ABC
Some looks were super adorable and some were not so much.
Here are a few of the looks from the show that you might actually wear in public.
Welcome back
Sign in to comment to your favorite stories, participate in your community and interact with your friends
or
LOG IN WITH FACEBOOKNo account? Create one
Admittedly, I think the Met Gala is dumb-boring. Why is the goal of a night to look at famous people? It's like the worst part of your Instagram explore feed all in a room. I think that this night speaks to something kind of dark in our culture. We use the luxurious lifestyles of the rich as a form of escapism to an alarming degree. The whole night is a celebrity back-patting machine that props itself up as a fundraiser after the event but it actually perceived by people as something different.
This meme is the second best thing to ever come from the Met Gala.www.youtube.com
There's a lot I dislike about the Gala. The exclusivity of the event is touted as a reason for the event's importance. Sure, of course, anywhere James Charles is indicative of a creative and intellectual hotbed. *sighs*
Inevitably the exclusivity of the event makes it a hot commodity on social media (it's basic social media economics). Which in turn makes the center of attention not the fundraising (the original mission statement of the event dating back to 1948) but how famous someone is before the event, during, and after. There are whole articles dedicated to watching celebrity follower counts post-Gala.
TMZ reports that "the Met Gala raised a record-breaking $15 million for charity." Charity is speaking somewhat loosely. In actuality, the Gala raises funds for the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute, and is the primary source of income for the institute.
While that is a remarkable achievement it's literally a drop in the bucket of the billions of dollars that was in attendance. If these people are such titans of charity they shouldn't have to go to the most exclusive party in town to give money to a cause they (clearly) support. I'm not saying I blame anyone for going I'm simply saying their egos deserve no credit or kudos for attending a party that could be a chapter in The Great Gatsby.
Tables reportedly cost anywhere from 200 to 300 thousand dollars with individual tickets costing 35 thousand, reports the New York Times. Though I'm not entirely sure how exactly the money is raised or who exactly is allowed to buy tickets. That all has to be approved by gatekeeper and Vogue Editor-In-Chief Anna Wintour. I imagine next years Gala hauls in close to 20 million dollars, the theme will be even more extravagant, and the event will get exponentially more engagement online.
In the interest of not being too hypocritical, I will openly say I love the Academy Awards. This proves I can enjoy a rich people prom just like anyone else, but at least the Oscars pretends it's celebrating the art of cinema. At least there's a chance a non-millionaire could win an Oscar. There are reasons other than "hey look at these gorgeous rich people" if you'd like to watch the Oscars. I'm not saying the Academy Awards (or any major award show) doesn't end up being a famous person zoo, I'm saying it' easier to lie to yourself. There is no grand narrative of the Met Gala. It's peak consumption of raw popularity.
Thanks to Twitter and Instagram the Met Gala — excuse me, the Metropolitan Museum of Art Costume Institute benefit — is in effect the Crown Jewel of our tabloid culture. The extravaganza is the culmination of reality TV stardom, the pop music machine, and the new age social influencers, and so much more. I think it speaks to something deep in the American psyche.
There are obviously reasons to appreciate the Met Gala — Billy Porter is almost all of them. For fashion connoisseurs, I imagine it's like what watching the NBA Finals is for me. I imagine the archives the event, and what it said about American society, is something historians will ponder hundreds of years from now. The night is pure spectacle. And there are people who attend the Gala that I respect and admire beyond my own comprehension (like Lizzo, Frank Ocean, Kanye West, Travis Scott, and Janelle Monae to name a few), but I can't lie to myself about this. There is no joy to be found for me, and I won't advocate for others to feel exactly the same as me. Honestly, I'm merely imploring others to at least recognize the Met Gala is like the Grammy's with no trophies. It's just a wealthy illusion. It's the carrot dangled in front of us that maybe one day we'll get the invite to the cool party.
Follow Alejandro on Twitter and Instagram @AtSignAlejandro or @WhyNautsComedy for more content.
While the television airing of the annual Victoria's Secret fashion show is approaching, the household lingerie company has been criticized for its portrayal of women — recently more than ever.
In an interview with Vogue to promote the annual fashion show, Victoria's Secret CMO Ed Razek stated that "[the company] attempted to do a television special for plus-sizes [in 2000]. No one had any interest in it, still don't." Not only did he dig at the 68% of plus-sized women in America, but he also decided to dismiss transgender women as well. "It's like, why doesn't your show do this? Shouldn't you have transsexuals in the show? No. No, I don't think we should. Well, why not? Because the show is a fantasy."
Razek really isn't helping the case of the company, whose sales rapidly declined in the past year. The only thing the company still has going is this fashion show, and if there's no change in branding soon, Victoria's Secret could ultimately suffer.
Victoria's Secret "angels" at the 2016 Victoria's Secret fashion show in Paris, France.
Among the many critics against the once iconic lingerie brand, which was founded in 1977, is ThirdLove CEO Heidi Zak. Zak not only penned an incredibly honest open letter to Victoria's Secret. She also decided to purchase a one-page ad in the New York Times to print that very letter. In the letter, Zak goes on to explain why Victoria's Secret's "male-fantasy marketing tactics, un-inclusive sizing and discriminatory culture" is outdated and why it has inspired antithesis brands like her own to grow in the market.
"Your show may be a "fantasy" but we live in reality. Our reality is that women wear bras in real life as they go to work, breastfeed their children, play sports, care for ailing parents, and serve their country," penned Zak.
Heidi Zak's open letter to Victoria's Secret in The New York Times.ThirdLove / Instagram
ThirdLove, founded in 2013, is an all-inclusive lingerie brand that caters to all women regardless of their shape, size, age, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
ThirdLove plus size campaign.
"This shouldn't be seen as groundbreaking, it should be the norm," Zak says of her brand. All women are women. Inclusivity is not a trend, but the standard.
"Your show may be a "fantasy" but we live in reality. Our reality is that women wear bras in real life as they go to work, breastfeed their children, play sports, care for ailing parents, and serve their country."
Amid the viral New York Times ad, Victoria's Secret has already replaced their CEO. The ThirdLove letter is not the sole reason for the change; however, it did shed a light on the changes in company culture that to be made to communicate better to the modern consumer. Jan Singer, the current CEO of Victoria's Secret, is being replaced by John Mehas, current President of Tory Burch.
Maybe it's time to let the old ways of exclusivity and the "male-fantasy" die.
