Raf Simons: 'Galliano's work is no longer relevant'

[Littleathquakes]

You really don't understand what I was saying.

It is very likely that Raf Simons has been told/directed to wipe every trace of Galliano off the name of Dior. Just as the Dior website has been stripped of the Galliano references and collections. Just like the Galliano line continues to be dragged through the mud season after season. It is simply Mr. Simons' job to continue on that path, like, I am sure, everyone employed at Dior.

I am not saying that this should be his job. I am saying that it de facto is his job.

That said, I don't think it's terribly controversial. Simons obviously prefers his own work to anyone else and he knows that his employers will be pleased at any stab he offers toward Galliano. What can you expect...?

There's a difference between saying this is Simons' doing vs it's his employer's (Dior's) doing, so until your last post, I don't think you made that clear. The fact is, in a non-Galliano scenerio, designers taking over the helm simply do not declare the predecessor's work as irrelevant. I still don't agree with you even after I understand what you're saying.

As for preference, of course every designer will prefer his own work over another's. But in terms of your theory on "pleasing" his employer - I don't believe Dior continues to want that kind of attention. They've erased Galliano from the Dior website - but is there a note declaring Galliano to be irrelevant? No, there isn't. And Simons' first collection for the house also does not reference Galliano's work (unlike Gaytten's). The house's strategy is more subtle. They simply don't talk about Galliano; Galliano didn't exist. Simons' comment was more blatant; it is direct contrast with the efforts that the house has shown. So to me, this was Simons' ego talking, not Dior.

 

[Littleathquakes]

These two posts pretty much sum up my opinion. Simons is not a controversial, flashy person and was/is never known for "catfights", he was pretty much defending his vision, seeing all these stupid comparisons to Galliano. They're two entirely different people, character and vision-wise.
I dread coming into such threads, they're almost always full of frothy haterade.

The article
http://i50.tinypic.com/9hm0xg.jpg

I believe Simons didn't aim for controversy. His comments were seemingly taken out of context and blown out of proportion.

That said, you kinda can't go on record saying something like what he said, no matter how innocent, without it being controversial. You can't throw that out there and then play victim. If he didn't want the attention that this is garnering, he shouldn't have said anything. Let the clothes do the talking.

 

[Doctor Caroline]

Galliano's aesthetic is probably no longer relevant, but his woman certainly is. She's still there excessing in cosmetic products, strutting in criminally high platforms and throwing her attitude around. To reduce Galliano to mere "fantasy" is almost insulting. The woman that he created was very real. That, to me, makes him still relevant.

 

[iluvjeisa]

As for preference, of course every designer will prefer his own work over another's. But in terms of your theory on "pleasing" his employer - I don't believe Dior continues to want that kind of attention. They've erased Galliano from the Dior website - but is there a note declaring Galliano to be irrelevant? No, there isn't. And Simons' first collection for the house also does not reference Galliano's work (unlike Gaytten's). The house's strategy is more subtle. They simply don't talk about Galliano; Galliano didn't exist. Simons' comment was more blatant; it is direct contrast with the efforts that the house has shown. So to me, this was Simons' ego talking, not Dior.

But is there a collection, bearing Galliano's name, where horrendous designs are paraded, season after season?

If there was ever an attempt to make someone irrelevant, it is to hog their name and drag in through the mud. It is very far from subtle.

But I agree with you still. It would probably have been preferable for Dior if Raf had evaded the questions about Galliano.

 

[fakeawake]

Oh my stars Raf. Wish you hadn't said that dont ya. Now you're the definition of not relevant.

Im just catching up on Raf at Dior I totally ignored it.

 

[jeanclaude]

Said the guy whose only talent is sewing stupid early 80s band patches over everything, and the kitchen sink!!

 

[tboy34]

Said the guy whose only talent is sewing st*pid early 80s band patches over everything, and the kitchen sink!!

I have to agree with you. I don't find his clothes very inspiring and what he does is ordinary and borderline Walmart silhouettes with a high price on them. Galliano is a genius and he will Raf will never be a great craftsman of Couture like Galliano. Look how long he lasted at Dior (A Hot Minute).

 

[bearbrick]

Galliano was overly indulgent. That was his weakness. For a while he was tolerated and indulged. But until Dior he was masterful and created elegance. RAF Simon doesn’t come close with his rigid aesthetics bordering on cliches. Became boring and purple as hell.

