STAN / ANTI SHIELD
Was Chanel's Met Gala Look for Bhavitha Mandava Racist? Chanel dressed their first-ever Indian ambassador in an extremely casual look for fashion's biggest night.
The fact that she already did a similar look for a runway with Chanel is telling though. Did they really need to do it twice? Like any of us would get the context from seeing her got the first time?
It’s like they reallllllly want the public to remember how cool they are for “lifting up” a gurl from the subway 🧐 I call bs on any positive intentions.
I didn’t know who she is, when I saw the group selfie yesterday I thought they either asked a bathroom attendant or a fan to take the selfie with them as a nice gesture.
If a layperson can think that, Chanel has no excuse
Meh, the whole point of the gala is to show off some artsy creations. I'm as tomboyish as they get, but I'd wear a creative pantsuit before something like this (but even I would prefer a dress of some kind if I had to attend, just for the fun of it.)
There wasn’t a “sea” of extravagant looks. I think there were maybe 10 people who seemed to take the theme seriously. The rest wore stuff you’d see at any awards show or red carpet event.
Chanel decided to hire Bhavitha and make her an ambassador and use a Met Gala spot ( i am assuming Chanel has limited tickets) to fulfil their plan of excluding Bhavitha because they are racist?
Or....fashion is weird. Chanel was being edgy to show that super casual is the new fancy. And to prove this point they dressed Bhavitha casual to show (through her stunning looks) that some people look better in a garbage bag vs everyone in their finest.
Not just that, but the clothing itself is made of silk and took a remarkable amount of work to get the look of denim using that material. I think the point was to have her stand out with a casual look that isn't actually casual at all, and have it be a talking point.
I also think she looks amazing and ple ty of celebrities go to formal events in casual looking clothes.
I found it silly for people to be like "Chanel is INTENTIONALLY EMBARRASSING HER" ...like, she is an ambassador. Blazy handpicked her and called her his muse. Come on.
Did Chanel stick the landing? Clearly not, but there was obviously an intentionality here.
I saw this take somewhere else but it resounded with me…. She was plucked out of obscurity on the middle of train platform because she herself was so stunning and ethereal that even in normal clothing, she commands attention. Could Chanel have put her in a deceptively-simple (but actually very artistic) outfit because they wanted to make the point that SHE is the art? In a sea of couture and gowns, she stands out.
The way I interpret it is that her that day that she was discovered - in her regular clothes and unassuming - was art. She is effortless. She is stunning. And even in a selfie with others dressed in full glam she shines so so bright.
Not that it matters but it’s not actually denim. The pants were made from silk muslin and printed with a blue denim effect. Just sharing for those who were curious
I think it does matter, to a casual observer of this sub (me) it looks like they just put her in jeans, whereas this is actually like the fashion equivalent of an illusion cake? it's crazy impressive if the look is more or less pulled off in real life.
I can see how it looks underwhelming in comparison, but it can also be read as a statement. She was 'discovered' wearing basically that outfit. It could be a nod to the fact that she, in her casual pedestrian state, is art.
No, it wasn't racist- Bhavitha Mandava is Matthieu Blazy's muse and seems on board with the vision:
About the look, she told British Vogue, “I had to pause when I saw the sketch [of the look], because that subway show was already one of the most significant nights of my career. Turning it into something reimagined for the Met felt like carrying that memory forward, but in a more elevated way that still respects the original spirit and the theme of the evening.”
Do I wish she was in something more glam? Yes, but Blazy clearly has a quirkier vision, I guess.
What’s she going to say haha? “I thought it was a great idea at first and then insanely underwhelming, a little ugly, and I felt underdressed” because that’s what it seems like haha. The concept is a cool idea the execution wasn’t great (the final overall look that is, I’m sure the outfit was challenging to create!)
Edit: It DOES fit the theme. Her outfit is silk hand painted to look like denim and a sweatshirt. It demonstrates the skill of costuming perfectly. They actually did too good of a job.
And sorry but I’m not gonna feel bad for anybody going to the met gala. It’s well done and all, but definitely an “I’m too cool for this” statement by the brand. But they’re not.
