Going into the Chanel Mademoiselle Privé
exhibition at the Saatchi Gallery, I had high expectations. After waiting in a
snaking queue for 50 long minutes, I think anyone would have had similar expectations.
After entering the building we were directed into the first room, consisting of the replica of the famous glass staircase which links the Chanel Rue Cambon flagship store to Coco's apartment. Following on from that was meant to be a re-invention of Mademoiselle Chanel's hat shop in Deauville, which she started at the very beginning of her career. Unfortunately, there was only a room comprised of walls plastered with monochrome prints of a shop window and with the addition of card hats popping out of cardboard boxes. I would have appreciated some colour and not from going on a constantly crashing app to get the full picture.
Afterwards, we entered yet another room which supposedly represented Coco's apartment; however to me it resembled nothing of the sort. We had a continuation of those printed walls. I think it is safe to say that it lacked lustre to the extremist degree.
Moving on into the next area, we were presented to a birdcage which held a colossal copy of one of Chanel's diamond star necklaces from the exclusive Comète Collection. However, this just seemed to be a rotating plastic beaded sculpture.
We then walked into a room which was entitled 'Totems', I am sorry my dear readership but has anyone ever heard of Chanel Totems? No, we have not. They were the most unusual things. Firstly, we had a tower of strings of pearls encapsulated by what only could be described as a giant fish bowl with even more pearls. The next was called 'Lucky Numbers', essentially some dominoes placed into the shape of a robot, apparently carrying the meaning that all those numbers were lucky, despite the fact we saw every number. Lastly, there was one constructed out of wheat. Like wheat, what did that symbolize? I, personally, did not have the faintest clue. I simply didn't understand how those representations translated into fashion or art for that matter.
The last two rooms on the ground floor I can deem faintly interesting. For example, one included a selection of hanging white sheet fabrics which you could touch. The last room on the ground floor was meant to be the Chanel No5 scent room - where these big electronic canisters filled with the individual notes which make up the timeless scent of Chanel No5 opened, revealing an array of garishly-toned brews. However, after standing over the jasmine pool for a lengthy amount of time, I smelt no jasmine. In fact, there was no overall smell of Chanel No5. It was more about the installation than the purpose.
Ascending the stairs we entered the room which showcased Chanel's finest jewels- Bijoux De Dimants, and thank goodness we actually saw clothes. Although they were not just clothes, no no no, they were evidently Karl Lagerfeld clothes. This is what I simply cannot comprehend. In this exhibition Lagerfeld is paying homage to Coco Chanel, shouldn’t they have displayed some of the archived pieces from Coco's time. For example, we had that really chic cropped blazer, paired with the full A-line chiffon skirt which was undoubtedly one of my favourites, until I looked at the shoe. The couture trainer.
They also did not think through the layout of the exhibit either. Everyone was forced to inch round the walls of the tight room by fierce looking security guards who shouted at us if we even dared to bend our necks forward to be in the 1 metre radius of viewing an emerald green velvet dress with the intricate diamond clasp. I do, however, have to say that some of that jewellery was divine.
What was also quite interesting to me was that there was hardly any written information. Yes, there was the faint Voiceover of an actress playing Coco Chanel but no indication as to what anything was. Similarly, I did not like the idea of having to turn to that interactive app for extra information; it was not as easily accessible as Chanel probably would have wanted. Nevertheless, I do not consider that an exhibition, having to seek information on your phone, instead of actually looking at the physical presentation, is a good idea.
Overall, I felt that the exhibition did not know what it wanted to be. It was neither an aesthetic appreciation of the finest things we usually associate with the house of Chanel, nor did it offer a comprehensive history.
Picture Courtesy of me and Vogue.co.uk
After entering the building we were directed into the first room, consisting of the replica of the famous glass staircase which links the Chanel Rue Cambon flagship store to Coco's apartment. Following on from that was meant to be a re-invention of Mademoiselle Chanel's hat shop in Deauville, which she started at the very beginning of her career. Unfortunately, there was only a room comprised of walls plastered with monochrome prints of a shop window and with the addition of card hats popping out of cardboard boxes. I would have appreciated some colour and not from going on a constantly crashing app to get the full picture.
Afterwards, we entered yet another room which supposedly represented Coco's apartment; however to me it resembled nothing of the sort. We had a continuation of those printed walls. I think it is safe to say that it lacked lustre to the extremist degree.
Moving on into the next area, we were presented to a birdcage which held a colossal copy of one of Chanel's diamond star necklaces from the exclusive Comète Collection. However, this just seemed to be a rotating plastic beaded sculpture.
We then walked into a room which was entitled 'Totems', I am sorry my dear readership but has anyone ever heard of Chanel Totems? No, we have not. They were the most unusual things. Firstly, we had a tower of strings of pearls encapsulated by what only could be described as a giant fish bowl with even more pearls. The next was called 'Lucky Numbers', essentially some dominoes placed into the shape of a robot, apparently carrying the meaning that all those numbers were lucky, despite the fact we saw every number. Lastly, there was one constructed out of wheat. Like wheat, what did that symbolize? I, personally, did not have the faintest clue. I simply didn't understand how those representations translated into fashion or art for that matter.
The last two rooms on the ground floor I can deem faintly interesting. For example, one included a selection of hanging white sheet fabrics which you could touch. The last room on the ground floor was meant to be the Chanel No5 scent room - where these big electronic canisters filled with the individual notes which make up the timeless scent of Chanel No5 opened, revealing an array of garishly-toned brews. However, after standing over the jasmine pool for a lengthy amount of time, I smelt no jasmine. In fact, there was no overall smell of Chanel No5. It was more about the installation than the purpose.
Ascending the stairs we entered the room which showcased Chanel's finest jewels- Bijoux De Dimants, and thank goodness we actually saw clothes. Although they were not just clothes, no no no, they were evidently Karl Lagerfeld clothes. This is what I simply cannot comprehend. In this exhibition Lagerfeld is paying homage to Coco Chanel, shouldn’t they have displayed some of the archived pieces from Coco's time. For example, we had that really chic cropped blazer, paired with the full A-line chiffon skirt which was undoubtedly one of my favourites, until I looked at the shoe. The couture trainer.
They also did not think through the layout of the exhibit either. Everyone was forced to inch round the walls of the tight room by fierce looking security guards who shouted at us if we even dared to bend our necks forward to be in the 1 metre radius of viewing an emerald green velvet dress with the intricate diamond clasp. I do, however, have to say that some of that jewellery was divine.
What was also quite interesting to me was that there was hardly any written information. Yes, there was the faint Voiceover of an actress playing Coco Chanel but no indication as to what anything was. Similarly, I did not like the idea of having to turn to that interactive app for extra information; it was not as easily accessible as Chanel probably would have wanted. Nevertheless, I do not consider that an exhibition, having to seek information on your phone, instead of actually looking at the physical presentation, is a good idea.
Overall, I felt that the exhibition did not know what it wanted to be. It was neither an aesthetic appreciation of the finest things we usually associate with the house of Chanel, nor did it offer a comprehensive history.
Picture Courtesy of me and Vogue.co.uk
