Click here to read the full article.
With the decision to abandon a planned retrospective on the works of fashion designer John Galliano announced just one month ago, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and its affiliated Costume Institute has bookended an ignominious
chapter in its vaunted history. The exhibition, and particularly Galliano’s direct involvement in what might otherwise be an objective assessment of his fraught legacy, was a flawed enterprise from the start. But backing away in such public fashion, and after at least a year of prior preparation, doesn’t negate the poor judgment of major stakeholders like Andrew Bolton, curator of the Costume Institute, and longtime Vogue editor Anna Wintour, who chairs its annual gala. Instead, the reversal in the wake of an intense pressure campaign only validates a lack of confidence that the exhibit was equipped to present Galliano’s work with candor and nuance.
That the exhibit’s cancellation was framed as, in Wintour’s words, “John’s decision” emphasizes the inherent issues with the enterprise. Galliano — the former creative director of Givenchy, Dior, Maison Martin Margiela and his own eponymous label — is a titanic figure whose contributions to the fashion industry are undoubtedly worth memorializing and placing in context. But the Met did so with the designer’s active participation, while his career is still underway and able to be affected by such a major co-sign. This made the exhibit an altogether different endeavor from, say, the 2005 one dedicated to icon andnotorious Nazi collaborator Coco Chanel.
Chanel was, to be blunt, no longer around to profit from the boost in visibility. It’s the reason actors face scrutiny for taking roles in the upcoming “Harry Potter” show on HBO, which has the blessing and oversight of anti-trans author J.K. Rowling, but no one blinked when Steven Spielberg adapted known antisemite Roald Dahl’s “The BFG” in 2016. How could a prospective museum-goer not feel they were partially endorsing Galliano with their attendance? He wasn’t just the exhibit’s subject, but a major presence in its planning.
Galliano would have been only the third living designer, after Yves Saint Laurent and Rei Kawakubo, to receive a dedicated showcase from the Costume Institute. From the beginning, Bolton and others promised the show would incorporate the antisemitic, anti-Asian rant that got Galliano fired by Dior and convicted of abuse by a French court in 2011. But even giving Galliano such an honor marked an obvious thumb on the scales in his favor — particularly by Wintour, who played a major role in reintegrating Galliano into fashion’s mainstream in the 2010s. (Galliano has repeatedly expressed contrition for his behavior, partially attributed it to substance abuse and embraced sobriety.) In her own statement on a move she pointedly framed as a postponement, Wintour could not resist heaping praise on Galliano and his accomplishments — and omitting any mention of the reasons for changing course.
Early misgivings were compounded by just how off-guard the Met seemed to be taken by the immediate, predictable backlash. As major donors threatened to withdraw gifts and figures from well beyond the fashion industry chose to weigh in, like New York City Council speaker Julie Menin, the Met floated half-hearted measures like postponing the gala so it wouldn’t fall on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Both antisemitism, in the wake of the October 7 attacks and ongoing conflict in the Middle East, and anti-Asian prejudice, in the wake of the pandemic, have been front of mind in recent years. Yet despite inserting itself into this conversation, the Met seemed at a loss for how to continue it short of giving up the ghost entirely.
This 180 doesn’t give the impression of a thoughtful, considered change in tack. Instead, the Met’s move outsources oversight to a chorus of external voices, undermining its own authority as an arbiter of how to experience and understand art. (To say nothing of Wintour’s hold over the fashion world, which once seemed absolute.) Then again, the damage was already done; today’s announcement just cements, rather than ameliorates, the impact. If the key players truly believed in the value and soundness of the Galliano exhibit, the Costume Institute might’ve stood by its choices and let the end result speak for itself. That it didn’t suggests, deep down, they never did.
