Mutterlein said:Dior was never about extravaganza, glamour maybe, but not extravagance. Dior liked his clothes to make a statement but never a scene. He was well aware that his New Look was a bit regressive for the time but he did it out of a respect for women and not disregard. Galliano has revived all the bad aspects of Dior's New Look. He's translated it into sex, theatre, and an ostentatious perspective on the modern women. Dior himself moved on from the New Look and developed clothes utilizing the A line and H line. Galliano has failed to realize that the New Look was just a temporal development in Dior's goal to define natural femininity, establish grace and stature, and complement a woman's figure. In his later career he found other ways to do that with his clothes.
i see what you mean and kind of agree. but dont you see any similarity between the two desperate romanticists? Dior is never about simple clothes which make you feel comfortable in it. It's all about glamour, as you said. Pulling off a dior gown is like a dream, a spectacle. Women are just dying to get one, without considering the fact that they might not move or sit well. This never changed, until...John made Dior what it is today- tacky and trashy.
Due to my poor English, i cannot express myself very clearly, so pls dont get me wrong!