Christian Dior F/W 11.12 Paris (See Post #1 for thread rules, before posting)

[Harpy]

Forgive me if what I'm about to say sounds cruel.

Galliano is not 'leaving'. He was fired. I can understand couching the blow of being fired for other designers, like OlivierTheyskens from Ricci. But, those scenarios are often in regards to artistic differences or a financial reason. Galliano was not removed for artistic differences. He was not removed because he did not make money for Dior. He was fired because he made insensitive, racist comments.

Under these difficult circumstances the LVMH corporation made the right, proper move. The shifted the focus from the giant sore puss-filled blemish that is Galliano to the seamstresses. It highlights the importance of the workers, the dedication to the craft and most importantly the continuity of house of Dior. You have to understand why the Dior house responded so urgently, particularly on this issue of antisemitism. Christian Dior dressed Nazi wives. The already exists an unsavory smear in the Houses' history. They simply cannot afford to appear even remotely tolerant of this reprehensible behavior.

I also think it is reprehensible that people are criticizing the collection for not being cohesive, or being styled improperly. It is such a childish, naive and ridiculous perspective to take in light of recent events. Fashion is often perceived as a vapid and shallow industry. The lack of widespread condemnation merely supports this charge. The choice of color, the accessories and the makeup are petty and insignificant. This collection should be seen as a write-off.

As for Galliano. I'm glad his career is over. The man was creatively gifted but he spilled it all away. Why should anyone pity him? Is he financially deprived? Is he socially limited? Simply because one has a difficult life is no excuse for holding such hateful and vile views. And shame on those who sympathize him. He's an antisemitic ridiculous man. He deserves exactly what he gets; a living death. He will NEVER design again.

Let his life be a moral for future designers. Stupidity and Racist opinions shall not be tolerated.

 

[chloehandbags]

^ If he had been sober and unprovoked, I might largely agree with you; although, I'd still think the 'living death' comment was utterly uncalled-for.

No one should be beyond forgiveness - otherwise, what incentive is there for them to reform?

However, in that video, at least, he was not sober and unprovoked, he was drunk and very clearly had been proved by the people filming him, who did not sound drunk, themselves.

Why is defence-driven, drunken prejudice (even if it is religion/race based), considered so much worse than unprovoked, sober prejudice (just because it isn't religion/race based)?

 

[m.j.]

As for Galliano. I'm glad his career is over. The man was creatively gifted but he spilled it all away. Why should anyone pity him? Is he financially deprived? Is he socially limited? Simply because one has a difficult life is no excuse for holding such hateful and vile views. And shame on those who sympathize him. He's an antisemitic ridiculous man. He deserves exactly what he gets; a living death. He will NEVER design again.

Let his life be a moral for future designers. Stupidity and Racist opinions shall not be tolerated.

this made me laugh.... what you said doesn't make you sound any better than John did in the video. and who are you to judge people who try to see good in this mess? no one deserves living death, and that makes you more Nazi than anything anyone said in John's defense

 

[neonsprinkles]

^ I agree with m.j.


Fashion is and always will be a spectacle. It stops for no one, even a powerful man like Galliano. But no need to continually condemn Galliano over and over, by now I'm sure Galliano feels the pain for what he has caused and rubbing it in his face, parading it online or condemning Dior doesn't make it any better or worse.

Ultimately, it's a personal issue between Galliano, the other parties involved, Dior, the buyers/investors and the identity of fashion- we are spectators.

I'll agree that it was not Dior's best collection- but given the circumstances, it was a fair goodbye collection. Which will be long forgotten in future seasons to come. Let's forget this mess (let Galliano heal on his on terms whether he chooses to continue to design or not, Dior will carve out it's new future, fashion will retain it's identity, spring will come, etc) move on and enjoy the show. I think by now, most of us are curious as to who will be the new creative director at Dior....

 

[christian zh]

Christian Dior Fall/Winter 2011: Preview (2) - Outside + Front Row + Collection

 

[radolgc]

love the colors and everything about this collection, i see no reason why everybody should say such bad things about it...it just does not look like a Dior collection, to me it looks like a Galliano show...the same style, the same models, the same hair and makeup...which is not supposed to sound banal and boring, but rather as something beautiful and exciting I am looking forward to see every season! And I am glad some things are over...after all the repetitevness of fashion makes it so boring, some things should stay in time and never be repeated!

 

[MinonMinette]

the styling is a real mess.. there are plenty of nice pieces but the styling ruins everything.

Agreed.

 

[agee]

Stupidity and Racist opinions shall not be tolerated.

