If the curators of The Louvre let Jake Paul "borrow" the Mona Lisa for a few weeks and it ended up getting Cheeto and mtn dew stains all over it I wouldn't consider that some great tragedy either.
-
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
If the curators of The Louvre let Jake Paul "borrow" the Mona Lisa for a few weeks and it ended up getting Cheeto and mtn dew stains all over it I wouldn't consider that some great tragedy either.
I agree on some points. I do believe that most pieces of art aren't created with the goal of being "historic timeless pieces," but they reach that status based on their cultural impact/ scarcity. Like what was said in this thread.. Monroe's Dress can be considered art because of its Cultural Impact & Scarcity. It was a big moment in American History + only 1 exists. Does the treatment of said piece of art denote how valuable it is? Yes... but also.. people are stupid. This dress was preserved very well, until someone made a dumb decision. It's happened before (remember Monkey Christ?) and just because Ripley was the one who preserved it, doesn't mean other places wouldn't. Hell, Fonzie's Jacket is on display at the National Museum of American History... you think they wouldn't have accepted and preserved Monroe's dress if it was in their care?
Love how jfk being involved in this dresses history has so much sway in it being so significant. Motherfucker woulda been 'cancelled' in .1 second with the womanizing etc etc etc. Like, is he so revered on this forum of all places that a gal he had an affair with wore a dress while singing to him is a sacred culture item all of a sudden?
OP
OP
Right?! You actually hear the crystals popping off ffs! It's absolutey ridiculous.
Notoriety isn't a statement on JFK's "goodness" as a person.
He was POTUS.
She was one of the biggest celebrities in the world.
Their affair was the scandal of that decade.
The dress itself is one-of-a-kind and impressively constructed.
Yes there are a lot of differences including the fact that you can copy a game and duplicate it because of the nature of how its made. This dress is one of a kind. Monroe was sewn into it, and specified that the dress not be worn by anyone else. Period.
Its not just because of Marilyn either, its because of the designer. He didn't make another like it ever. So it literally is a one of a kind price. It holds significance to the fashion design history of our country.
Yes,or at least a significant amount of them.
Wow, I just looked up more info on this dress, and the original sketch of it was produced by Bob freaking Mackie, his first gig out of college too!
There's so much fashion history in this dress.
that's fine but my point stands. kim kardashian is kim kardashian. she is addicted to attention and will do a stupid thing if it gets her attention.
if something is truly precious to you, you keep it safe. giving a precious dress to kim kardashian is setting yourself up for failure. they cared more about money than protecting that dress from kim kardashian.
This.
Why not just get a replica one made up for Kim's fat ass?
Is it terrible that my mind went straight to "Well yeah, did you really think Kim's gigantic ass was going for fit into a dress sized for Marilyn Monroe?"
Last edited:
According to posts earlier in the thread she had a replica that she also used on the night but I guess she changed into that after the entrance or whatever......seems pointless to not just wear the replica all night if you've got one made.
One of the few things in the world that was truly Marilyn's and they allow it to be treated like that. Shameful all around.
Yeah, this. No logic to it whatsoever.
It's a genius scheme actually. They pay you to wear the dress, then when the damages wear and tear that will obviously occur actually occur, then you sue them for damages. It's getting paid thrice!
User Banned (5 Days): Hostility towards another member
Should not have. English is my third language and even I know that.
Also what an idiotic response. It's a piece of art.
How big of a deal is the dress to people who into fashion?
I ask because I've read it was being displayed at Ripley's Believe It Or Not. I've been to art museums that have fashion exhibits. I went to DC and went to all the big museums there and several had clothes on display. Some had been worn by famous people, some were there because they were iconic in some way (like I remember one museum had one of the handmaid's outfits from Handmaid's Tale and Dorothy's slippers from The Wizard of Oz movie).
Maybe it's a weird situation where Ripley's just outbid other people, or Monroe personally gave it to them, or something like that, but I don't know, if this was a truly important artifact of the fashion world it's kind of hard to believe it wasn't being displayed somewhere more prestigious.
I ask because I've read it was being displayed at Ripley's Believe It Or Not. I've been to art museums that have fashion exhibits. I went to DC and went to all the big museums there and several had clothes on display. Some had been worn by famous people, some were there because they were iconic in some way (like I remember one museum had one of the handmaid's outfits from Handmaid's Tale and Dorothy's slippers from The Wizard of Oz movie).
Maybe it's a weird situation where Ripley's just outbid other people, or Monroe personally gave it to them, or something like that, but I don't know, if this was a truly important artifact of the fashion world it's kind of hard to believe it wasn't being displayed somewhere more prestigious.
Art and history is another commodity to be sold. Ripley's bought the dress for 4 million dollars in 2016. Stuff gets put in a museum because it gets donated, but sometimes the private owners keep it for their collection. A lot of value and price is inflated as a way to reduce your tax burden to keep this cycle of art going through the upper class.
I guess the owner shouldn't have lent it out. But when you pay a few million to own a well known dress, you can do with it what you will I guess.
I wonder if owner has insurance on it and lending it to a Kardashian is covered under the policy.
Also, it's not even the dress I think of when I think of Marilyn Monroe. That's the actual iconic white dress that kept getting blown up as she held it down. Then I guess it would be the potato sack.
