THE FOLD

Is there really such a thing as a bad look, or are we simply unable to reach what it is trying to say?

 

The Met Gala exists somewhere between discipline and excess. A space where clothing is no longer worn, it performs. This year, under Costume as Art, the expectation was not elegance, but transformation.

​

And yet, something felt familiar.

Not in reference, but in repetition.

​

There is a difference between costume and decoration. Between constructing an image and merely adding to it. Costume, at its origin, was never about embellishment. In theatre, in early opera, even in court dress, it functioned as language — a way to alter the body, to extend it, to distort it.

 

A kind of architecture. And architecture requires structure.

 

Some understood this. Emma Chamberlain, in Mugler, moves with clarity; there is always a sense of resolution in her choices. Nothing feels accidental.

​

Bad Bunny approached proportion with control. Presence without excess.

Zoë Kravitz held something quieter — a precision that doesn’t ask for attention, but keeps it.

Gracie Abrams, alongside Matthieu Blazy, felt resolved.
There was alignment between body, material, and intention.

Alex Consani brought something sharper —
a clarity of image that didn’t collapse under its own idea.

Others remained closer to surface.

Kendall and Kylie mirrored each other —
a gesture that could suggest duality,
but instead read as repetition without tension.

Hailey Bieber, in Saint Laurent, remained within herself.
There is coherence in that — but also limitation.
Restraint is only powerful when it resists expectation.

Kim Kardashian seemed held by the garment, rather than supported by it.
There is a difference between tension and discomfort.

 

And then, moments that confused excess with meaning.

 

Costume is not about doing more. It is about altering perception.

In Renaissance portraiture, drapery was never decorative. It constructed presence: gave the body weight, direction, gravity. The fabric defined the figure.

​

Which brings us back to now. What we saw was not a lack of effort. If anything, it was the opposite.

But effort alone does not create form.

 

There is always a space (subtle, but decisive) between what is imagined and what is realized.

 

Between the idea,
and the way it holds.

And maybe that is where the reading begins.