Marilyn Monroe vs. Kim Kardashian & the dress to end all dresses 

“I wish people cared that much about where their own clothes come from.” Talk about an icon! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

"Marilyn is perfect because she's gone, and every passing decade makes her even more perfect in the collective memory." YES. The dress was a publicity stunt, and now it's a publicity stunt again.

This is the most intelligent, thorough, thoughtful and balanced coverage of this dress that I have seen. It really helped me understand the whole phenomenon. So many good points, and all well explained. Thanks, Justine!

You brought up a lot of points I hadn’t even considered! Very thought provoking video. Personally, I didn’t have any moral outrage about the dress being lent out, I was just irritated with Kim for wearing the dress and damaging it. I’ve never been a fan of hers, I don’t really think her style is all that interesting, and I saw her choosing to wear Marilyn’s dress as a cheap move for the press, which as you aptly said, is “how the Kardashians operate”.

I don't think historical clothing should be worn by anyone. Period.

If this ain’t one of the most perfectly executed videos of 2022, I do not know what is. 0 nonsense, 0 clickbait, just hard facts. Keep it up, sister. ❤️‍🔥

I wonder if Ripley’s understands that Kim wearing it REDUCED the value of the dress?

Abby Cox did a video on this as well, from her perspective as a dress historian, and she explains really well why Kim Kardashian wearing this dress - even if it's just for four minutes - is a really big deal for dress and pop culture history. Most dress history departments in museums also don't have big budgets at all (people tend not to know how little money most museums have at their disposal, except the big ones of course), and the Met doesn't provide funding for their's at all. That's the whole reason why the Met Gala is even a thing in the first place. To secure funding. Unfortunately, only Ripley had the funds to buy this dress.

I would like to add to the comments recommending the video that Abby Cox put out about this dress and the reasons why museums may not have been able to purchase the dress even though they very likely would have if it had been possible. She does a fantastic breakdown of all of the points brought up here in this video as well, the social issues, the dress history, and down to in depth knowledge about the damage to the dress itself. I feel like possibly many people have not understood the trouble that clothing and costume historians and departments of museums have in accessing pieces. Justine pointed out the exact problem here too which is that people don't count it as an artform and something that should be value. As such museums get little to no funding for those departments and are struggling constantly to change the public's perception, interest, and value in this topic.

Thank you Justine for the history of the dress. You are right about, we need to be VERY CONCERNED about where WE OURSELVES are getting our clothes made. 😔

Sartorial necromancy. Very creepy and almost trying to steal her limelight. MM was degraded in her own time and now can't even have the one dress designed exactly for her. It's shameful another woman did this to her. Copycats should still be respectful and she had a replica ready to go. Should've made it match her own skin for same effect, as homage, not rip-off.

What's interesting is nobody says that Kim Kardashian is fat yet many people falsely believe Marilyn Monroe was plus size. Even after a starvation diet Kim couldn't fit into that dress.

I was shocked that Kim… who had a different body type and skin tone… wanted to wear the original, because it didn’t fit… and she didn’t wear it as well (without undies) like Marilyn did. She also had a better fitting copy made, that she wore for the rest of the gala. Why not just wear that, for the red carpet too… and just mention it being “like Marilyn’s”? Probably because she wanted the “media drama” and perhaps the “I am important enough that I can get whatever I want.” 🤷🏻‍♀️

From what I understand, the Met, Winter have to approve the dresses. People are angry that they allowed it. Not just Ripley's.

No gossip, no unnecessary backlash just straight to point!

"I wish people cared that much about where their own clothes come from." Yes! Stellar point and so well said. Not a fan of any of the K fam at all and still don't think she should have worn it but your video massively puts it all into perspective. Well done. Merci.

In the US, a lot of museums separate their budgets by department. Many museums didn't even have an art history department until recently (if they even do now) that could have tried to buy the dress. Fashion history departments that/have existed are often really underfunded compared to the other departments in their institution because the field is so devalued. Also, clothing and fabric is a particularly vulnerable type of artefact. Clothes rarely live more than a couple hundred years, especially ones made with already delicate fabrics. I personally think the outrage has been kind of amazing, because fashion historians have been struggling to have their field taken seriously for so long, that getting this public attention in viewing a garment as a historical artefact is an amazing win for the field. As for people caring about where their own clothes come from... I take your point, and I'm 100% on the same page as you on this issue at large, but I don't think it's a fair comparison to make in this situation. This is more about history, art, and curatorial ethics than it is about clothing. The artefact just happens to be a dress, is all.

