I Hate Maria Grazia Chiuri's Dior

I hate Maria Grazia Chiuri’s Dior. There, I said it. I absolutely hate it. And unsurprisingly, I’m not the only one. Everyone who isn’t being paid by the brand to show up to extravagant runways or asking for advertising space in their magazines also question what the brand has become. But—full disclosure—I would genuinely follow men’s creative director and designer Kim Jones to the ends of the Earth, so the hatred definitely does not extend to the Dior Hommes line.

The current creative director of Dior, Maria Grazia Chiuri (hereafter referred to as MGC), has taken all the things that made Dior beautiful and inventive right into the long list of brands that sell $500 tee shirts that say trendy slogans like, “We Should All Be Feminists.” Is the message and the essay by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie important? Yes! Was the execution of the feminist collection at all indicative of the message of Adichie’s essay or challenging to the patriarchal views of women? Absolutely not!

A lot of the concepts that MGC creates do make sense in theory, but the execution is not there at all. As renowned fashion critic Robin Givhan puts it, “sometimes the message is more interesting than the clothes, which have sometimes been terribly eccentric and sometimes just frightfully dull.”

While many designers have started to inject their own designing into brands (see Hedi Slimane for Celine), they forget that they can reinvent the history of a brand and not completely obliterate it. MGC seems to take the phenomenal reworkings and interpretations of Marc Bohan, Gianfranco Ferré, John Galliano, and Raf Simons at Dior to claim as her own. Nothing MGC makes is exactly her own original thought process, nor is it exactly groundbreaking.

Does Dior under MGC sell, and is it a prime example of a brand that has turned its global recognition into success? Yes! But that makes me hate it even more. While it is evident that brands have to look at the commercial aspects, luxury historical brands like Dior should be setting trends—not following them—to make money. Copying Zara and FashionNova isn’t a personality trait, MGC! The Spring Summer 2020 collection had many bland straw, tie-dye pieces and rompers, which were already popular for Spring 2019 and have already passed their peak.

I completely understand that Dior has to make money in some way, but replacing the brand’s marketability with any creative integrity makes me want to gouge my eyes out any time I see a “new” collection. Time and time again, I look at Dior and ask myself, what am I even supposed to be looking at?! And it isn’t to say that MGC even attempts to take a risk or try other designing techniques and then fails; she just keeps creating the same boring clothes over and over again. MGC is not reinventing the modern Dior woman; she keeps creating the same 50 $5,000+ see-through tulle dresses and skirts in different colors. Groundbreaking!

The same evening skirts and dresses being worn in the middle of the afternoon to the runway shows by influencers and celebrities are hardly any indication that they are supposed to be an evening gown. Thank you for putting out the same clothes with different embroidery for each season. A job well done! I don’t even know how to create clothes, but even I can tell you that putting out collections and concepts that look the same every 3 months isn’t the way to go.

With billions of dollars at LVMH and an in-house atelier (one of the last few brands have one) at MGC’s disposal, you would expect some sort of creative or experimental design being done. Rich and famous people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on the haute couture itself; Dior should be taking that money to invest in creating unique fabrics, techniques, and silhouettes.

As it is with other brands lately, usually, the smaller it is, the more creative the designers are. Since many brands start off small and unknown, there is more room for experimentation and nuanced choices; commercialization isn’t the goal, recognition is. As brands gain prominence and become a part of major groups such as Kering or LVMH, the necessity is to make as much money as possible. Inherently, the problem with MGC’s collections (many other luxury brands are guilty of this, too) is the major commerciality aspect of the brand. Dior is now too emphasized on the business model, the marketing, and the demographics; no longer are the clothes seen as wearable art like Monsieur Dior created. MGC stealing from other smaller designers' creativity is also an inevitable part of her process.

In my eyes, Dior is no different than a fast-fashion brand with its branded bras, underwear, and visors. Why would I pay $500 for a tee-shirt that is no longer going to be “trendy” for the brand? I’m already a feminist, and this isn’t it. Dior, with its need to jump on the trend bandwagon, has recently decided to shift its focus to “sustainability,” like many other luxury brands. While promoting sustainability is a good thing, the greenwashing of the brand seems like it is turning a blind eye to a major issue.

According to an environmental impact report by Changing Markets, “Almost half of the bottom ‘Red-zone’ brands are US-based. Among these lowest-ranked companies, luxury brands Versace, Prada, Dior, Armani and Dolce & Gabbana rub shoulders with Boohoo, Walmart, Matalan, Forever 21 and TJ Maxx.”

