Really, there are no words for this: the new John Galliano men’s collection, inspired by Carnevale and … Abu Ghraib. Complete with hoods, nooses and fake-blood chest and head wounds.
What the hell was he thinking? *Was* he thinking?
Perhaps it was some misguided attempt at commenting on Abu Ghraib, but it’s hard to see how that can possibly be done during a fashion show in a way that doesn’t trivialize what the victims of Abu Ghraib went through.
Pictures below; may well be triggering.
I’m sure he was thinking: “Oo! Controversy and free publicity, which I can spin as a Solemn Political Statement!”
Regardless of what he was thinking, that’s still sick.
Shocked silence.
Looks more horror-movie to me, what with the same diagonal chest-wound on three of the four models. I found the original Boing Boing article on it, and there appeared to be a lot of gauze and leather, and several gimp costumes.
There’s not really any excuse for this. Even if Galliano takes fashion incredibly seriously and as a canvas for making a political statement, he ought to know better as someone who’s been designing clothes for more than 20 years, and know that it’s not going to come across that way. What the hell kind of statement would this be, anyway? Carnivale + torture? Contrasting ripped male model bodies and sexy underwear with scars and hoods? Give me a break. The reason none of this can be taken seriously is that it’s generally free of any content besides sensationalistic “shock contrast” and whatever’s been in the news lately, whatever hasn’t been done. Transgression solely for the sake of transgression, especially about something as grave for the world as the normalization of torture, is pretty disgusting.
What, you didn’t know that the aesthetic of the Patriarchy is rotting decadence?
….
I can’t even respond to this.
You know how they sometimes talk about a famous model being a designer’s muse?
The muse is dead. Long live the muse.
I’m with Mythago here. Cynical commercial grasping masquerading as political art.
This is making me physically sick.
And it’s nothing new. Remember Bennetton in the 90s? Pfffffft. Warmed up the second time around, and the idea still is no better …
Now I remember what this reminds me of.
Minus the eroticization of police beating up women. Also minus any attempt, even a token one, to make a statement about “living in a police state” or whatever the point supposedly was.
It’s pretty much the same motivation: violence and blood! (buy some clothes) political! (buy some clothes) hot! (buy some clothes) shocking! (buy some clothes) timely! (buy some clothes)
That’s about it.
Honestly, the photos make me think of lynching in the American south rather than Abu Ghraib. Either way, I have an instinctive revulsion to fetishizing an exposed body while masking the face — and whether or not that was the Galliano point, it leaves me cold.
Galliano lost his freaking mind YEARS ago.
What a cheap attention whore. Gah.
What would I have to do to get the money this guy is getting for putting out this shite? Cause DAMN I could use it. and I think my ideas might be put to better use.
And it took reading the entire thread to have something to say about it. Words fail.
It is triggering, but not the way you intended it would be. I want to go ya know show this designer what torture really is, he wouldn’t be displaying it again after ward.
At least when Kenneth Cole makes political statements with his shoes, he puts them into words and doesn’t try to make the shoes themselves into political statements.
I also think that this has a lot to do with the current popularity of horror movies, aka torture porn. You’re trying to get the attention of The Kids, and The Kids all like that Hostel movie, so they’ll love to wear torture fashion!
…because there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
Shouldn’t this get an “assholes” tag as well?
Eck… That’s just disgusting.
In other men’s fashion news, the NYT did a piece on the downsizing of male models…
I really detest the fashion industry.
NPR’s On the Media had a good segment on this where they interviewed a professor of fashion history to put it into some context. Basically, Galliano is an intelligent and provocative designer who treats fashion as an art form.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/02/01/08
for the audio and a transcript.
From that link: “I see it as a profound effort to use a bully pulpit to deal with issues that ordinarily you wouldn’t think of as fashion issues.”
Oh, bullshit. I’m sick to fucking death of the exploitative commodifcation of violence by the patriarchs as being lauded as oh so edgy and interesting for we privileged people over here to drool over.
Torture isn’t a fucking “FASHION ISSUE”. It’s not the latest interesting trend for design school professors to hyperintellectualise about and to hold up as momentarily captivating visual objects. That’s vile.
I have never felt more proud to be a militant, 20-sided-dice-owning dork with no fashion sense.
You can argue that the collection was in bad taste, or went too far, but I have to make the point that fashion is a form of art – the same as painting, or music, or theater – and it makes a statement about the world we live in. That statement can be positive OR negative.
Before you judge whether the collection is revolutionary or exploitative (and personally I think a valid argument could be made either way), I think you should look at the whole collection, which can be seen here. The pictures you posted are only a small part of it, and when you look at it as a whole you can more clearly see the story being told and the political statement being made.
I’d also highly recommend the link that Jennifer posted, which explains some of the history of political fashion and modern haute couture.
If you still think the collection is gross exploitation or a cheap play for attention, that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I think that some of you are having a knee-jerk reaction here to a piece of art taken out of context.