I've heard the expression of stepping into someone else's shoes. Kim stepping into Monroe 's dress and butchering it, shows she is no original. 🤷‍♀️

Just because you can loan out an iconic piece of fashion history doesn't mean you should. Part of the value of that dress was that Marilyn was the last (and only) person to ever wear it. It was hers, and it was even her wish that she be the only one to wear it. Kim should have worn the replica she had made the entire night, and made a donation to Ripley's. She still could have generated buzz for herself, Ripley's, and introduced Marilyn to a younger generation of people without damaging a piece of iconography.

I don't think it's hypocritical for museums to be upset that an artifact was damaged just because they didn't purchase it. There could be a lot of reasons for that other than that they didn't want it or that they don't value fashion as high art.

EXCELLENT points Justine!!! Scientifically, it is impossible that the dress was not damaged JUST in her putting it on whether or not the damage is visible!! I absolutely cannot agree that KK is comparable to MM as a cultural icon, however, no!!! It is this illusion that KK is so obviously trying to cultivate by wearing the dress!

From the perspective of fashion historians, the sins committed were many and egregious - and they could have serious ramifications for the Met's Costume Institute, in support of which the Met Gala is held each year. Can the Institute maintain its integrity as a museum dedicated to the conservation and research into historical dress when, it appears, it depends for its funding on donations from elites who may then turn around and borrow historically-significant garments to wear, in direct violation of its mission. Worse yet is that Kim was enabled in this by the Met Gala board itself (headed by Anna Wintour), furnished with a room in which she could change into the replica. While there has been a long association between modern fashion media and the Met Gala (Diana Vreeland had headed the Board before Wintour), there seems to be a growing conflict in motive between the organizers of the Gala and the Institute that the event is intended to benefit. It does not help that Wintour has paid an inordinate degree of attention to the Kardashian-Jenner clan, perhaps beyond what would be appropriate for the editor-in-chief of the world's most famous fashion magazine.

"I would like to address the dress" awwh you're so proud of that rhyme and I'm proud of you for it!

Wow, Justine. You did a terrific job of researching this topic and giving a fair and dispassionate assessment of the controversy. Great job! Personally, I don’t understand why she chose to wear the dress in the first place. She should have known it wouldn’t fit per proportions, no matter how much weight she lost. It also doesn’t flatter her skin tone. I think it’s always better to wear something that suits you rather than squeeze into something just because you think it’s pretty.

Just speaking as someone who went to graduate school with archivists (both professors and students), no, it's not a question if she damaged the dress. She did. Even if she was exactly Monroe's size and it was made of durable linen or cotton, just putting it on her body with her sweat and body oils and exposing it to light would have damaged it. But worse, this was a very delicate, one of a kind dress that didn't fit her at all. So the only question is how extensive and extreme is the damage she did. She had a replica that she wore most of the time, making wearing the most expensive dress in human history (literally) at all just an unnecessary stunt. Frankly, the situation is pretty simple. The owners of a priceless historical artifact allowed a celebrity to do irreparable damage to said historical artifact, for reasons that didn't outweigh the risk. Glen Close's clothes from her movies have been better cared for, and they are less valuable and only have historical relevance in terms of media history. Monroe's dress is relevant to US history or world history, depending on how you see JFK and that aspect of his life. Oh, and just because archivists and curators were horrified doesn't mean they were ever in a position to do anything to prevent it. Being in charge of curating doesn't mean you have all the funds you want. As commented, even the Met's clothing curators don't get funded enough to do that. I get your point, but it's not fair to assume the preservationists who care about this are the same people who control funds.

Ms Kardashian is like Cindirellas's sister, trying to fit the beautiful shoe that was not hers. Wanted to be iconic too😂

I believe no one was meant to ever wear that dress after MM. Kind of takes a dump on the whole point of the dress.

