this quality of Chanel’s suits makes them classic because “you could wear them and they are always in style.” Chanel’s pieces have timeless value, an attribute that only holds true to very few designers’ creations. The use of the camellia wasn’t originated by Chanel either. In the 1920s, Marcel Proust, a French novelist, wore a camellia pinned to his suit jacket at the Salon de
Jenna Weisberg 13 Guermantes. Men started to pin the Japanese rose to their jackets, and Chanel, who was inspired by menswear, naturally gravitated towards the exotic flower as well (Bott, 56). Making it a signature symbol of her fashion house, Chanel’s rendition of the camellia is what made the flower identifiable with the designer. Reworking the shape in different materials and fabrics, using it as jewelry, in the design of a garment and other accessories, and displaying it in an array of colors, Chanel made the camellia a versatile emblem in her creations (Bott, 63). Chanel’s transformation of the camellia in a multitude of ways is reflective of her iconic suits. The suit can be reworked in many different ways without changing the fundamentals, as can be done with the camellia. This aspect of Chanel’s craft and finery is a result of her ability to transform her life history into whatever is necessary at the time. Paul Poiret, known as the “Sultan of Fashion,” and another world-renowned French fashion designer during Chanel’s time, can also be titled as the paver of Chanel’s path in fashion. A number of Chanel’s creations were first done by Poiret. Chanel is often falsely associated with the freeing of women from the corset. Actually, Poiret’s fashions eliminated the use of the corset as early as 1906 (Mackrell, 10). Nevertheless, Chanel is still credited for providing women with clothes that allow them to move freely. This is because she created practical collections whereas Poiret, although he refrained from the use of corsets, still made clothes that were not always comfortable to wear or as easy to move in as Chanel’s attire. Poiret created wired lampshade tunics (English, 14), as well as straight, loose-fitting gowns that were of the Directoire style, which reflected the aesthetic of the French Directory in the mid 1790s (Mackrell, 10). Poiret’s technique emphasized the elegance of elaborate details while Chanel’s, for the most part,
Jenna Weisberg 14 emphasized the elegance of simplicity. The latter happened to be more appropriate for the needs of most women during Chanel’s reign. With that said, Chanel’s clothes were first and foremost made to cater to the comfort of women. She is recognized as the fashion designer who made women at ease because her philosophy advocated the desire and, more importantly, the necessity of clothing that can be suitable for every occasion, place and circumstance (Bott, 21). Poiret took a backseat as the pioneer of comfortable clothes because he did not truly portray comfort in his style. With the involvement of women in the war effort of 1914-1918, Chanel further reflected their newfound liberation in her collections. Chanel was not the first fashion designer to create a fragrance under their name. Poiret concocted his perfume, Coupe d’Or, in 1910, over ten years before Chanel launched Chanel No. 5 (Karbo, 11). Before Chanel No. 5, perfumes were created to imitate a specific flower and came in fancy bottles that were overdone. The names of these simple creations that were contained in not-so-simple ways sensationalized exaggerated names like Le Fruit Defendu (The Forbidden Fruit) (Karbo, 106). In her contradictory ways, Chanel, instead, created a scent that was meant to smell like itself, rather than imitate the fragrance of a flower, with the use of eighty-three ingredients that are contained in a simplistic bottle (Bott, 157). The idea to make a perfume was not even Chanel’s idea. A lover, Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich had told Chanel that she needed an exceptional perfume in order for her fashion house to be first-rate. Another influence was brought upon by Chanel’s travels with a friend, Colette. They had come across a small town, Grasse, in France, and explored the Fragonard perfume factory. Also, Misia Sert had encouraged Chanel to
