[moss trey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donyan I've always loved the idea of interesting or even extreme but wearable clothes , and I was excited by Raf Simons arriving at Dior, but to be honest , now that the whole world does wearable and ( more or less) interesting I kind of miss the unbridled exuberance and joy of Galliano- I'd even go so far as to say that those are the two things that are relevant right now, more than anything else Posted via Mobile Device

This. Everything is turning towards ready to wear and minimalism and as a fan of opulence and occasional ridiculousness in fashion I'm missing all the designers that explored fantasy in their designs. I feel like there's very few lines left nowadays that are able to explore that.

[Littleathquakes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iluvjeisa This seems blown totally out of proportion. So Raf digs Galliano's technical skill and artistry but does not feel that this is the way of the future. What is new? Of course he doesn't think so, otherwise he would either be doing it himself... So there are more diplomatic things to say, but so what. I like that he's honest. I mean, I will always consider Galliano as one of the last true artists and he is far better than Raf, obviously, but nonetheless - Raf is in his right to prefer his own designs and his own style to that of his predecessor. And it is frankly his job to wipe Dior completely clean of any trace of Galliano. Which is terribly sad, since those are some of the best collections known to man, but that's how it goes.

I don't think it has anything to do with diplomacy, tact, respect, whatever you want to call it. It's simply presumptuous this early in his new role at Dior to declare anybody, not just Galliano, to be irrelevant when Simons himself has yet to prove himself as relevant. Just because he's designing in the current period of time doesn't make him relevant. I can't point to any of the pieces he's designed for the house and say "oh that's a new Dior piece under Simons' direction" the way I can point to a Galliano piece for the house.

I also don't agree that it's his "job" to wipe any trace of Galliano (aesthetically speaking, I'm not even referring to the scandal) from the house's history. Galliano is part of Dior just as Mr. Dior himself is. You get rid of Galliano, you might as well erase Mr. Dior, too. It makes carrying a house's name completely unnecessary - might as well close down Dior and open up house of Simons if that's the trajectory that should be taken with every newly appointed creative director whose "job" it is to erase his predecessor's work.

[TianSoFine]

I've always thought that there was something empowering about Galliano's work, something fearless like a woman can be anything she wants to be. His clothes represent a fantasy and I think that fantasy will always be relevant. Raf may not like Galliano's aesthetic, but there are also people who don't like Raf's aesthetic and that doesn't make Raf irrelevant. I for one will always appreciate the work of Galliano.

[tboy34]

It's very Unsportsmanlike to dis another designer, to elevate yourself. His collection wasn't all that. It was OK. Galliano is truly a master in the craft. He's been knocked down, but he'll come back fighting. for him to say that Galliano is not relevant is pure bull. He really needs to check himself and get off his high horse.

[tboy34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littleathquakes I don't think it has anything to do with diplomacy, tact, respect, whatever you want to call it. It's simply presumptuous this early in his new role at Dior to declare anybody, not just Galliano, to be irrelevant when Simons himself has yet to prove himself as relevant. Just because he's designing in the current period of time doesn't make him relevant. I can't point to any of the pieces he's designed for the house and say "oh that's a new Dior piece under Simons' direction" the way I can point to a Galliano piece for the house. I also don't agree that it's his "job" to wipe any trace of Galliano (aesthetically speaking, I'm not even referring to the scandal) from the house's history. Galliano is part of Dior just as Mr. Dior himself is. You get rid of Galliano, you might as well erase Mr. Dior, too. It makes carrying a house's name completely unnecessary - might as well close down Dior and open up house of Simons if that's the trajectory that should be taken with every newly appointed creative director whose "job" it is to erase his predecessor's work.

100% Agreed

[iluvjeisa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littleathquakes I don't think it has anything to do with diplomacy, tact, respect, whatever you want to call it. It's simply presumptuous this early in his new role at Dior to declare anybody, not just Galliano, to be irrelevant when Simons himself has yet to prove himself as relevant. Just because he's designing in the current period of time doesn't make him relevant. I can't point to any of the pieces he's designed for the house and say "oh that's a new Dior piece under Simons' direction" the way I can point to a Galliano piece for the house. I also don't agree that it's his "job" to wipe any trace of Galliano (aesthetically speaking, I'm not even referring to the scandal) from the house's history. Galliano is part of Dior just as Mr. Dior himself is. You get rid of Galliano, you might as well erase Mr. Dior, too. It makes carrying a house's name completely unnecessary - might as well close down Dior and open up house of Simons if that's the trajectory that should be taken with every newly appointed creative director whose "job" it is to erase his predecessor's work.

You really don't understand what I was saying.

It is very likely that Raf Simons has been told/directed to wipe every trace of Galliano off the name of Dior. Just as the Dior website has been stripped of the Galliano references and collections. Just like the Galliano line continues to be dragged through the mud season after season. It is simply Mr. Simons' job to continue on that path, like, I am sure, everyone employed at Dior.

I am not saying that this should be his job. I am saying that it de facto is his job.

That said, I don't think it's terribly controversial. Simons obviously prefers his own work to anyone else and he knows that his employers will be pleased at any stab he offers toward Galliano. What can you expect...?

[disco54]

Honestly, I find Raf's Dior incredibly boring and I don't think he should make such a statement, Galliano is a very gifted man, editors have gased Raf's head so much , they make it seem his clothes are the best thing since sliced bread .

[tatouejeremie]

ofcourse galliano's stuff isn't relevant, it shouldn't be, it's old. in my book good fashion is linked to the zeigeist and galliano's work was perfect for that period.

at the same time, is raf simons' work for dior actually relevant for this day and age? like charlie porter mentioned on his blog, the woman he proposes in his collection doesn't exist. i surely don't know them and i don't think i've ever seen them either.