The designer of the dress is Bob Mackie; he sketched the dress in 1962 for Jean Louis. Amazingly he had only recently graduated from college. It would be interesting to know his point of view on the situation. I think for many people this boils down to a matter of respect and understanding. Even if one knows or cares nothing about fashion history or design, demonstrating a level of respect and appreciation for the passion and effort others put into their craft is always classy.

1. Ripley’s has been applying for museum accreditation for years. They’ll never get it now. 2. That’s the point of the controversy. The MET gala exists because the fashion history portion doesn’t get allocated funding. The Met has set back the credibility of fashion history by being complicit. 3. Please watch Abby Cox’s video. She’s a historian on fashion and textile history. She explains why this is a massive issue and why we should be angry and outraged and why we should be funding clothing history. 4. She may have gotten press and publicity but it was in the worst way possible. So many people have unfollowed her and sworn off supporting her. 5. The real losers here are women and women’s work and our contributions to society because that’s what’s being scoffed at… by Ripley’s and Kim.

Marilyn Monroe should have been the last person to ever wear this dress. But just look at how they are manhandling the dress whilst trying to close it over her behind! That is so irresponsible. Ripley are the owners but they clearly have no respect for the items in their collection. Fashion items are rated lower than others because they are in the female realm. You will find that across all hobbies or collectables. Female interests are seen as superficial, fluff, a waste of time and money.

Just to clear up one point: in the USA you cannot take any tax benefits for a charitable donation made in your name. The person who gave the actual donation gets the tax break and the donation must be to a charity recognized by the IRS. Kim gets the tax credit for the 2 donations she made to Orlando charities, not Ripley's.

Hi Justine, Fabric is art and so is the designs of how to wear it! I frequent thrift stores to find amazing fabrics to repurpose. Not all Americans follow the Kardashians, tell the world!!! You look so content and happy, and I am happy for you that you have found your home at last. 🌸

"Even if you do a diet implants do not shrink" preach!!!!

I always thought the dress was indeed loaned from a museum. Knowing it was from a private collection puts a completely new perspective on this story and I thank you for making such a well informed video.

the dress shouldn't be owned by Ripley, it should be in a proper museum, it's a piece of history, fashion is art.

Question: Who wore it better? My opinion is MARILYN wore it better! Kim shouldn't have horned in on another's fame, she should get her own iconic dress if she wants one.

The dress should not have been lent out for any reason, and only was because no one can say "no" to the super rich, I guess. Perhaps real museums will think twice about garment acquisition after this. Thanks for posting!

The designer, Jean Louis, made a very similar dress years before, worn by Marlene Dietrich for her Las Vegas cabaret act. She also wore it on TV for a special which I remember watching as a child. She basically stood in one spot for nearly an hour while she sang and talked because she had been sewn into that sparkly dress.

P. S. I loved hearing the detailed history of the dress. I vaguely remember her singing this song to him. How scandalous it was then, even without the internet. 😇

I don't know how you can compare a woman who is famous for simply being famous and Marilyn, a critically-acclaimed actress whose beauty will go down in history. Kim? Not so much.

Justine, not only could she not have any body make-up on which she almost always wears in public but she could not have a trace of body lotion nor perfume on whatsoever.

While I personally don't care much about the dress specifically, a lot of people do. If someone bought a cherished painting by Rembrandt (or someone of equivalent historical significance) and stabbed it all over with a knife, in our current system it's completely legal for them to do so, but that doesn't make it okay. Legal and moral are different concepts. Some things are part of our shared human history. More and more people are angry about the wealth inequality inherent in capitalism and seeing how the super-rich can buy widely-cherished unique historical items for themselves and trash them understandably emphasizes the immense unearned power and privilege of the ruling class. They're doing the same thing to the Earth, a thing that surely should belong to all of us.

Thank you for explaining. Unfortunately Kim Kardashian has a massive ego and thinks she can do what ever she likes, because of her money and celebrity status. It should never have been worn by anyone. Is someone now, going to want to wear her Some like it Hot dress. I hope not.

