I've really been on this site for too long, do you drink water? So do nazis, wow says a lot Asdfghjkl
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Kim Kardashian permanently damaged Marilyn Monroe's iconic 'Happy Birthday' dress
- Thread starter SAINT_
- Start date
User Banned (2 Weeks): Inappropriate sexist commentary
It gave the president and a lot of old men really good boners. Probably strong enough to have altered some pants back in the day.
Its an insult to our history not to preserve that legacy.
But I think that's where the status gets blurred - is it iconic American history or iconic American "junk food" history? I mean there's a reason why the dress was lent to Kim Kardashian of all people. Clearly there's some lowbrow tabloid culture association here.
It's a cultural artifact.
Like I saw someone saying and king tuts tomb was just a box, the delereon from BTTF is just a car etc.
Like I don't personally care about the dress but I can see why some people do. It'd be great if we didnt just take a giant shit on something cause you don't care about it.
A private art collector would own the piece and can do whatever they want with it. Renting out 'art' to any celebrity with an ego and cash cheapens it completely.
Yeah! That has been what I have been thinking of how to express, to some people I'm sure they hold this dress in super high regard, fashion designers or Marilyn historians for example, to them this is an important piece of history, but to the general pubic, probably not so much. And it does feel like there is some difference between this and a Van Gogh but I don't know how to articulate the difference.
Last edited:
Owner: "Here, wear this 60 year old, fragile dress to a gala where you'll be wandering around bumping into people."
Also Owner: "WTF, I can't believe you've added wear and tear to this dress!"
Do what you want mate but don't complain when you lend delicate items to someone to wear if they don't come back in exactly the same condition.
Also Owner: "WTF, I can't believe you've added wear and tear to this dress!"
Do what you want mate but don't complain when you lend delicate items to someone to wear if they don't come back in exactly the same condition.
To be fair, Shock G is on record with advocating for people to do what they like.
Not a big deal. These boomer "culture" artifacts won't stand the test of time anyway. People acting like this was Wellington's coat or something.
So now you're saying the validity of art is dependent on the person who owns it/ how they manage it and not the work itself? You're grasping at straws here.
Cultural artifact...Come on.
Even placing this dress and a car from a movie on the same level as King Tut's tomb. I hope this is satire.
To clarify and not be as hostile: this is a dress worn by an actress who was active for a very short time. It's not a special dress, there's no methodology that can be attributed to this dress, the materials are 'common', there's nothing cultural or historical to learn from it. Its only special attribute is that an actress wore it 60 years ago.
I was going to use an example of people freaking out in 50 years if someone wears the Captain America suit from The Avengers and it shows some wear and tear afterwards, but yeah... some people here probably would freak out.
Last edited:
You'd think one would just pay for a replica and not use a dead woman's dress, but Kim's too Klassy for that and went with destroying a piece of history for her own ego.
For those wondering about why Ripley's has the dress in the first place. They outbid the Smithsonian and several other Museums when it went on auction.
What gets me is that anyone else would have told Kim to just wear the duplicate she had made to her size. Additionally the ONLY reason she wore this is because she screwed up on the last assignment for the met and so this is a redo of that.
Also, also, fuck whoever in the Met doesn't fund their costumes and historic clothing department properly.
Abby cox did a great video on why dresses like this need to be preserved.
What gets me is that anyone else would have told Kim to just wear the duplicate she had made to her size. Additionally the ONLY reason she wore this is because she screwed up on the last assignment for the met and so this is a redo of that.
Also, also, fuck whoever in the Met doesn't fund their costumes and historic clothing department properly.
Abby cox did a great video on why dresses like this need to be preserved.
In thirty years it will be the dress a Kardashian wore that Monroe wore in front of JFK.
Why was she wearing it to begin with? Are people under the assumption that Kim is this generation's Marilyn?
Because if so, lol.
Because if so, lol.
Fine, I didn't know about the special hand techniques. But is it the only dress made like that? Is the technique lost? That might change things.
And Marilyn Monroe is absolutely not one of the most famous people of all time. Come on, zoom out on your cultural lens for even a second.
eyeroll
they dont need me to defend them and their family pretty much sucks. that still doesnt mean people dont get irrationally angry about shit they do. this is the fault of both parties, thats all
I'm not sure how something like this was allowed. Not even Indiana Jones memeing, that should really be locked away in a museum. How much did she pay to wear it. Ripleys owner is equally to blame for destroying it
And you'd been making puppy dog eyes at it in the window for years?
The idea of loaning this out in a manner where you can't control the conditions kind of puts this on whoever allowed her to wear this in the first place.
Anything could have happened while someone was wearing this dress to an event. The move should have been to not loan it out.
Anything could have happened while someone was wearing this dress to an event. The move should have been to not loan it out.
Not arguing with you here, it's just an interesting conversation, but it's never really the work itself right? I don't think things are usually made inherently having historic value in a vacuum, people collectively confer value onto it. If the people responsible for the item are pretty cavalier with it, doesn't that denote to some degree how valuable it is? Using the previous example, the Mona Lisa isn't going to be lent out to any dinner parties. There are probably entire committees or preservation groups for some historical artifacts
My cultural lens? Oh, I'm no Monroe stan.
But I don't have to be one. The level of Marilyn's fame and notoriety, especially after her death, is pretty hard to deny.
As always, there is a socioeconomic aspect to this - billionaires/millionaires get special treatment and it'll never fail to piss me off.
I'm sure that some people will find that Kim K was leaving her mark on history as is deserved of someone with her level of fame and historical significance.
Pretty sure they're being sarcastic.
