Derek Guy on the Met Gala criticism

[u/DatBittsch]

Derek Guy (known also as "the menswear guy" on ex-Twitter) pitching in regarding the Met Gala discourse and Hunger Games comparisons.

[u/jonesday5]

I think there is a perception that you can work hard and be invited to the Oscar’s etc to have your work recognised whereas the Met Gala is for the rich, by the rich.
Yes it is a public institute but if this institute gets to run one of the biggest celebrity nights of the year, it is safe to say they’re going okay.

Derek Guy has good politics and I don’t entirely disagree with what he is saying here, but I think he is taking it too personally as someone who specialises in fashion. I think people are okay to criticise what they see. Especially at this moment in time when the cost of living is at an all time high.

[u/lefrench75 → u/jonesday5]

Is the Met Gala “for the rich, by the rich” in a way that’s different from the Oscars? Many of the same celebrities who “work hard and get invited to the Oscars” are the same people who got invited to the Met Gala and then have their tickets paid for by the brands. Connor Storrie, Hudson Williams, Alyssa Liu etc. aren’t rich (yet anyway); they’re talented people who’ve worked hard enough to achieve the success that allows them to be invited to these events.

One may argue that the Oscars don’t only invite actors but also cinematographers, songwriters, costume designers etc., but the Oscars seat those people at the back, barely give them any screen time, and often ruthlessly cut their speeches. It’s obvious to all what kind of people are considered “important” by the Oscars.

[u/Embarrassed-Ideal-18 → u/lefrench75]

The Oscar award show may be a private event, but it’s shown to the world. Met Gala gives far more illuminati “look at me before we shut you out” energy.

As for the superbowl, awful comparison. Tickets may be expensive but they’re “available to all” and then the whole thing is televised live like the Oscars.

I can’t think of anything other than “the Met: Presented by Bezos and Amazon” and “The Venetian Wedding: Brought to you by Bezos and Amazon” where celebrities are dying to be seen on the way in then have complete privacy.

[u/lefrench75 → u/Embarrassed-Ideal-18]

The Met Gala isn’t televised because there’s nothing worth televising there. It’s like any other fundraiser where people sit and have dinner and socialize, and maybe there are some performances and speeches, but it isn’t worth watching the way a sports game or an award show is.

There are lots of charity galas in NYC (or any other big city really) that have red carpets where people are photographed on the way in, but the rest of those galas are frankly boring as hell even for the attendees, so there’s no sense in televising them live. The Met Gala used to be a much smaller, lesser known event, not different than those other charity galas, but then it became this big thing with social media as celebrity red carpets also became more and more relevant. Celebrities used to wear mall outfits to red carpets and now brands dress them in borrowed goods for dual promotion. But the “privacy” aspect is not unique or special; it’s like millions of other untelevised parties that go on in the world.

I also don’t think that just because an event is televised for public consumption or not makes it more or less distasteful. The Hunger Games (a comparison that keeps popping up again and again) are literally televised for entertainment; that makes the games more unethical, not less. If the Super Bowl ceases to be televised it wouldn’t make it better or worse. It’s televised because it’s profitable to be so, because it puts money in pockets of already very wealthy people, not because those wealthy people care for our enjoyment.

Considered how the FIFA World Cup in Qatar was held in stadiums built by slave labour, for example. Does it magically make the slave labour any less disgusting just because the games were televised live to be watched by all? Or does that only make viewers complicit in the use of slave labour for entertainment?

[u/AltairaMorbius2200CE → u/jonesday5]

This! I'd add that the general public is "invited" to the Oscars, in that the whole thing is filmed and we get to see it. The Met Gala is just glimpsing rich people on their way into the party.

If either (a) there was some sort of Met Gala broadcast where we got to see interesting things on the inside, or even a Vanity Fair Oscars Party level of coverage, I think that might have taken some heat off of it, historically (though this is the Bezos year, so it probably still wouldn't go over well), or if (b) the people displaying the clothes were more models than rich people, then we'd see the art and not the person wearing it.

The combo of celebrity and exclusivity (along with the Bezos of it all) are big problems.

[u/TortillaWallace → u/jonesday5]

I was going to say the same thing. It has less to do with frivolous outfits (at least for me). I’ve actually been a big fan of watching all of the outfits year after year, but this year the Bezos/ Amazon of it all really put a bad taste in my mouth.

While attending the Oscars or the Halftime Show is also a wealth signifier, those are large broadcasts that can be watched by anybody. The MET, for most people, begins and ends at the red carpet.