By Valentina Toro
Managing Editor
Fashion is supposed to make people uncomfortable sometimes. It challenges what society considers beautiful, acceptable and even appropriate. So, when controversy surrounds one of fashion’s most influential designers, avoiding the conversation entirely feels like the wrong response.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art recently canceled its planned 2027 Costume Institute exhibition, “John Galliano: Horizons.”
The exhibition was supposed to examine the career of John Galliano, the designer known for his work at Givenchy, Dior, Maison Margiela and his own label.
The decision did not come without reason. Galliano has a disturbing history that should never be ignored when discussing his career.
In 2011, Galliano was convicted in France after making antisemitic and racist remarks. Dior fired him following the controversy, and he later apologized for his behavior. More than a decade later, those actions continue to follow him and they should be part of any serious examination of his legacy.
But acknowledging what Galliano did and examining his work are not mutually exclusive.
That is where I disagree with canceling the exhibition.
The Met had an opportunity to create something more complicated than a celebration of a famous designer. It could have shown Galliano’s influence on fashion while forcing visitors to confront the actions of the person responsible for those designs.
There is also an important difference between recognition and admiration.
A museum displaying someone’s work does not have to mean that the institution approves of everything that person has done.
Still, I understand why the exhibition felt like an honor to some critics rather than an examination. Galliano would have been one of only a few living designers to receive a solo Costume Institute exhibition.
Connecting that exhibition to the Met Gala, an event filled with celebrities, designer gowns and international attention, could easily make the moment feel celebratory.
The timing created another problem. The traditional first Monday in May, when the 2027 Met Gala would take place, falls on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Considering Galliano’s history of antisemitic remarks, criticism of the exhibition became even more understandable.
The Met should have reconsidered how it presented Galliano. I just do not believe cancellation was the only answer.
Museums should be places where difficult history can be examined instead of simplified. Galliano has undeniably influenced fashion, and removing an exhibition does not erase that influence. It also does not erase what he said.
Instead, the exhibition could have placed those two realities beside each other.
Visitors could have looked at the craftsmanship, theatrical designs and decades of work while also learning about the controversy that changed Galliano’s career.
That would allow audiences to decide for themselves how much an artist’s behavior should affect the way people view their art.
People constantly debate whether art can be separated from the artist. There may never be one answer that works for every situation, and Galliano is an example of why the question is so difficult.
The Met did not need to forgive him, defend him or pretend his past never happened. It needed to tell the entire story.
Canceling the exhibition may have prevented Galliano from receiving an honor some believe he does not deserve, but confronting his legacy — the brilliance and the ugliness together — could have created a conversation fashion still needs to have.
