I don't normally pay any attention to celebrities. Frankly, I'm too busy living my life, staying on top of bills and health demands, and trying to live in the moment with trips to the beach and relaxations away from a screen that I almost never know anything about what celebs are up to, or the latest buzzes in pop culture and social media. But recently a friend wanted to know what I thought about the Kim Kardashian debacle surrounding the wearing of Marilyn Monroe's dress to the Met Gala
 |
| Screenshot of Tweet from Elite Daily on Twitter |
I hadn't heard about it so she gave me a quick recap and wanted to know if I had any opinions. We had a long chat, and I've since done some research and it turns out I have a lot of feelings and opinions on this subject.
Kim Kardashian wore the iconic dress that Marilyn Monroe wore to sing Happy Birthday to JFK, the president at the time. Marilyn was stitched into the skin-tight nude silk dress right before going on stage to sing a sexy, sultry rendition of Happy Birthday to the President with whom she was having an affair. This was May 19, 1962. A few months later Marilyn was found dead in suspicious circumstances. The dress the song, the affair, it was all a scandal. The silk dress had been dyed to match Marilyn's skin color so that it would appear as nude as possible and it was stitched on her that night as it was only meant to be worn by Marilyn one time. Cut to modern times and the "happy birthday" dress is bought by Ripley's in 2016 for $4.81 million. Next thing you know it's being worn to the Met Gala by Kim Kardashian who had to diet to fit into it, allegedly damaged it, and had to practice walking up the stairs in a way that wouldn't damage it before she changed into a replica.
Normally, I really couldn't care less what Kim Kardashian wears or does. It doesn't affect or bother me. I don't hate her, or love her, I just don't care about what she does with her life. So why do I have such strong opinions on this matter? Well, I'll tell you.
To me, the question isn't whether Kim Kardasian should have worn it. To me that is the wrong question. As far as I'm concerned the right question begins with the idea of whether or not the Marilyn Monroe "Happy Birthday, Mr. President" Dress is an object worth preserving or not. It doesn't matter who owns the dress. Yes, Ripley's owns the dress and could in fact burn it if they so chose. But they had it on display as part of their collection of historical objects, making a statement to me that they believed it was worth preserving. If it is, then it should be treated with care, not worn by anyone. If it's not, then it doesn't matter who wears it.
The thing that makes me believe it was unethical for Kim Kardashian to wear it, is the very fact that the public does not have access to the dress. Normally this dress is put behind glass in a darkened room so that light will not decay it, and kept at a temperature controlled stable humidity. You and me, mere peasants, are not allowed to even touch it. So, there is no way in hell, they'd let the likes of you and me wear it.
So, why does Kim Kardashian get to wear the dress?
 |
| Screenshot of Tweet from Hyperallergic on Twitter |
People were outraged, museums were outraged. But they all seemed to be asking the wrong question. How much did she pay to wear it? Does Ripley's have the right to loan the dress? Did it get damaged? Not that these aren't important facts to examine in the case. I just don't think they are the question at the heart of the problem. Anyone who thinks about it for five seconds knows that wearing an old garment puts that garment at risk for damage. And it is interesting to note whether or not she paid to wear it. And questions of what right's a private collector has are interesting. But none of those get at the heart of the matter and they are being used to deflect genuine criticism with explanations that are equally tangential to the heart of the matter.
Did she damage it? They state the dress had previous damage before Kim K wore it and then maintain that Kim Kardashian's wearing of the dress didn't cause any extra or new damage to the dress. But that doesn't matter. The fragility of the dress is not debated. The potential for harm/damage isn't denied. So, the fact that it didn't get damaged is lucky and nice, but the dress should really never have been endangered in the first place. That's like saying, well I didn't make the children wear seatbelts, but they survived the crash, so it's fine. Yes, it's great they didn't get hurt, but they should never have been endangered in the first place. Don't confuse the issue of what is the correct thing to do by a lucky outcome out of bad circumstances.
Did she pay to wear it? They claim that she did not, she did make donations and they maintain that's different. But these aren't the right questions. Why does Kim Kardashian have access to this dress at all?
Why was she allowed to wear it at all? She has no claim to the dress. She's not a Marilyn Monroe descendent. She's not wearing it to star in a movie about Marilyn where they wanted to use the real dress. There is no reason Kim should have been allowed to wear it. The only claim Kim Kardashian has to be able to wear the dress is a higher social status. She has fame, wealth and an ass that people love to photograph. So what gives her the right to wear the dress? Nothing. She has no more right to a piece of history than I do. But she's allowed to wear it because she is famous and wealthy. Did she pay to wear the dress? No. But she got to wear it because she has money and fame. That more or less amounts to paying to wear the dress.
 |
| Photo of Marilyn Monroe sourced from Flickr - Antonio Marin Segovia |
And I'm sorry, but that's some classist bullshit.
American ideals believe in the idea that we are all individuals who are born with the same rights and ought to have the same inherent privileges. And that's a great ideal to believe in and try to make more real in our world. But allowing celebrities to have access to history in a way that allows them to endanger and damage that history is just reprehensible. It undermines the ideal that all people are created equal and have the same inalienable rights. It sends a message that they are more important than the public. That what they want matters more. That they can have anything they want because they are special, aka have more money and fame than the average person.
I find this upsetting and not just because I think that history and historical objects should be preserved. I find it an unethical statement of privilege for the rich and famous. That only those with money and influence can have access to history and art and culture. It starts to suggest that only those in the right class have certain rights and that only leads down a slippery slope of believing that some people are more equal than others.
