From "The Met Makes a Statement With 9 New Mannequin Bodies/The latest Costume Institute exhibition expands its ideas of who, exactly, belongs in fashion. Will the gala follow suit?" (NYT)(gift link, so you can see the artist's bound flesh spilling over and the quite interesting mannequins in their fashions).
"Stark [said] that the images that come out of the gala matter, especially now. 'Who’s on that red carpet and what their bodies are like is a political statement,' she said. To really inspire change, she said, the party needs at least some 'fabulous fat women wearing fabulous gowns.' 'If it is watered down to an Ozempic-fueled event of skinny girls wearing paintings on the red carpet,' she said, 'that’s an active denial of what this exhibition is really about.'"
The idea of "wearing paintings" relates to the theme of the Met Gala this year, which is something about the way fashion has channeled fine art. We'll see how literally the gala-goers take it. I hope nobody uses the idea of walking about inside a picture frame.
AND: The Gala is tonight, so watch for the picture frame idea. It's on my bingo card. So is a "Starry Night" star on each breast.
Posts
32 comments:
Bodies are different. A stunning concept, why has no one ever noticed before?
”And atop each body, rather than the usual abstract face, there’s an oval of polished steel so that visitors’ own faces will be reflected back at them, as if they are the person inside all these differently shaped bodies.
“It’s a pretty obvious statement about self-reflection and seeing ourselves in other people’s experiences,” said Aimee Mullins“
As if every day empathy is non-existent…. Who among us doesn’t whisper to themselves something to the effect, “there but for the grace of god, go I”, when encountering disabled or disfigured or otherwise burdened humans.
The mannequin idea is thoughtful. The “in your face” aspect, not so much.
The artist and "People of Walmart" are covering the same ground. Let's have fat women in yoga pants and tubby men with beer bellies hanging over their belts. How about some plumber cracks?
We are all different, and none of us are perfect. Art and fashion could go for a more aspirational sense of beauty.
Saturday afternoon at WalMart
All of the ads that I saw in that article featured Margot Robbie, lol
The Met wants to "quietly wade into the culture wars again".
Quick, tell our Comms Team to place a multi-page spread in the Times.
I blame Trump's unpopular war in Iran giving the Libturds license to continue with their love of woke DEI cancel couture
Rolling layers of blubber are a cultural appropriation from the sea lion community. And they wear it better.
"...Who’s on that red carpet and what their bodies are like is a political statement,' ...."
No, it isn't. This is just an up-to-date version of the 'look at me, I'm an important person in the New York City social fishbowl !' It's a time-honored tradition.
We should be hearing the Entrance of the Gladiators playing in the background, since these are the gladiators of the social hierarchy, here to do serious battle.
Spotted a repost from X on Instapundit a couple of days noting that many of the fatties celebrated during the 'body positivity' moment suddenly became svelte after GLP1s were introduced.
"“It institutionalizes the idea that bodies are different.”
Institution.
When I was a kid, you could see something similar in a tent down at the end of the midway at the state fair.
The local Victoria’s Secret store replaced most of their normal mannequins with fat to morbidly obese versions last year. After a few months all but one or two of the large ones were gone and the attractive ones were back.
One of my uncles produced textiles. His wife turned those textiles into fashion, building dresses from sketches submitted to her for producing a production sample. She also made about 40% of all the wedding/bridesmaid dresses in her town over her lifetime.
The fashion she built hung on the racks at Sears and JC Penny in the fifties, sixties and seventies, and the samples she would build from the designs she was issued all were built to fit my Mother (her sister), who was 5' 5 1/2" and weighed about 110.
Everyone always wondered how Mom dressed so well on a hairdresser's earnings. Those samples had to go somewhere... Neither of them would claim the pieces seen in the NYT article.
Maybe the blubber binding is an homage to Greenpeace freeing marine mammals from the grasp of fishing nets?
I was expecting the fat woman artist to look like the fat woman at Jabba's palace. But she's barely overweight and definitely not trying to repulse with her fat. What a scam.
Same with the "different" mannequins. None of them resemble the hideous statue in London...they are all still pleasing figures. Which is good. But don't try and tell me you're actually trying to feature all kinds of bodies The Met.
"The Met Makes a Statement With 9 New Mannequin Bodies/The latest Costume Institute exhibition expands its ideas of who, exactly, belongs in fashion. Will the gala follow suit?"
I'm sure the left wing freak show will follow suit.
I'm also sure the rest of America will have nothing to do with it. Because fat is ugly, not beautiful. Once your'e beyond Rubinesque, it's just repulsive.
The commies pushed that because their USSR master literally ordered them to try top make America and the West uglier, to make people's lives more miserable.
But no one's buying that stupidity any more. If you want to get into fashion, take a GLP-1 derivative
“ (NYT)(gift link, so you can see the artist's bound flesh spilling over and the quite interesting mannequins in their fashions).”
Hee. I know better than to click on that.
I clicked the link and have regrets.
If I had to exist among these braindead NYC libtards, the painting I would be wearing is The Scream.
UGLY, et al, subjected BEAUTY to a DEI struggle session.
BEAUTY has been dethroned in favor of UGLY’s sisters: Disabled, Exhibitionist, Fat.
BEAUTY attracts. Always has, always will.
"a "Starry Night" star on each breast."
Starry, starry tits
Paint your boobies blue and gray
Look out on the Met so gay-
-La Conde Nast darkness in my soul
Shadows on your hills
Sketch the trees and the daffodils
Catch the breeze and the nipple chills
In colors underneath some rapper's hand
For they could not love you
But still your love was true
And when no hope was left inside
On your starry, starry tits
CC, JSM
Can I exchange this gift article for the one about the yuppies? That would interest me a lot more than this typical NYT wierdness. Thanks!
Art is shit, and artists are parasites.
I do not begrudge the beautiful boys and girls. I welcome their aesthetic enchantment of the human field. Especially the latter.
Binders of blubber. Flubber?
So, Aimee Mullins is the Marilyn Munster of the exhibition.
Aimee is the ugly duckling.
The devil wears Prada taught us that fashion is a billion dollar industry. This exhibition may be art, but is not fashion. None of that stuff will spawn viable reproduction. The non-standard proportions do not scale up or down. My sympathies, as a fat woman myself, are with the disenfranchised shopper, but I find the mannequins butt ugly and no variation of what I see appeals. Wonder what Trooper York thinks about it all?
I hate it when I spend all afternoon getting a Van Gogh painted on my chest, then get to the event and another gal has the same Van Gogh painted on her chest. CC, JSM
All the models look like trans women. I guess that’s an additional positive for this article(per the New York Times anyway.??.:-)
Oh, and if you visit the site, click on the comments section… It’s very awesome and exactly what you would expect from New York Times readers.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.