If you adore art and lucky enough to be in the City (by that I mean New York City) sometimes between May 4 and July 31, 2011, I suggest you include the Met in your list of places to go.
Here's why. I intentionally used
art instead of
fashion, because McQueen's work surpasses fashion; it really is a work of art. I won't go into details on what the exhibit is about, because the website does
a much better job at it. In short, the exhibit has loads of dresses designed my Lee Alexander himself, and you have to be mad to not go have a look because to quote Barney Stinson, it's Legen-wait for it-dary.
NY Times Fashion&Style ran
an article about this exhibit too, and there was this passage that I thought was not the accurate description of McQueen's work.
There are streaks of sadomasochism and misogyny in Mr. McQueen’s work. The concept of using as a model a woman with prosthetic legs or of having a robot squirt paint viciously over a dress still seem discomforting. And Sarah Burton adds a further menacing note when she explains that a robotic Perspex armor-like shell worn by a model in a Givenchy collection designed by Mr. McQueen could have electrocuted the person wearing it.
I have seen most, if not all, of McQueen's work, but I seriously have no idea which collection or dress this passage is referring to as being sadomasochistic and misogynistic. I suppose demanding someone to wear Armadillo heels to walk around the city can be a bit sadomasochistic, but who does that? Not even Lady Gaga walks around the city in that shoes, because if she did that, we would know.
Honestly, this ensemble screams nothing but "I'm gorgeous." To top it, what is wrong with using a model with prosthetic legs? I really have to disagree with the idea that not looking like just another emaciated model is discomforting. I first fell in love with McQueen's work because of its originality and the underlying concept that beauty lives in all shapes and forms. I love that Lee Alexander had women with prosthetic legs model his collection. People don't go on prosthetic legs by choice. You don't choose to be born without a leg or two, be sick, or be injured. I love how Lee Alexander let the world know that these women are not "disabled;" instead, they are very able and beautiful.
I did some reading, and as it turns out, Lee Alexander refused to invite Victoria Beckham (who went as Posh Spice then) to the 1999 collection, because he thought Posh Spice's celeb-status would overshadow the appearance of a model with prosthetic legs. Aimee Mullins, the Paralympic athlete, modeled the hand-carved cherrywood prosthetics designed by Lee Alexander. Seriously, how is this sadomasochistic or misogynistic? I think it's quite the opposite.
As for squirting paints, it's all in good fun, right? The almost-electrocution incident could have been easily avoided if any of those artists had an idea to ask an engineer for a consult. I have no idea exactly what that almost-electrocution dress looks like, but all it really takes is good insulation. Anyway, that's enough of me writing; here are some more of the looks that will be showcased at the exhibit. Enjoy!
All images are taken from
here.
So beautiful, don't you think?
xoxo-N
PS: According to
British Vogue, this exhibit is the Met's Costume Institute's most popular exhibit ever. Is it just me who keeps thinking, what is Lee Alexander himself was still alive to witness all these?