The very way in which Ripley's tried to defend the action of loaning the historic dress to Kim K to wear shows that they didn't believe it was a good thing for the dress. They argue that she didn't rip the dress, it was already fragile and damaged. Then they try to argue it was ok that she wore it, by saying that she practiced walking up the stairs so she wouldn't ruin it, and that conservators helping her into the dress wore gloves. This just fills me with rage.
If the dress was so fragile that it was already ripping at the seams, it is clear that it shouldn't have been worn. It was already in fragile state and shouldn't have been further endangered. Kim K had to go on a crash diet to even fit in it, yet another reason this was a bad idea. She couldn't wear the dress, so what made anyone think it was ok for her to wear the dress?
She had to practice walking up the stairs in a way that wouldn't rip the dress, convincing me further it was a bad idea to wear the dress. It was so fragile and the dress was so tight on Kim Kardashian that she had to practice walking more carefully because there was a very real danger of her truly ripping the dress apart by climbing the stairs.
AND the conservators who work with the dress weren't even allowed to touch it with bare hands. But Kim wore it on her body, with all the natural oils that all human skin contains, touching the dress all over.
Don't worry, they said, we took precautions, even the conservators who work with the dress didn't touch it. We only let Kim Kardashian wear it so that she's the only one with the privilege to ruin it.
We normally keep it temperature and humidity controlled. But we let Kim Kardashian sweat in it.
We normally keep it in a dark room so that light won't decay the fabric faster, but we let Kim Kardashian take it outside and have bright photographic strobe lights flash the dress repeatedly. You and I, mere peasants, can't use flash photography in the museum to get a picture of the dress on a stand, but Kim gets to use strobes to have pictures of her wearing it.
Even the curators aren't allowed to touch it, but we let Kim Kardashian do all the things we know are bad for the dress.
Why? Because she's famous. Because she wanted to. Because she can do anything she wants because she's rich and powerful.
What kind of repulsive statement is that?
Yes, the dress is privately owned and they can loan it to anyone they want. But the statement they made with this loan is that the average person is not worthy of touching the dress and Kim Kardashian is worthy of wearing it because she is of a higher class than everyone else. I think that's just sick.
 |
| I'm not the only one who thinks this evinces entitlement. A screenshot of a tweet from Foul Mouthed Mom agrees that entitlement is at the heart of the problem. Original tweet can be found here. |
And why that dress to start with I ask? Why did Kim Kardashian want to wear it that badly anyway?
It's a dress associated with a scandal, she chose to wear it in the most scandalous way, by crash dieting and raising questions about the health of that as well as questions about damage to the dress. What was the point of all that? It seems to me she wanted to raise scandalous attention for herself and she knew that wearing a dress attached to a historical scandal in a scandalous way would get her immeasurable attention. And it did, in what I find is the most egregious way to get attention possible. She endangered a piece of history because she had the privilege and fame that allowed her the opportunity to do so.
I read an article where she made noises about caring about American history and not wanting to damage the dress at all. She tells the public that she didn't wear body make-up because she was concerned about the dress. What a bunch of hogwash and nonsense. If she truly cared about the history of the dress she wouldn't have worn it. She would have worn a replica and been photographed next to the original dress not in it. She demonstrated that she only cares about herself and what she wants, not preserving history.
Ripley's claimed she was respectful saying:
"The museum added, “From extensive research to following guidelines such as no body makeup, only wearing the dress for the short red-carpet appearance, and making absolutely no alterations, she has become a steward — and added to — its history.” Find the article here.
Would a steward of history choose to wear the dress and risk damaging it? I think not. A steward? My ass! Sorry, her ass. I'm sorry, but calling her a steward of history for this dress reminds me of the Steward of Gondor and this horrifying scene.
Sure, she's a steward of history in the same way this man is a Steward of Gondor. Sacrificing important pieces to his own selfish whims for no real gain. So, I guess Ripley's is right, we can consider her a steward. However if they meant to imply that she acted in the real definition of a steward then they're all wrong.
 |
| Definition of Stewardship according to Merriam-Webster |
The act of squeezing her body into a fragile historical garment (actually too small for her) that is normally deemed in need of exact temperature, humidity and light control is not an act of careful or responsible management of something entrusted to your care. Had she truly been concerned about protecting the dress from potential damage by wearing it she wouldn't have worn it at all.
To me, it is not a question of whether Kim Kardashian is worthy of Marilyn Monroe's dress, or whether she's tarnishing the memory of Marilyn Monroe, or whether it ruins the authenticity of the dress to be degraded by her wearing it, as I've seen others suggest. If anyone is going to wear a scandalous dress, I guess it might as well be in another scandalous moment such as this. To me, the right question is do you think the dress is an historical object worth preserving or not?
Ripley's bought the dress in 2016 for $4.81 million dollars and had it displayed in a meticulous way that suggests they believe it should be preserved for posterity. If that's what they think, then it shouldn't have been loaned to anyone ever, not Kim Kardashian, not anyone. If they don't think it needs to be preserved it ought to be something others can wear on loan with equal (or I would urge greater) precaution.
If the "Happy Birthday Mr. President" Marilyn Monroe dress is only available to loan to the wealthy celebrities, Ripley's is making a horrible statement about privilege and class. Ripley's have made it very clear that they believe in a class system where only the rich and famous are entitled to free access to history and important pop culture objects. And as far as I am concerned, that's just unethical.
References for further reading.
Kim Kardashian did not damage Marilyn Monroe’s dress, Ripley’s says
Kim Kardashian is accused of damaging Marilyn Monroe's dress
Kim Kardashian Allegedly Damaged Marilyn Monroe Dress at Met Gala
The Story Behind Marilyn Monroe’s “Happy Birthday” Dress
Why Experts Say Kim Kardashian Shouldn’t Have Worn Marilyn Monroe Dress at Met Gala