What I am finding bothersome is that the strong outrage and quickfire personal condemnations of John Galliano and the related advocacy against anti-Semitism and racism from Sydney Toledano and Natalie Portman to anonymous internet posters, are starting to come off as cheap. It is easy (and cheap) to condemn a man who was recorded drunkenly making outrageous statements to a couple of silly women but it is more difficult to refuse a position as an executive at a design house founded by a man who dressed the wives of Nazis, try to make it as a mainstream actress with the surname Hershlag or conspicuously consume luxury goods from a maison founded by a Nazi collaborator.

I also think it is reprehensible that people are criticizing the collection for not being cohesive, or being styled improperly. It is such a childish, naive and ridiculous perspective to take in light of recent events.

This thread is about the collection so that is why it is being discussed. This should not be a have your cake and eat it too matter, Dior debuted the collection and therefore it is fair game for fashion critics ( professional and internet) to opine about it.

 

[MinonMinette]

I definitely like this collection.
To me, it feels more like it was inspired by the Regency period (empire cut dresses) backwards to the XVIII century (trousers knee-length), etc. And somehow it worked out with the hats and the amazing beautiful TDF boots/shoes.
I'm not a fan of the fur bits, but overall, I like it a lot

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Forgive me if what I'm about to say sounds cruel.

Galliano is not 'leaving'. He was fired. I can understand couching the blow of being fired for other designers, like OlivierTheyskens from Ricci. But, those scenarios are often in regards to artistic differences or a financial reason. Galliano was not removed for artistic differences. He was not removed because he did not make money for Dior. He was fired because he made insensitive, racist comments.

Under these difficult circumstances the LVMH corporation made the right, proper move. The shifted the focus from the giant sore puss-filled blemish that is Galliano to the seamstresses. It highlights the importance of the workers, the dedication to the craft and most importantly the continuity of house of Dior. You have to understand why the Dior house responded so urgently, particularly on this issue of antisemitism. Christian Dior dressed Nazi wives. The already exists an unsavory smear in the Houses' history. They simply cannot afford to appear even remotely tolerant of this reprehensible behavior.

beyond wrong!

First of all, Dior's house wasn't open until 1947, perhaps you mean that he worked for Lucien Lelong and Piguet during the war? Actually Lelong, as president of the Chambre Syndicale during the occupation actively fought the Nazi influence in French fashion, fighting them when the Nazi's wanted to move all of Paris' Haute Couture operations to Berlin.

Second of all, LVMH had been planning to dismiss Galliano for a long while, this incident was merely fuel for the fire.

Third, the styling is HORRENDOUS, but the clothes are even worse.

 

[chloehandbags]

I definitely like this collection.
To me, it feels more like it was inspired by the Regency period (empire cut dresses) backwards to the XVIII century (trousers knee-length), etc. And somehow it worked out with the hats and the amazing beautiful TDF boots/shoes.
I'm not a fan of the fur bits, but overall, I like it a lot

I agree.

 

[prosperk]

what a beautiful and touching speech by sidney!

Sydney Toledano is a very nice man and this cannot have easy for him. He has to uphold house policy. It is a shame that his speech contained a number of historical errors, given that the claims by management that John Galliano was sacked partly in order to preserve Maison Dior's legacy and heritage.

PK

 

[prosperk]

beyond wrong!

First of all, Dior's house wasn't open until 1947, perhaps you mean that he worked for Lucien Lelong and Piguet during the war? Actually Lelong, as president of the Chambre Syndicale during the occupation actively fought the Nazi influence in French fashion, fighting them when the Nazi's wanted to move all of Paris' Haute Couture operations to Berlin.

Lelong certainly defended Parisian Couture from the Nazis. He was an extraordinary and very courageous man. However, CD worked for Piguet before the war, until he was mobilised in 1939. After demobilisation, he spent some time in the south of France before moving back to Paris to apply for a job at Piguet. The job went to someone else so Lelong gave CD a job at Balmain. CD's house actually opened in December 1946.

I went into it in a little more detail here: http://forums.thefashionspot.com/showpost.php?p=8827319&postcount=729

 

[ultramarine]

Under these difficult circumstances the LVMH corporation made the right, proper move. The shifted the focus from the giant sore puss-filled blemish that is Galliano to the seamstresses. It highlights the importance of the workers, the dedication to the craft and most importantly the continuity of house of Dior. You have to understand why the Dior house responded so urgently, particularly on this issue of antisemitism. Christian Dior dressed Nazi wives. The already exists an unsavory smear in the Houses' history. They simply cannot afford to appear even remotely tolerant of this reprehensible behavior.