Thank you for the clarity on this topic.

Very interesting points. What I found shocking about K wearing that dress has nothing to do with fashion. If, for example, she had worn Marilyn's iconic white "steam grate" dress I would not have given it a second thought. It was the juxtaposition of this dress and the Madison Square event with the political historical context of that time that really makes this more than about fashion, or actually not about fashion at all. M's affairs with the Kennedy brothers, the FBI scrutiny of that, the rumors of a dove-tailing of Hollywood, politics, and organized crime, the changing nature of what was taboo to the press, the over- the- top sexuality of the dress basically confirming the affairs, not to mention Jackie being in the audience, the beginnings of a sexual revolution in the US, all added up to a very unique turning point in US politics which was occurring at that time. Kim K may be a somethimg of a cultural phenomenon now but her influence doesnt come close to how this dress symbolized a critical historical time. It's like K tried to piggyback that for more exposure and just miserably failed. In a hundred years, that event at Madison Square Garden will still be historically and politically significant while the Kardashians will be a footnote along with 80s aerobic knee socks and plastic 70s dresses.

Thank you Justine, you are just a practical, knowledgeable person and I do enjoy watching the videos you make because I know I will benefit something out it.

I LOVED this video and learned so much!!

Great video, Justine! Thanks!

Here is one of the outraged conservators. I disagree here. The dress was damaged, no doubt about that. The gloves were ridiculous and actually damaging themselves, there only to suggest ‘care’ that was clearly not there. Besides a curator is not the professional figure to assist in a situation like this. The state of that dress was altered and interfered with forever. This may not necessarily be a negative fact in all instances, but in this case what was it for? A caprice? I really don’t think what can be seen as a smart economic move is a good move per se.

People were upset because a lot of people feel for Marilyn Monroe. She was very intelligent, a great actress, she worked very hard and was quite beautiful. She created the Marilyn Monroe character but many of us feel that she was badly mistreated. And finally, she died so young. We miss her and didn't even know her! You make a lot of good points. Too bad the media isn't as astute as you! Thank you! p.s. I too wondered how kim could fit into that dress!

Excellent analysis Justine! Very interesting!

Short and sweet, thanks Justine!

This is such a great analysis on the Marilyn vs Kim dress controversy. I initially thought it was a wild idea for Marilyn's dress to be loaned to Kim, however, you've brought up a lot of great points and counterarguments that I think the collective society should think about. I think the biggest takeaway (that you touched on) is we should regard fashion as a true art form, if we want to keep iconic pieces from pop culture sacred. Also, we should feel the same away about the fashion we consume (*cough* fast fashion *cough*). All in all, a great video as always, Justine!

Thank you. The fact that they keep calling Ripley’s a museum drives me nuts!

Excellent commentary, Justine!

I really appreciated your perspective. Informative and helpful. Thanks

I very much respect your view on all things fashion. You made some good points. I'm not sure how you say that Ripley has profited because though I might have wished to visit them, I will make sure I do not following this stunt. I believe we now care about the dress because we have learned a lot more about Marilyn, her struggles and how others used her. I view the dress not as a fashion item but as an artifact, a witness of her history and that of 60s U.S. The dress must have kept Marilyn's DNA or some imagined imprint of her. Not anymore, the aura is gone. I believe Kim used someone else's fame to raise her own which is more mercantile than what Marilyn did. She wanted to be loved. Even if a private owner of a Picasso could do what he wants to it, we would certainly despise that person for destroying the painting. Think about if there was only one dress left of Marie-Antoinette and someone did that to the dress. Artifacts fade and dissolve, but it's no reason to accelerate it. 🥰

It wouldn’t be such a big deal if MM herself hadn’t specifically expressed her wish that the dress wouldn’t be worn by anyone else ever again.

Totally enjoyed this post, Justine!!

Thanks for this! The most sensible video on this topic I've seen or heard!

I think it is because that is a relic that shouldn't be on nobody's hands and second, because so many people dislike the Kardashians because of their lack in taste and common sense while having so much money.

What the World gained with Kim wearing Merilyns dress? Nothing! So basically a part of history is destroyed in order to gain nothing. This is completely disrespectful toward Merilyns heritage. She had been used in her life, but even 60 years later. Very sad!

