I've been following this thread since it started and only in the last few days I may have lost track of what has been mentioned so I hope not just to repeat things that have already been mentioned.
Before I posted, I wanted to take a look at some of the most recent pictures I have from the Dior collections. All the seasons lined up (not to miss any show
how it was, how it is, and how could it be in the future.
To me "the borehouse" phenomena dates as far back as fall 2007 ready to wear. A very couture collection for a rtw, even too much if you ask me. Maybe we wouldnt have said it was boring then, because it was something new for John, but it is after that particular collection that everything Dior has delivered could be summarized in either 'sheer fabrics in powder/make up colours' or 'blocky monochrome two pieces ensembles'. All of it with the usual seasoning of high high high heels, crazy make up... and, of course, 'cannage'... an overdose of it (on belts, jackets, cell phones, bags, shoes...)
Now who would have thought an innocent geometrical pattern could ever become just as tacky as the rasta monogram?
One of the things that bother me most about the whole evolution of the brand in the last few years is this monochromatic look I just mentioned. Before 2007, we had seen John do the most delightful combinations of colours... he was no Lacroix, it is true, but he always had this great sense of colour, constructing beautiful palettes, combining it all in one outfit...
This sensibility however seems to be lost since spring couture 2007! the very last of his grandeur!
One could only say cruise 2008 and 2009 dont fall into that pattern, but the result was so poor, maybe it'd be best if they never happened.
I wouldn't take Chanel Iman on pink and orange for the fall 2008 show as an exception either
...poor girl
If the Dior "crisis" (uh, this C word...) started in fall rtw 2007, then it would be safe to say the period of transition would be the whole 2007 year. The first symptom to me would be the disappearance of the trademark rock&roll attitude from the previous seasons.
Spring couture 2007 was beautiful, yes. Beyond beautiful in construction, in rich colour, the origami, the beautiful set, the amazing make up... but there was an undeniable lack of mixed references. After all, it seemed to many that the idea behind it was Madame Butterfly and little more.
If John was good at something, the best maybe, was at taking Edie Sedwick and Russia and Josephine and Beyonce and Egypt and Asia and s&m, putting them all together and getting out the most amazing results. All of them mixed into one dreamy presentation.
Now when he does 'safari chic', it's bland like last summer. When he references great masters like Vermeer he makes it look endimanché
. If it's Klimt, it's only him... and that's what's worse: it seems like he only dares doing them one by one.
I can't help missing the days when the vibe at the house really was Rock. Of course soft and commercial rock&roll... I don't think any of us would ever have high expectations of anything that isn't mainstream at Dior. But still the attitude is what mattered. Fall couture 2006 comes to mind and even then, who would've complained of those gorgeous monochrome suits. There was a particular passage with one in green, then blue, then fuchsia, soft pink... very much the same idea of fall 2007, but perfectly executed! Just with the right balance between fantasy and reality.
Looking back at couture fall 2005, an homage collection but a celebration of Galliano's talent at the same time; or spring rtw 2006 with the young daring attitude, the nudity and then splashes of colours, and of course the Gauchos; the resort in 2007, minimal but young and vital... it looked good every time, fresh every time!
Even spring 2007, rtw, even such an exercise of constrained emotion just seemed right! even if it was the start of the powdered colours, it was a radical change! that is what Galliano had always been about...
He just seems stuck in this phase, this Lady Dior bags + grey wool pencil skirts phase... it's just getting ridiculous.
Where's the madness!? psychedelic colours, big volumes, matrix, the rasta and the golf, powerful and sexy attitudes... sometimes right, others wrong, but never EVER conformist. It's as if he had found his definitive answer to the ever changing question that is fashion (for Dior, that is of course).
A lot has been mentioned about who is to blame. Toledano, Arnault, Robinson... but I'm not sure we should really point at one of them.
The power-enhancing article that was posted here on Arnault is a bit confusing or even malicious.
If you interpret it as him taking control over the creative side of the company I would understand the concerns.
However, what the article actually portrays him doing is just analysing what eventually gets to his stores. What any other buyer would do. A mere post-creative process sieve.
When you look at it that way; If you see his interference as a way of making sure the label doesn't get to the point where it was during the "J'adore Dior" t-shirts years, I don't think there's that much to complain about.
On a recent visit to Paris, I had the opportunity to go back to the Avenue Montaigne flagship. I hadn't been there in about two years and I wanted to see the much talked about changes that had been done to the store about a year ago, and most importantly what the mood at the true heart of the house was.
