that's why I have decided to sew my own wardrobe. I can choose where and who makes the fabric. Ethically made labels are expensive and I cant afford it unfortunately, but I can support those who handweave on a loom loom from small villages and cities then I will
This is the most intelligent, thorough, thoughtful and balanced coverage of this dress that I have seen. It really helped me understand the whole phenomenon. So many good points, and all well explained. Thanks, Justine!
You should watch Abby Cox video for an in-depth discussion of why this is a problem and why it shouldn’t have happened. Extremely intelligent and thought out statements made by someone with the credentials to back it up. Clothing and textile history is her whole entire career.
@@Chaotic_Pixie I watched that one but seeing this video with the explanation of it being a copy I'm not sure it's such an issue as it was made out to be.
Le verità sono due. La prima è che il vestito di Marylin è caduto in mani sbagliate. La seconda è che alla kardashan stava malissimo. Brutto ma brutto assai..
@@Nelly-J Justine just explained that it’s NOT a copy. It was the original and didn’t actually fit her. The back had to be left open. That’s why she has the white stole covering her back side.
@@Chaotic_Pixie Read my statement above! This happens more often than you think. I have a friend who worked for the Royal Opera House in London and Paris Opera. Both theaters have huge costume collections dating back several hundred years. For special events, these costumes are taken out, worn and even danced in. It's a huge honor to wear the same robes as Beverly Sills and Luciano Pavarotti!
You brought up a lot of points I hadn’t even considered! Very thought provoking video. Personally, I didn’t have any moral outrage about the dress being lent out, I was just irritated with Kim for wearing the dress and damaging it. I’ve never been a fan of hers, I don’t really think her style is all that interesting, and I saw her choosing to wear Marilyn’s dress as a cheap move for the press, which as you aptly said, is “how the Kardashians operate”.
Kardash just proved one more time, what everybody has already known: she is just a vulgar rich woman, who has to "borrow" somebody's glory in order to shine in this reflected light. Marilyn was a great actress with a very tragic life & death. She was real, and so was her passion and her pain. And Kardash is just a simple moneybag, which cares only about profit.
She's like most people at the 'top', their self absorbed borderline 'narcissists'. That's why they are where they are, because they always want more and nothing they currently have is good enough. I think that's why people kick off about small things like this dress. It's not the dress, it's the excessiveness and self centered ego we can't stand. Especially in a time where excessiveness is causing so much destruction.
"Marilyn is perfect because she's gone, and every passing decade makes her even more perfect in the collective memory." YES. The dress was a publicity stunt, and now it's a publicity stunt again.
@@jeanlaubenthal698 Sadly she wasn't. She was a very intelligent woman who admitted in her journal that she hated that men didn't take her seriously and only regarded her as an ornament. She was what the world wanted her to be and it broke her.
It isnt about being perfect. We simply adore her AND the place in history she holds. Sure some things may be more important. This doesn't negate the fact that I don't want someone else in 2022 wearing it and certainly not being carless with it. Maybe not everyone thinks of it this deeply. I didn't know MM after all but she has a part in and a place in women's history. Its the Juxtaposition of KK for me. One women's struggle, achievement, art Aside someone with less esteem.
If this ain’t one of the most perfectly executed videos of 2022, I do not know what is. 0 nonsense, 0 clickbait, just hard facts. Keep it up, sister. ❤️🔥
Thank you Justine for the history of the dress. You are right about, we need to be VERY CONCERNED about where WE OURSELVES are getting our clothes made. 😔
That was a great point that shut it all down 😆. No one can point fingers cuz most of us have 3 pointing back! And also her other zinger was pointing out how Marylin gets more perfect as the decades go on. It reminds me of a quote "mean people never die". You can substitute any unsavory word. But point is we make people out to be so angelic and perfect once they pass. Marylin was prob just as scandalous as Kim lol. No need to be so emotionally distraught them two were kinda cut from the same cloth 🤣🤣(pun absolutely intended) 💁.
I would like to add to the comments recommending the video that Abby Cox put out about this dress and the reasons why museums may not have been able to purchase the dress even though they very likely would have if it had been possible. She does a fantastic breakdown of all of the points brought up here in this video as well, the social issues, the dress history, and down to in depth knowledge about the damage to the dress itself. I feel like possibly many people have not understood the trouble that clothing and costume historians and departments of museums have in accessing pieces. Justine pointed out the exact problem here too which is that people don't count it as an artform and something that should be value. As such museums get little to no funding for those departments and are struggling constantly to change the public's perception, interest, and value in this topic.
It’s strange, because I find costume exhibits more interesting than paintings and sculpture. Clothes tell one so much about history and life from a time period.
"I wish people cared that much about where their own clothes come from." Yes! Stellar point and so well said. Not a fan of any of the K fam at all and still don't think she should have worn it but your video massively puts it all into perspective. Well done. Merci.
Abby Cox did a video on this as well, from her perspective as a dress historian, and she explains really well why Kim Kardashian wearing this dress - even if it's just for four minutes - is a really big deal for dress and pop culture history. Most dress history departments in museums also don't have big budgets at all (people tend not to know how little money most museums have at their disposal, except the big ones of course), and the Met doesn't provide funding for their's at all. That's the whole reason why the Met Gala is even a thing in the first place. To secure funding. Unfortunately, only Ripley had the funds to buy this dress.
This is really important information. Justine talked as if people who care about history didn't care about buying it when they had the opportunity forgetting that not all museums have the same money as the Louvre.
@@nanda483 when you do research, there's always more things to uncover and more angles to be explored. It's likely that in preparation for the video Justine didn't have enough time to look into which museums could realistically afford to buy the dress. Alternatively, the info on museums' budgets might not be publicly available, hence impossible to compare.
Sartorial necromancy. Very creepy and almost trying to steal her limelight. MM was degraded in her own time and now can't even have the one dress designed exactly for her. It's shameful another woman did this to her. Copycats should still be respectful and she had a replica ready to go. Should've made it match her own skin for same effect, as homage, not rip-off.
That's what I am seeing to - but I do follow mostly people knowledgeable in historical costume and fashion - people are not against the actions of just Kim or just Ripley's, but the whole situation where something like this can even happen so easily for clout and profit
I was shocked that Kim… who had a different body type and skin tone… wanted to wear the original, because it didn’t fit… and she didn’t wear it as well (without undies) like Marilyn did. She also had a better fitting copy made, that she wore for the rest of the gala. Why not just wear that, for the red carpet too… and just mention it being “like Marilyn’s”? Probably because she wanted the “media drama” and perhaps the “I am important enough that I can get whatever I want.” 🤷🏻♀️
Of course she wanted the drama, and she got what she wanted. Same with Marilyn . She wore that dress purely to show off her hoeing around tendencies. (I mean Marilyn)
Wow, Justine. You did a terrific job of researching this topic and giving a fair and dispassionate assessment of the controversy. Great job! Personally, I don’t understand why she chose to wear the dress in the first place. She should have known it wouldn’t fit per proportions, no matter how much weight she lost. It also doesn’t flatter her skin tone. I think it’s always better to wear something that suits you rather than squeeze into something just because you think it’s pretty.
She had to wear the real one for the attention. Wearing a more flattering copy would have been completely forgettable and for a manufactured celebrity's lifestyle, attention is oxygen.
@@myladycasagrande863 Like I get the need for attention but the dress didn't suit her nor fit her (dieting this way is kinda ...concerning). And if she was changing literally four minutes later, she could've had a more flattering version for herself, since the original was made with intention to look like nude dress. 🤷♀
Kardash just proved one more time, what everybody has already known: she is just a vulgar rich woman, who has to "borrow" somebody's glory in order to shine in this reflected light. Marilyn was a great actress with a very tragic life & death. She was real, and so was her passion and her pain. And Kardash is just a simple moneybag, which cares only about profit.
In the US, a lot of museums separate their budgets by department. Many museums didn't even have an art history department until recently (if they even do now) that could have tried to buy the dress. Fashion history departments that/have existed are often really underfunded compared to the other departments in their institution because the field is so devalued. Also, clothing and fabric is a particularly vulnerable type of artefact. Clothes rarely live more than a couple hundred years, especially ones made with already delicate fabrics. I personally think the outrage has been kind of amazing, because fashion historians have been struggling to have their field taken seriously for so long, that getting this public attention in viewing a garment as a historical artefact is an amazing win for the field. As for people caring about where their own clothes come from... I take your point, and I'm 100% on the same page as you on this issue at large, but I don't think it's a fair comparison to make in this situation. This is more about history, art, and curatorial ethics than it is about clothing. The artefact just happens to be a dress, is all.
What's interesting is nobody says that Kim Kardashian is fat yet many people falsely believe Marilyn Monroe was plus size. Even after a starvation diet Kim couldn't fit into that dress.
EXCELLENT points Justine!!! Scientifically, it is impossible that the dress was not damaged JUST in her putting it on whether or not the damage is visible!! I absolutely cannot agree that KK is comparable to MM as a cultural icon, however, no!!! It is this illusion that KK is so obviously trying to cultivate by wearing the dress!
I don't think it's hypocritical for museums to be upset that an artifact was damaged just because they didn't purchase it. There could be a lot of reasons for that other than that they didn't want it or that they don't value fashion as high art.
@@corimi7341 this. We have photographic evidence of the dress being stretched out with some stones missing. We have so many textile conservationists talking about how the dress would have been damaged even if someone smaller than Marylin wore it because of body oils, movement, and UV exposure. The cotton gloves were a terrible choice because they catch on the material. Conservationists say the dress should have only been handled with nitrile gloves. “I wish people cared this much about where their own clothes came from.” Justine makes the mistake of thinking people can’t do both, and because this was her focus, she didn’t bother doing more research.
