The Only Designer That Matters Under “Costume Art” Wasn’t Worn at The Met Gala
PC: Vogue
In high school, our photography teacher took us on a field trip to The Met. She made it very clear, though, that taking photographs of paintings and sculptures did not count as making art. Good photography is creating your own POV, seeing something that somebody may have missed, and capturing it in a way that only you can.
Her words floated back into my consciousness as I reviewed this year’s Met Gala looks. With the theme being “costume art,” I had anticipated seeing clothes used as a form of artistic expression. It’s what I try to preach to everybody outside of this industry—you know, those who see fashion as vain.
Fashion is a form of art. It may not hang in the Louvre, but it takes sketches, designers, and seamstresses to bring to life. It works with gravity and the body and a feeling to create something tangible, something that moves both the wearer and the observer. And is that not what we praise other art forms for?
What I wasn’t expecting to see, though, was existing paintings interpreted in dress form. “Oh, maybe I misinterpreted the prompt entirely,” I thought as I saw one celebrity after another become paintings with legs.
At least three people dressed as Madame X, which, if you leave the associations between the painting and wearer aside, is essentially just a long, figure-hugging black dress.
Many of the painting-to-person depictions were done well—I particularly loved Hunter Shafer as Gustav Klimt’s Mäda Primavesi, custom-made by Prada. Others simply had famous figures painted onto the train of their dress.
My point, though, is that I expected to see clothes and garments sewn and tied in ways that one could never realistically wear on a day-to-day basis. I thought designers were going to push the envelope on how clothes can be made to create something awe-inspiring. This was their chance to let their imaginations run absolutely wild and forget about wearability or sales.
What I wanted to see, if I’m being honest, is Rei Kawakubo’s Comme Des Garçons on at least five different people. The designer has often been criticized for her creations, which are so imaginative that they have no real place in anyone’s closet. Instead of closets, though, you can find her work exhibited at the Met. Which makes you wonder, why was nobody wearing her clothes at this year’s Met Gala?
Imagine my surprise when I found Vanessa Friedman’s review of the Met Gala on The New York Times late last night, expressing the same sentiment.
“It was notable that the one designer no one wore was the one designer whose work is generally considered an art form in itself, the first living designer to have her own retrospective at the Met in this century: Rei Kawakubo of Comme des Garçons.”
-Vanessa Friedman, NYT
Putting aside the excitement of having a shared thought with the Vanessa Friedman, I felt validated in my confusion at some of the looks from this year’s Met Gala. One who (naturally) did not disappoint was Teyana Taylor in a silver fringed dress by Tom Ford. Another was (again, unsurprisingly) Rihanna in a metallic Maison Margiela gown with thousands of crystals.
Regardless of what I hoped to see, everybody looked absolutely gorgeous. In the end, art is up to interpretation, and can hold whatever meaning you give or see in it. So in that sense, this year’s theme of “Costume Art” was indeed fulfilled.
