John Galliano - Designer

[avonlea002]

One of the biggest losses for young talents is the death of fashion magazines. Yes, there is instagram now but it's just uncomparable. A very important part of system disappeared along with many great people who could help.

 

[susseinmcswanny]

I don't wanna derail this further but that is a really good point actually. The idea of a magazine indicates that there is a community of people on the other side with a common interest who will want to read and seek inspiration from one. There are rigorous parameters and refinement that go into curating and creating a good magazine. It's kind of harder to focus inspiration on the open water of instagram. Algorithms exist but... meh. I really do commend people for trying to make their own smaller community based magazines.

 

[ayao]

People also seem to forget the major advantages large magazines had in the past. Any small publication won’t have access to runway pieces, coverage of physical shows, and output consistency. It’s pretty sad we’re now just regulated to LVMH approved reviews and official editorial photoshoots. Very strange how fashion is so much bigger now, yet feels smaller than the 90s

 

[Frederic01]

Let's not forget that Galliano was only able to "disrupt" on a grand scale due to the money of LVMH. He struggled for years in terms of finances, and that was even with industry support and recognition.

It was Andre Leon Talley and then Anna Wintour who put him on the right course, and that was because they connected him with the right people aka society ladies and Bernard Arnault.

Also, I'm in agreement with @gallianostan , there is nothing to disrupt anymore. We have literally seen it all. Even the grand talents like Ghesquiere, Philo, etc etc are recycling old ideas from their respective repertoires. I couldn't even name you one designer who is truly original and inventive these days. Even more challenging is to name a designer who has made an impact on the way that people dress in recent times. The last ones I can think of who truly affected change were Alessandro Michele and possibly Demna (at the beginning of his Balenciaga tenure).

 

[gallianostan]

Roseberry is for better or worse a leading name in fashion and Couture today.

We may like it or not but Roseberry is one of those names that count today.

count for what, though? can you list any changes to the industry that he's effected? how has he transformed the way women dress? you're always spot-on but in this instance i just refuse to believe that daniel roseberry is relevant and changing fashion in any way.

 

[donyan]

count for what, though? can you list any changes to the industry that he's effected? how has he transformed the way women dress? you're always spot-on but in this instance i just refuse to believe that daniel roseberry is relevant and changing fashion in any way.

I guess it’s in the way that Schiaparelli is one of the shows that everyone looks at as soon as it’s out, and that’s commented on endlessly. There’s a buzz about his collections that was absent at all the former Schiaparelli DA’s.

 

[gallianostan]

I guess it’s in the way that Schiaparelli is one of the shows that everyone looks at as soon as it’s out, and that’s commented on endlessly. There’s a buzz about his collections that was absent at all the former Schiaparelli DA’s.

if that's the metric that we're using then john's relevance eclipses daniel's tenfold. social media raves don't reflect the industry at large, and daniel has had precisely impact outside social media. schiaparelli reports operating losses, so it's basically impossible for him to be relevant or causing change.

 

[tourbillions]

i do think they are "investing" on new talent, the problem is that the talent isn't really there so far. Ancora guy, Givenchy guy, chanel girl, mcqueen boy, the latest collections of demna, even lee at burberry. All are failing to disrupt fashion at this time. All are quite "new" as well.

Luckily we have chloe, ferragamo, missoni, tods, ami, and possibly moschino who are bringing newneess in fashion. Unfortunately they don't have the marketing budget or the brand hype needed to "disrupt" fashion. But they are all quietly bringing freshness.

 

[blueorchid]

chanel girl

Virginie is a mess, but let's not group her in with the rest of them...

 

[Lola701]

count for what, though? can you list any changes to the industry that he's effected? how has he transformed the way women dress? you're always spot-on but in this instance i just refuse to believe that daniel roseberry is relevant and changing fashion in any way.

I mean I was in the Cote D’Azur last week and I was surprised to see quite some Schiaparelli in parties and for the least wealthy, when it wasn’t a skintight rushed dress, it was Schiaparelli-esque looks.

Yeah, it’s a microcosm but as I have said, it shows that it’s having a moment. I see a lot of surrealism chunky gold jewelry over velvet black dresses sometimes that I want to ask some women if it’s all they have lol.

if that's the metric that we're using then john's relevance eclipses daniel's tenfold. social media raves don't reflect the industry at large, and daniel has had precisely impact outside social media. schiaparelli reports operating losses, so it's basically impossible for him to be relevant or causing change.

