I think a designer, since you ask, who puts immodest slinky clothes on models and throws a few roses, haloes, veils and other details on otherwise not very original low cut prostitute-style clothing is not doing anything to praise religious art, he is using symbols that have meaning for religious persons to abase women, and is doing it for one purpose only: to insult religious people, to debase the religious meaning of those symbols (i.e. the red rose, symbol of Mary’s purity) and to make money while doing so.
Here is some of what the reviewer on that site thought: "Was it an outrage? Well, not really. Gaultier has treated religion in some very provocative ways, not the least of which was, way back, a tableau of the crucified Christ. But this time, the tone, if not precisely reverential, wasn’t calculated to mock. Instead, his ingenious skews on church iconography seemed gently appreciative of its capacity for shining beauty.
Not that he wasn’t witty about it. What looked like monastic hoods and nunlike wimples were, in fact, integral stoles that spiraled from the back of a chic black dress or a pair of pants (revealing some sexy slices of skin on the way). Lace and crochet-work commonly used to decorate shrines were remade into formfitting gowns. And the colors—faded pinks, cobwebby gray, and Madonna blue—were lifted from hand-tinted holy cards and stained glass."
It’s the immodesty of the clothes that really bothers me. I don’t like when people mix Catholic imagery and sexuality like that. It reminds me of Madonna in the Like a Virgin days.
And I don’t like how they used Dita Von Teese, the modern-day burlesque star, to model a couple of the outfits.
Since this is being brought up, would it be sacrilegious for an artist to design and sell rosary inspired necklaces that while they are not inmodest they are sold in the secular market, not for devotion and have nothing to do with Catholism.
I don’t find the clothes themselves to be immodest, I sometimes wear dresses like that. I’m not sure I agree though with using any religious art of whatever as a fashion statement. But aside from that i don’t see anything wrong with the clothes.
if you were my daughter and wore a dress with slits down to there and up to here like that you would quickly have a bandana stapled over the missing areas of fabric. If you showed up at Mass, Confirmation or CCD like that your parents would be called to come and bring you some decent clothing or to bring you home. I assume you are referring to the one or two designs which were less offensive since I know you are a good girl. I stand by what I said, the collection is deliberately and nastily offensive.
Ok, I usually don’t lose my temper, but HOW DARE YOU talk to me like I’m a child or judge me by my opinions. I am a 22 year old ADULT who doesn’t like being talked to like a child. I’ma 22 yearold women who is becoming a consecrate virgin. Just because I don’t wear skirts that come past the ankle or collers up to the chin does not mean that I wear immodest clothes. I wear slacks and a button up blouce to church for the record. I don’t think you have ANY right to judge me. I am good and decent women who has never even dated or slept around. Just because i like to wear pretty clothes does not make me immodest.
And thank God you are not my parent.
I said that I am assuming you make good choices, why not read to the end of my post. Clothes that expose the breast, as some of the designs show are doing, are simply not acceptable at any time, and I was not referring to you, but to my hypothetical daughter in any case.
Uhh, I can read and you did say “If YOU were my daughter”, which is talking about me.
I don’t know if we were looking at the same clothes, but the ones I saw did not expose the breasts and by todays standards of fashion are quite modest.
If I ran into her in a dark alley I would be scared to say the least!
And if I ran into her anywhere else I would battle not to laugh
There were some very immodest clothes, and some that weren’t too scandalous as far as what they showed/how tight they were. I don’t think the above dress is particularly immodest. I personally wouldn’t wear something with a neckline that low because I don’t want my kids to try help themselves to the breastaurant in public I know when something’s a little too low or tight when the first thing my son does when he sees me is point them out!
But that model up there has nothing to “fall out” of her dress, and I think it looks quite modest on her–although it’s low, I see no cleavage. The idea behind these clothes, though, is insulting to Catholics I don’t think Jesus and Mary are happy to see these dresses.
I personally like some of Jean Paul Gaultier’s designs. I don’t find anything at all distasteful about this collection or his presentation of it. Often times the “version” of a piece you see in a runway collection will be toned down a bit for the retail market. Runway collections are often extreme and flamboyant, and more of an artistic expression than an example of exactly what you will see on the rack at Saks. Some items are only available through custom requests. So as far as the appearance of the modesty level of the items shown here, I’m not all in a bunch over it. Some of it really is very nice - I love the white suit!
With regard to the use of the iconography “look” - I think it was done tastefully and in an artistic way that is not offensive (to me).
Yes, I think many of the items of clothing were not that bad compared to what I’ve seen on the runway in other collections. These are only artistic impressions. The girls wearing these pieces of art aren’t even really supposed to be paid attention to. One of the reasons why they want them so thin. They are only supposed to be canvasses to the piece of art. And as Liza said, most of these clothes would be toned down for actual sale and true wear in department stores. I highly doubt Gaultier is expecting the average person to be wearing one of those halos around the city.
There were a few articles that were a bit much like that black number cut down to the bellybutton with the weird, rounded shape cupping the one breast. But there were a few dresses on there that weren’t cut too low. Some of them would be nice if you took away the halos, hairdos and the makeup. And the ones that were kind of low, the girls were so flat that it didn’t look immodest. They looked like girls rather than women. I wouild never be able to get away with it because I’m rather…um… womanly up top, but if I was an A cup, I probably could wear it without my husband going ga-ga. With the exception of the couple pieces of clothing, my husband wouldn’t find any of those clothes or the women in them sexually appealing or immodest. As someone else said, he’d be scared or be laughing down the street especially if they were done up exactly in those pics.
In terms of the “religious” aspects that were brought in, I wasn’t struck as being insulted by it. Although, I was prepared to be. I can understand being insulted when people use the rosary for things like this, since they are important in our prayer life. But with halos, I wasn’t turned off. I didn’t feel like he was mocking the Church. It felt he was taking what he appreciated in religious art and incorporated them into his art form.
Hmm, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion of cross earrings, but I think some of the earrings at catholiccompany.com/display_results.cfm?category=1373 are really beautiful. If someone gave me small, pretty cross earrings I definitely would wear them Hopefully if/when that happens I won’t bump into you out there in the world
Now, *Crucifixes *on earrings might not be that appealing…
I have to agree with what someone said about the black dress. Thats just freaky! And the white dress someone posted (bride of Frankenstien comes to mind).
I don’t see anything wrond with a catholic wearing a crucifix. Not because they want to wear it as just a fashion accessory, but to show their devotion. I do wear some form of religous jewelry all the time, usually either a ring or a crucifix necklace, but for me it has nothing to do with fashion. I just feel that I want to constanly be reminded og God and Jesus in some way.
I didn’t look at every page on the link, mainly just the first set of pictures. I found some of the clothes to be pretty and not immodest. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that I don’t agree with the designer using religion as fashion.
I agree. I wear my Crucifix necklace the same way I wear my Miraculous Medal or my monstrance necklace. Nothing wrong with that I actually don’t even wear these things to show my devotion, but only as a holy reminder and for benefit to myself. In fact, as far as fashion goes, sometimes it would be much easier to wear a non-religious necklace.