Many (probably most) museums have a "scope of interest" when collecting and preserving. A textile museum won't collect an Apple computer. A glass museum glass won't be interested in collecting baseballs. The museum of the American Revolution isn't going to be in the business of collecting JFK political memorabilia or 19th century Chinese export pottery. That doesn't mean that they don't care or "should have bought it" if they cared. This is a reminder that private collectors are have no obligation to actually care for the items in their collections. That said, I'm not sure a museum would ever be interested in hiring whatever "experts" went along with this stunt.
From the perspective of fashion historians, the sins committed were many and egregious - and they could have serious ramifications for the Met's Costume Institute, in support of which the Met Gala is held each year. Can the Institute maintain its integrity as a museum dedicated to the conservation and research into historical dress when, it appears, it depends for its funding on donations from elites who may then turn around and borrow historically-significant garments to wear, in direct violation of its mission. Worse yet is that Kim was enabled in this by the Met Gala board itself (headed by Anna Wintour), furnished with a room in which she could change into the replica. While there has been a long association between modern fashion media and the Met Gala (Diana Vreeland had headed the Board before Wintour), there seems to be a growing conflict in motive between the organizers of the Gala and the Institute that the event is intended to benefit. It does not help that Wintour has paid an inordinate degree of attention to the Kardashian-Jenner clan, perhaps beyond what would be appropriate for the editor-in-chief of the world's most famous fashion magazine.
Just speaking as someone who went to graduate school with archivists (both professors and students), no, it's not a question if she damaged the dress. She did. Even if she was exactly Monroe's size and it was made of durable linen or cotton, just putting it on her body with her sweat and body oils and exposing it to light would have damaged it. But worse, this was a very delicate, one of a kind dress that didn't fit her at all. So the only question is how extensive and extreme is the damage she did. She had a replica that she wore most of the time, making wearing the most expensive dress in human history (literally) at all just an unnecessary stunt. Frankly, the situation is pretty simple. The owners of a priceless historical artifact allowed a celebrity to do irreparable damage to said historical artifact, for reasons that didn't outweigh the risk. Glen Close's clothes from her movies have been better cared for, and they are less valuable and only have historical relevance in terms of media history. Monroe's dress is relevant to US history or world history, depending on how you see JFK and that aspect of his life. Oh, and just because archivists and curators were horrified doesn't mean they were ever in a position to do anything to prevent it. Being in charge of curating doesn't mean you have all the funds you want. As commented, even the Met's clothing curators don't get funded enough to do that. I get your point, but it's not fair to assume the preservationists who care about this are the same people who control funds.
100%. Thanks for pointing that out! Also, curators frequently don’t have that much power. They can say, “please don’t take that out of its low light controlled humidity storage,” but if someone with money and power wants to, they have to sit on the sidelines and worry.
Just because you can loan out an iconic piece of fashion history doesn't mean you should. Part of the value of that dress was that Marilyn was the last (and only) person to ever wear it. It was hers, and it was even her wish that she be the only one to wear it. Kim should have worn the replica she had made the entire night, and made a donation to Ripley's. She still could have generated buzz for herself, Ripley's, and introduced Marilyn to a younger generation of people without damaging a piece of iconography.
@@luzdeld I agree that the Environment is WAY WAY WAY more important!! In fact, it's EVERYTHING! Apropos the dress... I think a lot of the indignation has to do with people being bothered by the fact that ALL KK seems to care about is herself. It's the narcissism that bothers me. What do you think? I personally don't care about Marilyn Monroe one way or another. But I do care about Art and Fashion (that it transform itself into an Ethical industry). And I DO care that KK walks around doing whatever she likes 'BECAUSE SHE CAN' without any thought given to anyone else. I don't like that she is 'an influencer' because her values are questionable. That's my objection; The promotion of selfishness.
@@andreaandrea6716 I agree with all you say but I would add in my case I do “care about Marilyn Monroe one way or another.” (Long story there: for one thing, I am old enough to remember her and remember when she died) - What you say about the promotion of the value of selfishness is spot on, and a sad thing in our present world. I did enjoy this video of Justine’s very much. Justine, your knowledge and your charm pull me back to your videos time and again! Thank you! 💛💜
but Kim wearing her replica would have negated the whole point , to basically pick on an American icon and destroy the memory of Marilyn being the ONLY one to have warn the dress which was her intention. The dress was personal as was the relationship she had with the Kennedy family. Totally agree with your point, just because you own a dress that's iconic doesn't mean you should lend it out to whomever. I wonder how folk would feel if say the Picasso painting was lent out to someone who wanted to use for a party back drop or the Queen's wedding dress used at an end of year school play. Owners of iconic history pieces have a responsibility to respect their collection and what it means to history and it's impact on culture, hence historical building guidelines for those who buy castles and old colonial homes. Ripley abused their commercial right over the dress and basically trashed its history and its emotional meaning to the American people. The whole affair just highlights how some elites feel entitled so long as they donate money to something, their behaviour is inexcusable. Some things are worth more than publicity and money.
@@andreaandrea6716 I watched maybe 20 seconds of a short video where Kim is taking the viewer through her refurbished private jet, where her fresh flowers had to match the a colour scheme! Her mindset is revolting- it is brutish and uncivilised.
Hi Justine, Fabric is art and so is the designs of how to wear it! I frequent thrift stores to find amazing fabrics to repurpose. Not all Americans follow the Kardashians, tell the world!!! You look so content and happy, and I am happy for you that you have found your home at last. 🌸
I prefer thrift as well for many reasons The fabric has likely been washed, which means I know how it will wear. It is less expensive if you gain or lose weight or need temporary clothing, which also reduces the demand for fast fashion. Things cost less so then I don’t feel compelled to hold on to them forever if someone else can use them. You can find some really luxe and nicely tailored items, like Brooks Brothers pants, several higher end dresses (including a Halston from Bergdorf Goodman), and cashmere sweaters.
1. Ripley’s has been applying for museum accreditation for years. They’ll never get it now. 2. That’s the point of the controversy. The MET gala exists because the fashion history portion doesn’t get allocated funding. The Met has set back the credibility of fashion history by being complicit. 3. Please watch Abby Cox’s video. She’s a historian on fashion and textile history. She explains why this is a massive issue and why we should be angry and outraged and why we should be funding clothing history. 4. She may have gotten press and publicity but it was in the worst way possible. So many people have unfollowed her and sworn off supporting her. 5. The real losers here are women and women’s work and our contributions to society because that’s what’s being scoffed at… by Ripley’s and Kim.
I always thought the dress was indeed loaned from a museum. Knowing it was from a private collection puts a completely new perspective on this story and I thank you for making such a well informed video.
Question: Who wore it better? My opinion is MARILYN wore it better! Kim shouldn't have horned in on another's fame, she should get her own iconic dress if she wants one.
Very interesting points. What I found shocking about K wearing that dress has nothing to do with fashion. If, for example, she had worn Marilyn's iconic white "steam grate" dress I would not have given it a second thought. It was the juxtaposition of this dress and the Madison Square event with the political historical context of that time that really makes this more than about fashion, or actually not about fashion at all. M's affairs with the Kennedy brothers, the FBI scrutiny of that, the rumors of a dove-tailing of Hollywood, politics, and organized crime, the changing nature of what was taboo to the press, the over- the- top sexuality of the dress basically confirming the affairs, not to mention Jackie being in the audience, the beginnings of a sexual revolution in the US, all added up to a very unique turning point in US politics which was occurring at that time. Kim K may be a somethimg of a cultural phenomenon now but her influence doesnt come close to how this dress symbolized a critical historical time. It's like K tried to piggyback that for more exposure and just miserably failed. In a hundred years, that event at Madison Square Garden will still be historically and politically significant while the Kardashians will be a footnote along with 80s aerobic knee socks and plastic 70s dresses.
Just to clear up one point: in the USA you cannot take any tax benefits for a charitable donation made in your name. The person who gave the actual donation gets the tax break and the donation must be to a charity recognized by the IRS. Kim gets the tax credit for the 2 donations she made to Orlando charities, not Ripley's.
The designer of the dress is Bob Mackie; he sketched the dress in 1962 for Jean Louis. Amazingly he had only recently graduated from college. It would be interesting to know his point of view on the situation. I think for many people this boils down to a matter of respect and understanding. Even if one knows or cares nothing about fashion history or design, demonstrating a level of respect and appreciation for the passion and effort others put into their craft is always classy.
Respect is to understand how the industry works. Designers’ staff don’t get credit. You work your apprenticeship and build your know,she and skills. Design don’t freestyle; if you look at Jean Louis’ ranges at that time, the fabrication and adornment are all consistent. Mackie was 23 years old and working to a brief. To inflate his role is just disrespectful. Do we know the name of every junior designer who worked for Mackie when he was dressing Cher? Of course not, nor should we.
@@lizziebkennedy7505 Wow, you really took what I said out of context. I neither meant to overinflate Bob Mackie nor insult Jean Louis, I erroneously assumed that everyone knew that such was the case in the industry without getting offended if someone pointed it out. I'm sure you haven't gone on Twitter to tell Bob Mackie off for posing with his sketches next to the dress at Ripley's. And yes, there are people who know and care about the work of junior designers who work for major designers and/or at major fashion houses. When I spoke of what Bob Mackie's opinion might be and respect for the work of others I wasn't referring to Bob Mackie or Jean Louis and the designing of the dress but the situation in general that is being discussed which includes the dress and by extension the fashion industry. Showing respect for the work of others can be applied to all people and in all types of disciplines.