The operating loss don’t mean anything. We are talking about a Couture operation. They started RTW seriously 1 years ago.
You may not like Daniel Roseberry but we have to be intellectually honest.

Schiaparelli first ever collection by Lacroix was just produced for publicity. Nothing was sold. I don’t think people even wore it on the Redcarpet.
For 4 years they were doing Couture only which means, loosing money De Facto. They introduced RTW 5 years ago but without any distribution (only available through their showroom so basically only VIP and Couture clients) and they only started to really invest in RTW and real distribution last year…

And if we uses your logic, after the 1994 collection, in the microcosm of fashion and ladies of the society, they started to wear John Galliano or at least, to wear biais cut slip dresses as eveningwear….And John Galliano has never been profitable. And women were influenced by his aesthetic before his commercial for Dior that started really in 1998/1999. Dior became mainstream only after the SS2000 RTW show.

 

[CholoChic]

it is like the corse is back thanks to Galliano new line

 

[gallianostan]

And if we uses your logic, after the 1994 collection, in the microcosm of fashion and ladies of the society, they started to wear John Galliano or at least, to wear biais cut slip dresses as eveningwear….And John Galliano has never been profitable. And women were influenced by his aesthetic before his commercial for Dior that started really in 1998/1999. Dior became mainstream only after the SS2000 RTW show.

the difference is that the slip dress caught on and by the end of the decade every woman was wearing one lmao. who has roseberry influenced? what is his legacy? he doesn't have one.

 

[Lola701]

the difference is that the slip dress caught on and by the end of the decade every woman was wearing one lmao. who has roseberry influenced? what is his legacy? he doesn't have one.

Clearly we are having a deaf conversation…

You have 30 years of hindsight to analyse what may have been as a micro-phenomenon in the 90s considering that at the time, the dominant aesthetic was the opposite of what John did. So yes, what he did in 1994 catch up later because it felt more relevant to the desire of woman in a post-grunge era and with a desire of a certain simplicity imprimantes by minimalism.

So why do you expect the mass to catch up on something that the elite is starting to embrace?

It’s like the Balmain Mania. Balmain under Christophe Decarnin started to resonate with the mass in late 2009/2010 when the rich kids and fashion crowd started to embrace it by Decarnin’s second collection.
By the time the Balmain look started to feel satured (fall 2010), the fashion crowd and elite was already embracing Phoebe Philo’s minimalism.

Why are we talking about or even expecting legacy from someone who only had his breakthrough collection 3 years ago.

I’m not the biggest fan of his work so I hate to feel like I’m defending him but I feel like some balance needs to be had.

And you don’t even need to influence the street to left a mark on fashion. Lee’s work has never resonated with the street. He was a fashion industry and an elite darling but never had the kind of mass success à la John. But he had the legendary career he had.

 

[gallianostan]

well i disagree lol... anywayyy here's a treat for you all which proves john is more relevant than daniel will ever be xx

 

[Grets]

 

[Lola701]

well i disagree lol... anywayyy here's a treat for you all which proves john is more relevant than daniel will ever be xx

We need both. We the need the dream and the reality…

Watching this collection again made me realize how it was sometimes a pity that John’s shows were so theatrical because while so engaging and entertaining, you can almost forget how to die for those clothes were. I think that’s what happened with the FW98 Couture (which was totally great too)!

And this is the testament of his impact at Dior. I often talk about the spirit of the house. He got it. This collection is absolutely Dior without being obviously Dior. A lot of Poiret and Vionnet…La Belle époque and everything that was before Christian Dior as an aesthetic but that contributed to the aesthetic.

And for me that’s where the marriage between a designer and a brand is interesting: when they are so wrong that becomes so right.

 

[blueorchid]

I just finished watching High & Low, which I kind of avoided I think... I've always had mixed feelings about Galliano. I grew up with his Dior collections, those dreams were sold and bought by me, too. I think as an actual documentary it was pretty good.

