I’ve been meaning to put in my two cents on Rihanna’s CFDA dress for a while now…finally got around to it

Nudity for shock value is a dated concept.

When Jane Birkin wore the same dress in 1969, it was risqué because no one has ever done that before. And not only was it a huge fashion risk, it was also in keeping with the theme of the sexual revolution taking place at the time (at least in the united states). That was a time when people really knew how to live. When how you dressed, how you looked, and everything about you actually said something. Jane Birkin made a social statement with that dress. It was significant. It meant something.

Marilyn Monroe wore a similar dress as well. And yet again, when she wore it, it was considered really beautiful and unique, because no one before her has ever worn a dress made of diamonds. She was also sown into the dress, because they didn’t have spandex in the 50s (man, people really knew how to live back then).

What Rihanna did was neither shocking nor unique. And that is not even a detriment to Rihanna. There is just nothing new out there. As far as fashion is concerned, if it’s good, its been done before.

The speed at which we receive and discard new information has grown exponentially. It’s no secret that celebrities need to constantly do something to maintain their relevance in the vastly changing climate of celebrity news. I read an article that discussed the personality types of famous people. The author argued that people who want to be famous constantly feel a need to be validated by others. They consider staying relevant the same as being loved.

What Rihanna did was just attempting to stay relevant and talked about. Did she succeed? Yes, but it wasn’t for being unique or interesting.

[wp_ad_camp_1]