People were upset because a lot of people feel for Marilyn Monroe. She was very intelligent, a great actress, she worked very hard and was quite beautiful. She created the Marilyn Monroe character but many of us feel that she was badly mistreated. And finally, she died so young. We miss her and didn't even know her! You make a lot of good points. Too bad the media isn't as astute as you! Thank you! p.s. I too wondered how kim could fit into that dress!
The designer, Jean Louis, made a very similar dress years before, worn by Marlene Dietrich for her Las Vegas cabaret act. She also wore it on TV for a special which I remember watching as a child. She basically stood in one spot for nearly an hour while she sang and talked because she had been sewn into that sparkly dress.
The dress should not have been lent out for any reason, and only was because no one can say "no" to the super rich, I guess. Perhaps real museums will think twice about garment acquisition after this. Thanks for posting!
P. S. I loved hearing the detailed history of the dress. I vaguely remember her singing this song to him. How scandalous it was then, even without the internet. 😇
@@justineleconte I am sure the newspapers’ circulation skyrocketed. Marilyn Monroe remains spectacular in terms of physical beauty, to name one of her attractions. Celebrities today have millions of dollars at their disposal for Botox, fillers, wigs, padded dresses, makeup and hair artists, stylists, dieticians and physical trainers etc., yet no-one comes close to diminishing or superseding the beauty of Marilyn Monroe. In contrast to greedy, materialistic Hollywood Marilyn Monroe lived a modest lifestyle. According to Marilyn Monroe’s housekeeper she had a small personal wardrobe and could often be seen in the same dress. There are many profoundly moving and disturbing facts about the life of Marilyn Monroe - her profound vulnerability and sensitivity are palpable. But Marilyn was loved in her lifetime and achieved greatness in her work.
@@jchur7128 the original face of Norma Jean was altered to become MM. Her greatest sorrow was her inability to conceive a much desired child. Arthur Miller pointed out to her about the extreme power she had over men. Yet, being childless destroyed her.
Thank you for explaining. Unfortunately Kim Kardashian has a massive ego and thinks she can do what ever she likes, because of her money and celebrity status. It should never have been worn by anyone. Is someone now, going to want to wear her Some like it Hot dress. I hope not.
Marilyn Monroe should have been the last person to ever wear this dress. But just look at how they are manhandling the dress whilst trying to close it over her behind! That is so irresponsible. Ripley are the owners but they clearly have no respect for the items in their collection. Fashion items are rated lower than others because they are in the female realm. You will find that across all hobbies or collectables. Female interests are seen as superficial, fluff, a waste of time and money.
The V&A in London and Dundee do have occasional exhibitions of dresses. I visited on such exhibition a few years ago. All the dresses on display had been worn by famous women. A number of award winning actresses and the late Diana, Princess of Wales. The exhibition was well curated and presented but I found it all rather sad. Without the beautiful women to wear them, the dresses lost something of their lustre. Despite being exquisitely made, of the finest fabrics, they looked sad. They reminded me of Victorian frames of butterflies pinned to a board. Their wings dusty and dull. Dresses are meant to be worn
Then MM's estate should not have sold it or under strict conditions. The dress never had a zipper. It was very carefully handled by professionals and only worn for 4min.
@@WeLiveByTheSea Yes! The V&A have amazing collections, and they do these types of exhibits once in a while, but they are the exception and not the rule. Collectables exclusively in the female realm are still not valued as highly as items men typically collect, this is a fact. If you look around a bit you will see it for yourself.
@@theplaylister Nope. They shouldn’t have sold it but Ripley also have a responsibility towards the artifacts they own and display. You can literally see a clip in this video that they are pulling the dress really vigorously trying to close it over Kim’s rear end, but failing! Such a fragile fabric should never be handled like that. Period.
@@ronjakh did you not watch the video? It's literally privately owned, it's theirs. Sure it's history, but it's theirs. Buy the dress if you want to protect it so much :)
This is such a great analysis on the Marilyn vs Kim dress controversy. I initially thought it was a wild idea for Marilyn's dress to be loaned to Kim, however, you've brought up a lot of great points and counterarguments that I think the collective society should think about. I think the biggest takeaway (that you touched on) is we should regard fashion as a true art form, if we want to keep iconic pieces from pop culture sacred. Also, we should feel the same away about the fashion we consume (*cough* fast fashion *cough*). All in all, a great video as always, Justine!
@@luzdeld we can use that argument on everything historical so. A painting of Leonardo Da Vinci got destroyed "oh, its just a painting", the church of Nothre Dame caught con fire "it was an old church anyways"... Idk about that... I think we should care about historical artifacts as well as how fast fashion is having an impact on earth. History is important to share how was life in diferent eras. We need to preserve the few things that hold value to be able to learn from our predesesors. Edit: typo. Oops.
I very much respect your view on all things fashion. You made some good points. I'm not sure how you say that Ripley has profited because though I might have wished to visit them, I will make sure I do not following this stunt. I believe we now care about the dress because we have learned a lot more about Marilyn, her struggles and how others used her. I view the dress not as a fashion item but as an artifact, a witness of her history and that of 60s U.S. The dress must have kept Marilyn's DNA or some imagined imprint of her. Not anymore, the aura is gone. I believe Kim used someone else's fame to raise her own which is more mercantile than what Marilyn did. She wanted to be loved. Even if a private owner of a Picasso could do what he wants to it, we would certainly despise that person for destroying the painting. Think about if there was only one dress left of Marie-Antoinette and someone did that to the dress. Artifacts fade and dissolve, but it's no reason to accelerate it. 🥰
Justine, not only could she not have any body make-up on which she almost always wears in public but she could not have a trace of body lotion nor perfume on whatsoever.
Your excellent commentary actually allowed me to focus on what my own gripe with KK wearing the dress had been. I realized that I have had the impression that she does whatever she can for press, without much awareness of what the real cost (other than financial) to others may be. That is only my impression; I do not know her personally. But this video made me think about my initial response more deeply. Thank you!!
@@sonadvorakova1458 Is it really? Then why did none of the big museums with a lot of money behind them phone up some of their donors and say "The fabric equivalent of the Mona Lisa is up for auction - won't you help us acquire it?" Because if it really was more than just a scandalous pop culture moment, and worth saving no matter who had worn it or why, then legitimate museums should have been doing their best to add it to their collections. Not one of them, even the Smithsonian, bid on it.
@@larkmacgregor3143 I don’t even know how to respond to that. It is one of the most beautiful and most famous dresses in the world, made specifically for Marilyn Monroe. That’s a fact. Deal with it. The owner of the dress should have respected her wish. Why they didn’t, is beyond me.
Thank you for the concise breakdown on the dress itself. I have very mixed feelings especially due to this being an historical garment and the overall fragility of a museum-worthy piece being worn decades later. I almost wish Kim had had a dress made specifically for her (by perhaps a new designer/different dress), just as Marilyn did.
While I personally don't care much about the dress specifically, a lot of people do. If someone bought a cherished painting by Rembrandt (or someone of equivalent historical significance) and stabbed it all over with a knife, in our current system it's completely legal for them to do so, but that doesn't make it okay. Legal and moral are different concepts. Some things are part of our shared human history. More and more people are angry about the wealth inequality inherent in capitalism and seeing how the super-rich can buy widely-cherished unique historical items for themselves and trash them understandably emphasizes the immense unearned power and privilege of the ruling class. They're doing the same thing to the Earth, a thing that surely should belong to all of us.
I don't know how you can compare a woman who is famous for simply being famous and Marilyn, a critically-acclaimed actress whose beauty will go down in history. Kim? Not so much.
Here is one of the outraged conservators. I disagree here. The dress was damaged, no doubt about that. The gloves were ridiculous and actually damaging themselves, there only to suggest ‘care’ that was clearly not there. Besides a curator is not the professional figure to assist in a situation like this. The state of that dress was altered and interfered with forever. This may not necessarily be a negative fact in all instances, but in this case what was it for? A caprice? I really don’t think what can be seen as a smart economic move is a good move per se.
What the World gained with Kim wearing Merilyns dress? Nothing! So basically a part of history is destroyed in order to gain nothing. This is completely disrespectful toward Merilyns heritage. She had been used in her life, but even 60 years later. Very sad!
Justine ma cherie, the simple fact that more than one person didn't believe Kim was wearing the actual Marilyn dress reveals how unreasonable the whole idea is. I personally think it's pure selfishness, there is absolutely no excuse for Kim to feel entitled to wear that dress (change her name to karen kardashian lol). But then again, how to expect something different from that family?
You raise many great points. But it’s a bit disingenuous to point the finger at museums for ‘not being there when this dress was up for sale’ as the response to fashion historians at those museums being frustrated at the mistreatment of a historical artifact. Especially when you mention the blatant lack of funding for fashion history due to its perception as lesser than traditional art. If those employees of an institution had their say, and discretion over spending, I am certain they would have chosen to protect this dress as a part of a curated collection.