Jenna Weisberg 15 make a perfume based on “The Secret of the Medicis,” a document presented to her claiming to reveal a confidential recipe for a toilet water used by the Medici queens. These instances ultimately led to Chanel created her famous perfume, Chanel No. 5 (Karbo, 106-108). However she got her start, Chanel is still responsible for creating the most popular fragrance for women. It is her natural talent for knowing what women want that makes her successful, whether or not she originally came up with the idea. Another claim that Chanel abducted from Poiret is his use of costume jewelry (Mackrell, 32). Chanel is notorious for her use of costume jewelry over real precious stones, causing today’s fashionistas to overlook Poiret as the first to utilize the idea. Poiret adorned his collections with tassels, thematic of his neo-classicism and orientalism aesthetic. As she did with everything else she snatched, Chanel made costume jewelry go from being merely an accessory to becoming a full-blown concept, and catapulted it into a successful element of the fashion industry. In her avant-garde manner, Chanel paired fake pearls—the ultimate icon of the entirety of her work—with her expensive daywear, such as her cardigan suits. At the time, women usually kept their luxurious jewelry in safes and exclusively wore them out to fancy evening events. As Christian Dior, a contemporary as well as a rival, put it, “with a black sweater and ten rows of pearls she revolutionized the world of fashion,” (Mackrell, 33). Chanel’s interpretation of what is stylish gave women the option of wearing jewelry at any time of the day, with any type of clothing (as long as it is her style of course), to any type of affair. Mixing fake stones with real ones was another way Chanel transformed the concept of not just costume jewelry, but jewelry as a whole. Chanel would either
Jenna Weisberg 16 combine both into a singular necklace or bracelet, or wear both costume jewelry and real jewelry at the same time. By doing so, Chanel broke the norm of what can be considered as luxurious. Chanel believed that “luxury is not the opposite of poverty; it is the opposite of vulgarity,” (Bott, 178). Furthermore, Chanel had said that, “luxury lies not in richness and ornateness but in the absence of vulgarity,” (Karbo, 134). From merging fake with real, Chanel demonstrated that one does not have to own and wear expensive fashions in order to be fashionable. She helped make it possible for women of all social classes to dress up-to-date without spending a fortune (although now, and then, even her costume jewelry was expensive). Though widely assumed, pants, or trousers, were not introduced to women by Chanel. Mrs. Amelia Bloomer, an American women’s rights activist, advocated the need of more practical garments for women, in particular, she popularized “bloomers,” as early as the mid-1850s. However, the idea of women wearing pants was not generally accepted until the 1920s. Before World War I, Poiret launched the harem-style trousers, but they were thought of as outrageous. In comes Chanel. In the 1920s, she featured her masculine and baggy yachting trousers (Mackrell, 33). Her love for riding horses, which she was skilled at, inspired her to make pants for women, along with the job opportunities open to women during the war (Wallis, 12). Other styles of pants were inspired by the sailors she saw in Deauville, a beach town on the English Channel coast, while vacationing with her lover at the time, Boy Capel. She later opened up a shop there selling clothing that suited the outdoor trend she popularized (Mackrell, 19). Chanel was able to make pants for women a trend that
Jenna Weisberg 17 stuck because she, a woman, knew what fit would work and that athletic chic would be attractive to women of the time. A variety of ethnic and artistic references are apparent in Chanel’s designs. Poiret, however, was first at connecting art with fashion and being well informed about specialized realms of the art world, such as the Ballets Russes. In 1903, with the opening of his own fashion house, Poiret revealed his scandalous long coat that alluded to a kimono (Karbo, 10). Chanel, too, had a fancy for Japanese culture and was inspired by Asian clothing; and Chanel, too, had an extensive familiarity with the art world, especially the Ballets Russes. After attending a dinner party in 1917 thrown by Cécile Sorel, a French actress, Chanel became a member of the art circle of French high society. At the party, Chanel met Misia Sert, a Polish pianist, and through Misia Chanel met Pablo Picasso, a Spanish cubist painter, Salvador Dalí, a Spanish surrealist painter, Jean Cocteau, a French writer, and Sergei Diaghilev, founder of the Ballets