‘These are objects that are not meant to be displayed as accessories… It’s human heritage. It’s world heritage…’ This is what Professor Sussan Babaie, Iranian historian and Courtauld institute professor made of the 3,000 year old earrings worn by Zendaya at the premiere of Christopher Nolan’s latest epic, The Odyssey.
The backlash to this particular fashion choice was immediate and widespread, not least because the earrings are made from ‘looted’ antiquities and worn to promote a film made in part on occupied land. Historians were concerned though, not simply that the cultural significance of the earrings was ‘flattened and hijacked’ by the celebrity wearing them, but that they are not pieces of jewellery to be worn, that they are in fact pieces of art to be preserved and admired from the safety of a museum or gallery cabinet.
‘At what point does a piece of jewellery or item of clothing become too precious to wear?’
I find this to be a fascinating dichotomy. That fashion, an ancient and universal art form, is inherently about self-expression, about conversing with others in an ‘instant language, as Miuccia Prada put it, and yet at a certain point items are removed from circulation. Pieces no longer adorn human bodies as intended. They cease to be chosen by a person looking to say something about themselves or politics or society and instead they stop still, become trapped in a case, frozen in the time at which they are preserved.
Latest Videos FromCountry Life
At what point does a piece of jewellery or item of clothing become too precious to wear? Is it when it is 200 years old? 500? When it is worn by someone culturally significant? How does one decide? And who gets to decide?
When Kim Kardashian wore Marilyn Monroe’s dress on the red carpet there was huge backlash for fear she had caused damage (denied by the owners, Ripleys, who purchased it for $4.8 million) and that pieces so precious and important should be protected for their cultural significance. It could be argued that Kim Kardashian wearing the dress only serves to make it more culturally significant. That as a piece of art that dress was witnessed and marvelled at by an entirely new generation. Cultural significance is not determined by taste or nostalgia. Kim Kardashian is culturally significant whether one likes it or not.
The Iranian earrings that Zendaya wore belong to a private Mayfair gallery. Those earrings, like so many pieces of art, are available only to those with the money, contacts and unique opportunity to witness them. In Zendaya’s ears they were witnessed by millions. It is impossible, in this particular instance, to ignore the fact that they are stolen goods. However, the fact is, there is no plan to return them to Iran, whether they are sitting in a gallery or worn — culturally appropriately or not — in someone’s ears.
Obviously, I do not think that in every case ancient objects that were once worn should be out on the red carpet. If a piece of jewellery or item of clothing needs particular treatment in order to be preserved of course it should remain in a place where it is safe. I am not advocating for the Mona Lisa to be loaned out and displayed in someone’s kitchen for a week. But I am of the mind that pieces created as fashion — to be worn and moved in — are living objects, designed to be in motion. It is heartbreaking to think of them trapped and lifeless, viewed only by the few with elite access to them.
With vintage and antique items becoming more and more desirable in the luxury fashion world there must be a way to protect pieces, but also give them contemporary purpose, to utilise them and bring them back to life. It seems like a wasted opportunity that pieces with so much history, so many stories to tell, may sit hidden in a cabinet rather than being worn and admired in full view of the world.
The 2026 Met Gala dress code was ‘Fashion is Art’ — but is it? Click here to find out what our contributor Susanne Madsen thinks.