Hi Justine, thank you for the video, well-researched as always. While you bring interesting and valid points to support the decision of KK and Ripley, the debate around wearing the dress is one of morals and ethics. Are you implying that because Kim paid/made a donation and Ripley got promotion this makes it ok? So what if a few years ago more conservative museums didn't buy the dress? Does that nullify their concern for what is now a museum artefact? Maybe they realized they made a mistake, made they didn't, but they can still express their professional opinion on the issue and we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it because they didn't pay years ago. Is this where we're headed? Pay up and we'll listen? I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should be concerned with the sourcing of our clothing, but what's that got to do with a pop/social/ethics debate? Using the same logic, but pushing it further, there are people in the world suffering of hunger - isn't frivolous to be concerned with fashion? Why aren't we more outraged about that instead of clothing sourcing? People were upset by the entitlement brought on by millions of dollars which allows certain people to eschew social norms and conventions, i.e., rules don't apply to me. That's what stands at the core of the debate. Add to that, the potential destruction of the dress itself. Your video seems to say that's ok, and let's think clothes' sourcing. While we're on that, if we want to be completely honest, most people can't afford to always buy ethically sourced clothing, so whether we want it or not, fast fashion is going to be the main provider. From what I ve noticed, some fast fashion brands are trying to be more careful to the environment and to human rights. That aside, it's not fair to deviate attention from what is an important social/ethical debate, even with a dress at the middle of if, to guilt tripping individuals about their buying choices. Both are important issues, and they can definitely co-exist. Anyway, I always watch your content with pleasure, it wasn't the case with this one, but I'm still a fan. My comment is not meant to bring any vitriol or throw any shade and I hope it might sparks a reconsideration of the issue at hand. Always a subscriber and a virtual friend, G.
If you owned a Monet, you get to do what you want with it. Ripley's owned it. They let her wear it. There's nothing morally wrong in either of those decisions. Also, if an actress was sleeping with a married US president and his brother and then publicly sang happy birthday in a nude see-through dress nowadays, I think the same people who call Marilyn an icon would call that woman.... insulting things.
Really great video! I think some of the outrage was that the dress wasn't even on theme and Kim was using it purely to create a "viral moment" aka free press. It was disrespectful to the event and the garment at once.
A phenomenal discussion regarding the dress, Thank You! While I believe that Marilyn Monroe is truly iconic, I don’t feel the same about Kim. Sure she has a huge following, but most days I’m not sure what she’s famous for. I was in the camp of how dare you wear the dress and thought it was a copy.
Fashion is as important as any other art form. My best friend is an archivist who specialises in fashion and I love going to exhibitions with her. I think more museums and archives should invest in historically important clothes.
I don’t understand why people got “genuinely angry” or if it was in fact genuine at all. You touched on several great points. Thank you for breaking it all down.
thank you for your intelligent in depth analysis, which makes a lot of sense, of course, rationally. It does not make me feel better about somehow ruining something precious, a memory...I am nostalgic, romantic, in love with vintage retrò style, old movies and the like, and beyond all the cold facts, press/money/etc aspects, it just pained me because Marilyn is special to me while the other woman I consider a symbol of so much that is simply trash in our modern culture, including of course "the way they function" and the fact that money can buy and destroy anything... bisous...looking forward to your nest house updates!
Very much agree with your point about people not caring enough where their clothes come from. However, I work for a regional museum service in the UK and our budget for buying objects for our collection is hundreds. Even nationals wouldnt have a budget of millions to spend on one item. I'm sure a lot of museums in the US would have loved to buy it but simply couldnt afford it x
I think it is because that is a relic that shouldn't be on nobody's hands and second, because so many people dislike the Kardashians because of their lack in taste and common sense while having so much money.
You make some great points! One thing, though: in the close-up photos of the back of the dress, you can clearly see that it does, in fact, have a zipper.
The only thing for me is that all this happened and the dress wasn't even related to the theme, nevertheless being destroyed and used as a means of publicity. I think it's just plain arrogance and greed that all of this came to occur.
I like this neutral viewpoint! For Americans Marilyn Monroe is our Coco Chanel. This scandal has actually made the public aware that many American Pop Icon's Wardrobe pieces are historical museum worthy. That funding should be raised so belongings, especially fashion clothing should be purchased and preserved. Ripley's is a "sideshow" circus carnival museum, not a historical museum. So again it created awareness that many historical museums do not have the funding to purchase famous fashion pieces and it ends up being bought by private collectors. I'm curious to hear what would be the opinion if a French controversial influencer wore Coco Chanel's personal little black dress to a celebrity event that didn't fit her. Would it be a scandal? Would there be a similar reaction? Do private collectors own a lot of Coco's wardrobe or is it in historical museums? Thank you for the interesting video! 😊
Great to hear an extended discussion of the place of fashion in culture and history, along with a current controversy! Lots in your talk I did not know, so thank you for all that research. Making the point about people caring where their own clothes come from is GREAT! We don’t think about the harm to nature we do as we choose our clothes. All the best from SF, and hope your new house is coming along according to plan.
I heard the Monroe dress was "too pricey" for a museum budget, but that is hearsay. Ripley and Kim K. wanted buzz and widespread advertising for their respective brands, so level attained. It might have been nice if Kim could have bought and donated the gown to a museum like the MET after ordering a replica (that fit her pre-crash diet weight) for the 2022 gala. It also might have been nice if Kim did not announce publicly that she had to lose so much weight so quickly, simply to fit into a dress. Supposedly Thomas Jefferson (the 3rd president of the U.S.) said that, “The government you elect is the government you deserve." I guess you can also rewrite this quotation to say that the celebrities that we raise up are the celebrities that we deserve.
Simply put, there is a lot of bad information out there about Kim K. wearing this dress, which you're perpetuating a bit. We know for a fact she wore the gown three times, not just once. There were two fittings as confirmed by Ripley's. And her red carpet walk at the gala was over eight minutes. It wasn't "just three to four minutes," as she said on the Today show. It's not really hard to verify these things. As the person who first shared the damage to the dress, which went viral, I've done extensive research on the topic and have done numerous photo comparisons, some of which include screen captures from Ripley's own video of the April fitting, compared to after Kim wore it (52 days later). There is no question that allowing the dress to be worn cause significant, irreversible damage. Why did you not include other photo comparisons? Or perhaps the photo of the torn right shoulder strap, or the damage to the kick pleat? Also, please, enough with the story that she was sewn into the dress. It-had-a-zipper. An adjustment to the dress via a stitch or two (if that even happened the night of the JFK gala, and we don't know, nor will we ever) does not equate to being sewn into a garment. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they're not entitled to their own facts. Yes, Ripley's made a calculated decision and it's clear now that it was all part of a master plan. I do agree with you that one can't really complain when they could have bought the garment to preserve and protect it (which I wish would have happened). Alas, the dress is now forever damaged and has become a freak attraction at Ripley's, who appears to be turning it all into one big joke. So be it.
“I wish people cared that much about where their own clothes come from.” Talk about an icon! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
This is when I clapped. I love Justine.
@@calmbeforethestorm9498 serious mic drop, she’s incredible!
Yes!
An absolute MIC DROP moment.
that's why I have decided to sew my own wardrobe. I can choose where and who makes the fabric. Ethically made labels are expensive and I cant afford it unfortunately, but I can support those who handweave on a loom loom from small villages and cities then I will
This is the most intelligent, thorough, thoughtful and balanced coverage of this dress that I have seen. It really helped me understand the whole phenomenon. So many good points, and all well explained. Thanks, Justine!
You should watch Abby Cox video for an in-depth discussion of why this is a problem and why it shouldn’t have happened. Extremely intelligent and thought out statements made by someone with the credentials to back it up. Clothing and textile history is her whole entire career.
@@Chaotic_Pixie I watched that one but seeing this video with the explanation of it being a copy I'm not sure it's such an issue as it was made out to be.
Le verità sono due. La prima è che il vestito di Marylin è caduto in mani sbagliate. La seconda è che alla kardashan stava malissimo. Brutto ma brutto assai..
@@Nelly-J Justine just explained that it’s NOT a copy. It was the original and didn’t actually fit her. The back had to be left open. That’s why she has the white stole covering her back side.
@@Chaotic_Pixie Read my statement above! This happens more often than you think. I have a friend who worked for the Royal Opera House in London and Paris Opera. Both theaters have huge costume collections dating back several hundred years. For special events, these costumes are taken out, worn and even danced in. It's a huge honor to wear the same robes as Beverly Sills and Luciano Pavarotti!
You brought up a lot of points I hadn’t even considered! Very thought provoking video. Personally, I didn’t have any moral outrage about the dress being lent out, I was just irritated with Kim for wearing the dress and damaging it. I’ve never been a fan of hers, I don’t really think her style is all that interesting, and I saw her choosing to wear Marilyn’s dress as a cheap move for the press, which as you aptly said, is “how the Kardashians operate”.
Kardash just proved one more time, what everybody has already known: she is just a vulgar rich woman, who has to "borrow" somebody's glory in order to shine in this reflected light. Marilyn was a great actress with a very tragic life & death. She was real, and so was her passion and her pain. And Kardash is just a simple moneybag, which cares only about profit.
exactly, you just trashed her because you don't like her.
I agree. If someone was to wear the dress, without altering it... That would have been ok, or ok-ish.
But she had it modified
Which... Not so great
She's like most people at the 'top', their self absorbed borderline 'narcissists'. That's why they are where they are, because they always want more and nothing they currently have is good enough. I think that's why people kick off about small things like this dress. It's not the dress, it's the excessiveness and self centered ego we can't stand. Especially in a time where excessiveness is causing so much destruction.
@@jiminycricket6428 Very well said! Thank you!
"Marilyn is perfect because she's gone, and every passing decade makes her even more perfect in the collective memory." YES. The dress was a publicity stunt, and now it's a publicity stunt again.
that sums it up well
Marilyn is perfect because she was authentic.
@@jeanlaubenthal698 Sadly she wasn't. She was a very intelligent woman who admitted in her journal that she hated that men didn't take her seriously and only regarded her as an ornament. She was what the world wanted her to be and it broke her.