Passionnant ! merci Justine pour toutes ces précisions !

Love the lighting in this new setup!

Can you make a video about Marilyn Monroes fashion? I would love to see that 😊

You raise many great points. But it’s a bit disingenuous to point the finger at museums for ‘not being there when this dress was up for sale’ as the response to fashion historians at those museums being frustrated at the mistreatment of a historical artifact. Especially when you mention the blatant lack of funding for fashion history due to its perception as lesser than traditional art. If those employees of an institution had their say, and discretion over spending, I am certain they would have chosen to protect this dress as a part of a curated collection.

Excellent post. Thank you.

Great video, thank you, Justine 👍🏻

Great content, Justine! 💛 What a world of knowledge you have about fashion. Been following your content since 2015 (long time fan 💖)

Justine ma cherie, the simple fact that more than one person didn't believe Kim was wearing the actual Marilyn dress reveals how unreasonable the whole idea is. I personally think it's pure selfishness, there is absolutely no excuse for Kim to feel entitled to wear that dress (change her name to karen kardashian lol). But then again, how to expect something different from that family?

soooo interesting thanks Justine!

So instructive and thoughtful!!

I like the point that other institutions had ample opportunity to buy the dress themselves, that hasn't been widely discussed in my circles. What I didn't know was that Ripley's price was a steal in that market! It all just looks like big numbers to me.

Good points Justine! My takeaway from all this is that we should always wear clothes in the correct size that fits us correctly. 🤭

"Implants do not shrink" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That was amazing!

Love the way you have tackled the comparison between the two.well done

Really great video! I think some of the outrage was that the dress wasn't even on theme and Kim was using it purely to create a "viral moment" aka free press. It was disrespectful to the event and the garment at once.

It’s a bad business move as well. The last and only person to wear that dress was Marilyn. Her measurements, her one night wearing of the dress. It was iconic. It’s value is basically destroyed by being worn more than once and by another person.

You are wonderful! Thank you for your perfect research. Mimi

Great video! Thanks for a lot of interesting facts I have not heard/read about !

Fashion is as important as any other art form. My best friend is an archivist who specialises in fashion and I love going to exhibitions with her. I think more museums and archives should invest in historically important clothes.

I was shocked that Kim Kardashian's PR team would even let Kim wear such an iconic dress, in my opinion it devalues the dress, Marilyn Monroe is no longer the last person to wear it and Kim's perfume is now in the fabric, the whole thing was just in poor taste

Thank you for this enlightment. Very interesting. Love it.

Thank's for all the research!

Somehow I think this should be Marilyn's dress forever. Simple as that.

Your excellent commentary actually allowed me to focus on what my own gripe with KK wearing the dress had been. I realized that I have had the impression that she does whatever she can for press, without much awareness of what the real cost (other than financial) to others may be. That is only my impression; I do not know her personally. But this video made me think about my initial response more deeply. Thank you!!

Excellent well-rounded perspective!

Thank you for the concise breakdown on the dress itself. I have very mixed feelings especially due to this being an historical garment and the overall fragility of a museum-worthy piece being worn decades later. I almost wish Kim had had a dress made specifically for her (by perhaps a new designer/different dress), just as Marilyn did.

The only thing for me is that all this happened and the dress wasn't even related to the theme, nevertheless being destroyed and used as a means of publicity. I think it's just plain arrogance and greed that all of this came to occur.

Very informative and interesting! Thank you.

Always love yr style and comments.

I heard the Monroe dress was "too pricey" for a museum budget, but that is hearsay. Ripley and Kim K. wanted buzz and widespread advertising for their respective brands, so level attained. It might have been nice if Kim could have bought and donated the gown to a museum like the MET after ordering a replica (that fit her pre-crash diet weight) for the 2022 gala. It also might have been nice if Kim did not announce publicly that she had to lose so much weight so quickly, simply to fit into a dress. Supposedly Thomas Jefferson (the 3rd president of the U.S.) said that, “The government you elect is the government you deserve." I guess you can also rewrite this quotation to say that the celebrities that we raise up are the celebrities that we deserve.

Hi Justine, thank you for the video, well-researched as always. While you bring interesting and valid points to support the decision of KK and Ripley, the debate around wearing the dress is one of morals and ethics. Are you implying that because Kim paid/made a donation and Ripley got promotion this makes it ok? So what if a few years ago more conservative museums didn't buy the dress? Does that nullify their concern for what is now a museum artefact? Maybe they realized they made a mistake, made they didn't, but they can still express their professional opinion on the issue and we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it because they didn't pay years ago. Is this where we're headed? Pay up and we'll listen? I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should be concerned with the sourcing of our clothing, but what's that got to do with a pop/social/ethics debate? Using the same logic, but pushing it further, there are people in the world suffering of hunger - isn't frivolous to be concerned with fashion? Why aren't we more outraged about that instead of clothing sourcing? People were upset by the entitlement brought on by millions of dollars which allows certain people to eschew social norms and conventions, i.e., rules don't apply to me. That's what stands at the core of the debate. Add to that, the potential destruction of the dress itself. Your video seems to say that's ok, and let's think clothes' sourcing. While we're on that, if we want to be completely honest, most people can't afford to always buy ethically sourced clothing, so whether we want it or not, fast fashion is going to be the main provider. From what I ve noticed, some fast fashion brands are trying to be more careful to the environment and to human rights. That aside, it's not fair to deviate attention from what is an important social/ethical debate, even with a dress at the middle of if, to guilt tripping individuals about their buying choices. Both are important issues, and they can definitely co-exist. Anyway, I always watch your content with pleasure, it wasn't the case with this one, but I'm still a fan. My comment is not meant to bring any vitriol or throw any shade and I hope it might sparks a reconsideration of the issue at hand. Always a subscriber and a virtual friend, G.

You are so concise and welk spoken. It is a pleasure to listen to your comments

Smartest commentary yet, ty/merci

Thank you for sticking/focussing on the facts!!!!

I like this neutral viewpoint! For Americans Marilyn Monroe is our Coco Chanel. This scandal has actually made the public aware that many American Pop Icon's Wardrobe pieces are historical museum worthy. That funding should be raised so belongings, especially fashion clothing should be purchased and preserved. Ripley's is a "sideshow" circus carnival museum, not a historical museum. So again it created awareness that many historical museums do not have the funding to purchase famous fashion pieces and it ends up being bought by private collectors. I'm curious to hear what would be the opinion if a French controversial influencer wore Coco Chanel's personal little black dress to a celebrity event that didn't fit her. Would it be a scandal? Would there be a similar reaction? Do private collectors own a lot of Coco's wardrobe or is it in historical museums? Thank you for the interesting video! 😊

Loved the analysis

Always informational and delightful to watch your videos! Thank you for the breakdown of the dress!

Simply put, there is a lot of bad information out there about Kim K. wearing this dress, which you're perpetuating a bit. We know for a fact she wore the gown three times, not just once. There were two fittings as confirmed by Ripley's. And her red carpet walk at the gala was over eight minutes. It wasn't "just three to four minutes," as she said on the Today show. It's not really hard to verify these things. As the person who first shared the damage to the dress, which went viral, I've done extensive research on the topic and have done numerous photo comparisons, some of which include screen captures from Ripley's own video of the April fitting, compared to after Kim wore it (52 days later). There is no question that allowing the dress to be worn cause significant, irreversible damage. Why did you not include other photo comparisons? Or perhaps the photo of the torn right shoulder strap, or the damage to the kick pleat? Also, please, enough with the story that she was sewn into the dress. It-had-a-zipper. An adjustment to the dress via a stitch or two (if that even happened the night of the JFK gala, and we don't know, nor will we ever) does not equate to being sewn into a garment. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they're not entitled to their own facts. Yes, Ripley's made a calculated decision and it's clear now that it was all part of a master plan. I do agree with you that one can't really complain when they could have bought the garment to preserve and protect it (which I wish would have happened). Alas, the dress is now forever damaged and has become a freak attraction at Ripley's, who appears to be turning it all into one big joke. So be it.