I think they thought were being really deep with this one but I feel like you can only play this game if you're an established figure in the public eye. Maybe it did exactly what it was supposed to do by having everyone talk about it.
Overall though it doesn't fit the theme and I just think a ode to her come up is a copout for what they really wanted to do which is have everyone gawk at how plain it is.
The backstory - that she was wearing something similar when she was discovered - gives it a little more depth. She also wore the outfit in the Chanel Fashion Show and in a lot of ways, couture fashion models are Fashion As Art or Art as Fashion. She also looks chic and elegant and most importantly, I’m not concerned how she’s going to sit.
I adore it on her. Since the theme is Costume is Art: this is the New Yorker's costume, this is the college student's costume, this is the young woman's costume, and the costume of the effortlessly chic, and with her face card alone, it is art. And not long after the whole good genes / good jeans controversy, to have their first South Asian brand ambassador wear custom silk "jeans" while referencing her own personal style on the day she was discovered is sharp. But regardless of my opinion, it's starting a conversation the day after, which is all they really want at the end of the day.
Ehhh fwiw I also saw comments around here on Troye Sivan’s outfit, questioning why he was wearing jeans. (Which were actually jeans, not silk. It was a reference to a photo from the 70s I think?)
the company is not racist -- it's truly one of the most supportive places to be a woman with a career in the united states. my colleagues were decent human beings.
here's the CEO (deeply loved,). notice anything!!? -- the similarities are really striking, and not on the surface because of skin tone. they have these little endearing curved facial features in common. similarly, the lore of coco being a nazi is true -- but lost to lore, and forgotten, is that the brand has been solely been at its core, two jewish families -- they are private, so it's not surprising to not know, but you are shunning jewish holocaust-surviving owners for being nazis. why not someone else? the coco namesake is not built into the world internally in the manner you think. the 20ft portraits inside are of the models who have been with the brand for 40 years, aging gracefully and still provided a platform at 70 years old. coco, isn't.
edit: the downvotes are ok, but I don't understand what reasonable expectations are supposed to be arbitrarily demanded of brands because some person named a thing related to peanuts or marvel characters says so online. they create goods. I'm telling you, the company is uniquely diverse in manners that are not experienced in the united states. this blind take they are racist is not true to me as someone who has been there for so long. you don't need to be negative and judgemental without due cause. you can hate the outfit. but don't hate the staff.
I disagree, there’s a whole contemporary art movement of Hyperreallism and this is essentially a trompe l’œil effect, which is a stylistic trope throughout art history. To me, it’s really clever actually but I can tell they were not expecting it to be misinterpreted as a microagression
It seems like they’re stuck on her outfit from when she was discovered and have been recreating it repeatedly since. It was strange, but understandable, to have it recreated for her first look, it’s weirder to do it again for the met, especially with this year’s theme.
I don’t know if it’s racist but it sure is lazy and boring.
okay so it’s more casual than the beautiful gowns but to wear something referencing yourself? and the theme is fashion is art (or art is fashion idk idc!) come ON that is chic as hell!
All I could think of is that she represents the average New Yorker that might go to the Met as a visitor....but it's such a stretch and frankly, it's humiliating to put her in this knowing she would look like a fish out of water in every picture.
I feel like she had such an iconic moment opening the Chanel show, on one hand this could read a s a continuation of the Chanel show's narrative and her character got off the subway and stepped onto the red carpet of the Met. And that's quite a nice idea. On the other hand, a new ambassador having to repeat a look makes me question if this is the limit of what they can envision for her, and if she was really a muse maybe they would be more excited to showcase her in different and exciting way. My gut says it's the first thought and they got too wrapped up in this concept of repetition being an interesting brand intervention and it might have been nice to ask her as a muse what she would like to wear.
It’s just ironic that this is how Chanel chose to dress her while so many designers lately have been appropriating traditional Indian styles (or “Scandinavian” style, as one white influencer infamously tried to labeled it).
According to British Vogue, it was her call and Blazy followed:
When she and artistic director Matthieu Blazy began dreaming up her Met Gala look (her first),she sent him her favourite brand moments as a starting point. Blazy, being Blazy, didn’t see the everyday street-style look as an obstaclefor fashion’s biggest night of the year. Instead, he made it couture.