@ where is this journal :O
It isnt about being perfect. We simply adore her AND the place in history she holds. Sure some things may be more important. This doesn't negate the fact that I don't want someone else in 2022 wearing it and certainly not being carless with it. Maybe not everyone thinks of it this deeply. I didn't know MM after all but she has a part in and a place in women's history. Its the Juxtaposition of KK for me. One women's struggle, achievement, art
Aside someone with less esteem.
"Even if you do a diet implants do not shrink" preach!!!!
If this ain’t one of the most perfectly executed videos of 2022, I do not know what is. 0 nonsense, 0 clickbait, just hard facts.
Keep it up, sister. ❤️🔥
Thank you!!
I don't think historical clothing should be worn by anyone. Period.
Thank you Justine for the history of the dress. You are right about, we need to be VERY CONCERNED about where WE OURSELVES are getting our clothes made. 😔
That was a great point that shut it all down 😆. No one can point fingers cuz most of us have 3 pointing back! And also her other zinger was pointing out how Marylin gets more perfect as the decades go on. It reminds me of a quote "mean people never die". You can substitute any unsavory word. But point is we make people out to be so angelic and perfect once they pass. Marylin was prob just as scandalous as Kim lol. No need to be so emotionally distraught them two were kinda cut from the same cloth 🤣🤣(pun absolutely intended) 💁.
@@chenanigans I liked your pun 😄
@@justineleconte hey thanks! 😄😍
@@chenanigans
No.
They were NOT cut from the same cloth.
Ms Kardashian is like Cindirellas's sister, trying to fit the beautiful shoe that was not hers. Wanted to be iconic too😂
Haha, that's a good metaphor actually. 😉
And Kim ALWAYS FAILS MISERABLY to be even a bit above verage, much less "iconic."
I would like to add to the comments recommending the video that Abby Cox put out about this dress and the reasons why museums may not have been able to purchase the dress even though they very likely would have if it had been possible. She does a fantastic breakdown of all of the points brought up here in this video as well, the social issues, the dress history, and down to in depth knowledge about the damage to the dress itself. I feel like possibly many people have not understood the trouble that clothing and costume historians and departments of museums have in accessing pieces. Justine pointed out the exact problem here too which is that people don't count it as an artform and something that should be value. As such museums get little to no funding for those departments and are struggling constantly to change the public's perception, interest, and value in this topic.
It’s strange, because I find costume exhibits more interesting than paintings and sculpture. Clothes tell one so much about history and life from a time period.
No gossip, no unnecessary backlash just straight to point!
Exactly! She's a gorgeous straight talking smart French woman.
I wonder if Ripley’s understands that Kim wearing it REDUCED the value of the dress?
lol
"I wish people cared that much about where their own clothes come from." Yes! Stellar point and so well said. Not a fan of any of the K fam at all and still don't think she should have worn it but your video massively puts it all into perspective. Well done. Merci.
💯
Abby Cox did a video on this as well, from her perspective as a dress historian, and she explains really well why Kim Kardashian wearing this dress - even if it's just for four minutes - is a really big deal for dress and pop culture history. Most dress history departments in museums also don't have big budgets at all (people tend not to know how little money most museums have at their disposal, except the big ones of course), and the Met doesn't provide funding for their's at all. That's the whole reason why the Met Gala is even a thing in the first place. To secure funding. Unfortunately, only Ripley had the funds to buy this dress.
Thanks for that background.
+
I enjoyed Abby’s analysis too
This is really important information. Justine talked as if people who care about history didn't care about buying it when they had the opportunity forgetting that not all museums have the same money as the Louvre.
@@nanda483 when you do research, there's always more things to uncover and more angles to be explored. It's likely that in preparation for the video Justine didn't have enough time to look into which museums could realistically afford to buy the dress. Alternatively, the info on museums' budgets might not be publicly available, hence impossible to compare.
Sartorial necromancy. Very creepy and almost trying to steal her limelight.
MM was degraded in her own time and now can't even have the one dress designed exactly for her. It's shameful another woman did this to her. Copycats should still be respectful and she had a replica ready to go. Should've made it match her own skin for same effect, as homage, not rip-off.
Wonderful analogy! I couldn’t agree more!
She was not ALONE to do this.
It was ...collaboration...
I call it sacrilege.
Who cares? You don't own it not your problem.
I think you mean necrophilia. Necromancy is magic.
From what I understand, the Met, Winter have to approve the dresses. People are angry that they allowed it. Not just Ripley's.
That's what I am seeing to - but I do follow mostly people knowledgeable in historical costume and fashion - people are not against the actions of just Kim or just Ripley's, but the whole situation where something like this can even happen so easily for clout and profit
@@hypatiakovalevskayasklodow9195 Exactly!
People are complaining that they want the dress in a museum. Kim wears it to a museum and people get all mad and huffy! 🙄
I was shocked that Kim… who had a different body type and skin tone… wanted to wear the original, because it didn’t fit… and she didn’t wear it as well (without undies) like Marilyn did. She also had a better fitting copy made, that she wore for the rest of the gala. Why not just wear that, for the red carpet too… and just mention it being “like Marilyn’s”? Probably because she wanted the “media drama” and perhaps the “I am important enough that I can get whatever I want.” 🤷🏻♀️
Of course she wanted the drama, and she got what she wanted. Same with Marilyn . She wore that dress purely to show off her hoeing around tendencies. (I mean Marilyn)
elite Hollywood narcissist at its finest!!
Wow, Justine. You did a terrific job of researching this topic and giving a fair and dispassionate assessment of the controversy. Great job!
Personally, I don’t understand why she chose to wear the dress in the first place. She should have known it wouldn’t fit per proportions, no matter how much weight she lost. It also doesn’t flatter her skin tone. I think it’s always better to wear something that suits you rather than squeeze into something just because you think it’s pretty.
She had to wear the real one for the attention. Wearing a more flattering copy would have been completely forgettable and for a manufactured celebrity's lifestyle, attention is oxygen.
@@myladycasagrande863 Like I get the need for attention but the dress didn't suit her nor fit her (dieting this way is kinda ...concerning).
And if she was changing literally four minutes later, she could've had a more flattering version for herself, since the original was made with intention to look like nude dress.
🤷♀
Justine said it well, it’s about the attention/publicity and in today’s 🌍 that equals $$$$
Kardash just proved one more time, what everybody has already known: she is just a vulgar rich woman, who has to "borrow" somebody's glory in order to shine in this reflected light. Marilyn was a great actress with a very tragic life & death. She was real, and so was her passion and her pain. And Kardash is just a simple moneybag, which cares only about profit.
For attention, and publicity.
That’s how their whole family business run.
In the US, a lot of museums separate their budgets by department. Many museums didn't even have an art history department until recently (if they even do now) that could have tried to buy the dress. Fashion history departments that/have existed are often really underfunded compared to the other departments in their institution because the field is so devalued. Also, clothing and fabric is a particularly vulnerable type of artefact. Clothes rarely live more than a couple hundred years, especially ones made with already delicate fabrics. I personally think the outrage has been kind of amazing, because fashion historians have been struggling to have their field taken seriously for so long, that getting this public attention in viewing a garment as a historical artefact is an amazing win for the field.
As for people caring about where their own clothes come from... I take your point, and I'm 100% on the same page as you on this issue at large, but I don't think it's a fair comparison to make in this situation. This is more about history, art, and curatorial ethics than it is about clothing. The artefact just happens to be a dress, is all.
What's interesting is nobody says that Kim Kardashian is fat yet many people falsely believe Marilyn Monroe was plus size. Even after a starvation diet Kim couldn't fit into that dress.
EXCELLENT points Justine!!! Scientifically, it is impossible that the dress was not damaged JUST in her putting it on whether or not the damage is visible!! I absolutely cannot agree that KK is comparable to MM as a cultural icon, however, no!!! It is this illusion that KK is so obviously trying to cultivate by wearing the dress!
I've heard the expression of stepping into someone else's shoes.
Kim stepping into
Monroe 's dress and butchering it, shows she is no original. 🤷♀️
I don't think it's hypocritical for museums to be upset that an artifact was damaged just because they didn't purchase it. There could be a lot of reasons for that other than that they didn't want it or that they don't value fashion as high art.
Right. Museums are interested in historic artifacts, that is their expertise, so naturally they have strong opinions about such things.
I think this review by Justine (I respect you but I do not agree on this one ) is over simplified
@@corimi7341 this. We have photographic evidence of the dress being stretched out with some stones missing. We have so many textile conservationists talking about how the dress would have been damaged even if someone smaller than Marylin wore it because of body oils, movement, and UV exposure. The cotton gloves were a terrible choice because they catch on the material. Conservationists say the dress should have only been handled with nitrile gloves.
“I wish people cared this much about where their own clothes came from.” Justine makes the mistake of thinking people can’t do both, and because this was her focus, she didn’t bother doing more research.
Many (probably most) museums have a "scope of interest" when collecting and preserving. A textile museum won't collect an Apple computer. A glass museum glass won't be interested in collecting baseballs. The museum of the American Revolution isn't going to be in the business of collecting JFK political memorabilia or 19th century Chinese export pottery. That doesn't mean that they don't care or "should have bought it" if they cared. This is a reminder that private collectors are have no obligation to actually care for the items in their collections. That said, I'm not sure a museum would ever be interested in hiring whatever "experts" went along with this stunt.
@@corimi7341 I agree with you!
"I would like to address the dress" awwh you're so proud of that rhyme and I'm proud of you for it!
hehehe English isn't my mother tongue so I'm not so good at puns... 😅
@@justineleconte it was funny lmao. You are very good at English.
