.png)
I love celebrity gossip. The drama, the intrigue, the excitement and pleasure that comes from judging someone you will never meet and who has no idea you exist. It’s my bread and butter, and the Met Gala is the Superbowl of celebrity drama. From the men’s boring tuxes to the show-stopping outfits of stars like Zendaya, Iman, and Rihanna, there’s always something to talk about on fashion’s biggest night of the year.
However, while a part of me enjoys the entertainment of seeing Bennifer reunited once again and complaining about no one following the theme, I am also a student studying art history. I think it’s a worthwhile endeavor to take a closer look at the fashion of the Met Gala as high art and its implications for politics, popular culture, and everything in between.
To keep me from getting too deep in the weeds of who wore what designer and who stuck to this year’s theme of “In America: A Lexicon of Fashion,” I want to focus on a single celebrity. Someone we all know -- but do we really? Love her or hate her, there is no escaping the colossal social empire she’s created: Kim Kardashian.
Kim arrived at this year’s Met Gala with great fanfare, as she always does. But this year something was different. Instead of a shimmering, skin-tight gown or dazzling jewels, the mogul rolled up in what appeared to be a black morph suit that concealed her entire face, covered by a black t-shirt dress and heeled boots with a sky-high, sleek ponytail that skimmed the floor as she walked the red carpet. The contrast between her and the other celebrities in attendance was further compounded by the memes made of Kim pictured with half-sister Kendall Jenner, who arrived dripping in Givenchy jewels -- and not much else -- in a tribute to Audrey Hepburn’s iconic role in My Fair Lady.
So what does it mean? Is it art? Was that actually Kim, or a body double? Was it on theme? Why did she wear a full face of makeup if her entire head was covered? These are questions I asked myself as I watched coverage of the event and read the many, many subsequent articles covering Kim’s look.
I think it’s important to keep in mind when analyzing this look that we’re examining it through the lens of art. Art is naturally interpretive; many meanings can be read into a single piece, depending on what angle you take. None of my interpretations may be what Kim and her team were going for, but they’re all valid interpretations as long as there is evidence to back them up.
My first thought when looking at this piece is that Kim is appearing as a silhouette. It’s been said that a celebrity is a true icon when the general public can recognize their silhouette, when all facial features and colors are removed. We can look at a silhouette of Marilyn Monroe or Audrey Hepburn and instantly recognize them -- or at least admit they look familiar. Kim is playing on this idea in her own way, removing her face and leaving only the outline of her body, which has been the pillar of her career.
Additionally, there is a blank quality to the look. It’s all black with nothing to really examine or pick apart, so the audience -- we, the general public -- are forced to project our own interpretations, expectations, and judgments onto her blank canvas. This has also been a major staple of Kim’s career. People project what they want onto her; that she and her family are the downfall of polite society, that she hasn’t truly “earned” her status as a public figure, that she’s a money-hungry monster, and the list goes on and on. But we will never know the truth of these statements, only Kim and her inner circle do. The blankness of this look allows us to decide what she is, who she is, and why she’s here. She isn’t making a statement of her own but allowing us to decide.
There is also the decision to make this outfit completely black. Black is an absence or absorption of color and light. In the words of TikTok account @kardashian_kolloquium, “Kim has been both a black hole and a reflection of the culture for a long time now.” Whether you adore or despise her, Kim Kardashian is instantly recognizable, a cultural giant. Even as a silent, faceless shadow, Kim is the moment.
I think we can use this moment to reflect on what celebrity culture means in America. It’s ridiculous to pretend that celebrities aren’t actively changing the world and culture as we know it -- we elected a reality television star to the highest office in the country just five years ago. We can say we don’t buy into celebrity culture and gossip or that it’s beneath us as intellectuals, but by doing so we ignore the broader implications mediums like fashion and social media have for more “serious” arenas like politics and philosophy.
Celebrity culture serves the dual purpose -- for me, at least -- of being an escape from the monotony of everyday life and an intellectual pursuit of higher art and deep analysis. So the next time you renounce the Kardashian family or argue the Met Gala is a useless parade of rich people in weird outfits, challenge yourself to take it deeper. Think past the initial reaction and dive into the wild, colorful drama that plays out each year on the red carpet. You might be surprised by what you find.
Claire Harmon is a McConnell Scholar in the class of 2023. She is studying library science, art history, political science, and English at the University of Louisville.