art and the A RETROSPECTIVE ON THE 2022 MET GALA

A DISCUSSION ABOUT KIM KARDASHIAN WEARING MARILYN MONROE’S DRESS AT THE 2022 MET GALA. WHAT DOES THIS ACT AND THE OUTRAGE SURROUNDING IT TELL US ABOUT OUR CULTURE?

By Samantha Phan

On May 2, 2022, celebrity and reality show icon Kim Kardashian wore one of Marilyn Monroe’s dresses to the 2022 Met Gala. However, this was not just any Marilyn dress. It was the gold, glittery, one-of-a-kind gown she wore during her notorious “Happy Birthday Mr. President” performance. When making the dress, Marilyn had allegedly asked designer Bob Mackie (who was working for Jean Louis) for something truly original. Since then, the dress has been placed in an exhibition for preservation. That is, until Kim Kardashian wore it on the red carpet last May.

In all fairness, she did not wear the dress for long. Kim had apparently changed into a replica soon after, the actual wearing time being a matter of minutes. However, the fabric was about sixty years old and made specifically for Marilyn, resulting in the dress sustaining some damage. Chad Michael Morrisette, the curator for the piece, claimed that the shredded fabric and stress were “irreversible,” causing a large outcry among fashion critics and audiences alike. All this for one, admittedly historic, dress.

When the criticism was first brewing in May, I found myself actively trying not to have an opinion. I felt that doing so would save me both time and effort (which was probably correct). But you’ve all seen the title of this article. My only defense is that I have attempted not to have an opinion on the action itself but rather discuss my perspective on the public’s reaction.

So, why do we care so much about some silly piece of fabric? Some of it may have to do with the nature of fashion and art. For many fashion critics, fashion is art and should be treated as such. There are fashion exhibits in art museums around the globe, several of which I have visited. This would explain why there was such an enormous outcry: Kim interfered with a piece of art meant for preservation. I mean, we all saw how the internet reacted to two activists throwing soup at a Van Gogh.

And yet, I have to question the notion of fashion as art. Is fashion art in the same way that a painting is art? Clothing is meant to be worn in the same way that paintings are supposed to be displayed. And no one is crying out when a millionaire buys a Warhol to put over their coffee table.

Personally, I have a fairly loose definition of art. To me, art is anything that makes you feel. A Monet is art. A banana taped to a wall worth millions is art. The couch I am sitting on as I write is art. A dress is art. By this definition, art means different things to different people. If a piece makes me feel something but the person next to me feels nothing, then it’s art to me but not to them. And, in a world where high luxury fashion brands coexist with Shein and fast fashion factories, it is too broad to say that fashion as a whole is art. There is so much room for nuance.

So why does it matter if Marilyn’s dress is art? In our society, art is something sacred. Art is not born with meaning, we as humans must give it. And this gift, to us, is so powerful that we do our best to protect and preserve it. That is why we have thousands of halls filled with art for us to sit and appreciate but never touch. We revere it in the same way some of us view religion, tradition, or Lady Gaga.

This is where Kim Kardashian supposedly crossed the line. She has interfered with what many fashion enthusiasts hold dear: a dress worn by one of America’s greatest film icons. She destroyed the sacred relic they put at the altar, both literally and figuratively. By touching the dress while wearing it, Kim damaged the fabric — an unmistakable act of physical desecration.

But, on a deeper level, I would consider Kim’s donning of the garment a figurative perverting of the sacred. I find that much of the rhetoric surrounding her 2022 Met Gala appearance portrayed Kim as “unfit” to wear the dress. Apparently, Kim was not fitting some beauty standard that Marilyn was, making the dress not hers to claim. Additionally, the way online circles scrutinized Kardashian insinuated she was “trashier” or “less elegant” than Marilyn. While I am not especially interested in either of their careers, I do know that Marilyn is often praised for being incredibly intelligent despite her dumb blonde demeanor. In this case, I am tempted to defend Kim, who seems to have the same sexualized figure stereotype without public support of a behind-the-scenes clever persona of herself.

As a casual viewer of pop culture and a fellow fashion enthusiast, the public opinion seems to be unfairly critical of Kim, especially considering some of the other fashion debacles that night. I am, of course, referring to Emma Chamberlain wearing a necklace that was not only stolen from the Maharaja but also represented an important piece of Indian history. The fact that so many were upset about Marilyn’s dress but significantly less so about the Maharaja’s necklace tells us what we as fashion consumers hold dear and what we turn a blind eye to. Marilyn’s status as the quintessential American girl incites a nationalistic battle cry in her favor. Meanwhile, racism and xenophobia results in the dismissal of the Maharaja’s necklace as “not a big deal”.

So what does this mean? In short, I have demonstrated three points. One: many people were upset about Kim wearing Marilyn’s dress because they believed in the debatable notion that fashion is art. Two: the reason why art itself is so revered is because it is something that we as a society hold sacred. Three: people felt that Kim violated the sanctity of a historical piece of American pop culture, thus reflecting what we value as fashion enthusiasts and as a society.

I am not saying that you are wrong for being upset about Kim wearing Marilyn’s dress. Nor am I saying that there is always some underlying philosophical basis for your feelings. I am simply encouraging you to take a step back and think about why you care about a 60 year old piece of clothing that does not even belong to you. Is it art? Is it sacred? Or is it truly just a dress?