Raf Simons: 'Galliano's work is no longer relevant'
 

Here's the article.
http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-...-relevant.html

What do you guys think? ;)

Its oversimplfying his statement.

But, he caters to a certain market. And there are other houses with designers who cater to Galliano's idea of opulence (even though the one he showed prob is gone forever).

I cant help but like Raf. But he is being a bit narrowminded. Now the market does fit his aesthetics, but he wasnt the most popular designer a couple of years ago. I really really hope this new found celebdom doesnt go up on his head.

Though it may be grossly oversimplified and taken out of context, the fact that he went there - I'd say it's already gone to his head.

The writer ("Bibby Sowray", indeed, you should be) distorted Simons' statement to create a controversy. Cheap shot.

Simons' statement is interesting because it does seem a bit equivocal; he seems to be saying that the "fantasy" element in Galliano's work is what has become irrelevant and restrictive to women (I don't think he is saying that Galliano's technical skills are irrelevant). While this is not dismissive of Galliano entirely, it does seem somewhat presumptuous that Raf is now the arbiter of what is relevant. So I would agree, it seems he is getting a bit big-headed, even if he is not torching Galliano the way the dubious Ms. Sowray is trying to suggest.

I agree with all the commentary. I haven't completely moved on from Galliano's Dior so his implication and definition of relevance is a nuisance. He's only shown two collections for god's sake! Both designers hold a very different interpretation of what defines Dior.

I really liked this comment below the article:

regardless of what anyone says...
the fact remains that galliano is one of the most gifted artists this world has ever seen...
period...

Exactly, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. :innocent:

Who feels that Galliano's "fantasies" are restrictive to women? I think that's really the most interesting part of this.

Here's the whole Raf article from Vogue Australia; http://forums.thefashionspot.com/sho...3&postcount=67

I'm not sure I quite understand what he's hinting at.. Does he mean that the theatricalness of Galliano, painting the woman as different characters, is restrictive as it molds women into a certain form?

I can't say I agree with him then, fantasy (for me) is all about not having any limitations, where the mind can go wherever it wants to go.. So his comment is contradictory as he's stating that the fantasy element of Galliano's work restricts women

Sure Galliano's work was theatrical and it was his fantasies, but he helped maintain the part of fashion that deals with spectacle, where fashion can be whatever it wants to be with no rules or guidelines.. Just like McQueen did.. I find that the opposite of restrictive

I don't think he's that deep. I think he's merely referencing Galliano's heavy reliance on older and original pieces from the Dior archives, especially in some of Galliano's last collections for the house. And that Raf wants to move away from that - hence, his debut collection for the house didn't hint at any Dior past designs. It was all Jil Sander Raf.

heh heh...
and i prefer jil sander to both of these guys put together...

so-
guess what i'll be buying next season...?...right...not dior...
the current definition of relevance...
what sells...
bottom line...
same boring story...

blurgh...:wacko:

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

Uhm... What? You must have confused the names.

Um no.

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.