Opinion: Were this year’s Met Gala looks subpar, or did we just not understand them?

BY ALEEZA GANI ’27

When I opened TikTok only minutes after the Met Gala, I already knew what I was about to see: content and comments criticizing almost every look of the night. 

Just as suspected, before I even had the chance to form my own opinion, the internet had already decided everything for me.

“Too basic.”

“They didn’t understand the assignment.”

“Worst dressed.”

That’s when I realized: maybe the problem wasn’t just the looks, but how we were looking at them.

This year’s theme was “Costume Art,” accompanied by the dress code of “Fashion is Art.” The theme was broad, and intentionally so. It was meant to explore how clothing and the human body interact across art history, and to frame the human form as a blank canvas.

Most criticisms had a similar focus. Celebrities played it too safe, wore disjointed looks, or were completely out of touch. This backlash raises a bigger question. Were the looks actually that bad, or did we just not understand them?

Kim Kardashian had one of the most hated looks of the night. She wore a molded tangerine fiberglass breastplate originally created by pop artist Allen Jones. Social media was quick to criticize this look for being “unflattering,” “oddly colored,” and “lazy.” And to be fair, the criticism wasn’t entirely unreasonable. But what viewers quickly overlooked was the meaning behind Kardashian’s aesthetic. Her look was meant to turn her body into a piece of wearable pop art by transforming controversial art and industrial auto-body paint into a high-fashion red carpet statement. Not everyone fully understood that.

Cardi B’s Marc Jacobs look was equally hated for the opposite reason: for being “too much.” Her extravagant dress intended to turn her body into a surrealist, modular sculpture, using segmented padding and black lace to pay tribute to Hans Bellmer’s 1930s doll art. Her look perfectly portrayed the theme of the event. And yet, because it didn’t align with conventional beauty standards, it was quickly bashed.

Clearly, there’s a pattern. The more conceptual a look is, the more likely it is to be misunderstood. Not because the look is bad, but because it requires effort to understand. But that’s the point of the event. Art isn’t meant to be digested quickly. It’s meant to be interpreted, and people aren’t taking enough time to understand each look before judging it.

Of course, not every criticized look deserves defending. Some outfits were “too basic.” Some designers didn’t “understand the assignment”. Some celebrities were “the worst dressed.” But there are looks that end up receiving these titles simply because they’re complex. Social media can’t seem to tell the difference and ends up placing these looks into the same category: bad.

There seems to be a disconnect between the audience and the event. Mass media favors immediate visual appeal. The Met Gala favors risk.

So when people judge Met Gala looks using everyday standards, the result will always be disappointment. Outfits designed to challenge expectations get criticized for not meeting them. 

Celebrities are noticing this and starting to dress for virality rather than for the theme. Some choose to exaggerate, others choose to play it safe. Either way, the outcome is the same. No matter what, people will be disappointed.

So, were this year’s Met Gala looks actually subpar? Some were. But many weren’t bad at all. They were just more complex and not designed for a quick glance. Like a painting in a museum, they needed context, interpretation, and maybe even a second look.