in response to the MJ haters lately saying MJ is unoriginal and a blatant knock-off of chanel:
I'm sorry but i needed to come on here and stand up for one of the few designers who's an innovator in the industry and has as much hate as he does love for the risks he takes each and every season...
merve~ only recently were luxury design houses able to trademark and patent their designs because of the ongoing fake market that bubbled up from the luxury fashion trends of the late 90's and early 00's.
Before Chanel, you know what you had? you had an array of small bags carried by flappers and Victorian women with...yes...I'm saying it...CHAINS! chains in the history of handbags have been around since the 1800's even before that!. Chanel did not invent the wheel, or in this case, the chain; nor did she invent the square or the quilting. From a design aesthetic, she improved on already existing designs, and just happened to gain notoriety for it.
Marc Jacobs went to fashion school. He's well aware of the design aesthetics of Chanel, of Hermes, of probably every major fashion company. He's a fan of course, because he loves fashion. And what do you do when you love something, generally you emmulate it. Artists emmulate those artists they are inspired by. A blatant copy requires a lot of understanding of design, structure and construction. Even though it's tacky, you need to have the passon behind it. MJ takes that concept of 'immitation is the sincerest form of flattery' to a new level.
He reinvented the concept of leather on these bags. NO companies have done these techniques on these bags with interwoven python and leather. NO ONE. It's an amazing flex of his artistic and design muscles. I foresee many companies taking this woven concept to a new level after seeing what MJ can do with it. If anything at all, it's closer to Bottega Venetta.
I absolutely agree too that MJ is taking these risks with both MJ and not raising prices: he's doing it because he wants to reinvent himself season after season and has a loyal following of perhaps non-conformist fashionista's who DO NOT BUY FOR THE LABEL but instead for the innovation, the conversation piece, for the punk aesthetic of being different from the norm, while the norm's cry out "he's stealing our lil quilted box! damn him!"
Fashion is meant to be controversial, it's meant to show it's inspiration, but also be different enough that you can not only see the designers inspirations but also he commentary of his design appeal in response to all these established companies. So few designers do that these days. It's more important to replicate what sells instead of experiment. Chanel has such a strong following because it's predictable. It's like Andy Warhol images. Repetitive. And i love Andy Warhol.
MJ is like a punk zine: taking found images from all sorts of random places he picked up in his travels, his life and experiences; then collaged into something and reprinted for the masses. It is a view of the world uniquely his own, paying homage to the vintage nameless designers before him, before the importance of a house logo. In that way he is very humble in his design aesthetics, he has a house name, but is also one of the most open designers as to what inspires him. He's someone people can relate to, yes he has flaws and has gone to rehab, but all these experiences make his life rich and layered, and his designs reflect that.
I'd rather had a richly layered textured bag that makes me think about why i like it, rather than a stagnant quilted box that's telling me to love it because it's friggin' Chanel.