The Economist this week has an interesting profile of Maureen Chiquet , Global Chief Executive of Chanel. Among other things, the profile touches upon Chiquet's reaction to the New York Times critique of Chanel's Mobile Art Pavilion which has set up in New York's Central Park until November 9 after previous stints in Tokyo and Hong Kong. The Gray Lady essentially wags her puritanical finger (as the Gray Lady is fond of doing from time to time) at Chanel suggesting that such a cynical marketing ploy draped in refinement in the midst of this economic crises is practically delusional. I disagree.
Photographic reference:
Chanel Mobil Art Exhibit, Hong Kong. Pavillion designed by Zaha Hadid. Photo by The Luxe Chronicles. All rights reserved.
While no one would ever confuse this fusion of art, fashion and luxury as an act of altruism on the part of Chanel (a misconception which would be quickly dispelled by the special edition 2.55 bag priced at $3000 USD), it should not be written off as a mere marketing gimmick as suggested by the New York Times piece either. First, leaving aside the obvious point that this project was conceived and implemented long before even the first rumblings of the current crises, the pavilion is quite simply majestic and a worthwhile exercise on its own. I had the opportunity to see the pavilion up-close while in Hong Kong last spring and I can honestly say it was a revelation. Hadid's use of unusual shapes and materials challenges our perception of space and the way in which we think of building structures. The effect, especially at night, is breathtaking and so, to my mind, the project in and of itself would be perfectly worthwhile even if it were limited to the mere shell, which it is not.
Second, and perhaps most importantly, the project offers a small group of young contemporary artists an unprecedented opportunity to communicate their art to the general public. So what if many will be drawn to the event solely by the Chanel brand name? There are far worst things. While the project does blur the line between art and commerce in a way that would make purist art patrons cringe (the artists for instance were required to produce works inspired by the 2.55 quilted handbag, one of the most enduring status symbols of 20th century fashion) this would hardly be the first time the line between art and commerce is intentionally blurred. In tough economic times, struggling artists will need all the support they can get. This includes the patronage of deep-pocketed corporations such as Chanel. In answer to the New York Times' critique, Chiquet responded simply: "Even in tough times, people want to see beautiful and inspirational things." I agree.
Sincerely,
The Luxe Chronicles
Comments