The starry sky of the Met Gala, ever darker

BarcelonaThere is nothing worse than success. This would be the summary of what is happening with the Met Gala. When something as niche as this, which until not so long ago only a few fashion enthusiasts knew about, ends up being a topic of interest for people who the rest of the year do not consume any other type of content about this discipline, it means that the end of the genuine version of this event has arrived. A spectacle that the mainstream does not have the tools to understand, because it does not know the references of each aesthetic decision that is produced there – or even because it opines that fashion is not art... – , cannot be the property of the mainstream. At least if the will is for this spectacle to continue being what it has always been.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done. The paradigm shift is already here. It had been settling in for years and this year it has been crowned. This year, the people with a less elevated position regarding fashion than we could imagine have been none other than the main hosts of the event. The billionaire Jeff Bezos and his wife, Lauren Sánchez, have been the most generous donors of this charity gala, which –let's not lose sight of it!– aims to finance the Fashion Institute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York for the rest of the year. Their donation has been so high –according to various media outlets, it would have been between six and ten million dollars– that they have demanded to be part of the gala's welcome entourage of all its famous guests, alongside Anna Wintour and the hosts chosen ad hoc by the godmother of fashion, among whom were Nicole Kidman and Beyoncé. Just so you get an idea of the level. Or in other words: of the disparity, compared to the Bezos.

The owner of Amazon and his wife, who are not relevant for their personal style and are not known for a special fondness for museums in general or art history in particular, are the people who have called the shots at a party where traditionally wealth was a secondary issue, as what mattered most was relevance. Being invited had never necessarily been synonymous with being rich. To be part of the guest list for the Met Gala, one had to be a mix of influential, capable, extravagant, and art-loving, but above all, possess a certain charm. With them as the headliners, this disappears irrevocably. Not only because of the degrading aesthetic-emotional effect of everything they touch, but because it means that the guardian of the party, Anna Wintour, has thrown the door wide open for this gala to be led by people who enter for quantitative rather than qualitative reasons.

A bad precedent

We could say that this has only happened this year and that it won't happen again. But it is evident that we are facing a change in trend. The new global magnates emerging from technology must buy the affection of the societies in which they operate and also gain prestige in the closed circles of lifelong millionaires, where they are seen as outsiders. A completely viable option for them is to make themselves indispensable at events of global impact. If not at the Met Gala, it will be at another. And for the Met Gala, if it's not them, it will be others like them. Unfortunately, the downward spiral is like this. The only solution would be for the party to stop wanting to grow indefinitely and to settle for a size and level of impact and revenue where old standards could be maintained and all this media-financial doping that will end up consuming it would not be necessary. But in the time of Trump and the precariousness of everything, stopping to be faithful to certain minimums seems an almost dreamlike proposal.

Despite these new dynamics, the Met Gala has been off-kilter for some time now. If not, what would be the purpose of inviting Georgina Rodriguez? Someone who only flaunts, who adds nothing to the aesthetic debate of the pieces she wears because she is obvious and flat and gives no depth to her stylistic decisions, what is she doing there? Well, attracting an audience that traditionally wasn't there, and wasn't expected either. But, of course, in the logic of continuous growth, these people who are fans of Rodriguez are essential, and role models like her are needed to attract them and increase the event's global audience. This year, when the dress code was so easy to understand –Fashion is art–, she chose a turquoise blue outfit inspired – something we could discuss at length... – by the Virgin of Fatima. Could she have had a chip on her shoulder because she wasn't invited to the gala in 2018, when the dress code was Heavenly bodies: fashion and the catholic imagination? Otherwise, the decision is not understood. That said, she had a rosary made for 7 million euros to decorate the dress. Once again: quantity versus quality. Money instead of ideas. We had the rest of the year for that. We didn't need to see it at the Met Gala too.

Yes to the flash, no to the fashion

But she is not the only one who highlights the worst trends of this show. The funeral cortege of women dressed all in black with outfits that could be optimal for any other nighttime red carpet but have no relation to the artistic/stylistic purpose of this gala is a good example. They are people who do not feel challenged at all by the purpose of the Met gala but cannot renounce it because they are eager to grab some media attention. People who live off fame but, at the same time, are terrified of being criticized on social media for having exhibited a look that is too extravagant. Women who should be kept at the door if this gala were what it claims to be. The invited men do even worse, who now no longer wear their gala uniform – the classic tuxedo – to attend, just as they would if they were going to a banquet at the White House. Now they wear slightly more flashy outfits whose only aim is to make them seem more modern than the previous generation of males, but – like their predecessors – without taking into account at all whether the outfit has anything to do with the theme of that year. The only thing they strive for is to bill some luxury firm for wearing their watches or jewelry, which these brands happily accept.

And it is that the fever to occupy the pole position in this global showcase has for years led the big luxury brands to go too far and commit acts that should not be committed, but which they sometimes even try to sell as romanticizing elements. The actress Sarah Pidgeon, known in recent times for having played Carolyn Bessette in the series Love story, explained in an interview that for the minimalist dress that the new creative directors of Loewe made to measure for her for the gala, she flew on several occasions between Paris and Australia –where she was filming– to finish adjusting it. In the midst of a climate crisis, the fact that a two-piece garment with just two square meters of fabric generates such a carbon footprint should make more than one blush. Here, however, some spin doctor must have thought that it added epic to the fashion narrative behind the dress. In reality, however, all it did was tarnish the design with CO₂ and bring it closer to the concept of industry than to the concept of design.

Chanel's choice this year for Bhavitha Mandava, its first ambassador of Indian origin, has also not gone unnoticed. The model attended Wintour's gala in an outfit of denim trousers –made of silk, but aesthetically jeans– and a semi-transparent pale pink sweater, while the rest of the French maison's representatives had been sent in absolutely opulent creations, mostly tied to the gala's theme. Obviously, accusations of racism have not been lacking on social media. But, clearly, it seems that in the context of the Met gala, everything is the same now... If Lauren Sánchez de Bezos is the starting point, she is also the endpoint.