I wish the filmmaker was a bit tougher with his questions, but being a documentarian is a fine line. It's hard to push without scaring a subject like John Galliano. The way his redemption roadshow is shown is so cold and calculated. Do I think he did something unforgivable? Not really, no. Do I think his punishment was fit for the crime? Not really, no. Of course Naomi Campbell hasn't watched the video, lol... and is Naomi thinking you're a great person really something proud? Letting people we view as "geniuses" (in all different fields) off the hook because well, they're a "genius" is pretty toxic (which is a word I hate to say). Despite how sick I am of the Artisanal collection, I'm glad he's still around working away.

Personally I think the filmmaker really failed with Philippe Virgitti... like who the f*ck is this guy? He should have been examined a bit more. Like, wow it must suck to be thrown into this whirlwind in a twist of fate... but the outcome of it all is so weird!!! I can see this pushing an already fragile person to the edge, just like John's experiences pushed him to the edge. Did John apologize, did he not apologize... um... does anyone actually KNOW? Wouldn't this be documented if he apologized in court? Did I miss the evidence of this being mentioned? Sure, John had to save his *** and get everything on track with The Powers That Be and it seems like Virgitti was left in the dust. What does a $6000 fine even fix in this scenario? How does it affect someone so wealthy? In any case, I feel like this incident would have been perfect for: "restorative justice," with a focus on Virgitti. Why am I supposed to care that John studied with a Rabbi? Why would Virgitti care?

 

[MulletProof]

^ I was zero moved by Virgitti and glad he was left in the dust 😆 . I actually went from feeling bad despite never hearing him talk, to hearing him talk and thinking he's full of s*it and opportunistic. I don't believe for one second that he's severely damaged thanks to the incident.. but I do believe that playing with publicity brings a lot of stress for inexperienced, anonymous people and that's gotta take a toll on physical and mental health, especially if you keep telling yourself for years that the content of some drunk a*shole's tirade on a Friday night is the most painful thing you've experienced in life. Why would you do that to yourself and to your own life when you know that in the general scheme of things, that's just.. the cruelty of the world we live in. And ultimately, was he not a bastard for engaging and riling up some alcoholic loser? and is he not Asian? time to move on.

I was thinking about this documentary the other day, that there's a layer of irony on how unaware and insincere John comes across, like 'oh there's another video, what?', and yet for a good portion of the documentary, we hear him cry about the homophobia he experienced from his father. I always find this selective sensitivity quite interesting.. but anyway, the repercussions were super disproportional and now that we see how any criticism towards Israel is quickly called 'antisemitism' for no reason whatsoever and the amount of money invested in destroying those who cross that line, it makes sense this incident was treated as the ultimate sin of Western culture, worse than a shooting, or theft or even r*pe... when it really wasn't much.

 

[blueorchid]

@MulletProof Oh yeah, I wouldn't say that I was necessarily sympathetic towards Virgitti as like... lol.. a person. Like, what the hell? I mean, if people can get over other things in life... this is low stakes. I don't think it was the incident that caused whatever issues, but if he was already a "fragile" person (I mean,... look at him, I find that easy to believe) the extra stress could have easily caused that toll. I ALSO thought about how they basically kept instigating the interaction. Jesus, de-escalate and move on. (LOL why didn't John have to apologize to the Asian community... now that I think about it?). I think this is where the filmmaker dropped the ball!!!! Investigate this guy lol.

John laid it on really thick in parts of his interview, my god. It was almost comical. I almost laughed when he pretended not to know about the other video, really...

(I lost it at the "... do I have the body of an alcoholic?" anecdote, though.)

 

[MulletProof]

^ I think it's risky for a filmmaker who's doing this type of thing (covering fashion, not, say, organ trafficking) to present all sides accurately because it's not the type of audience that will have critical thinking in top shape. It would be too risky to even raise questions on the moral compass of the guy and how he's tried to play the media without getting accused of victim-shaming, when the reality is that if you see someone high on something or so drunk he can barely speak clearly, provoking him and filming him says enough about who you are as a person, it really isn't that different from filming someone with autism having a crisis. It is a disease and being a celebrity and having money does not make it less so.

And same lol, he does not have the body of an alcoholic but he did have the skin!. I really can't blame Dior executives for not intervening.. it wasn't their responsibility at all. This is why you shouldn't be a dck to your siblings and why you don't distance yourself from your family...no one humbles you or intervenes like them.