Whilst the effect of that first 1947 collection may have caused scandal and controversy, this was absolutely not Monsieur Dior's intention and certainly not in the spirit of the Maison. Dior himself was slightly shocked at the effect that his collection had on the press and public, as he saw his vision as a natural regression back to a more delicate and poetic femininity; a demure and timeless kind of fashion.
In fact, Dior was horrified at the shocking, over-the-top, and attention grabbing clothing of the time (ie. Schiaparelli), and discusses at length in his autobiography about how he wanted to move toward "a more classical style". He says, "in 1947, it was time for fashion to forsake adventure and make a temporary return to base". From that first collection onward, he was constantly reworking and refining his silhouettes and ideas, making sure with each collection to avoid provocation and gaudiness. If anything, Dior was a kind of precursor for a certain kind of minimalist fashion, with a rigorous focus on cut and construction rather than ostentation. Galliano on the other hand = ostentatious.
Maria Grazia Chiuri is in that way the closest in spirit to the original Christian Dior; her designs are not avant-garde, or groundbreaking, or attention-grabbing, and that's exactly how it should be at Maison Dior.
I feel like there’s a different between understanding the spirit and going back to the archives. It’s not because you are going back to the archives that you understand the spirit and you can understand the spirit, give your own twist and it will never look like what is in the archives.
Dior is above all the return of a certain type of feminity: La femme fleur, sensuality, seduction, a certain kind of preciousness and of course, frivolity . He brought back a certain idea of conservatism because he brought back all the elements of seduction that women have to get rid of since the 20’s. Fashion in the 40’s was above all a tricky play on practicality and frivolity.
Galliano was the perfect heir mostly because he is at his core all about that (sensuality, frivolity, classicism). You have to look beyond the theatrics. The theatrics are just are part of his personality…The goal when you have a fashion designer is to have a trace of his personality.
We all know that Galliano can do a fabulous suit. He has done various versions of the Bar suit in all it splendor…If we want to be really honest, there’s nothing much of a bar suit in MGC’s jackets…Where’s the padding?
When you understand the spirit, you can do whatever you want after it. Galliano did a Poiret inspired collection for Dior. Except their love for excess and the seductive nature of their fashion, they are totally different on paper.
Someone like Hedi Slimane went heavily in the archives of YSL. Did he understood the spirit? Not really…
Tom Ford never really went to the archives but he understood the spirit.
MGC does a good job at doing clothes that are beautiful and relatable but she does not get Dior…Much like Raf Simons. He did the best bar suit since the Late 90’s one from Galliano but he never got Dior.
When Chanel died, a lot of designers from Ramon Esparza to Philippe Guibourge took over. They all understood Chanel’s style or at least her aesthetic. But only Karl understood the spirit. Who is Chanel? An irreverent, free woman who imposed her style to the world. What is Chanel? The elements that composed that style…
Sometimes it was vulgar, gaudy and ridiculous but it worked because somehow, it was also perfectly incarnated.
Dior wanted the return to sophistication, la Parisienne retrouvée. Is this it? No.
And it’s really a pity because her work at Valentino had all the sophistication that is missing here.
Take Valentino fall 2012 (Couture and RTW), add 5 bar suits (with real padding) and it’s fabulous: you have the best Dior collection.