From the perspective of fashion historians, the sins committed were many and egregious - and they could have serious ramifications for the Met's Costume Institute, in support of which the Met Gala is held each year. Can the Institute maintain its integrity as a museum dedicated to the conservation and research into historical dress when, it appears, it depends for its funding on donations from elites who may then turn around and borrow historically-significant garments to wear, in direct violation of its mission.
Worse yet is that Kim was enabled in this by the Met Gala board itself (headed by Anna Wintour), furnished with a room in which she could change into the replica. While there has been a long association between modern fashion media and the Met Gala (Diana Vreeland had headed the Board before Wintour), there seems to be a growing conflict in motive between the organizers of the Gala and the Institute that the event is intended to benefit. It does not help that Wintour has paid an inordinate degree of attention to the Kardashian-Jenner clan, perhaps beyond what would be appropriate for the editor-in-chief of the world's most famous fashion magazine.
My sentiments exactly!
Just speaking as someone who went to graduate school with archivists (both professors and students), no, it's not a question if she damaged the dress. She did. Even if she was exactly Monroe's size and it was made of durable linen or cotton, just putting it on her body with her sweat and body oils and exposing it to light would have damaged it. But worse, this was a very delicate, one of a kind dress that didn't fit her at all. So the only question is how extensive and extreme is the damage she did.
She had a replica that she wore most of the time, making wearing the most expensive dress in human history (literally) at all just an unnecessary stunt. Frankly, the situation is pretty simple. The owners of a priceless historical artifact allowed a celebrity to do irreparable damage to said historical artifact, for reasons that didn't outweigh the risk. Glen Close's clothes from her movies have been better cared for, and they are less valuable and only have historical relevance in terms of media history. Monroe's dress is relevant to US history or world history, depending on how you see JFK and that aspect of his life.
Oh, and just because archivists and curators were horrified doesn't mean they were ever in a position to do anything to prevent it. Being in charge of curating doesn't mean you have all the funds you want. As commented, even the Met's clothing curators don't get funded enough to do that. I get your point, but it's not fair to assume the preservationists who care about this are the same people who control funds.
100%. Thanks for pointing that out! Also, curators frequently don’t have that much power. They can say, “please don’t take that out of its low light controlled humidity storage,” but if someone with money and power wants to, they have to sit on the sidelines and worry.
I couldn’t agree more
Just because you can loan out an iconic piece of fashion history doesn't mean you should. Part of the value of that dress was that Marilyn was the last (and only) person to ever wear it. It was hers, and it was even her wish that she be the only one to wear it. Kim should have worn the replica she had made the entire night, and made a donation to Ripley's. She still could have generated buzz for herself, Ripley's, and introduced Marilyn to a younger generation of people without damaging a piece of iconography.
It just a dress. All material things get destroy at some point. Its more important that we dont destroy earth because we live on it.
@@luzdeld I agree that the Environment is WAY WAY WAY more important!! In fact, it's EVERYTHING!
Apropos the dress... I think a lot of the indignation has to do with people being bothered by the fact that ALL KK seems to care about is herself. It's the narcissism that bothers me. What do you think?
I personally don't care about Marilyn Monroe one way or another. But I do care about Art and Fashion (that it transform itself into an Ethical industry).
And I DO care that KK walks around doing whatever she likes 'BECAUSE SHE CAN' without any thought given to anyone else. I don't like that she is 'an influencer' because her values are questionable. That's my objection; The promotion of selfishness.
@@andreaandrea6716 I agree with all you say but I would add in my case I do “care about Marilyn Monroe one way or another.” (Long story there: for one thing, I am old enough to remember her and remember when she died) - What you say about the promotion of the value of selfishness is spot on, and a sad thing in our present world. I did enjoy this video of Justine’s very much. Justine, your knowledge and your charm pull me back to your videos time and again! Thank you! 💛💜
but Kim wearing her replica would have negated the whole point , to basically pick on an American icon and destroy the memory of Marilyn being the ONLY one to have warn the dress which was her intention. The dress was personal as was the relationship she had with the Kennedy family. Totally agree with your point, just because you own a dress that's iconic doesn't mean you should lend it out to whomever. I wonder how folk would feel if say the Picasso painting was lent out to someone who wanted to use for a party back drop or the Queen's wedding dress used at an end of year school play. Owners of iconic history pieces have a responsibility to respect their collection and what it means to history and it's impact on culture, hence historical building guidelines for those who buy castles and old colonial homes. Ripley abused their commercial right over the dress and basically trashed its history and its emotional meaning to the American people. The whole affair just highlights how some elites feel entitled so long as they donate money to something, their behaviour is inexcusable. Some things are worth more than publicity and money.
@@andreaandrea6716 I watched maybe 20 seconds of a short video where Kim is taking the viewer through her refurbished private jet, where her fresh flowers had to match the a colour scheme! Her mindset is revolting- it is brutish and uncivilised.
Hi Justine, Fabric is art and so is the designs of how to wear it! I frequent thrift stores to find amazing fabrics to repurpose. Not all Americans follow the Kardashians, tell the world!!! You look so content and happy, and I am happy for you that you have found your home at last. 🌸
I too prefer thrifting. I call it my urban hunting.
I prefer thrift as well for many reasons
The fabric has likely been washed, which means I know how it will wear.
It is less expensive if you gain or lose weight or need temporary clothing, which also reduces the demand for fast fashion.
Things cost less so then I don’t feel compelled to hold on to them forever if someone else can use them.
You can find some really luxe and nicely tailored items, like Brooks Brothers pants, several higher end dresses (including a Halston from Bergdorf Goodman), and cashmere sweaters.
1. Ripley’s has been applying for museum accreditation for years. They’ll never get it now.
2. That’s the point of the controversy. The MET gala exists because the fashion history portion doesn’t get allocated funding. The Met has set back the credibility of fashion history by being complicit.
3. Please watch Abby Cox’s video. She’s a historian on fashion and textile history. She explains why this is a massive issue and why we should be angry and outraged and why we should be funding clothing history.
4. She may have gotten press and publicity but it was in the worst way possible. So many people have unfollowed her and sworn off supporting her.
5. The real losers here are women and women’s work and our contributions to society because that’s what’s being scoffed at… by Ripley’s and Kim.
Women are losing? 👀😳
HOW? Y'all are just too much. Too many feelings!
Nonsense.
I believe no one was meant to ever wear that dress after MM. Kind of takes a dump on the whole point of the dress.
I always thought the dress was indeed loaned from a museum. Knowing it was from a private collection puts a completely new perspective on this story and I thank you for making such a well informed video.
Question: Who wore it better? My opinion is MARILYN wore it better! Kim shouldn't have horned in on another's fame, she should get her own iconic dress if she wants one.
Very interesting points. What I found shocking about K wearing that dress has nothing to do with fashion. If, for example, she had worn Marilyn's iconic white "steam grate" dress I would not have given it a second thought. It was the juxtaposition of this dress and the Madison Square event with the political historical context of that time that really makes this more than about fashion, or actually not about fashion at all. M's affairs with the Kennedy brothers, the FBI scrutiny of that, the rumors of a dove-tailing of Hollywood, politics, and organized crime, the changing nature of what was taboo to the press, the over- the- top sexuality of the dress basically confirming the affairs, not to mention Jackie being in the audience, the beginnings of a sexual revolution in the US, all added up to a very unique turning point in US politics which was occurring at that time. Kim K may be a somethimg of a cultural phenomenon now but her influence doesnt come close to how this dress symbolized a critical historical time. It's like K tried to piggyback that for more exposure and just miserably failed. In a hundred years, that event at Madison Square Garden will still be historically and politically significant while the Kardashians will be a footnote along with 80s aerobic knee socks and plastic 70s dresses.
My sentiments exactly! Kardash-flock should have kept their greedy hands away from Marilyn's dress.
Excellent analysis Justine! Very interesting!
Just to clear up one point: in the USA you cannot take any tax benefits for a charitable donation made in your name. The person who gave the actual donation gets the tax break and the donation must be to a charity recognized by the IRS. Kim gets the tax credit for the 2 donations she made to Orlando charities, not Ripley's.
The designer of the dress is Bob Mackie; he sketched the dress in 1962 for Jean Louis. Amazingly he had only recently graduated from college. It would be interesting to know his point of view on the situation. I think for many people this boils down to a matter of respect and understanding. Even if one knows or cares nothing about fashion history or design, demonstrating a level of respect and appreciation for the passion and effort others put into their craft is always classy.
Respect is to understand how the industry works. Designers’ staff don’t get credit. You work your apprenticeship and build your know,she and skills. Design don’t freestyle; if you look at Jean Louis’ ranges at that time, the fabrication and adornment are all consistent. Mackie was 23 years old and working to a brief. To inflate his role is just disrespectful. Do we know the name of every junior designer who worked for Mackie when he was dressing Cher? Of course not, nor should we.
@@lizziebkennedy7505 Wow, you really took what I said out of context. I neither meant to overinflate Bob Mackie nor insult Jean Louis, I erroneously assumed that everyone knew that such was the case in the industry without getting offended if someone pointed it out. I'm sure you haven't gone on Twitter to tell Bob Mackie off for posing with his sketches next to the dress at Ripley's. And yes, there are people who know and care about the work of junior designers who work for major designers and/or at major fashion houses.
When I spoke of what Bob Mackie's opinion might be and respect for the work of others I wasn't referring to Bob Mackie or Jean Louis and the designing of the dress but the situation in general that is being discussed which includes the dress and by extension the fashion industry. Showing respect for the work of others can be applied to all people and in all types of disciplines.
