Who doesn’t have a favorite John Galliano collection? Even John Galliano’s haters have a favorite John Galliano collection. Because his work in high fashion was, and continues to be, phenomenal. The experience of living through his impact on fashion as a teen and beyond is burned into my core. I even own a pair of Dior F/W 2003 wrap sunglasses. His collections for Christian Dior especially have been so vigorously referenced by popular culture that they’ve become almost cliché. Never mind his remarkable years with Maison Margiela and his own namesake brand.
But I’m not here to talk about how much I love John Galliano’s work. This is about the Met’s decision to make him the subject of the 2027 Met Gala. Because within 48 hours the discourse around this became unbearable, predictably devolving into pro-Galliano vs. anti-Galliano camps, with each calling the other crazy. I took a more…cynical approach (also predictably).
Let’s start with what this isn’t about.
This Isn’t About Galliano’s Work
Let’s get one thing straight. If this were just about Galliano’s talent and body of work nobody would have an issue – because both are monumental and an integral part of modern fashion. And nobody should have to whisper that apologetically.
So yes, I am glad the work is being fought for. Preserving a designer’s contribution does not require pretending he never existed. “John Galliano: Horizons” has the material for an extraordinary exhibition.
But 2027 is the worst possible year to do it.
Old Scandal, New Context
Galliano’s collapse was enormous. That’s a scandal I will never forget living through. The public outcry, the dismissal, the media shitstorm were of Shakespearean proportions. And yet, the scandal was largely contained to Galliano himself. The story was about the individual. The questions were about his words, his addictions, his career, his criminal conviction. The scandal radiated through fashion, but at its center was the downfall of one disgraced man.
But going into 2027, Galliano doesn’t have that luxury. Antisemitism has always been politically charged, but in 2027 it’s a political minefield. The Met honoring Galliano isn’t just about Galliano anymore. It’s about whether the old script for forgiving and rehabilitating a public figure after an antisemitism scandal still works in 2027. In 2027, antisemitism means Galliano is entangled with wars in Gaza and Iran, arguments over terrorism and genocide, campus speech, federal power, Democratic primaries, street protests and hate-crime statistics. These are the issues he’s expected to address in 2027 when attempting to be absolved of his antisemitism.
Just this summer, protesters surrounded Jewish California lawmaker Scott Wiener at a trans march over Gaza. A Brooklyn café caused a national controversy after saying it would have refused service to Jewish congressman Dan Goldman over his support for Israel. New York is fighting over rising anti-Jewish hate crimes and whether criticism of its anti-Zionist mayor is sincere alarm or political opportunism.
And who could forget Gwyneth Paltrow being dragged online for promoting luxury apartments in Israel?
Galliano has no connection to most of this. But the Met is asking the public to reconsider an antisemitism scandal at the exact moment antisemitism has become a proxy war for almost everything else. The act of forgiving him now carries political meanings it did not carry in 2011.
Anna Wintour Is Naive
Anna Wintour is John Galliano’s personal one-woman army. I don’t know much about their relationship but she helped build, support, and now rehabilitate his career. In typical PR-speak, she insists Galliano’s career is not defined by one moment and promises the exhibition will not avoid “the darkness.” The Met has planned an opening section, “Bearings,” devoted to his conduct and its consequences. Organizers met with Jewish community leaders and the Anti-Defamation League has accepted his apology.
These are responsible steps. They also seem strangely naive. Because the controversy Wintour and the Met are trying to contain is much bigger than it used to be. The corporate confidence is almost touching: as though merely acknowledging the scandal with some pretty wall text and an introductory gallery would shield the exhibition from any political criticism.
Making Galliano’s flaws “part of the exhibition” reeks of corporate reputation laundering: humanize him, soften the image, make him palatable. But against the current political climate, those gestures are crumbs.
Wintour and the Met may believe they are staging a sophisticated strategy, but they’ve grossly miscalculated the strength of oncoming headwinds.
Galliano Could Have Waited
The saddest part is that this was literally unnecessary. Galliano is in his mid-sixties. Assuming ordinary luck, his legacy did not need to be secured this exact year.
Meanwhile, fashion is not short on other legendary designers to admire – many of whom are much older than Galliano. Ralph Lauren is 86, Yohji Yamamoto is 82 and Miuccia Prada is 77. Any would justify a major exhibition, while Galliano’s retrospective waited for a less feverish moment.
No year will ever be uncomplicated. Galliano’s history will not become nicer with age, and waiting cannot erase it. But timing matters. A tribute should create enough space to see the work clearly.
Instead, the Met has chosen a moment when the argument around Galliano may overwhelm Galliano himself. It wanted to fight for his legacy. But it may have picked the one year most likely to spoil the tribute.