 

[billiejbob]

Honestly all of Raf's (and MGC's for that matter) collections for Dior blend into one. Galliano's on the other hand all had individual themes/motifs/ideas/executions. You could easily identify a Galliano Dior as a specific collection whereas all of Raf's work for Dior just looked like they were all from the same collection...

 

[fakeawake]

Honestly all of Raf's (and MGC's for that matter) collections for Dior blend into one. Galliano's on the other hand all had individual themes/motifs/ideas/executions. You could easily identify a Galliano Dior as a specific collection whereas all of Raf's work for Dior just looked like they were all from the same collection...

people are wearing vintage John for Dior now and i STILL know which collection it’s from despite being 20 years ago.

THATS HOW YOU RUN A FASHION HOUSE.

 

[GivenchyHomme]

I believe that after single handendly killing one of America's most iconic brands automatically voids any validity of critical opinions past, present or future.

 

[MulletProof]

lol at this thread being resurrected like 'how dare you say that after all you've done!'. Context is important. It's 2012. Let's recap: Céline is all the rage, fashion's become much simpler and ordinary due to its democratization (bloggers/streetstyle celebrities, collaborations and affordable lines left and right), Raf has *just* started at Dior after showing growth in the right direction at Jil Sander and obviously Dior is still Galliano (so Raf was determined to reconnect with the actual Dior before Galliano). And.. let's not forget, Galliano, as talented as he still is, resorted to making gaudy 90s wedding cakes in the shape of dresses and horrid logos as his one vocabulary (which was cool in the uptight and minimal late 90s) until everyone was so over it by the mid 00s he had to do a 180 and create that 'regular clothes' collection. Galliano's work for Dior in 2012 is no longer relevant and guess what, it's 2021 and it's still not relevant. Is it a mandatory chapter for those wanting to understand fashion and its history the way Paco Rabanne's legacy is? sure, but it's not communicating or embodying the zeitgeist whatsoever.. and that's irrelevance for better or for worse.

Sadly, age comes to get us all and Raf gave himself faster to its negative effects than Galliano himself. Within 10 years, minimal celebrity and fast-tracked by its insistence in being taken seriously by the art world, he's up in the clouds and lost the ability to communicate effectively in fashion (or anywhere else really). He can't find the humility to leave for good like Helmut did and make it in the one world he respects and wants so desperately to be a part of, but he's too arrogant to be a student in the field he remains... and others suffering the same 'wish I was a part of the art world but alas, here I am in fashion' syndrome buy into his bs.. it's really the blind leading the blind type of spectacle.

 

[fakeawake]

lol at this thread being resurrected like 'how dare you say that after all you've done!'. Context is important. It's 2012. Let's recap: Céline is all the rage, fashion's become much simpler and ordinary due to its democratization (bloggers/streetstyle celebrities, collaborations and affordable lines left and right), Raf has *just* started at Dior after showing growth in the right direction at Jil Sander and obviously Dior is still Galliano (so Raf was determined to reconnect with the actual Dior before Galliano). And.. let's not forget, Galliano, as talented as he still is, resorted to making gaudy 90s wedding cakes in the shape of dresses and horrid logos as his one vocabulary (which was cool in the uptight and minimal late 90s) until everyone was so over it by the mid 00s he had to do a 180 and create that 'regular clothes' collection. Galliano's work for Dior in 2012 is no longer relevant and guess what, it's 2021 and it's still not relevant. Is it a mandatory chapter for those wanting to understand fashion and its history the way Paco Rabanne's legacy is? sure, but it's not communicating or embodying the zeitgeist whatsoever.. and that's irrelevance for better or for worse.

Sadly, age comes to get us all and Raf gave himself faster to its negative effects than Galliano himself. Within 10 years, minimal celebrity and fast-tracked by its insistence in being taken seriously by the art world, he's up in the clouds and lost the ability to communicate effectively in fashion (or anywhere else really). He can't find the humility to leave for good like Helmut did and make it in the one world he respects and wants so desperately to be a part of, but he's too arrogant to be a student in the field he remains... and others suffering the same 'wish I was a part of the art world but alas, here I am in fashion' syndrome buy into his bs.. it's really the blind leading the blind type of spectacle.

I think John did catch the zeitgeist but I think marketing pressures to keep everything trash but with high prices led to his demise. LVMH wanted John gone because they didn’t want to spend millions on fashion anymore. This whole athleisure style is just from tons of marketing - it’s not zeitgeist. Dior hired raf because they know he does pricey t shirts and other banal things with huge margins.

