The Devil Doesn’t Just Wear Prada. He Sponsors the Met

My perspective on enjoying the artistry and opulence without pretending it exists outside of the systems that make it possible.

For years, I’ve done a Met Gala poll on my Instagram stories; best dressed, worst dressed, who understood the theme, and who missed the mark. It is one of my favorite annual rituals and over the years I have built a little fashion loving community because of it. I love seeing how differently people interpret the same looks, and how designers interpret the yearly theme. It makes the whole thing feel participatory, like I can enjoy it without needing to be anywhere near the steps.

And maybe that is why we’ve never really needed the Met Gala to be something it isn’t.

The Met Gala has always been a contradiction dressed in couture, more than ever this year with the theme being “Fashion is Art”. It is positioned as fashion’s most important night, but it is also a fundraiser where a single ticket costs more than most people’s yearly rent. So when Lauren Sánchez and Jeff Bezos enter the conversation in a bigger way, people suddenly start asking whether money is ruining the art. Lol. As if money wasn’t already the point.

To me, this year’s discourse feels louder than usual; the idea that proximity to Vogue can be influenced by billionaires, followed by the visibility of major sponsors, has pushed everyone into analysis mode. Add in corporate partners like Snapchat, and Meta, and suddenly the Met starts to look less like a museum fundraiser (which was already an area of debate) and more like a very expensive brand activation.

The Met Gala has never been a space built for emerging designers in the way people romanticize. I know we love the idea of it being about pure creativity and artistic expression, but it has always been an invitation-only ecosystem shaped by wealth, influence, and visibility. The Costume Institute does not run on good intentions, it runs on funding. Duh.

However, that being said, I do get why people are annoyed. When Bezos is announced as an honorary co-chair, it does make you pause, and wonder: what does he actually know about fashion? His expertise do not surround draping, nor textile innovation, and definitely storytelling through clothing (which is the major reason why the Met has always peaked intrigue). So the concern is less about him personally and more about what it represents, and moreover, who gets to shape fashion when the people funding the room are not the ones creating within it.

But then again, when has that ever not been the case….

Another particular reason why this year feels different, is due to the blatantly obvious sponsorship culture, with brands wanting now, more than ever to be seen, tagged, and integrated into the moment. I think that visibility is what people are reacting to.

Because if we are being honest, the Met Gala has always relied on the exact kind of capital people are now critiquing. The difference is that now the sources of that capital are more obvious.

So does that take away from the art?

I go back and forth. I think in theory, more funding should enable more ambitious exhibitions, but funding also comes with influence, even if it is subtle.

Because despite all of this, I still watch. I still vote in my own polls. I still have opinions about who understood the theme and who clearly just wanted to be photographed. I still enjoy it. So when people say the Met Gala is being ruined by billionaires, I don’t fully buy it.

The illusion that this was ever purely about art feels harder to maintain and simultaneously the illusion that access was based on creativity alone feels thinner.

XOXO

Sarah MOTM