Every year, the Met Gala produces the same reaction. The images circulate, the spectacle builds, and then the backlash arrives just as predictably. The language is strikingly consistent. “This is such a waste of money when people can’t afford groceries.” “Celebrities playing dress up while the world is struggling.” “Tone deaf. Read the room.” “Imagine spending millions on this instead of helping people.” “Who actually cares about this?” “It’s just rich people showing off.”
At first glance, these criticisms seem rooted in economic concern. But look closer, and something else emerges. The outrage is rarely directed at the craft, the design, or the artistic vision behind the garments. It is directed at the very idea that art, particularly fashion, should not exist in a world where suffering also exists.
The Met Gala has become a cultural lightning rod not because it is uniquely excessive, but because it forces a confrontation with a deeper discomfort. We have always struggled to value art that does not serve a practical purpose.
This tension is not new. From ancient Greek sculpture to the Renaissance to the 19th century, art that centered the human body and challenged social norms was repeatedly met with discomfort, ridicule, or censorship. Michelangelo’s work was altered after completion when figures in The Last Judgment were deemed too explicit and painted over. Manet’s Olympia provoked outrage in 1865 for its unapologetic depiction of a nude woman meeting the viewer’s gaze. Even works we now revere were once dismissed as vulgar, excessive, or inappropriate. The pattern is consistent. What is celebrated later is often rejected in its own time.
The Met Gala exists within that same tradition, but in a modern form. Fashion, particularly couture, is not always meant to be worn in real life. It is not meant to be practical. It is sculptural, conceptual, and often intentionally provocative. These garments function as art pieces, using the body as a medium rather than simply dressing it.
This year’s theme, “Costume Art,” made that connection explicit. One of the clearest examples was Kendall Jenner, whose gown drew direct inspiration from the Winged Victory of Samothrace, a Hellenistic sculpture housed in the Louvre. The design used draped fabric to contour and reveal the body beneath, echoing the way classical sculpture uses movement and form to emphasize the human figure. It was not about modesty or concealment. It was about shape, tension, and the relationship between fabric and flesh. The same visual language that exists in ancient art was being translated onto a living body in real time.
That same tension between exposure and control is exactly where modern backlash tends to focus.
When Kylie Jenner appeared in a sculptural, body-focused look that emphasized the natural curves of the chest through illusion and structure, the reaction was immediate. Online critics called it excessive, unnecessary, even inappropriate. But the design itself was not about shock. It was about examining the boundary between body and garment, between what is revealed and what is constructed. It asked the same question artists have asked for centuries. Where does the body end and the art begin?
We saw a similar reaction to Kim Kardashian’s 2021 all-black Balenciaga look, which completely obscured her body and face. While not traditionally revealing, it provoked outrage by challenging identity, visibility, and expectations. People mocked it as ridiculous or meaningless, yet it was one of the most conceptually discussed looks of the decade.
And in 2023, Doja Cat arrived transformed into a literal character, her body covered in crystals and prosthetics, blurring the line between human form and artistic object. The reaction was again split between admiration and ridicule, with many dismissing it as attention-seeking rather than recognizing it as performance art.
Cher made the point herself on the red carpet this year. Reflecting on her 1974 Met Gala look, she said, “At the first Met Gala I was naked… and so people were upset about it… but now people wouldn’t even give it a thought.” The assumption is that we’ve evolved, that we’ve become more open and accepting. But the reaction to this year’s looks suggests something else entirely.
The backlash hasn’t disappeared. If anything, it has intensified. What was once confined to a room or a headline now spreads instantly across social media, amplified by millions of voices. The criticism is faster, louder, and more global, but it is not new. The instinct to mock, to shame, and to dismiss artistic expression, particularly when it involves the human body, remains exactly the same.
The pattern is clear. When fashion behaves like art, it is often rejected by the masses in the moment.
Much of this backlash centers specifically on the body. We claim to be more open and progressive, yet the public reaction suggests otherwise. The human form, when presented as art rather than as controlled, commercialized sexuality, still creates discomfort.
And that is exactly what art is supposed to do: make us feel something. So bravo to the designers and the celebrities who put themselves out there despite the criticism. Michelangelo would’ve been proud.
Amy Pais-Richer is REEL 360 News’ newest contributor. She is a published author and we are lucky to have her!
REELated:
Antoine Fuqua’s new Michael biopic is a thriller
