i dunno

dresses at the Met Gala in the context of art

I must live under a rock because I had never heard of the Met Gala until about 24 hours ago. I guess I just don’t get it as I am not friends with Kim Kardashian or Madonna or any of the other countless people who are appearing on the pages of newspapers because of ultra expensive, rather strange extravagant attire while the cash for the clothes could have contributed to what I am assuming was a fundraising event for the Metropolitan Museum along Fifth Avenue in New York City.

Let’s discuss art museums but not the extremes at a gala. Maybe I just don’t understand it like so many things I don’t grasp. Help me here, gentle readers.

I did not grow up in a family which appreciated art, though my parents did buy a number of portraits and paintings of Colombian landmarks from a native son who had at least some following. I never took an art class in college and am utterly without talent at drawing or painting. My primary interest before the last few years was in calligraphy but I wasn’t expert at that, either, but found the flow of the lettering fascinating.

I love the Met itself, however. Today we never miss a trip to the Met for the Impressionists and American Wing or the Philadelphia Institute of Art for the Thomas Eakins masterpieces. We recently visited the Brandywine Museum and have made trips over the years to fabulous institutions in Tulsa, Fort Worth, Williamstown, the Rockwell, and the National Gallery in London. Have you been there or Longwood Gardens or the Musee d’Orsay? Have you seen the Victoria & Albert? This is astonishing for unschooled me to spend hours looking at the detail, the colour, the shading, and anything else but it simply blows me away that people were able to see that, then reproduce it with their hands.

It is the appreciation, with age, of what artists actually can create. Wow. Talk about actions creating consequences!

Sculptors like the magnificent André Harvey awe me even more than painters. He studied his animal subjects, such as goats, of frogs, or turtles among man, until he could bring them to life through the lost wax process. He studied them like the crazy and managed to recreate them so beautifully. Oh, my. To see them one is left completely in wonder.

Dressmakers, amazing artists of the fabric medium, do comparable magic by translating detailed design they see through their eyes into the appropriate size for a person to wear. Wow. It’s that ability to look at something across the room, figure out to make it happen in the dressmaker’s hands, then display on someone else’s body that does not compute for me. How do they do that?

Instead, the focus of the press stories is the outlandishness of the designs that some people chose to wear. The stories focus on a tiny waist or the deep dip of the front revealing more cleavage than anyone needs to ever see outside of bedroom under circumstances different from attending a fundraiser. Focus on skill, sophistication or something else rather than outlandish mess.

Then again, the New York Times focuses on what their readers must want to consume. I guess I should have loved it but don’t appreciate it as others must.

I am lecturing for The College of William & Mary Whole of Government Center for Excellence this week so it was a rushed look at the news this morning. The foci were something I found weird but perhaps it was the perfect story to glance through quickly.

Oh, well. You can’t win every single day….but it’s still a good day to see how Actions Create Consequences: interesting looks must bring in more donations. I hope so for the art scene at the Met!

Thank you for reading my column today. I appreciate your support more than you know.

Be well and be safe. FIN