Newsweek's Robin Givhan goes on the offence against Lagerfeld

It would have been easy to quickly dismiss Robin Givhan’s piece in Newsweek, headlined “Lagerfeld is Overrated”,  with its sole purpose not to inform but to sell copies. Then there’s the fact that the article itself is built on no strong arguments; the things the Pulitzer prize winner writes are only backed up by a few hand-picked sources (one should reflect long and hard on why she selected these people to out their opinions). A large group of the fashion industry would have nothing else than praise for the multi-talented artist Lagerfeld.

Foremost one can see why somebody would want to write an article about Lagerfeld's choices in business. One can ask the question why he does so many collaborations as the one with Coca Cola and Magnum ice cream... He doesn't need more money, so why? But this story is not written about the businessman Lagerfeld, but about the designer. When you're heading into deep water and you know you're in a rowing-boat you should be careful. Givhan is clearly fishing for people to purchase a paper magazine that's losing income. As Karl himself put it:

”I feel sorry for Tina Brown that her paper is really going down. It’s so skinny, it’s really what we call a ‘diet issue’ because it has no advertising and she certainly will not get advertising with this kind of article.”

This is what Givhan writes about Lagerfeld's work for Chanel:

"What Lagerfeld did not do is add to the vocabulary itself. If a great designer is judged by a silhouette he has popularized, a sensibility he has nurtured, or an aesthetic that is unmistakably his own, then Lagerfeld has failed."

As she mentions early on, Lagerfeld has worked for both Fendi and Chloé as well as Chanel, and more importantly, has his own brand. Is she deliberately ignoring the fact that if you take over a fashion house like Chanel, with a former iconic master such as Coco Chanel, you must keep the legacy and essence of her work alive? You must never fail to represent the founder's work with a new twist. If this is removed from an old fashion house it should no longer wear its founder's name.

Chanel Haute Couture
Image Courtesy of urfunked.com

 "Lagerfeld is the personality who guides the Chanel brand. But the designer has never shifted Chanel away from the all-consuming presence of Coco... not in the way in which Sarah Burton is moving Alexander McQueen away from the emotionally freighted yearnings of the individual and toward a more dispassionate corporate entity,” Givhan writes.

It will be impossible to cover all of the brilliant and innovative things Lagerfeld has done during his long stay as creative director. Set aside the religion that surrounds the man, he has never failed to create the most talked-about and admired collections, praised for keeping the essence of Coco with a modern and new twist while mixing in his own dream-like creations.

Image Courtesy of Initials D.B. (blogspot.com)

Givhan is ignoring what Sarah Burton is really doing with McQueen's brand: giving the collections a more feminine touch which means making it more her brand. To cut a brand's bond to its origin is a dangerous path to embark on. She's still kept the craftsmanship of Lee McQueen, which is very important, but has removed the political statements McQueen was known for.

The question is: should we even compare two designers who are different in so many ways and say one is better than the other?