When Jonathan Anderson arrived at Dior, as creative director of both men’s and women’s (yes, the first time that’s happened at the house), it made big noise—and rightfully so. He stepped in with the swagger of a designer who had already done heavy lifting at Loewe. Now he is in charge of 18 collections a year, ten for Dior, six for his namesake brand JW Anderson, and two for his ongoing collaboration with Uniqlo. But his Spring/Summer 2026 womenswear debut for Dior did what so many debut collections try to do: recode the archive, reference the past, and shake the place up. The Bar Jacket came cropped and twisted, mini-skirts were pleated and exaggerated, and the staging featured an inverted pyramid installation. The audience applauded. The press cheered. It was the investment from the luxury powerhouse at LVMH in action.
But as marvelous as Anderson was… I want to talk about someone else. Because while everyone was saying “look how the big money is being used” at Dior as his debut included two paintings by Jean Baptiste Siméon Chardin (one from the Louvre, one from the National Galleries of Scotland) hung in a set styled after the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin, I kept wondering: are we really seeing how big luxury budgets are being used, or are we seeing a familiar playbook with a fresh name? Is someone else quietly doing this same thing—and maybe doing it better? The show looked smart, elegant—a museum of clothes, yes—but it was hailed as “how big-money is used” in luxury houses today.
Enter Matthieu Blazy at Chanel. His debut Spring/Summer 2026 show, held in the Grand Palais, was not shy. Think: fifteen enormous planets hovering above the runway, a floor in black resin flecked with sand and colour spray that reflected the orbs above, an atmosphere that felt like stepping into a cosmic theatre rather than just another fashion show. And the clothes? They nodded to Chanel’s heritage—tweed, the 2.55 bag reworked, camellias reshaped—but also bent it, made it fresh, made it feel like something new stirring inside one of the most established names in fashion.
So why isn’t Blazy getting the same kind of narrative? Why hasn’t the commentary gone: “this is how the luxury money is used” in exactly the way people say about Anderson? Because the media has largely handed the “big-money, big debut” script to Anderson at Dior and allowed Blazy’s equally striking moment at Chanel to sit beneath it. Meanwhile, the spectacle at Chanel wasn’t some modest set—if anything, it’s the return to full-on fashion-show opera, the kind of showmanship the industry talks about when it breathlessly references the days of Karl Lagerfeld building space stations and rocket ships in the Grand Palais or supermarkets for his sets. But this time under the quiet hand of Blazy.
Let’s be clear: Anderson’s work at Dior is meaningful. Just like Sheena Patel, I’m A Fan. He’s one of my favourites: his notions of craft, collage, gentle subversion, humour. His slant on the New Look, the way he invites us to think “archive + now” in subtle, clever ways—not flashy for the sake of flash—are all real contributions. But the story gets skewed when we start framing his show as the example of “luxury house uses its budget well to back a major debut.” Because Blazy at Chanel did exactly that—and with a house whose codes are so familiar that even minor shifts feel seismic.
When Blazy turned the Grand Palais into a universe, yes, he triggered the “eyes up at the planets, floors underfoot” moment. But he also used his budget smartly: phenomenal craftsmanship, clever silhouettes, heritage understood but not preserved like a fossil. He made a spectacle feel meaningful. He reminded us that showmanship isn’t cheap. And he also reminded us that spectacle can live alongside substance. Meanwhile, the fact that the (post-fashion month chatter?) press didn’t run with “this is how the money is being used” in his case—that’s telling.
So, when we hear “look how big luxury backs a designer,” I still wonder which designer and which house. Are we talking about the money behind the runway set? The atelier? The archive-refresh campaign? The narrative? Because yes, Anderson got the narrative, but Blazy got the execution, and part of following fashion critically and being part of the conversation is noticing where praise is selective.
So here’s the final word: Anderson’s Dior debut is important, ambitious, exciting. But let’s widen the lens. Let’s acknowledge that Blazy’s Chanel debut is equally structural. So in the same breath that we cheer Anderson, let’s give Blazy his due. The planets may have been overhead, but the real shift might be happening quietly under the set’s reflective floor. In other words: big money is being used—but it might be used best when the spotlight doesn’t do all the lifting. And Blazy deserves part of that story.
Words by Luciana Paiz
Graphic by Liz Gunter