I mean dior embarasses themsleves when they say their profits are up. All you sell are cotton shirts and jeans I HOPE your profits are up. It’s sewn in a shop in spain in 15 minutes I HOPE your profits are up. I would imagine Dior overall isn’t doing well - I’ve seen the faces of the couture customers in the audience seeming puzzled by what they’re being presented. Facts are the couture customer still wants to be draped like a cake. facts are Dior is reissuing Johns work. Facts are Dior knows they won’t get another John in this lifetime so they settled for another Marc Bohan.

I do think John desperately needs to learn how to edit.

 

[fakeawake]

Also I would never bash logos because without them we would have all died from poisoned milk or bad ibuprofen. Logos exist to help people make quick decisions on a quality product. Dior has done enough to have their logo be valued as a sign of quality.

I’ve always thought fashion people are hilarious since they never buy anything full price at retail but think they should be catered to

this kind of contempt for “regular people” is why brands are desperate as ever. People want beautiful clothes to escape their lives and make them feel good. Not clothes with crap printed across it. Because it’s ‘intellectual’ and not a logo.

fashion is fashion. Not philosophy.

 

[TianCouture]

Funny, I think John's work at Dior from 2000-2005 is actually really relevant today.

 

[Lola701]

I think John did catch the zeitgeist but I think marketing pressures to keep everything trash but with high prices led to his demise. LVMH wanted John gone because they didn’t want to spend millions on fashion anymore. This whole athleisure style is just from tons of marketing - it’s not zeitgeist. Dior hired raf because they know he does pricey t shirts and other banal things with huge margins.

I mean dior embarasses themsleves when they say their profits are up. All you sell are cotton shirts and jeans I HOPE your profits are up. It’s sewn in a shop in spain in 15 minutes I HOPE your profits are up. I would imagine Dior overall isn’t doing well - I’ve seen the faces of the couture customers in the audience seeming puzzled by what they’re being presented. Facts are the couture customer still wants to be draped like a cake. facts are Dior is reissuing Johns work. Facts are Dior knows they won’t get another John in this lifetime so they settled for another Marc Bohan.

I do think John desperately needs to learn how to edit.

The Galliano/Dior dynamic is quite bizarre because in retrospective, he was quite very forward thinking in his approach to fashion 20 years ago. Let’s not forget that Galliano dipped into the logo trend more than anybody when his contract was renewed for the first time at Dior.

The J’adore Dior, saddle bags, logo-a-Gogo was all his. He had total creative control over the whole house (I remember the insane amount of perfumes he created). But the FW2004 was the beginning of the end. It became out of control and Arnault wanted his Dior to be more elevated...That’s how we saw the change of direction one year later.

I remember at that time, Arnault was concerned by the amount of t-shirts they were selling.

Tbh, Arnault I believe was really happy when John started his back to basic era. It felt luxurious, Carla Bruni was the unofficial ambassador and sales were good. But he still cared about the press and that’s why prior to the scandal, there were so many rumors of them letting him go...

From the moment John stopped doing T-shirts to when MGC arrived, I don’t think the house has ever been into so much commercialism. Maybe this time, it’s softer, more digestible than it was when John was there...


But the Raf comment is interesting because despite whatever he believes, he is not a disruptor. I think that MGC is more disruptive at Dior (the company) than Raf was...

 

[fakeawake]

The Galliano/Dior dynamic is quite bizarre because in retrospective, he was quite very forward thinking in his approach to fashion 20 years ago. Let’s not forget that Galliano dipped into the logo trend more than anybody when his contract was renewed for the first time at Dior.

The J’adore Dior, saddle bags, logo-a-Gogo was all his. He had total creative control over the whole house (I remember the insane amount of perfumes he created). But the FW2004 was the beginning of the end. It became out of control and Arnault wanted his Dior to be more elevated...That’s how we saw the change of direction one year later.

I remember at that time, Arnault was concerned by the amount of t-shirts they were selling.

Tbh, Arnault I believe was really happy when John started his back to basic era. It felt luxurious, Carla Bruni was the unofficial ambassador and sales were good. But he still cared about the press and that’s why prior to the scandal, there were so many rumors of them letting him go...

From the moment John stopped doing T-shirts to when MGC arrived, I don’t think the house has ever been into so much commercialism. Maybe this time, it’s softer, more digestible than it was when John was there...


But the Raf comment is interesting because despite whatever he believes, he is not a disruptor. I think that MGC is more disruptive at Dior (the company) than Raf was...

Raf is just a pc rebel. The worst kind.