Having an insider's perspective in the fashion world, doesn't guarantee a complete understanding of how this industry operates. I'm not referring at understanding intricate financial decisions about mergers and acquisitions, but rather to certain contentious choices, decisions or statements (or actions such as sudden changes in creative directors just when they might have struck a balance) that quite often seem bizarre or inappropriate. For example, quite often we are told that this industry empowers women, instilling strength and pride in who they are and what they do.
However, as soon as these proclamations are made, designers introduce collections featuring perplexing items or accessories, such as super high-heeled shoes that render walking nearly impossible, absurdly minuscule bags that can barely hold a lipstick tube (yet become the next must-have It bag…), and other assorted bewildering concepts.
There are designers like Maria Grazia Chiuri at Dior who genuinely strive to empower women, collaborating with artisans and artists for collections, shows, and photographic campaigns. Yet, unexpectedly, the brand occasionally stumbles into a swamp of clichéd feminist gestures, leaving one to wonder why this inconsistency exists.
On Tuesday, during Dior's S/S 24 runway presentation at the Tuileries gardens in Paris, models paraded while slogans and images from Elena Bellantoni's "Not Her" installations illuminated the surrounding screens. Bellantoni created collages that attempted to subvert advertising imagery and that featured feminist slogans.
One might have expected to encounter something fierce, something that packed a visceral punch, like a reflection on the alarming number of femicides that occurred in 2023 (at the time of writing, 80 women were killed in Italy, Chiuri's home country, since the beginning of the year). Perhaps these reflections could have been followed by a KLF-style exclamation, such as "What The F*ck Is Going On?" Instead, what we got were rather surreally silly, ordinary or tepid declarations, such as "I don't belong to anyone else: I always make a phone call to myself" and "I am not your doll, I am not your game", a rather obvious assertion that anyway clashed with the guests and the models.
After all, on the runway, there were beautiful women adorned in impeccably tailored branded attires, with logos prominently displayed on accessories, demonstrating the fact that they actually did "belong" to somebody - a brand. The same can be said about the guests - celebrities, brand ambassadors and influencers dressed in borrowed attire that underscored their loyalty to the label. In a nutshell, they all "belonged" to Dior in that moment.
There was almost a reflection of intents between the slogans and the clothes on the runway: both were "proper".
Dior's S/S 24 collection featured long pleated skirts, delicate cropped cardigans and cobweb-like knitted lace dresses, while the 1948 off-one-shoulder "Abandon" dress by Dior was reinvented as an asymmetrical top or a shirt.
Faded blue workwear pants and pinafore dresses also made an appearance for that faux working girl attitude; boots were adorned with flames to symbolise how these strong women walked through fire, but there were also cute square toe ballerina shoes à la Miu Miu and elegant gladiator-style mary janes.
Blurred visions of the Eiffel Tower, the iconic landmark and symbol of elegance and grace, based on a photograph by Brigitte Niedermair, maps of Paris blurred with a tie-dye effect and sun symbols provided some variations.
Throughout the collection, gothic elements emerged, reminiscent of Wednesday Addams, mingling with inspirations drawn from historical figures on Chiuri's mood board, including Ingrid Bergman as Joan of Arc and Maria Callas as Medea. Hints of witches or perhaps nuns were interspersed throughout the collection, but everything was extremely proper and well-balanced. Just like the supposedly feminist slogans.
The latter were purged of any strong language, a trick that made them sound banal: statements like "Fuchsia with yellow is not a marshmallow, it's my way to highlight what is wrong and what is right" was simply cringing like those things you'd write in your diary when you were 9 years old.
"Let my imagination draw the geography of my body," stated another, and, sure, you go girl, do it, but remember that, eventually, a man, an ad, or a celebrity will still tell you that your body is somehow flawed.
There was also a slogan with an architectural twist about it - "Our individual and collective transformation takes place in a radical and creative space" - did that mean that if you live in a crap place you can change f*ck all?
Besides, the list of slogans featured a remixed version of the sentence in the speech given by American women's suffrage activist Helen Todd ("bread for all, and roses too", that inspired the title of the poem "Bread and Roses" by James Oppenheim). In this case the slogan recited: "We want kids, but we want roses too." Wait, what if I don't want kids and I want roses too? That a crime? What if I can't have kids and I want roses too. Looks like these options weren't contemplated.
The one that left me most puzzled was "I am not only a mother, wife, daughter, I am a woman," that sounded like neo-fascist Giorgia Meloni who, before being elected and becoming Italy's Prime Minister, often did these speeches in which she screamed she's a woman, a mother and a Christian (yes, so what, darling?).
It left me puzzled because what happens if I'm a daughter, but I'm not a mother nor a wife, am I half a woman then? (I prefer Florence + The Machine's line "I am no mother, I am no bride, I am king" from the song "King", do you mind?).
My favorite statement remained instead "Capitalism won't take her where she really wants to go." This one is genuinely messed up, because, you see, capitalism may propel "her" quite far if she's a savvy investor and entrepreneur.
However, if capitalism won't lead her anywhere, why should she invest in a designer bag? Purchasing a luxury fashion item crafted by a renowned house is indeed the embodiment of capitalism. So, what's the message here – beware of capitalism but indulge in luxury clothes that make you feel as if you were rejecting capitalism?
I'm confused you know. Confused by the lack of urgency, poetry, humour and content in all this and disappointed by the lack of swearwords that may have put emphasis in some of the slogans. I have a feeling that simpler concepts may have worked better - "Why is it that everything is a f*cking mess for women?" "Why is it that it takes longer for women to get a f*cking cancer diagnosis?", "Why are men still f*cking killing women?" and "Why is it that men can write about f*cking womenswear and women can't write about f*cking menswear?" See? They already sound more interesting.
But this is the sort of trick that fashion loves, making you think it's empowering you while it is selling you another empty box, this one specifically labelled capitalist feminism. You may argue that Greta Gerwig's "Barbie" movie paved the way, with it's feminist messages with the stamp of approval of Mattel, but at Dior this trend was already fashionable. It started around 6 years ago when Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's quote "We should all be feminists" was printed on an overpriced T-shirt and suddenly seemed to lose its power.
But that's usually what happens to certain messages when they get appropriated by fashion, they lose their purpose: a while back, on Prada’s runway (S/S18) Angela Davis was turned into a decorative motif devoid of any political meaning, sucked into a fashion cauldron with no purpose, a missed opportunity.
Consequently, you're left perplexed and bewildered: fashion surrounds us, but the industry is growing increasingly distant, almost detached from real life, particularly from the very women it purports to empower, all the while professing its love for ordinary women.
In the meantime, real women carry on with their lives, left to fend for themselves. When they say, "I am not your doll" and break up with a boyfriend, they may end up being stalked, beaten, even killed by jealous and resentful men. They might add, "I am not your game," yet still be subjected to assault and then, post-rape, be labeled as liars and provocateurs as the tables are often turned against them.
Since taking the helm as Dior's first female creative director of womenswear in 2017, Maria Grazia Chiuri often faced critics who perceive her efforts to provide practical wardrobe options for women as uninspiring commercialism.
There is nothing wrong with designing wearable clothes, but you wish the brand didn't use feminism like a drunkard uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination.
Indeed, superficial feminist slogans do little to benefit women, and perhaps abandoning the "polite" and "proper" slogans in favor of a more bold, impassioned, and unapologetic approach (think about Artemisia Gentileschi who, raped by Agostino Tassi in 1611, painted energetic and violent scenes of Judith slaying Holofernes...) could ignite more meaningful change in the fashion industry and in real women's lives.
Comments