I also think it is reprehensible that people are criticizing the collection for not being cohesive, or being styled improperly. It is such a childish, naive and ridiculous perspective to take in light of recent events. Fashion is often perceived as a vapid and shallow industry. The lack of widespread condemnation merely supports this charge. The choice of color, the accessories and the makeup are petty and insignificant. This collection should be seen as a write-off.

As for Galliano. I'm glad his career is over. The man was creatively gifted but he spilled it all away. Why should anyone pity him? Is he financially deprived? Is he socially limited? Simply because one has a difficult life is no excuse for holding such hateful and vile views. And shame on those who sympathize him. He's an antisemitic ridiculous man. He deserves exactly what he gets; a living death. He will NEVER design again.

Let his life be a moral for future designers. Stupidity and Racist opinions shall not be tolerated.

Harpy, you stand corrected, what you say definitively sounds cruel.

Who are we to judge other people and even worst go all the way down to their level and just "eye for and eye" them.

Is is that difficult nowadays to take the higher road and be the better person? Instead of crucifing a designer dont you all find this as an alarming cry for help?

And Im the only one who finds it deeply offensive that they only (even Sidney) referred ONLY to the anti-semitic comments (when there were racist comments as well). It all comes as very hipocritical from Dior ... as well as throwing the seaming team seems like a cheap tactic to play the victim (and play the victim? best approach they couldve taken for a multi million euro corporation? REALLY?)

And only time will tell whether he will design again or not .. the fashion world (apparently opposite the real world) seems a bit more tolerant towards people and generally is able to forgive (forget, maybe not .. but forgive, yeah).

 

[~*BabyPhat Princess*~]

The boots are hot

 

[KKnardi]

Sydney Toledano is a very nice man and this cannot have easy for him. He has to uphold house policy. It is a shame that his speech contained a number of historical errors, given that the claims by management that John Galliano was sacked partly in order to preserve Maison Dior's legacy and heritage.

PK

Despite the fact that he didn't go in to detail explaining this horrible scandal, which I consider a sign of decency by him, I'm amazed by the fact that he drew such a strong tie to the actual "labour force" of dior, that there are actually people working - for real - at dior, who made Galliano's vision come true throughout these years.

"The heart of the House of Dior, which beats unseen, is made up of its teams and studios, of its seamstresses and craftsmen, who work hard day after day, never counting the hours, and carrying on the values..."

 

[chloehandbags]

Harpy, you stand corrected, what you say definitively sounds cruel.

Who are we to judge other people and even worst go all the way down to their level and just "eye for and eye" them.

Is is that difficult nowadays to take the higher road and be the better person? Instead of crucifing a designer dont you all find this as an alarming cry for help?

And Im the only one who finds it deeply offensive that they only (even Sidney) referred ONLY to the anti-semitic comments (when there were racist comments as well). It all comes as very hipocritical from Dior ... as well as throwing the seaming team seems like a cheap tactic to play the victim (and play the victim? best approach they couldve taken for a multi million euro corporation? REALLY?)

And only time will tell whether he will design again or not .. the fashion world (apparently opposite the real world) seems a bit more tolerant towards people and generally is able to forgive (forget, maybe not .. but forgive, yeah).

Well said.

'Judge not, lest ye be judged.' and 'Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.'.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Lelong certainly defended Parisian Couture from the Nazis. He was an extraordinary and very courageous man. However, CD worked for Piguet before the war, until he was mobilised in 1939. After demobilisation, he spent some time in the south of France before moving back to Paris to apply for a job at Piguet. The job went to someone else so Lelong gave CD a job at Balmain. CD's house actually opened in December 1946.

I went into it in a little more detail here: http://forums.thefashionspot.com/showpost.php?p=8827319&postcount=729

Ahh thanks for the accuracy. I knew he had worked for Piguet but wasn't sure when and I know the New Look from 1947, but my point remains, Dior never made clothes for Nazi wives. Not under his own house, and any more than anyone else in Paris at the time.

 

[Harpy]

I stand by the intent of my argument.

Being drunk is no excuse for uttering hateful speech. Just as committing murder while intoxicated is still considered manslaughter. But the comparison isn't apt because hateful speech has intent. You don't walk around with antisemitic vitriol 'accidentally' spewing from your mouth. His depression, his alcoholism is not a justification for his behavior. It explains what he did, but it does not and it should not be a token for sympathy. Racists are among the most vile people on earth. To unequivocally hate a person because of their ethnic-religious background is ugly. I cannot understand how some people have the moral courage to say 'oh what a poor, unfortunate man'. He did not say that A-line skirts are hideous. He did not say that purple is an overrated color. He said he admired Hitler and proceeded to make hateful racist comments. Perhaps some people have forgotten what Hitler did. I'd recommend grabbing a history book, going to a holocaust museum or even renting a WWII movie to understand a sliver of the pain felt by the Jewish community. Please, please explain to me how his behavior can be justified?

