Cape Argus

Rihanna shows her mitre at Met Gala

- Robin Givhan

IF SOCIAL media is any judge, Rihanna won. She won all the attention. The bragging rights. The hearts and minds. Her victory was on the red carpet for Monday evening’s Metropolit­an Museum of Art Costume Institute benefit.

In celebratio­n of the exhibit “Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imaginatio­n”, she arrived wearing a Maison Margiela silver embroidere­d and spangled ensemble with a matching mitre – or, in layman’s terms, a pope hat.

Her ensemble was a technical and creative wonder. Did she look stunning? Not exactly. More precisely, she looked outlandish, which has become the raison d’etre of the Met Gala red carpet. One must break the internet, trend on social media and leave tongues wagging.

This year, the gala brought forth Cardi B, who arrived in pearls, trailing satin and wearing a Madonna-esque headpiece. There was Nicki Minaj dressed as an haute couture devil in red Oscar de la Renta, Katy Perry in Versace, and with a six-foot wing span, and the hip hop trio Migos, dressed like the fashion equivalent of an Atelier Versace-induced acid trip. Stir in a bit of Jared Leto wackiness.

The Met Gala red carpet is a red carpet to nowhere – at least for the watching public. It does not precede a televised award show or concert. The promenade is the main event. It is the fashion show of the cultural imaginatio­n, a place where fashion is everything people imagine it to be – if only for one night. The typical industry runway presentati­on offers a parade of skinny, nameless models wearing dour expression­s and clothes that range from so-so to extravagan­t. Whereas the Met runway is freely, indulgentl­y outrageous. The faces are familiar. These are entertaine­rs, and it is their job to amuse.

It doesn’t matter whether a frock is good or bad. The public already assumes that all fashion is a bit off the rails. The point is how fabulously, insanely, nutso a guest can go and still exude cool rather than self-consciousn­ess. And so, Rihanna won.

That’s not the same thing as looking great. There was a notable contingent of actors and musicians who honoured the theme of the evening – Catholicis­m and fashion, a nod to the new exhibit’s subject - but also managed to strike a memorable image. Their ensembles were, by no mean, run-of-the-mill; most people wouldn’t wear them in a million years. But they didn’t, to use a technical term, look bonkers.

But over-the-top and mind-boggling is where the bar long ago was set by the likes of Beyoncé. In 2015, she showed up naked except for some well-placed crystals by Givenchy. The following year, she wore a bedazzled condom. The regular folks who attend – the mere millionair­es and billionair­es, corporate titans, political powerhouse­s, philanthro­pic leaders and sports stars – cannot compete. So what if they have the money to actually buy these clothes? They do not have the chutzpah to wear them.

Anna Wintour, editor-in-chief of Vogue and artistic director of Condé Nast, is the organiser and ruler of the Met Gala, and it doesn’t matter who you think you are; you don’t get to attend unless Wintour says so.

The Met is a big night for fashion. It raises money for the Costume Institute, an institutio­n that situates attire in the broader cultural conversati­on. – Washington Post

 ?? PICTURE: AP ?? WINNER: Rihanna at The Metropolit­an Museum of Art’s Costume Institute gala.
PICTURE: AP WINNER: Rihanna at The Metropolit­an Museum of Art’s Costume Institute gala.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa