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

[StoneSkipper]

What I think is that there are many Galliano-Simons comparisons in the fashion scene right now. This is damaging because Galliano and Simons cater to completely different women. Simons is a minimalist at heart, Galliano works through opulence and drama. Raf only said that Galliano's work is irrelevant because he doesn't understand it. Same if Galliano were to talk about Raf's work being irrelevant. I think the comparisons are getting to his head, not necessarily the sucess or fame.

 

[eugenius]

I don't buy womenswear, so it's not like I have a comprehensive grasp on the luxury goods market for the ladies, but a big part of me thinks "Big, stinkin' whoop," because in the end, isn't it all just shoes & handbags anyways? Put out clothes that real customers, not red-carpet camera-queens, buy & wear, and then let's talk.

 

[TianCouture]

If we're going to talk about "restrictive" then lets discuss the fact that Marion Cotillard had to take off her shoes, a shoe Raf designed, out of pure pain at the "Rust and Bone" premiere. And not to mention, the "stumbling" that occurred in the runway...

...And the other thing, those metallic belts don't look comfy. I adore Raf. I just hope this all is going to his head and that his menswear won't suffer...that would blow!

 

[IloveDiorHomme]

If I would be Mr Simons, I would shut my big mouth for a minute...

People in 10 years could tell the same about Raf Simons's current work. Each period has a specific fashion, specific mood. Now we are in 2012 and there is a financial crisis going on.

 

[Heroin_Chic]

Raf Simons should be ashamed of himself!!!

Galliano IS still relevant - he just needs his job(s) back!

 

[Littleathquakes]

It was actually a bad copy of Dior's F/W 1954 HC collection.

Raf Simons is unbearable... Really pretentious. I don't think I've ever disliked a designer as much as I dislike him.

I'm not quite there with him yet...but if he keeps this up, I think I'll be joining you.

 

[Phuel]

Raf Simons should be ashamed of himself!!!

Galliano IS still relevant - he just needs his job(s) back!

Oh please, for what? For expressing his opinion? He made a perfectly valid observant point within the context of the interview. Raf wasn't on a drunken stupor, childishly throwing insults and racist and anti-semetic remarks casually at people.

I'm no fan of Raf, but if one's going to be calling him out on his supposed hypocrisy -- in that his designs are equally constrictive as Galliano's, then might as well call out all designers. If one wants comfortable clothes, go to Eddie Bauer. Raf's vision of modernity for his own house and Dior's-- if only in presentation, is much more modern than any of Gaillano's ridiculous million-dollar drag shows in his last few years with Dior.

 

[christian zh]

Oh please, for what? For expressing his opinion? He made a perfectly valid observant point within the context of the interview. Raf wasn't on a drunken stupor, childishly throwing insults and racist and anti-semetic remarks casually at people.

I'm no fan of Raf, but if one's going to be calling him out on his supposed hypocrisy -- in that his designs are equally constrictive as Galliano's, then might as well call out all designers. If one wants comfortable clothes, go to Eddie Bauer. Raf's vision of modernity for his own house and Dior's-- if only in presentation, is much more modern than any of Gaillano's ridiculous million-dollar drag shows in his last few years with Dior.

Please, not again.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

I totally agree that Galliano's aesthetic is no longer relevant. Actually I'm a firm believer that Dior only got rid of him, not because they have excellent principles, but simply because they knew he was past it and the opportunity offered itself.
I do not know if i agree with Raf Simmons that has to do with women rejecting restrictiveness in favour of freedom, Macqueen was doing fine. It's simply a case that no one in the history of the world stays at the top forever. Galliano is an incredibly important designer in the history of fashion, but like all successful people he peaked at a certain period and now has been replaced at the top by new talented people that can bring a fresh take on things. Because he was really good he still has a fanbase to defend his corner, but it means nothing in the big scheme of things, his work is no longer influential.

 

[iluvjeisa]

This seems blown totally out of proportion. So Raf digs Galliano's technical skill and artistry but does not feel that this is the way of the future. What is new? Of course he doesn't think so, otherwise he would either be doing it himself...

So there are more diplomatic things to say, but so what. I like that he's honest. I mean, I will always consider Galliano as one of the last true artists and he is far better than Raf, obviously, but nonetheless - Raf is in his right to prefer his own designs and his own style to that of his predecessor. And it is frankly his job to wipe Dior completely clean of any trace of Galliano. Which is terribly sad, since those are some of the best collections known to man, but that's how it goes.

 

[moss trey]

I've always loved the idea of interesting or even extreme but wearable clothes , and I was excited by Raf Simons arriving at Dior, but to be honest , now that the whole world does wearable and ( more or less) interesting I kind of miss the unbridled exuberance and joy of Galliano- I'd even go so far as to say that those are the two things that are relevant right now, more than anything else
Posted via Mobile Device

This. Everything is turning towards ready to wear and minimalism and as a fan of opulence and occasional ridiculousness in fashion I'm missing all the designers that explored fantasy in their designs. I feel like there's very few lines left nowadays that are able to explore that.

 

[Littleathquakes]

This seems blown totally out of proportion. So Raf digs Galliano's technical skill and artistry but does not feel that this is the way of the future. What is new? Of course he doesn't think so, otherwise he would either be doing it himself...

So there are more diplomatic things to say, but so what. I like that he's honest. I mean, I will always consider Galliano as one of the last true artists and he is far better than Raf, obviously, but nonetheless - Raf is in his right to prefer his own designs and his own style to that of his predecessor. And it is frankly his job to wipe Dior completely clean of any trace of Galliano. Which is terribly sad, since those are some of the best collections known to man, but that's how it goes.