And also, "who are we to judge?". We are members of polite society. When someone has the audacity (in the 21st century) to utter hateful speech, we have the moral obligation to criticize them. We have the democratic duty to condemn them and their reprehensible behavior.

Additionally, just so people understand by "living death" I did not mean that Galliano should be killed or anything barbaric like that. I (using creative expression) merely meant that he will, and should never have the capacity, to design again. Since creative expression is the raison d'etre of a desginer and he would not have the capacity, he'd be a living corpse. A shadow of the man he formerly was. I hope people did not misunderstand that portion of my argument.

<quote> First of all, Dior's house wasn't open until 1947, perhaps you mean that he worked for Lucien Lelong and Piguet during the war? Actually Lelong, as president of the Chambre Syndicale during the occupation actively fought the Nazi influence in French fashion, fighting them when the Nazi's wanted to move all of Paris' Haute Couture operations to Berlin.</quote>

Mutterlein, Christian Dior held a show on July 14th, 1940 which was attended by Sussanne Abetz, the wife of the German ambassador to occupied France. She was accompanied by many Nazis. Personally, I don't blame Dior for making garments for the Nazis. It was either that or effectively suffer the fate of Madame Gres. Nonetheless, many of the members of the resistance still viewed Dior with suspicion. The charge of collaborator was levied against him. My point was the house probably has to be very conscious of this historical problem. I mean he's no Coco Chanel but it's still a potential PR problem.
​

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I stand by the intent of my argument.

Being drunk is no excuse for uttering hateful speech. Just as committing murder while intoxicated is still considered manslaughter. But the comparison isn't apt because hateful speech has intent. You don't walk around with antisemitic vitriol 'accidentally' spewing from your mouth. His depression, his alcoholism is not a justification for his behavior. It explains what he did, but it does not and it should not be a token for sympathy. Racists are among the most vile people on earth. To unequivocally hate a person because of their ethnic-religious background is ugly. I cannot understand how some people have the moral courage to say 'oh what a poor, unfortunate man'. He did not say that A-line skirts are hideous. He did not say that purple is an overrated color. He said he admired Hitler and proceeded to make hateful racist comments. Perhaps some people have forgotten what Hitler did. I'd recommend grabbing a history book, going to a holocaust museum or even renting a WWII movie to understand a sliver of the pain felt by the Jewish community. Please, please explain to me how his behavior can be justified?

And also, "who are we to judge?". We are members of polite society. When someone has the audacity (in the 21st century) to utter hateful speech, we have the moral obligation to criticize them. We have the democratic duty to condemn them and their reprehensible behavior.

Additionally, just so people understand by "living death" I did not mean that Galliano should be killed or anything barbaric like that. I (using creative expression) merely meant that he will, and should never have the capacity, to design again. Since creative expression is the raison d'etre of a desginer and he would not have the capacity, he'd be a living corpse. A shadow of the man he formerly was. I hope people did not misunderstand that portion of my argument.

<quote> First of all, Dior's house wasn't open until 1947, perhaps you mean that he worked for Lucien Lelong and Piguet during the war? Actually Lelong, as president of the Chambre Syndicale during the occupation actively fought the Nazi influence in French fashion, fighting them when the Nazi's wanted to move all of Paris' Haute Couture operations to Berlin.</quote>

Mutterlein, Christian Dior held a show on July 14th, 1940 which was attended by Sussanne Abetz, the wife of the German ambassador to occupied France. She was accompanied by many Nazis. Personally, I don't blame Dior for making garments for the Nazis. It was either that or effectively suffer the fate of Madame Gres. Nonetheless, many of the members of the resistance still viewed Dior with suspicion. The charge of collaborator was levied against him. My point was the house probably has to be very conscious of this historical problem. I mean he's no Coco Chanel but it's still a potential PR problem.
​

Well, Prosperk illustrates the situation better then I can in the link he posted. But I can understand that Dior would not want this history being drawn up even if it seems that they have more pressing concerns then an obscure tidbit of their history. But I actually think the real reason they acted so swiftly is because they probably a) knew this was not the first time something like this happened and knew exactly what the situation was and b) were wary after when Jean-Paul Guerlain had a racist rant of his own.

And I agree about not excusing Galliano's words. I do not think the man is either racist or ant-semitic, I DO think he has extreme ill will and bad choice of theatrics and it was, sadly, inexcusable. Of course Dior made the right decision. He will have to face up to the consequences of his actions like every other person in this world.