I must say I was very, very pleased.
I remember what it was like going there in the all-over logo days, I have all the current collections in mind, but when I go inside, and after I pass a room packed with 'cannaged' bags and the screening of recent collections and bland advertisements, I don't really get the feeling of being in the money making epicentre of a big corporate group.
The sensation is more like an old Hollywood meets globetrotting jet setter dressing room. Underline dressing room. Everything beautifully displayed, the quietness... Gorgeous furs that I wish we saw down the catwalk in pure and natural hues, not just orange and green. There's ravishing cocktail dresses and blouses and more... The ambience is absolutely seductive, not in the rock&roll way I said I miss from the past, but in a new one! And who doens't like new?
Maybe this is what should be in the shows! Maybe a little darker? More in-house presentations should be done like in the last couture show (sauf the tacky flowers
) perhaps. The allure one gets from the boutique answers my questions of how Dior manages to stay relevant and satisfying his clients. Does that mean Arnault should interfere more? If it does, I'm not complaining.
It's just puzzling that the stores have this totally different mood from what the shows or the advertisement deliver!
Now that the days of the grand magasin ambience are gone, why not take advantage of that?
Galliano still has a lot of potential to seduce. But there is no way to seduce going big and bold. Seduction implies intimacy, seeing things up close, speaking directly to the audience, not from far above, not from a mirrored-runway throne with the bodyguards and all.
Like in any other field of arts (or applied arts) artists must keep two main groups of people happy: the clients and the white collars of course as a whole, but also a large audience of critics, and people of related businesses like magazines, suppliers, and also fans! ... stakeholders. This obviously applies to fashion just as it does to graphic arts, and architecture, and performing arts... and whoever says only the potential clients matter is ignoring a part of this industries that holds huge power and responsibilities.
If through Arnault's 'selection', the house can keep the clients happy and the profit increasing in double digits, it is Galliano's job to keep the rest (of us) entertained!
Not easy to satisfy, I think it's only natural that we demand some change from time to time. Change we need, and change they aim.
Before I posted, I wanted to take a look at some of the most recent pictures I have from the Dior collections. All the seasons lined up (not to miss any show
how it was, how it is, and how could it be in the future.To me "the borehouse" phenomena dates as far back as fall 2007 ready to wear. A very couture collection for a rtw, even too much if you ask me. Maybe we wouldnt have said it was boring then, because it was something new for John, but it is after that particular collection that everything Dior has delivered could be summarized in either 'sheer fabrics in powder/make up colours' or 'blocky monochrome two pieces ensembles'. All of it with the usual seasoning of high high high heels, crazy make up... and, of course, 'cannage'... an overdose of it (on belts, jackets, cell phones, bags, shoes...)
Now who would have thought an innocent geometrical pattern could ever become just as tacky as the rasta monogram?
One of the things that bother me most about the whole evolution of the brand in the last few years is this monochromatic look I just mentioned. Before 2007, we had seen John do the most delightful combinations of colours... he was no Lacroix, it is true, but he always had this great sense of colour, constructing beautiful palettes, combining it all in one outfit...
This sensibility however seems to be lost since spring couture 2007! the very last of his grandeur!
One could only say cruise 2008 and 2009 dont fall into that pattern, but the result was so poor, maybe it'd be best if they never happened.
I wouldn't take Chanel Iman on pink and orange for the fall 2008 show as an exception either
...poor girl If the Dior "crisis" (uh, this C word...) started in fall rtw 2007, then it would be safe to say the period of transition would be the whole 2007 year. The first symptom to me would be the disappearance of the trademark rock&roll attitude from the previous seasons.
Spring couture 2007 was beautiful, yes. Beyond beautiful in construction, in rich colour, the origami, the beautiful set, the amazing make up... but there was an undeniable lack of mixed references. After all, it seemed to many that the idea behind it was Madame Butterfly and little more.
If John was good at something, the best maybe, was at taking Edie Sedwick and Russia and Josephine and Beyonce and Egypt and Asia and s&m, putting them all together and getting out the most amazing results. All of them mixed into one dreamy presentation.
Now when he does 'safari chic', it's bland like last summer. When he references great masters like Vermeer he makes it look endimanché
. If it's Klimt, it's only him... and that's what's worse: it seems like he only dares doing them one by one. I can't help missing the days when the vibe at the house really was Rock. Of course soft and commercial rock&roll... I don't think any of us would ever have high expectations of anything that isn't mainstream at Dior. But still the attitude is what mattered. Fall couture 2006 comes to mind and even then, who would've complained of those gorgeous monochrome suits. There was a particular passage with one in green, then blue, then fuchsia, soft pink... very much the same idea of fall 2007, but perfectly executed! Just with the right balance between fantasy and reality.