Nico, before you assume ignorance to set up your patronising argument, I was quoting directly from the link that Jennifer posted, and responding to the quote. I’ve also viewed the whole collection.
Advertisers don’t get a pass wth me just by just labelling their exploitative crap “art”, the same way misogynists don’t get a pass by calling their rape apologism “humour”.
Oh, I see. It’s ARRRRRT, so we can’t criticize it.
Um, yeah. I must have been imagining all those art critics, then.
Mind you, is the “collection” the clothes, or the way the clothes are presented? I know that “art” excuse is used a lot by designers who insist on their artistic right to send half-dead models down the runway — all in the name of art, of course.
It’s called the fashion *industry* for a reason. The spectacle of the shows is advertising for a business. That it involves some creativity doesn’t give the designer a pass for trivializing the torture of real, live human beings.
Lauredhel, I don’t think my argument was patronizing – I certainly didn’t intend it that way and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I’m a longtime lurker here and I respect the folks here very much.
Zuzu, I never said you can’t criticize art – like you said art criticism is alive and well and necessary. It just seems to me that a lot of people have been criticizing these images out of context.
And yes, fashion is most definitely and *industry*, but so is visual art, theatre, film, etc. Just because it makes money doesn’t mean it can’t also make a statement.
I never suggested anything get a pass for being art – but looking at these images alone is like looking at the most shocking stills from a movie. Without watching the whole thing, you shouldn’t make up your mind what it’s about and what the filmmaker was trying to say.
Cindy Sherman’s photographs are often grotesque and offensive. If you were to look at only one you might interpret it as misogynistic – but when you view her whole body of work you can see that she’s making very radical statements, many of which have been interpreted as feminist.
Okay, Nico, so what is he trying to say? Please, provide the context.
Well everything I say will be a guess, but here goes…
The show starts out with rich clothes in cold palettes on aggressive-looking young men. Gradually they become more zombie-like and also more decadent. Then the blood and violent imagery start, and the whole show ends with these horrifying jester-like figures. So to me it tells the story of this hyper-materialistic society that devolves into violence, war, and torture and destroys itself.
That’s just my reading of it. I do think he may have gone to far with the torture imagery, but given his past work I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Of course it’s the fashion industry, but it can also be art. Same as the movie industry. Or the music industry.
I don’t know that it WORKED, but I kind of see what he was going for looking at the whole collection. He starts with these dudes in, like, Renaissance styles, and then they get more zombie like and you get the torture and you get the scary carnival stuff at the end, which is doubly jarring after the violent images of before, and it’s kind of powerful to see the decadence contrasted with the violence. Particularly in the context of something as crazy and shallow as fashion week.
I still think it was a bad call to have the hoods so directly reference Abu Ghraib — I know he was going for audacity (and certainly publicity) — I like purposeful bad taste but I really think that maybe he undermined his whole point there.
Kathleen McDermott on Galliano’s “hobo chic”:
So the message of “expensive clothes that look like you’ve been homeless for months” is “what’s the connection between rich and poor?”
Right. That really seems worthwhile and not crass, decadent, exploitative or commercialist at all. Funnier than the Mugatu parody, just let this industry parody itself.
Which makes it the perfect forum for making a serious statement about Abu Ghraib.
Nobody’s asking you to love the collection, I was just pointing out that fashion is an art that should be judged on the same level as the other arts.
The fact that fashion is an industry (and a prohibitively expensive one) is getting brought up a lot, but just because the clothes are expensive doesn’t invalidate the statement the designer is making. A painting in a gallery is ludicrously expensive, but no one suggests it’s not art, and no one says it’s not allowed to be controversial or negative or confrontational.
I’m late to the thread, but put me down for crass and exploitive, for what it’s worth.
My issue is that the clothes, especially displayed on attractive young models, turn torture into a spectacle, one that the viewer is invited to enjoy gazing at. It’s like arguing that Hostel is a political statement on torture…..sure the fact that “torture porn” has gotten so big recently relates to the fact that torture has become a huge issue. But a film that’s inviting viewers to consume images of people being tortured isn’t making some kind of political statement. It’s turning a horrific practice that, it’s increasingly clear, our government engages in and turning it into profit-making entertainment. At best it’s trivializing. At worst it reproduces the same pleasure that makes enacting torture on another human being appealing for some people to begin with. Same goes for the clothes here.
There are things I’d like explained by those who think this is art and are pointing to the On The Media interview as evidence.
1. What precise political statement is this “art” trying to make?
2. What results do you think he is expecting from this particular type of public engagement? What reaction(s) is the designer expecting to evoke from the audience?
3. How and why, exactly, is “torture a fashion issue”?
4. How do the half-naked sexy model and the hyperexpensive name-brand briefs contribute to and enhance the political statement?
5. Do you agree with the professor that the images are “beautiful, beautiful, beautiful”? Why or why not?
It’s not Art. It’s commerce.
We live in a sick sick world.