On June 2 Rhianna appeared at the coveted CDFA awards show pretty much naked. The amusing story is not that she showed up fairly naked, but it was the droves of articles written carrying on at length at how stunning she looked in her dress. At the risk of sounding like a prude, her head-to-toe jazz age ensemble dipped in fairy dust was a Zzz fest. What confounds me is the collective musings of writers who carried on regarding just how beautiful the gown was. I have seen beautiful gowns and this one, designed by Adam Selman boosted 230,000 tiny Swarovski crystals, was not. It was however sparkly and transparent.
Perhaps I would feel differently if my first reaction was, “What a gorgeous gown!” instead of, “Wow, except for a nude thong, she is naked!” Was the Swarovski sprinkled netting there to trick us into thinking she wasn’t naked? Most critics agreed that she looked stunning . . . was it she in her nakedness that was stunning or was it the dress that only accentuated her gorgeous naked body? I don’t know but I suppose my less-than-awe-struck reaction was because I have seen this before and you have too.
Provocative dress for celebrities is nothing new, so why all the fuss?
Rhianna certainly has a gorgeous body and sheer fabric embellished with shiny stones is mesmerizing to gaze upon but combining the two does not equal exquisite style. It is so much more than that. Personally, I think Marilyn Monroe did it best in the dress she famously wore when she sang happy birthday to JFK in 1962. Marilyn’s dress was made in a sheer-flesh-colored fabric accented with 2,500 rhinestones.
Reportedly, the dress was so tight Marilyn had to be sewn into it with no underwear (not even a nude thong— Rhianna is such a prude). Her dress made us look twice because the illusion of nakedness was much more exotic than straight-up exhibitionism. Which leads me to think that a little nakedness goes a long way.
Eat well, laugh a lot and be chic!