Looking back at couture fall 2005, an homage collection but a celebration of Galliano's talent at the same time; or spring rtw 2006 with the young daring attitude, the nudity and then splashes of colours, and of course the Gauchos; the resort in 2007, minimal but young and vital... it looked good every time, fresh every time!
Even spring 2007, rtw, even such an exercise of constrained emotion just seemed right! even if it was the start of the powdered colours, it was a radical change! that is what Galliano had always been about...
He just seems stuck in this phase, this Lady Dior bags + grey wool pencil skirts phase... it's just getting ridiculous.
Where's the madness!? psychedelic colours, big volumes, matrix, the rasta and the golf, powerful and sexy attitudes... sometimes right, others wrong, but never EVER conformist. It's as if he had found his definitive answer to the ever changing question that is fashion (for Dior, that is of course).
A lot has been mentioned about who is to blame. Toledano, Arnault, Robinson... but I'm not sure we should really point at one of them.
The power-enhancing article that was posted here on Arnault is a bit confusing or even malicious.
If you interpret it as him taking control over the creative side of the company I would understand the concerns.
However, what the article actually portrays him doing is just analysing what eventually gets to his stores. What any other buyer would do. A mere post-creative process sieve.
When you look at it that way; If you see his interference as a way of making sure the label doesn't get to the point where it was during the "J'adore Dior" t-shirts years, I don't think there's that much to complain about.
On a recent visit to Paris, I had the opportunity to go back to the Avenue Montaigne flagship. I hadn't been there in about two years and I wanted to see the much talked about changes that had been done to the store about a year ago, and most importantly what the mood at the true heart of the house was.
I must say I was very, very pleased.
I remember what it was like going there in the all-over logo days, I have all the current collections in mind, but when I go inside, and after I pass a room packed with 'cannaged' bags and the screening of recent collections and bland advertisements, I don't really get the feeling of being in the money making epicentre of a big corporate group.
The sensation is more like an old Hollywood meets globetrotting jet setter dressing room. Underline dressing room. Everything beautifully displayed, the quietness... Gorgeous furs that I wish we saw down the catwalk in pure and natural hues, not just orange and green. There's ravishing cocktail dresses and blouses and more... The ambience is absolutely seductive, not in the rock&roll way I said I miss from the past, but in a new one! And who doens't like new?
Maybe this is what should be in the shows! Maybe a little darker? More in-house presentations should be done like in the last couture show (sauf the tacky flowers
) perhaps. The allure one gets from the boutique answers my questions of how Dior manages to stay relevant and satisfying his clients. Does that mean Arnault should interfere more? If it does, I'm not complaining.It's just puzzling that the stores have this totally different mood from what the shows or the advertisement deliver!
Now that the days of the grand magasin ambience are gone, why not take advantage of that?
Galliano still has a lot of potential to seduce. But there is no way to seduce going big and bold. Seduction implies intimacy, seeing things up close, speaking directly to the audience, not from far above, not from a mirrored-runway throne with the bodyguards and all.
Like in any other field of arts (or applied arts) artists must keep two main groups of people happy: the clients and the white collars of course as a whole, but also a large audience of critics, and people of related businesses like magazines, suppliers, and also fans! ... stakeholders. This obviously applies to fashion just as it does to graphic arts, and architecture, and performing arts... and whoever says only the potential clients matter is ignoring a part of this industries that holds huge power and responsibilities.
If through Arnault's 'selection', the house can keep the clients happy and the profit increasing in double digits, it is Galliano's job to keep the rest (of us) entertained!
Not easy to satisfy, I think it's only natural that we demand some change from time to time. Change we need, and change they aim.
Also, he should shock us by wearing normal clothes and not in costume when he takes his bow.
...but think also how much more successful YSL Beaute is compared to Dior, there's a classic elegance associated with YSL and I can only think of a sexy "Gisele" doing an exaggerated "S" with big hair and sunglasses when I think about Dior. Even in the ads you can tell YSL is a haughty beauty but Dior is like the French Versace. And when I was little, Dior always meant a kind of chic elegance to me, my mom associated it with the Catherine Deneuve, Jacqueline Kennedy type of iconic beauty, and I always wanted a bottle of the Diorissimo growing up. Look at the old Dior ads, they are so feminine, abstract, modern, yet classic.