Additionally, a report by Good On You says, “Dior is a member of the Better Cotton Initiative, but there is no evidence it minimises textile waste. It has also set an absolute target to reduce emissions generated from its owned operations by 25% but hasn’t set a target covering its supply chain. Plus, there is no evidence it has taken meaningful action to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals! For all these reasons we rated Dior’s environmental impact ‘Not Good Enough’.”

Instead of recycling all the fabrics from previous collections like Sarah Burton of Alexander McQueen has, or having sustainability be the main focus since the beginning of tenures, like Gabriela Hearst or Marine Serre, MGC went a different route to be “sustainably” conscious. She flew in trees from all around the world as part of her gardening collection, then said they would be replanted. What is sustainable about the carbon footprint created when flying those exotic trees from all over to Paris? Or how about the fact that the show had printed notes, some pages with just one or two words, only for the notes to also be emailed to attendees? Dior could have just as easily emailed them to everyone in the first place like Chloe did. All of that was virtually ignored by all the influencers and celebrities paid to be there who gushed over MGC’s sustainability initiative on their Instagram accounts. She’s not exactly as sustainable as she wants you to think she is. Also, was Dior just going to throw the trees away? Someone please explain to me why the talking point of every publication was celebrating how MGC was going to replant the trees near the Longchamp Racecourse? Greenwashing PR at it’s finest!

A prime example of MGC’s complete lack of creative design does not begin with Dior. It can be traced back to her days as a co-creative director at Valentino, where she made the same clothes as she does now for Dior. During her tenure with Pierpaolo Piccioli, let’s just say Valentino wasn’t at the height or success it has currently reached. After leaving her joint creative director position at Valentino for her current position at Dior in 2016, Piccioli left to his own devices and has shone and stunned us with his creativity (sometimes, I wonder if I can get the 8 years back that Pierpalo and MGC worked together). Pierpaolo’s clothes have become increasingly synonymous with the Valentino brand; turning out looks and collections from RTW to Haute Couture that are stunning! Meanwhile, the same for Dior can only be said under the direction of Yves Saint Laurent, John Galliano, and Raf Simons.

Despite MGC’s lack of imagination, she did one thing right with bringing back the Dior Saddle Bag, a cult favorite of many since the days of “Sex and the City.” However, she really didn’t do anything to update the bag besides using a version of smooth plain leather and throwing it on the runway. The saddle bags are now constantly shoved down our throats by every influencer and celebrity on Instagram. Instagram account Diet Prada pointed this out as being questionable under Federal Trade Commission laws, since many did not disclose whether they were paid or gifted the bag from the brand.

MGC’s counterpart, Kim Jones, known for his insane amount of collaborations, took the saddle bag a step further. He teamed up with Japanese artist Hajime Sorayama to take the saddle bag to the next level and make it into a fully functional metal version, complete with headphones for tassels. While it will cost you $35,000, it is one of very few made and is an art piece. The uniqueness and collaborative approach Jones takes with his collections show that he is willing to let others contribute to the brand.

And while MGC has “worked with” artists, her collections usually end up in controversy. Just in the past three years of her tenure, MGC has been accused of appropriating Romanian, African, and Mexican cultural heritage. Hers and the brand’s refusal to acknowledge their appropriation has rubbed many people the wrong way. Staging shows in Marrakech, having Jennifer Lawrence pose as a traditional Mexican horse rider in an advertisement, and other ill-thought ideas regularly plague the brand.

Source: Daily Mail — Source: *Daily Mail*

Dior seems to have this regular cycle of appropriating cultures, seeing what the media response is, then pulling it out of rotation and apologizing, promising to do better next time. The brand infamously faced backlash for the usage of Johnny Depp in a Native American cultural ceremony for their Sauvage perfume advertisement. The ad upset many with Native heritage, as Sauvage means wild, savage, or heathen in French. Dior took the opportunity to profit off of a people who have long been oppressed, even to this day. After the increased backlash and call outs by many major media outlets, Dior pulled the ad. If they were so apologetic, you would think they would stop appropriating other cultures, over and over again.

So, I really hate Dior. And I will continue to hate MGC’s Dior until she can finally pull together a decent, not hideous collection and stop the cultural appropriation. Or I will continue to hate Dior until she leaves the Maison for good. I’m waiting for the latter, because the former isn’t going to happen.