People were upset because a lot of people feel for Marilyn Monroe. She was very intelligent, a great actress, she worked very hard and was quite beautiful. She created the Marilyn Monroe character but many of us feel that she was badly mistreated. And finally, she died so young. We miss her and didn't even know her! You make a lot of good points. Too bad the media isn't as astute as you! Thank you! p.s. I too wondered how kim could fit into that dress!
The designer, Jean Louis, made a very similar dress years before, worn by Marlene Dietrich for her Las Vegas cabaret act. She also wore it on TV for a special which I remember watching as a child. She basically stood in one spot for nearly an hour while she sang and talked because she had been sewn into that sparkly dress.
The dress should not have been lent out for any reason, and only was because no one can say "no" to the super rich, I guess. Perhaps real museums will think twice about garment acquisition after this. Thanks for posting!
What? why would they think twice when they can always say no?
"Implants do not shrink" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was amazing!
P. S. I loved hearing the detailed history of the dress. I vaguely remember her singing this song to him. How scandalous it was then, even without the internet. 😇
ooooh yes, it was on the first page of pretty much all newspapers and co.
I remember seeing it on tv
@@justineleconte I am sure the newspapers’ circulation skyrocketed.
Marilyn Monroe remains spectacular in terms of physical beauty, to name one of her attractions.
Celebrities today have millions of dollars at their disposal for Botox, fillers, wigs, padded dresses, makeup and hair artists, stylists, dieticians and physical trainers etc., yet no-one comes close to diminishing or superseding the beauty of Marilyn Monroe.
In contrast to greedy, materialistic Hollywood Marilyn Monroe lived a modest lifestyle. According to Marilyn Monroe’s housekeeper she had a small personal wardrobe and could often be seen in the same dress. There are many profoundly moving and disturbing facts about the life of Marilyn Monroe - her profound vulnerability and sensitivity are palpable.
But Marilyn was loved in her lifetime and achieved greatness in her work.
@@jchur7128 the original face of Norma Jean was altered to become MM. Her greatest sorrow was her inability to conceive a much desired child. Arthur Miller pointed out to her about the extreme power she had over men. Yet, being childless destroyed her.
You are so concise and welk spoken. It is a pleasure to listen to your comments
Thank you for explaining.
Unfortunately Kim Kardashian has a massive ego and thinks she can do what ever she likes, because of her money and celebrity status.
It should never have been worn by anyone.
Is someone now, going to want to wear her Some like it Hot dress. I hope not.
This is the best, most competent fashion channel on youtube.
Marilyn Monroe should have been the last person to ever wear this dress. But just look at how they are manhandling the dress whilst trying to close it over her behind! That is so irresponsible. Ripley are the owners but they clearly have no respect for the items in their collection. Fashion items are rated lower than others because they are in the female realm. You will find that across all hobbies or collectables. Female interests are seen as superficial, fluff, a waste of time and money.
The V&A in London and Dundee do have occasional exhibitions of dresses. I visited on such exhibition a few years ago. All the dresses on display had been worn by famous women. A number of award winning actresses and the late Diana, Princess of Wales. The exhibition was well curated and presented but I found it all rather sad. Without the beautiful women to wear them, the dresses lost something of their lustre. Despite being exquisitely made, of the finest fabrics, they looked sad. They reminded me of Victorian frames of butterflies pinned to a board. Their wings dusty and dull. Dresses are meant to be worn
Then MM's estate should not have sold it or under strict conditions.
The dress never had a zipper.
It was very carefully handled by professionals and only worn for 4min.
@@WeLiveByTheSea Yes! The V&A have amazing collections, and they do these types of exhibits once in a while, but they are the exception and not the rule. Collectables exclusively in the female realm are still not valued as highly as items men typically collect, this is a fact. If you look around a bit you will see it for yourself.
@@theplaylister Nope. They shouldn’t have sold it but Ripley also have a responsibility towards the artifacts they own and display. You can literally see a clip in this video that they are pulling the dress really vigorously trying to close it over Kim’s rear end, but failing! Such a fragile fabric should never be handled like that. Period.
@@ronjakh did you not watch the video? It's literally privately owned, it's theirs. Sure it's history, but it's theirs. Buy the dress if you want to protect it so much :)
At any rate you have done a thorough job at answering any questions i wouldve had! Great job inspector!
This is such a great analysis on the Marilyn vs Kim dress controversy. I initially thought it was a wild idea for Marilyn's dress to be loaned to Kim, however, you've brought up a lot of great points and counterarguments that I think the collective society should think about. I think the biggest takeaway (that you touched on) is we should regard fashion as a true art form, if we want to keep iconic pieces from pop culture sacred. Also, we should feel the same away about the fashion we consume (*cough* fast fashion *cough*). All in all, a great video as always, Justine!
Based on the fact that she caused tears in the dress, I'm good with her being excommunicated from popular culture.
Note: the before/after close-ups on the dress were a) poorly lit and b) out of focus. Hardly a good basis for comparison ;-)
@@AD-wm9if It just a dress. All material things get destroy at some point. Its more important that we dont destroy earth because we live on it.
@@luzdeld we can use that argument on everything historical so. A painting of Leonardo Da Vinci got destroyed "oh, its just a painting", the church of Nothre Dame caught con fire "it was an old church anyways"... Idk about that... I think we should care about historical artifacts as well as how fast fashion is having an impact on earth. History is important to share how was life in diferent eras. We need to preserve the few things that hold value to be able to learn from our predesesors.
Edit: typo. Oops.
@@atuvera9021 Thank you very much for your comment, you are quite right.
Abby Cox has a great video on this - on how that actually damages a historical item of this fragility
I very much respect your view on all things fashion. You made some good points. I'm not sure how you say that Ripley has profited because though I might have wished to visit them, I will make sure I do not following this stunt. I believe we now care about the dress because we have learned a lot more about Marilyn, her struggles and how others used her. I view the dress not as a fashion item but as an artifact, a witness of her history and that of 60s U.S. The dress must have kept Marilyn's DNA or some imagined imprint of her. Not anymore, the aura is gone. I believe Kim used someone else's fame to raise her own which is more mercantile than what Marilyn did. She wanted to be loved. Even if a private owner of a Picasso could do what he wants to it, we would certainly despise that person for destroying the painting. Think about if there was only one dress left of Marie-Antoinette and someone did that to the dress. Artifacts fade and dissolve, but it's no reason to accelerate it. 🥰
Thanks for this! The most sensible video on this topic I've seen or heard!
Justine, not only could she not have any body make-up on which she almost always wears in public but she could not have a trace of body lotion nor perfume on whatsoever.
Your excellent commentary actually allowed me to focus on what my own gripe with KK wearing the dress had been. I realized that I have had the impression that she does whatever she can for press, without much awareness of what the real cost (other than financial) to others may be. That is only my impression; I do not know her personally. But this video made me think about my initial response more deeply. Thank you!!
It wouldn’t be such a big deal if MM herself hadn’t specifically expressed her wish that the dress wouldn’t be worn by anyone else ever again.
If she felt that way, truly, why didn't she have it destroyed after she wore it?
@@larkmacgregor3143 Why would she do that? The dress is a masterpiece. It would be a crime to destroy it.
@@larkmacgregor3143 she probably didn't take into account that someone would be fame hungry enough to disrespect those wishes.
@@sonadvorakova1458 Is it really? Then why did none of the big museums with a lot of money behind them phone up some of their donors and say "The fabric equivalent of the Mona Lisa is up for auction - won't you help us acquire it?" Because if it really was more than just a scandalous pop culture moment, and worth saving no matter who had worn it or why, then legitimate museums should have been doing their best to add it to their collections. Not one of them, even the Smithsonian, bid on it.
@@larkmacgregor3143 I don’t even know how to respond to that. It is one of the most beautiful and most famous dresses in the world, made specifically for Marilyn Monroe. That’s a fact. Deal with it. The owner of the dress should have respected her wish. Why they didn’t, is beyond me.
What a refreshing point of view. Thank you for speaking up!
Thank you for the concise breakdown on the dress itself. I have very mixed feelings especially due to this being an historical garment and the overall fragility of a museum-worthy piece being worn decades later. I almost wish Kim had had a dress made specifically for her (by perhaps a new designer/different dress), just as Marilyn did.
She wore a copy for the rest of the evening, which makes ruining the original even worse.
she wore a copy of another Marilyn dress, a dark green one.
@@justineleconte that was for the after party, for the event proper it looks like she wore a copy of the nude dress.
I wonder if there are other dresses made of satin souffle that are still out there. It sounds like a really interesting type of fabric.
Excellent well-rounded perspective!
While I personally don't care much about the dress specifically, a lot of people do. If someone bought a cherished painting by Rembrandt (or someone of equivalent historical significance) and stabbed it all over with a knife, in our current system it's completely legal for them to do so, but that doesn't make it okay. Legal and moral are different concepts. Some things are part of our shared human history. More and more people are angry about the wealth inequality inherent in capitalism and seeing how the super-rich can buy widely-cherished unique historical items for themselves and trash them understandably emphasizes the immense unearned power and privilege of the ruling class. They're doing the same thing to the Earth, a thing that surely should belong to all of us.
Love the lighting in this new setup!
I don't know how you can compare a woman who is famous for simply being famous and Marilyn, a critically-acclaimed actress whose beauty will go down in history. Kim? Not so much.
Thank you for the clarity on this topic.
Can you make a video about Marilyn Monroes fashion? I would love to see that 😊
Yesss, please do that Justine😽😽😽
The Channel "The Ultimate Fashion History" has that done very well!
Best review of this topic I have seen. So smart observations.
