“The Costume Institute’s spring 2023 exhibition will examine the work of Karl Lagerfeld (1933–2019). Focusing on the designer’s stylistic vocabulary as expressed in aesthetic themes that appear time and again in his fashions from the 1950s to his final collection in 2019, the show will spotlight the German-born designer’s unique working methodology. ”
— The Met
Every spring I make my way over to The Met to see the new fashion exhibit and it’s a tradition that I hope I never stop. It’s a very love/hate experience, which is what makes it so fun for me. They can be beautifully whimsical or absolute train wrecks. So let us begin…
Okay, so THIS is a wonderful way of displaying a clothing exhibit (above). Black dresses should be again white backgrounds and vice versa. It’s also at eye level, with just enough distance away so that you can see the intricate details. How is this not standard procedure for showing pieces at this point?
I don’t love the two-floor showing of these ones (above) but at least they’re lighted properly. It would’ve been nice to see them up close, but maybe I’m just too picky when it comes to Met curation decisions. Although if I’m going to see a designer exhibit, it isn’t insane of me to want to actually see the vintage, designer pieces. But I digress.
Fendi, Autumn/Winter 1971-1972
Early 70s Fendi mink fur? SIGN ME UP. Not only do I love old pieces, I absolutely love vintage fur when it’s maintained so well. It’s legit history you’re looking at, incredibly beautiful history. The cut of this cape is breathtaking.
Fendi, Autumn/Winter 2016-2017
At first glance, I hated this but when I read that it was a cape (why was it not shown with its opening?) I’m way more onboard. Capes need to come back. Especially ones that make you look like you’re some sort of chic fairy godmother.
Chloe, Autumn/Winter 1983-1984
An 80s Chloe dress? Perfection. I would have loved to see the front of it, but that wasn’t in the cards. It should be law that all dresses have fun back details.
Chanel, Autumn/Winter 1986-1987
I really didn’t love this clearly-Lagerfeld 80s dress mainly because I don’t love his signature style at all. It’s edgy but without any substance.
Chanel, Spring/Summer 1997
The detailing of this Chanel dress is gorgeous (especially the neck and the wrist area), it’s so fun but, like, a structured kind of fun. It does seem like a nightmare to wear, but so lovely to look at. (And I just realized that they also showed it at their 2016 exhibit!)
Chanel, Spring/Summer 1997
If it’s got tulle, mesh, feathers or any kind of netting - I’m 99% gonna be into it. Absolutely love this dress. And it’s hard to tell in a still photograph but it shimmers ever so slightly in the light.
Chanel, Autumn/Winter 2002-2003
THE BEADING, MY GOD. This dress screams patience and elegance at once and I’m enthralled with it.
Chanel, Autumn/Winter 2017-2018
As much as I love the feathers, my favourite part about this piece is the shape. I’ve never seen a dress that achieved this type of shape before, which is wild to realize and beautiful to witness.
Overall, a small portion of the collection was fun but there were too many modern pieces (from the 2000s) and the majority of them were too high up to even see. And I think I love an exhibit that covers more than one designer and instead focuses on a theme rather than a person. But if you like to just peruse designer items from the past, definitely make your way to The Met before it closes on July 16th.
IMPORTANT TIP: Before you enter the exhibition, you must join the virtual exhibition queue via QR code once you’re inside the museum (there’s a QR code sign beside the main entrance ticket line). No advance or timed tickets required and access is first come, first served.
“The second portion of a two-part exhibition exploring fashion in the United States is presented in collaboration with The Met’s American Wing. This section of the exhibition will highlight sartorial narratives that relate to the complex and layered histories of the American Wing period rooms. Men’s and women’s dress dating from the eighteenth century to the present will be featured in vignettes installed in select period rooms spanning from 1805 to 1915.”
— The Met
And look, if you know anything about me and The Met, you already know how much I LOVE the period rooms (they’re one of the reasons I always return each summer). But it was a spectacularly bad idea to showcase clothing inside of them. Many of the rooms have been staged by American directors (Sofia Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Regina King, Julie Dash, etc.) and while that sounds cool, it’s kind of useless. For starters, the rooms are so dimly lit that you can barely see any of the details on the clothing. Also, the mannequins wearing the pieces are placed SO FAR AWAY from the roped-off viewing areas. See for yourself.
The Benkard Room by Autumn de Wilde
The Baltimore Room by Autumn de Wilde
Doesn’t this seem oddly terrible for The Met to produce? I honestly just felt confused at first, but that confusion quickly turned to annoyance (and a little bit of rage). People come to this exhibit each year to SEE THE CLOTHING UP CLOSE. Why is that so difficult to understand? Now if they’d only displayed the entire collection in the manner they did with this George Washington coat (below) I could happily shut my mouth.
Am I being too harsh? There’s more! All of the pieces that weren’t being shown in period piece rooms were presented on a platform in THE darkest room inside the entire museum on mannequins that were contorted for some reason?? Can someone explain this me? Are these dresses or fancy sheets draped over bodies? No one knows.
If this were twenty years ago when The Matrix came out, at least then would I understand the positioning of these mannequins. How could it get any worse, you ask? Well, the names of the designers of each piece aren’t even NEAR each design. They’re all collectively on a plaque that’s near the outer wall of the room. So not only can you not accurately VIEW each piece (what fun!), but you also have no idea who the hell designed what! Sweet! That’s just what I wanted when visiting A COSTUME EXHIBIT. Just an abomination.
The Frank Lloyd Wright Room by Martin Scorsese
The Frank Lloyd Wright Room by Martin Scorsese
These were the two pieces (that I could actually see) that were my only favourites in the whole bunch (below).
The McKim, Mead & White Stair Hall by Sofia Coppola
The Worsham-Rockefeller Dressing Room by Sofia Coppola
Other than those two, the best item in part two was this gorgeous Tiffany lamp. (If you don’t know anything about them, they’re a thing.) So beautiful to see in real life.
After this horrid experience, I needed to decompress so I headed over to part one (that came out last year) and they added new pieces! So I’m going to do another post on that one this week. (Spoiler: they’re breath-taking.)
It’s honesty wild how bad part two was, just jaw droppingly rough. On the bright side, it’s comforting to realize that even an institution as highly respected at The Met can still completely drop the ball and remind you that power doesn’t automatically mean success. God, what a disaster.
The exhibit runs until September 5, 2022 and if you aren’t in New York and would like to see a glimpse, there’s a tour video below of part two; don’t tell me I didn’t warn you. (And you can see my whole walk-through on my Instagram stories over here.)
“The Costume Institute’s spring 2016 exhibition explores how fashion designers are reconciling the handmade and the machine-made in the creation of haute couture and avant-garde ready-to-wear. With more than 170 ensembles dating from the early 20th century to the present, the exhibition addresses the founding of the haute couture in the 19th century, when the sewing machine was invented, and the emergence of a distinction between the hand (manus) and the machine (machina) at the onset of mass production.”
— The Met
Summer isn't even here yet and I've already been to The Met! That shouldn't impress me, but it does. I usually wait until the last days of September until I finally get around to seeing that rooftop, but I'm so glad I went earlier than normal this year since I got a chance to see this exhibit.
Look at these beauties.
It's definitely worth seeing if you're anywhere near the Upper East Side at some point this summer. And please remember, don't be a sap - pay only a $1. And of course, don't forget to trek to the roof for this view.