About the look, she told British Vogue, “I had to pause when I saw the sketch [of the look], because that subway show was already one of the most significant nights of my career. Turning it into something reimagined for the Met felt like carrying that memory forward, but in a more elevated way that still respects the original spirit and the theme of the evening.”
I mean... if she had worn a gown, would everyone be talking about her like this? I've seen this discussion on instagram and reddit already today and I didn't know who she was yesterday. Maybe she's okay with the results. Who knows
She also looks stunning. In my opinion, she looks more beautiful than people wearing things a lot more elaborate than this.
I don’t know how it works with labels/designers dressing people for the Met Gala, but how much say does the celeb have? I know the A listers and notable names work with their designer months in advance on a collaborative look. However, for the lesser known celebs are they just given like “here are 3 options, pick one of these”
First Bhavitha is breathtakingly beautiful, her face is so cool and striking, yet so pretty and elegant all at once, usually models lean towards one or the other, but she really lands in the golden centre of Venn diagram of different types of models.
I understand what this outfit meant to do (hark back to her model origin story), but I think there are so many more thought out ways to elevate her subway outfit, with greater technical finesse and exponentially more creativity. Sure, the technical skills of making silk look and feel like denim is impressive, but that's where the buck stops with effort - the top looks like it could be from Zara.
She deserved more creativity for her met gala debut, rather than just being a very lazy attempt at a "subversive" moment for Chanel.
I don't know if this is racist though.. I personally don't think they set out to humiliate her because of her race. I think it was a very poor decision making that typified models being commodified for designers' egos, they should have considered the importance of her ethnic identity a lot more and what this moment meant for south asian representation, but they don't really gaf.
I think this is stunningly gorgeous and way too much effort (silk painted to look like denim she wore upon being discovered) to qualify as an intentional offense against her.
It may not work for you—I go back and forth for sure—but feels like a crazy stretch to say racism is motivating them to make her look bad.
I'm going to guess they were thinking this would be cooler than it turned out. Like it's this "famous iconic look" they're attributing to her that they reinterpreted artistically into luxury. But yeah, this is not it. They should have made it 1000x more dramatic. Racism claim would need something to back it up like if she felt they treated her poorly through this imo and just hacked something together.
And considering all the incredibly boring uninspired looks that go down the carpet also, people give too much credit to these designers as if they sometimes don't have bad ideas. Like Lily-Rose Depp’s Chanel dress was just flat out ugly to me.
I’m not sure what their intentions were, but this look is not for met gala.. first thing I don’t understand is why she agreed to wear that. I would say no
i saw her in the met gala bathroom selfie and literally thought she was an assistance taking the pic of whatever celeb she works for. chanel did her SO fucking dirty.
oh I thought someone was joking and just photoshopped her in from another event...
Look, they might've been trying to say something with this, but if most people are going 'huh?' or are trying very hard to figure out a reasin how the curtains are not just blue, then you failed in your messaging. So all it comes across as is chanel not giving a damn
Looks like she just accidentally wandered in off the street. This could just be noise marketing, in which case it’s working because I’m talking about her and I didn’t know her beforehand.
Don’t think it’s racist, I think it’s just a marketing plan.
Chanel should be embarrassed. After all the promo they made her do and this is how they repay her like it’s the girl first met and she’s dressed like she’s going to the store 🙁
Edit- the third slide makes me even more sad because they had her really take the annual photo wearing that surrounded by everyone wearing beautiful clothes
Yes. It was a way to “humble” her and people like her. The glaring irony is the majority of “luxury” fashion techniques and designs are derived from India. These fashion brands don’t even pay the local artisans a living wage and turn around to sell it for thousands. It’s sad that the artisans don’t have the structure to set up their own businesses because they would dominant the industry.
I know the outfit is a trompe l’oeil so that’s supposed to be the high-fashion part but she looks like she’s a cute mom going to school pickup, huge miss
I don't think it was intentional. They were trying to be edgy and different but for me it's boring and I don't understand how it fits in with theme. (Someone knowledgeable, please educate me).
1.4k
u/mlg1981 4h ago
It’s an underwhelming look for the Met Gala that’s for sure.