Here is one of the outraged conservators. I disagree here. The dress was damaged, no doubt about that. The gloves were ridiculous and actually damaging themselves, there only to suggest ‘care’ that was clearly not there. Besides a curator is not the professional figure to assist in a situation like this. The state of that dress was altered and interfered with forever. This may not necessarily be a negative fact in all instances, but in this case what was it for? A caprice?
I really don’t think what can be seen as a smart economic move is a good move per se.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Her listing the economic aspect of this as a positive just irked me.
Excellent commentary, Justine!
What the World gained with Kim wearing Merilyns dress? Nothing! So basically a part of history is destroyed in order to gain nothing. This is completely disrespectful toward Merilyns heritage. She had been used in her life, but even 60 years later. Very sad!
I really appreciated your perspective. Informative and helpful. Thanks
Thank you. The fact that they keep calling Ripley’s a museum drives me nuts!
Ohhhh. Best coverage of this story. Interesting, intelligent. Thank you ❤️
the dress shouldn't be owned by Ripley, it should be in a proper museum, it's a piece of history, fashion is art.
Short and sweet, thanks Justine!
Justine ma cherie, the simple fact that more than one person didn't believe Kim was wearing the actual Marilyn dress reveals how unreasonable the whole idea is. I personally think it's pure selfishness, there is absolutely no excuse for Kim to feel entitled to wear that dress (change her name to karen kardashian lol). But then again, how to expect something different from that family?
You raise many great points. But it’s a bit disingenuous to point the finger at museums for ‘not being there when this dress was up for sale’ as the response to fashion historians at those museums being frustrated at the mistreatment of a historical artifact. Especially when you mention the blatant lack of funding for fashion history due to its perception as lesser than traditional art. If those employees of an institution had their say, and discretion over spending, I am certain they would have chosen to protect this dress as a part of a curated collection.
Thank you for sticking/focussing on the facts!!!!
Totally enjoyed this post, Justine!!
Good points Justine!
My takeaway from all this is that we should always wear clothes in the correct size that fits us correctly. 🤭
Smartest commentary yet, ty/merci
Hi Justine, thank you for the video, well-researched as always. While you bring interesting and valid points to support the decision of KK and Ripley, the debate around wearing the dress is one of morals and ethics. Are you implying that because Kim paid/made a donation and Ripley got promotion this makes it ok? So what if a few years ago more conservative museums didn't buy the dress? Does that nullify their concern for what is now a museum artefact? Maybe they realized they made a mistake, made they didn't, but they can still express their professional opinion on the issue and we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it because they didn't pay years ago. Is this where we're headed? Pay up and we'll listen? I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should be concerned with the sourcing of our clothing, but what's that got to do with a pop/social/ethics debate? Using the same logic, but pushing it further, there are people in the world suffering of hunger - isn't frivolous to be concerned with fashion? Why aren't we more outraged about that instead of clothing sourcing? People were upset by the entitlement brought on by millions of dollars which allows certain people to eschew social norms and conventions, i.e., rules don't apply to me. That's what stands at the core of the debate. Add to that, the potential destruction of the dress itself. Your video seems to say that's ok, and let's think clothes' sourcing.
While we're on that, if we want to be completely honest, most people can't afford to always buy ethically sourced clothing, so whether we want it or not, fast fashion is going to be the main provider. From what I ve noticed, some fast fashion brands are trying to be more careful to the environment and to human rights. That aside, it's not fair to deviate attention from what is an important social/ethical debate, even with a dress at the middle of if, to guilt tripping individuals about their buying choices. Both are important issues, and they can definitely co-exist.
Anyway, I always watch your content with pleasure, it wasn't the case with this one, but I'm still a fan. My comment is not meant to bring any vitriol or throw any shade and I hope it might sparks a reconsideration of the issue at hand. Always a subscriber and a virtual friend, G.
If you owned a Monet, you get to do what you want with it. Ripley's owned it. They let her wear it. There's nothing morally wrong in either of those decisions. Also, if an actress was sleeping with a married US president and his brother and then publicly sang happy birthday in a nude see-through dress nowadays, I think the same people who call Marilyn an icon would call that woman.... insulting things.
You make a very valid point regarding what we should actually care about in the clothing industry.
Really great video! I think some of the outrage was that the dress wasn't even on theme and Kim was using it purely to create a "viral moment" aka free press. It was disrespectful to the event and the garment at once.
You definitely bought up points I hadn't considered. Thanks for this new insight.
A phenomenal discussion regarding the dress, Thank You! While I believe that Marilyn Monroe is truly iconic, I don’t feel the same about Kim. Sure she has a huge following, but most days I’m not sure what she’s famous for. I was in the camp of how dare you wear the dress and thought it was a copy.
Thank you Justine amazing speech
Fashion is as important as any other art form. My best friend is an archivist who specialises in fashion and I love going to exhibitions with her. I think more museums and archives should invest in historically important clothes.
I don’t understand why people got “genuinely angry” or if it was in fact genuine at all. You touched on several great points. Thank you for breaking it all down.
thank you for your intelligent in depth analysis, which makes a lot of sense, of course, rationally. It does not make me feel better about somehow ruining something precious, a memory...I am nostalgic, romantic, in love with vintage retrò style, old movies and the like, and beyond all the cold facts, press/money/etc aspects, it just pained me because Marilyn is special to me while the other woman I consider a symbol of so much that is simply trash in our modern culture, including of course "the way they function" and the fact that money can buy and destroy anything... bisous...looking forward to your nest house updates!
Very much agree with your point about people not caring enough where their clothes come from. However, I work for a regional museum service in the UK and our budget for buying objects for our collection is hundreds. Even nationals wouldnt have a budget of millions to spend on one item. I'm sure a lot of museums in the US would have loved to buy it but simply couldnt afford it x
I think it is because that is a relic that shouldn't be on nobody's hands and second, because so many people dislike the Kardashians because of their lack in taste and common sense while having so much money.
You make some great points! One thing, though: in the close-up photos of the back of the dress, you can clearly see that it does, in fact, have a zipper.
The only thing for me is that all this happened and the dress wasn't even related to the theme, nevertheless being destroyed and used as a means of publicity. I think it's just plain arrogance and greed that all of this came to occur.
Agreed.
Unfortunately just shows money can buy anything and also devalue anything.
Brilliant. Do not underestimate this woman. She is giving us incredible information, guidance to use society for our success and compassion
Somehow I think this should be Marilyn's dress forever. Simple as that.
It's not your dress to have that opinion
@@violettababenko4847 people are allowed an opinion 🤣 MM herself asked the dress to be made especially just for her.
Oh Justine you are right on the money here! Loved this video
I like this neutral viewpoint!
For Americans Marilyn Monroe is our Coco Chanel. This scandal has actually made the public aware that many American Pop Icon's Wardrobe pieces are historical museum worthy. That funding should be raised so belongings, especially fashion clothing should be purchased and preserved. Ripley's is a "sideshow" circus carnival museum, not a historical museum. So again it created awareness that many historical museums do not have the funding to purchase famous fashion pieces and it ends up being bought by private collectors.
I'm curious to hear what would be the opinion if a French controversial influencer wore Coco Chanel's personal little black dress to a celebrity event that didn't fit her. Would it be a scandal? Would there be a similar reaction? Do private collectors own a lot of Coco's wardrobe or is it in historical museums?
Thank you for the interesting video! 😊
My first time here! I appreciate your balanced approach to this topic! Thank you for your research!
Great to hear an extended discussion of the place of fashion in culture and history, along with a current controversy! Lots in your talk I did not know, so thank you for all that research. Making the point about people caring where their own clothes come from is GREAT! We don’t think about the harm to nature we do as we choose our clothes. All the best from SF, and hope your new house is coming along according to plan.
An excellent commentary, Justine!
I heard the Monroe dress was "too pricey" for a museum budget, but that is hearsay. Ripley and Kim K. wanted buzz and widespread advertising for their respective brands, so level attained. It might have been nice if Kim could have bought and donated the gown to a museum like the MET after ordering a replica (that fit her pre-crash diet weight) for the 2022 gala. It also might have been nice if Kim did not announce publicly that she had to lose so much weight so quickly, simply to fit into a dress. Supposedly Thomas Jefferson (the 3rd president of the U.S.) said that, “The government you elect is the government you deserve." I guess you can also rewrite this quotation to say that the celebrities that we raise up are the celebrities that we deserve.
So instructive and thoughtful!!
Simply put, there is a lot of bad information out there about Kim K. wearing this dress, which you're perpetuating a bit. We know for a fact she wore the gown three times, not just once. There were two fittings as confirmed by Ripley's. And her red carpet walk at the gala was over eight minutes. It wasn't "just three to four minutes," as she said on the Today show. It's not really hard to verify these things. As the person who first shared the damage to the dress, which went viral, I've done extensive research on the topic and have done numerous photo comparisons, some of which include screen captures from Ripley's own video of the April fitting, compared to after Kim wore it (52 days later). There is no question that allowing the dress to be worn cause significant, irreversible damage. Why did you not include other photo comparisons? Or perhaps the photo of the torn right shoulder strap, or the damage to the kick pleat? Also, please, enough with the story that she was sewn into the dress. It-had-a-zipper. An adjustment to the dress via a stitch or two (if that even happened the night of the JFK gala, and we don't know, nor will we ever) does not equate to being sewn into a garment. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they're not entitled to their own facts. Yes, Ripley's made a calculated decision and it's clear now that it was all part of a master plan. I do agree with you that one can't really complain when they could have bought the garment to preserve and protect it (which I wish would have happened). Alas, the dress is now forever damaged and has become a freak attraction at Ripley's, who appears to be turning it all into one big joke. So be it.
I saw a lot of press about this, and wasn't sure what was going on. Thanks for clearing some things up