Don't let someone wear something that people think have historical value maybe? Are people going to lend out an ancient Egyptian robe, or a crown of some English king?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Kim Kardashian permanently damaged Marilyn Monroe's iconic 'Happy Birthday' dress
- Thread starter SAINT_
- Start date
I almost felt a pang of sympathy for her with the wording of the article, that the fabric was "stretched and buckled" then I snapped out of it and shifted my symphathies to the dress that when it was given back the seat of it probably smelt of Kardashian farts too, just to add insult to injury.
D:
D:
I just can't believe its available "for rent" or whatever in the first place. I'm not really that put off about it. I know people want to use this as a thing to attack Kim Kardashian or whatever for being a dress-wrecking slob or whatever and that's up to them, but to me its like if they wanted to be all precious about the dress and preserve it as it originally was, then why not put it in a museum or something, instead of letting people wear a 60+ year old dress.
[some pratt damages van Gogh's Stary Night]
"Guys, it's only a piece of paper with oil painted on it."
seriously not protected in any way, just open air on a stand next to a fireplace
even if fuckin George in marketing doesn't trip and smash the saucer off, shit is going to deteriorate much faster than it needs to under that kind of "care"
smithsonian keeps the original in a climate controlled case with shades that block it from getting too much sun/UV
eat the rich
Tbh, I don't think this is Kim K's fault at all. This is the fault of a private entity holding a historical artifact.
This is no different from Jeff Bezos buying the original movie prop of the Enterprise and putting into Blue Origin's cafeteria.
You know some idiot is going to spill coffee on it someday.
Holy crap! At the very least put that thing in a glass case.
Same. If it's supposed to be some precious cultural artifact, then treat it like one. If you're going to rent it out like a tuxedo, then don't act shocked if it comes back missing a sequin or whatever.
There's so many different layers there that everyone just comes across looking stupid.
Why did Kim want to wear that dress so badly? Why not just use your money and have a new one made that actually FITS you? Why do an insane weightloss regime and try to fit into a what...60 some year old dress?
I don't understand why...was it Ripleys who had it?...why did they loan an item like that out?
I really don't get people who are like "who cares" or "its just a dress"....like yeah it is. Its a historical piece of clothing from an iconic figure. Why do we have museums? Why do we keep clothing from other famous actors/musicians/historical icons? Because they're important threadlines to those people.
Why did Kim want to wear that dress so badly? Why not just use your money and have a new one made that actually FITS you? Why do an insane weightloss regime and try to fit into a what...60 some year old dress?
I don't understand why...was it Ripleys who had it?...why did they loan an item like that out?
I really don't get people who are like "who cares" or "its just a dress"....like yeah it is. Its a historical piece of clothing from an iconic figure. Why do we have museums? Why do we keep clothing from other famous actors/musicians/historical icons? Because they're important threadlines to those people.
So weird that we celebrate this as an iconic moment. Imagine the horrors when the hat that Kid Rock wore to the White House gets soiled.
After her "get up and work" comments I went from having little respect for her to having negative respect for her.
It's a piece of clothing from a historic person.
Imagine you went into a museum, grabbed an ancient tool and used it as a hammer and when people complained that you damaged it, you responded with "Guys, it's only a hammer".
I mean most people would see that news say wow and move on with their lives because yes it is just a paper with oil painted on it.
This! She should've just worn the replica dress for the whole event.
Imagine if someone had the Humpty hat from The Humpty Dance video and broke it with their watermelon skull?
Yeah, my bad. Which kinda just makes it even more amazing. Maybe don't try to force yourself into a dead women's dress you don't fit in.
^This. There are people out there that consider this dress a work of art that's tied to American History. Did people suddenly forget about artistic value?
Is Starry Night loaned out to private citizens or kept in a museum like a real historical artifact
😂
But yeah, I hope the people insisting this is just a dress don't own a single collectable that they refuse to take out of its original packaging.
If she was going for a famous dress with ties to a president, maybe Monica Lewinsky's famous Clinton dress would have fit Kim Kardashian better than Marilyn Monroe's famous Kennedy dress?
User Banned (1 Week): Inappropriate inflammatory comparison. History of similar behavior
Rarely do you see someone agree with ISIS that it's OK to destroy history that you don't particularly care about. Bold stance.
Thinly veiled Kim Kardashian hate thread. Dress was 60 yrs old wtf did they expect. Design of dress sucks anyways, Kim shouldn't of wasted her time with this.
I wonder if people see them differently because a dress is created with a utility value of being worn while a painting is just for people to look at. Does a dress count as art? they are both beautiful things created with intention in mind, does that the intentions are maybe different make a difference? Is a dress is historical, and a painting is historical, does that make them more similar than not? There is kind of an interesting conversation there.
My gut says that if people value it, it should not be being lent out and there would be an outcry if people had known it was in the care of someone who would lend it out. Like imagine if the Mona Lisa was able to be rented out to some rich person's dinner party, people would be furious and demand it went to a museum that wouldn't do that.
I wish I had saved that one Reddit post that outlined why this dress is so important. From what I remembered it was one of a kind, made specifically for Marylin Monroe, who even requested no one else be allowed to wear it shortly before she died. Lots of people are quick to dismiss it as 'just a dress' but fashion has a long history and this dress in particular was held in high regard it seems.
I mean, people got (rightly) upset when Kurt Russell accidentally demolished a 150 year old Martin guitar while filming a scene. I've watched countless videos of guitar collectors going over the historical relevance of some Les Paul or Stratocaster. A layman might say that they're just guitars or just a block of wood.
So it strikes me as odd that there are people that find it hard to understand why there are those who are upset at this. History is an incredibly broad subject and every beloved aspect of human culture has a long and rich history, and that includes fashion. If your local museum ever puts on an exhibit on the subject I'd encourage you to check it out. The ones I've been to have been fascinating.
I mean, people got (rightly) upset when Kurt Russell accidentally demolished a 150 year old Martin guitar while filming a scene. I've watched countless videos of guitar collectors going over the historical relevance of some Les Paul or Stratocaster. A layman might say that they're just guitars or just a block of wood.
So it strikes me as odd that there are people that find it hard to understand why there are those who are upset at this. History is an incredibly broad subject and every beloved aspect of human culture has a long and rich history, and that includes fashion. If your local museum ever puts on an exhibit on the subject I'd encourage you to check it out. The ones I've been to have been fascinating.
Then she shouldn't have been wearing it lmao, it didn't fit her in the first place and is iconic and historic. What a stupid take
We're all weird, rich people just have the means to do all the weird stuff everyone thinks up in there head.
Kim wanting to wear this dress is neither here nor there. What's stupid is that an institution let her do so.
This is a dumb argument to make. You're saying private art collectors don't exist? That anything NOT in a museum is by definition not art and has no value?
come on.
Primarily male-orientated gaming forum in diminishing of fashion shocker.
Don't hate on the Kardashians. Also, the dress sucks.
Wonderful.
Well that's one way to make people think less of you. Wealthy people sure are something else, huh?!
"I don't care about this thing, so why do other people care" is a weird take. I don't care about many items, but I understand they have historical value and why people get upset when they're damaged. Like you don't have to care about fashion to understand why this many annoy people.
Well, for what it's worth, Ripley's doesn't usually loan this dress out. It's kept on display.
They made an exception for Kim.