I don't think it has anything to do with diplomacy, tact, respect, whatever you want to call it. It's simply presumptuous this early in his new role at Dior to declare anybody, not just Galliano, to be irrelevant when Simons himself has yet to prove himself as relevant. Just because he's designing in the current period of time doesn't make him relevant. I can't point to any of the pieces he's designed for the house and say "oh that's a new Dior piece under Simons' direction" the way I can point to a Galliano piece for the house.

I also don't agree that it's his "job" to wipe any trace of Galliano (aesthetically speaking, I'm not even referring to the scandal) from the house's history. Galliano is part of Dior just as Mr. Dior himself is. You get rid of Galliano, you might as well erase Mr. Dior, too. It makes carrying a house's name completely unnecessary - might as well close down Dior and open up house of Simons if that's the trajectory that should be taken with every newly appointed creative director whose "job" it is to erase his predecessor's work.

 

[TianSoFine]

I've always thought that there was something empowering about Galliano's work, something fearless like a woman can be anything she wants to be. His clothes represent a fantasy and I think that fantasy will always be relevant. Raf may not like Galliano's aesthetic, but there are also people who don't like Raf's aesthetic and that doesn't make Raf irrelevant. I for one will always appreciate the work of Galliano.

 

[tboy34]

It's very Unsportsmanlike to dis another designer, to elevate yourself. His collection wasn't all that. It was OK. Galliano is truly a master in the craft. He's been knocked down, but he'll come back fighting. for him to say that Galliano is not relevant is pure bull. He really needs to check himself and get off his high horse.

 

[tboy34]

I don't think it has anything to do with diplomacy, tact, respect, whatever you want to call it. It's simply presumptuous this early in his new role at Dior to declare anybody, not just Galliano, to be irrelevant when Simons himself has yet to prove himself as relevant. Just because he's designing in the current period of time doesn't make him relevant. I can't point to any of the pieces he's designed for the house and say "oh that's a new Dior piece under Simons' direction" the way I can point to a Galliano piece for the house.

I also don't agree that it's his "job" to wipe any trace of Galliano (aesthetically speaking, I'm not even referring to the scandal) from the house's history. Galliano is part of Dior just as Mr. Dior himself is. You get rid of Galliano, you might as well erase Mr. Dior, too. It makes carrying a house's name completely unnecessary - might as well close down Dior and open up house of Simons if that's the trajectory that should be taken with every newly appointed creative director whose "job" it is to erase his predecessor's work.

100% Agreed

 

[iluvjeisa]

I don't think it has anything to do with diplomacy, tact, respect, whatever you want to call it. It's simply presumptuous this early in his new role at Dior to declare anybody, not just Galliano, to be irrelevant when Simons himself has yet to prove himself as relevant. Just because he's designing in the current period of time doesn't make him relevant. I can't point to any of the pieces he's designed for the house and say "oh that's a new Dior piece under Simons' direction" the way I can point to a Galliano piece for the house.

I also don't agree that it's his "job" to wipe any trace of Galliano (aesthetically speaking, I'm not even referring to the scandal) from the house's history. Galliano is part of Dior just as Mr. Dior himself is. You get rid of Galliano, you might as well erase Mr. Dior, too. It makes carrying a house's name completely unnecessary - might as well close down Dior and open up house of Simons if that's the trajectory that should be taken with every newly appointed creative director whose "job" it is to erase his predecessor's work.

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...?

 

[disco54]

Honestly, I find Raf's Dior incredibly boring and I don't think he should make such a statement, Galliano is a very gifted man, editors have gased Raf's head so much , they make it seem his clothes are the best thing since sliced bread .

 

[Deleted member 119799]

ofcourse galliano's stuff isn't relevant, it shouldn't be, it's old. in my book good fashion is linked to the zeigeist and galliano's work was perfect for that period.

at the same time, is raf simons' work for dior actually relevant for this day and age? like charlie porter mentioned on his blog, the woman he proposes in his collection doesn't exist. i surely don't know them and i don't think i've ever seen them either.

 

[donyan]

If I didn't know those two Dior Collections were designed by Raf Simons I would have thought it is some new unexperienced Designer with an amazing amount of financial possibilities - nothing in those collections touches on the slightly cold and distant beauty of Raf's best men's collections or his better collections for Jil Sander- those two Dior Collections neither mean anything, nor do they feel relevant. Had they been designed by anybody else for a house with less power, nobody would have said another word about them.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Morphe]

This seems blown totally out of proportion. So Raf digs Galliano's technical skill and artistry but does not feel that this is the way of the future. What is new? Of course he doesn't think so, otherwise he would either be doing it himself...

So there are more diplomatic things to say, but so what. I like that he's honest. I mean, I will always consider Galliano as one of the last true artists and he is far better than Raf, obviously, but nonetheless - Raf is in his right to prefer his own designs and his own style to that of his predecessor. And it is frankly his job to wipe Dior completely clean of any trace of Galliano. Which is terribly sad, since those are some of the best collections known to man, but that's how it goes.

Yes, I agree, that's also the part that made me think because that's my interpretation of Simons' statement, too (especially after reading the full Vogue Aus interview - thanks for the link, Flashbang!). I think I understand why one would consider Galliano's romanticized woman and how she's costumed as being somewhat restrictive. I suppose Raf means that his minimalistic designs allow women to express themselves better than one that feels the need to dress up and become a spectacle through the way she's dressed and styled. But I don't think that this means Galliano's woman isn't relevant anymore, even an emancipated, powerful woman can feel the need to dress eccentric. It's just a different aesthetic, a different idea of a woman, but that doesn't mean one is more relevant than the other.

I do think this is being blown out of proportion because I do not see Simons as someone that likes to stir up controversy with his interviews. It seems more like he's trying to defend his approach to doing Haute Couture in such a minimalistic way as opposed to Galliano's theatrical and opulent way of presenting Couture.

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