Russes. By 1920, Chanel was aiding Diaghilev in funding the Ballets Russes, and collaborating with the aforementioned artists in designing costumes for the productions for the Ballets Russes, as well as other plays (Mackrell, 53-56). During her work with these artists, Chanel experimented with Greek, cubism and surrealism influences not only for the productions, but in her creations as well. With that experience, Chanel, once again, put Poiret in her shadow. Although it seems Chanel was always using Poiret’s ideas, the silhouette of Dior’s post World War II “new look,” had been done by Chanel before the war. The “Watteau suit”—named for resembling the black suit worn by many of the women in Jean-Antoine Watteau’s early eighteenth century paintings—had a cinched-waist and full
Jenna Weisberg 18 skirt. The look was presented in Chanel’s 1939 collection. This time, it was Chanel who was robbed of an idea and Dior who made that idea become a concept (Mackrell, 52). The reason Chanel must not have cared is due to the fact that she disliked what Dior had done with the silhouette. After closing her house in 1939, Chanel made a comeback in 1954. Although the true reason why is unknown, most believe it was because of the male fashion designers that had become significant while she was absent. Practicality went out the window and more daring designs came through the door. Chanel would claim that this was a result of the fact that they were designing for women and, therefore, were not the ones wearing the clothes (Wallis, 51). Chanel felt she needed to return and provide women with what they really want: practical and comfortable clothes. For someone who made it big off of reinterpreting others ideas, it is ironic that she made her comeback from someone reinterpreting her idea, and doing it in a way that she disapproved of. Chanel, being contradictory by nature, probably enjoyed the irony of it. Whether or not Chanel originated ideas, it was what she did with them that made them revolutionary. The core reason that Chanel was able to take risks in making these rendered ideas come about was the fact that she had nothing to lose. She had very few family ties, including the ones whose existence she lied about. With all of her lovers, none ever became her husband and she never bore any children. Chanel had said that, “a child in revolt becomes a person with armor and strength,” (Madsen, 11). Her poor upbringing fueled her desire to strive for success and the strength to do whatever it took to reach her goals. She vowed never to dwell in her past and, therefore, the only direction she allowed herself to move in was forward.
Jenna Weisberg 19 Chanel had admitted, “Work has always been a kind of drug for me,” (Karbo, 73). Since Chanel did not feel as though she could openly discuss her past, or even confess her true feelings to herself, she, ironically, openly communicated her struggles, as well as her joys, to the world through her designs. Whether it was intentional or not, her work was her outlet. Perhaps that is why she wouldn’t give it up for anyone, not even the love of her life, Boy Capel. All her creations, pioneered or reinterpreted, may not have existed if it wasn’t for her destitute background. Talk about a silver lining. When Chanel famously said, “I don’t do fashion. I am Fashion,” (Karbo, 11) it may have been a clue that she did intentionally use her work as a way of letting out her true thoughts and emotions. However, the truth lies with her.
Jenna Weisberg 20
Works Cited Bott, Danièle. Chanel: Collections and Creations. London: Thames & Hudson, 2007. Print. Buttolph, Angela, Tamasin Doe, Alice Mackrell, Richard Martin, Melanie Rickey, Judith Watt, Carmel Allen, Rebekah Hay-Brown, Sebastian Kaufmann, Natasha Kraal, Fiona McAuslan, and Melissa Mostyn.The Fashion Book. London: Phaidon Limited, 1998. Print. English, Bonnie. Fashion: the 50 Most Influential Fashion Designers of All Time. Hauppauge, New York: Barron's Educational Series, 2010. Print. Icons of Culture. Karbo, Karen, and Coco Chanel. The Gospel According to Coco Chanel: Life Lessons from the World's Most Elegant Woman. Guilford, CT: Skirt!, 2009. Print. Mackrell, Alice. Coco Chanel. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1992. Print. Fashion Designers. Madsen, Axel. Chanel: a Woman of Her Own. New York: H. Holt, 1990. Print. Samuels, Barbara. Personal interview. 28 Mar. 2011. Wallis, Jeremy. Coco Chanel. Chicago, IL: Heinemann Library, 2002. Print. Creative Lives.