“better-known in recent years as a Right-wing collaborator. ”
Not capitalist, socialist.
My late mother was a seamstress before WW2 working for Molyneux. She would have despised books on Chanel and the discussions on her life. She would have considered the only facts about her life worth remembering were her designs. She would also have regarded Chanel’s (and Vionnet’s) use of bias cut to be worthy of remembrance. As for the rest, snuffling about in people’s lives is always interesting but also rather distasteful.
Most people prefer to gossip to beauty!
I don’t understand why you think on the one hand it’s interesting and on the other hand distasteful. Such a contradiction.
Never seen an inferiority complex attach itself to someone’s head before.
“Chanel, like them, was out to undermine the old order” Stravinsky was an arch-monarchist long after 1917. The author of this piece would be shocked by the politics of so many early 20th C. modernists.
She devised poverty for billionaires, unable to resist playing the game of social subversion.
Not all that subversive then
I don’t know enough of Chanel’s history to know, but I assume she was in large part responsible (or part of) making social markers of status more subtle, more fun, less blatant, but in certain senses more exclusive.
Such things are now a bit of a minefield for those outside the know who naively think that by buying “luxury” and “designer” they can emulate the cardboard cut out rich people they see on the telly. Even if they have the money (or credit card) they can make a pretty expensive fool of themselves in front of those “in the know”.