I wonder if owner has insurance on it and lending it to a Kardashian is covered under the policy.
Also, it's not even the dress I think of when I think of Marilyn Monroe. That's the actual iconic white dress that kept getting blown up as she held it down. Then I guess it would be the potato sack.
While I know that era isn't exactly fully of fashion historians, some of the takes in here are kind of mind boggling lmao. When Kim showed up wearing this, fashion historians and hobbyists alike exploded all over the internet to talk about it. No matter how you personally feel about celebrity culture or Marilyn Monroe, this dress IS a fashion artifact with a lot of cool history attached to it.
Everyone involved with this PR stunt are morons and it's pretty frustrating to know that even the most talented conservator couldn't fix some of the damage here.
Everyone involved with this PR stunt are morons and it's pretty frustrating to know that even the most talented conservator couldn't fix some of the damage here.
Maybe there's no way of knowing this, but I wonder if Ripley won the bid because they have deeper pockets, or because the museums just weren't that interested.
I've seen people act like this is some kind of outrage, that Kim didn't respect the dress' historical importance or whatever.
But to people who are into fashion (obviously people who aren't won't really care), is this like an original Van Gough being defaced? Or is more like someone borrowed the boots Arnold wore in the Terminator from Planet Hollywood and returned them all scuffed up?
It's hard to tell if the people who seem offended are actually into fashion and reacting to a precious artifact being destroyed, or if it's just like "Marilyn Monroe? She was famous! You can't just treat famous people stuff willy-nilly!"
Isn't "Marilyn Monroe wore it during the Happy Birthday performance" its entire history? Before the current scandal at least?
Edit: sorry for the double post.
They why the hell she had to wear a dress that not only was so old but didn't even fit her, in the end she even put on a replica later on the event, bother her and the owner sucks
Holy shit, I didn't know he did this. Rich privilege is disgusting.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.
They shouldn't of let her wear it if they didn't expect it to come back partially damaged. Don't get mad at my take get mad at the people who were tasked to preserve the dress lol.
Find God.
I said what I said. Wear that dress out now and see how many dudes send a drink your way.
You want a cookie for correcting me and knowing three languages? Doesn't change the fact the dress is mid imo.
Last edited:
Bob Mackie, one of the most famous fashion designers ever, drew it specifically for Marilyn right after finishing college. As one of his first designs it holds amazing historical value.
And even if it might not seem that way, the bidding war on it that Ripley's eventually won was also kind of a big deal at the time.
Damn, they haven't even had it that long, all things considered.
No. She lost quite a bit of weight in order to fit in the dress.
Simply sitting and standing for hours while in this garment was probably enough to do it in.
they severely misjudged.
they thought they could get some pageantry and historical call backs via connecting Kim Kardashian to another major mega-star..
but they forget that Kim Kardashian is a modern business, and doesn't give a shit about historical relics, even if it's something she claims to give a shit about.
Kinda linked
Monica Lewinsky sold her famous semen stained dress at an auction today for $2.6 million to internet millionaire Ricky Pittsburgh, according to Sotheby's Auction House in Los Angeles.
"This dress is priceless", said Sotheby's auction manager Raul Paul. "This dress represents the downfall and impeachment of a presidency! It represents America's shift to the right! If not for this dress the war in Iraq may never have happened!"
The $2.6 million is twice the price of the dress Marilyn Monroe wore when she sang "Happy Birthday" to John F. Kennedy in 1962. Experts suggest that Monroe's dress would have commanded a much higher price if it was also semen stained.
Is the Lewinsky dress now worth nearly 10 million then if it was double the Monroe one?(JFK jizz sadly absent)
I'm in the wrong bloody game.
Monica Lewinsky sold her famous semen stained dress at an auction today for $2.6 million to internet millionaire Ricky Pittsburgh, according to Sotheby's Auction House in Los Angeles.
"This dress is priceless", said Sotheby's auction manager Raul Paul. "This dress represents the downfall and impeachment of a presidency! It represents America's shift to the right! If not for this dress the war in Iraq may never have happened!"
The $2.6 million is twice the price of the dress Marilyn Monroe wore when she sang "Happy Birthday" to John F. Kennedy in 1962. Experts suggest that Monroe's dress would have commanded a much higher price if it was also semen stained.
Is the Lewinsky dress now worth nearly 10 million then if it was double the Monroe one?(JFK jizz sadly absent)
I'm in the wrong bloody game.
they could clone the free world's greatest leader ever from that dress
I think the other sad thing about this, aside from a piece of history being destroyed, is that this shows that none of us have learned from the pain and trauma Monroe was put through by the industry and society as a whole. We continue to objectify her legacy and treat her as some sort of commodity, decades after her passing.
It's sad all around.
It's sad all around.
OP
OP
Even after losing a lot of weight it STILL didn't fit...she was unable to zipper the back and had to wear a stupid fur stole to hide it.
It really is mindboggling anyone thought this was a good idea.
I was reading that Monroe didn't wear anything underneath it, and it needed to be sewn onto her because it was so tight and form-fitting.
Seems beyond obvious it wouldn't fit Kim without being modified somehow.