[donyan]

If I didn't know those two Dior Collections were designed by Raf Simons I would have thought it is some new unexperienced Designer with an amazing amount of financial possibilities - nothing in those collections touches on the slightly cold and distant beauty of Raf's best men's collections or his better collections for Jil Sander- those two Dior Collections neither mean anything, nor do they feel relevant. Had they been designed by anybody else for a house with less power, nobody would have said another word about them.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Morphe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iluvjeisa This seems blown totally out of proportion. So Raf digs Galliano's technical skill and artistry but does not feel that this is the way of the future. What is new? Of course he doesn't think so, otherwise he would either be doing it himself... So there are more diplomatic things to say, but so what. I like that he's honest. I mean, I will always consider Galliano as one of the last true artists and he is far better than Raf, obviously, but nonetheless - Raf is in his right to prefer his own designs and his own style to that of his predecessor. And it is frankly his job to wipe Dior completely clean of any trace of Galliano. Which is terribly sad, since those are some of the best collections known to man, but that's how it goes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psylocke Yes, I agree, that's also the part that made me think because that's my interpretation of Simons' statement, too (especially after reading the full Vogue Aus interview - thanks for the link, Flashbang!). I think I understand why one would consider Galliano's romanticized woman and how she's costumed as being somewhat restrictive. I suppose Raf means that his minimalistic designs allow women to express themselves better than one that feels the need to dress up and become a spectacle through the way she's dressed and styled. But I don't think that this means Galliano's woman isn't relevant anymore, even an emancipated, powerful woman can feel the need to dress eccentric. It's just a different aesthetic, a different idea of a woman, but that doesn't mean one is more relevant than the other. I do think this is being blown out of proportion because I do not see Simons as someone that likes to stir up controversy with his interviews. It seems more like he's trying to defend his approach to doing Haute Couture in such a minimalistic way as opposed to Galliano's theatrical and opulent way of presenting Couture.

These two posts pretty much sum up my opinion. Simons is not a controversial, flashy person and was/is never known for "catfights", he was pretty much defending his vision, seeing all these stupid comparisons to Galliano. They're two entirely different people, character and vision-wise.
I dread coming into such threads, they're almost always full of frothy haterade.

The article
http://i50.tinypic.com/9hm0xg.jpg

[Littleathquakes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iluvjeisa You really don't understand what I was saying. It is very likely that Raf Simons has been told/directed to wipe every trace of Galliano off the name of Dior. Just as the Dior website has been stripped of the Galliano references and collections. Just like the Galliano line continues to be dragged through the mud season after season. It is simply Mr. Simons' job to continue on that path, like, I am sure, everyone employed at Dior. I am not saying that this should be his job. I am saying that it de facto is his job. That said, I don't think it's terribly controversial. Simons obviously prefers his own work to anyone else and he knows that his employers will be pleased at any stab he offers toward Galliano. What can you expect...?

There's a difference between saying this is Simons' doing vs it's his employer's (Dior's) doing, so until your last post, I don't think you made that clear. The fact is, in a non-Galliano scenerio, designers taking over the helm simply do not declare the predecessor's work as irrelevant. I still don't agree with you even after I understand what you're saying.

As for preference, of course every designer will prefer his own work over another's. But in terms of your theory on "pleasing" his employer - I don't believe Dior continues to want that kind of attention. They've erased Galliano from the Dior website - but is there a note declaring Galliano to be irrelevant? No, there isn't. And Simons' first collection for the house also does not reference Galliano's work (unlike Gaytten's). The house's strategy is more subtle. They simply don't talk about Galliano; Galliano didn't exist. Simons' comment was more blatant; it is direct contrast with the efforts that the house has shown. So to me, this was Simons' ego talking, not Dior.

[Littleathquakes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morphe These two posts pretty much sum up my opinion. Simons is not a controversial, flashy person and was/is never known for "catfights", he was pretty much defending his vision, seeing all these stupid comparisons to Galliano. They're two entirely different people, character and vision-wise. I dread coming into such threads, they're almost always full of frothy haterade. The article http://i50.tinypic.com/9hm0xg.jpg

I believe Simons didn't aim for controversy. His comments were seemingly taken out of context and blown out of proportion.

That said, you kinda can't go on record saying something like what he said, no matter how innocent, without it being controversial. You can't throw that out there and then play victim. If he didn't want the attention that this is garnering, he shouldn't have said anything. Let the clothes do the talking.

[Doctor Caroline]

Galliano's aesthetic is probably no longer relevant, but his woman certainly is. She's still there excessing in cosmetic products, strutting in criminally high platforms and throwing her attitude around. To reduce Galliano to mere "fantasy" is almost insulting. The woman that he created was very real. That, to me, makes him still relevant.

[iluvjeisa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littleathquakes As for preference, of course every designer will prefer his own work over another's. But in terms of your theory on "pleasing" his employer - I don't believe Dior continues to want that kind of attention. They've erased Galliano from the Dior website - but is there a note declaring Galliano to be irrelevant? No, there isn't. And Simons' first collection for the house also does not reference Galliano's work (unlike Gaytten's). The house's strategy is more subtle. They simply don't talk about Galliano; Galliano didn't exist. Simons' comment was more blatant; it is direct contrast with the efforts that the house has shown. So to me, this was Simons' ego talking, not Dior.

But is there a collection, bearing Galliano's name, where horrendous designs are paraded, season after season?

If there was ever an attempt to make someone irrelevant, it is to hog their name and drag in through the mud. It is very far from subtle.

But I agree with you still. It would probably have been preferable for Dior if Raf had evaded the questions about Galliano.