r/DearConsumers

For years, one of the most frustrating aspects of the Met Gala has been watching the men approach fashion with the creative ambition of a corporate awards banquet. While the women were expected to embody fantasy, narrative, and spectacle, many male attendees seemed content to rotate between slightly different variations of the same black tuxedo and call it “classic.” Somewhere along the way, menswear on the Met carpet became painfully allergic to imagination.

That is why this year felt refreshing.

For the first time in a long while, there was a noticeable shift in how men approached the theme. We saw dramatic tailoring, embellishment, historical references, sculptural silhouettes, rich textiles, jewelry, capes, and genuine theatricality. More importantly, we saw men willing to participate in fashion instead of merely wearing clothes. And there is a difference.

The strongest looks of the night understood that tailoring itself is not the problem. A suit can absolutely be artistic. The issue has always been the lack of vision surrounding it. Too many male celebrities have historically treated fashion as something to survive rather than something to engage with creatively. But the Met Gala is not meant to be safe. It is one of the only red carpets where excess, absurdity, and performance are not only welcomed but expected.

What made this year exciting was seeing men finally loosen their grip on the idea that masculinity must remain visually restrained in order to appear sophisticated. Some of the best dressed attendees embraced softness, ornamentation, exaggeration, and even vanity — all things menswear desperately needs more of. Fashion becomes infinitely more compelling when men stop dressing out of fear.

That being said, this is still very much a work in progress. While it was absolutely a step in the right direction, there is still plenty of room for evolution. I want to see even more risk next year. More storytelling. More references pulled from art, history, cinema, and fantasy. I want men to arrive looking slightly unhinged in the pursuit of beauty rather than merely “well-tailored.”

But for the first time in years, I walked away from the Met carpet genuinely optimistic about the future of menswear. And honestly? That alone felt like a fashion miracle.

I do not subscribe to the juvenile belief that wealth itself is inherently immoral. Frankly, I come from a lower upper-class family myself, and I enjoy luxury, fashion, beautiful homes, and the worlds that money can open access to. Aspiration has always been intertwined with fashion. Glamour has always had patrons. But there is a profound difference between old notions of patronage and allowing one of the most morally dubious billionaires on earth to effectively underwrite the most important night in fashion while simultaneously parading across its carpet like royalty.

Jeff Bezos attending the Met Gala as a sponsor felt less like a celebration of art and more like a hostile corporate acquisition of culture itself. This is a man whose empire has become synonymous with worker exploitation, anti-union aggression, grotesque wealth hoarding, and the flattening of small businesses into logistical roadkill. Watching the fashion industry enthusiastically polish his image for a few photo opportunities was not glamorous. It was embarrassingly sycophantic.

And then there was Lauren Sánchez’s Schiaparelli gown — perhaps the evening’s greatest contradiction. Schiaparelli is a house built on audacity, surrealism, tension, wit. Elsa Schiaparelli understood that fashion should provoke emotion, even discomfort. Yet somehow, impossibly, they managed to make Schiaparelli feel like a luxury condo lobby in Miami. How do you make one of the most imaginative couture houses on earth look this lifeless?

The gown itself was not offensive because it was ugly. Frankly, ugly would have been preferable. Ugly can at least be interesting. The true crime was that it was sterile. Every inch of it radiated the aesthetic instincts of people who desperately want to be perceived as sophisticated but fundamentally do not understand fashion beyond price tags and exclusivity. There was no fantasy, no danger, no humor, no point of view. Just money. Endless, suffocating money.
More on Substack

At the 2026 Met Gala, the red carpet ceased to function merely as a parade of celebrity dressing and instead became something far more compelling: a living study of art history interpreted through couture. Across the evening, guests arrived not simply wearing fashion, but embodying references drawn from painting, sculpture, surrealism, and portraiture.

Gracie Abrams channeled the gilded romanticism of Gustav Klimt in Chanel, while Rachel Zegler evoked the haunting tragedy of The Execution of Lady Jane Grey in Prabal Gurung. Claire Foy recalled the poised sensuality of John Singer Sargent’s Madame X in Erdem, and Kendall Jenner’s sculptural Zac Posen gown echoed the windswept drapery of the Winged Victory of Samothrace.

Elsewhere, Madonna referenced the dreamlike surrealism of Leonora Carrington in Saint Laurent, Hunter Schafer stepped into Klimt’s Mäda Primavesi through Prada, and Rosé’s Saint Laurent look nodded to Georges Braque’s The Birds.

The result was a carpet that felt less like an awards show arrival line and more like a curated exhibition — one where couture became interpretation, and fashion reasserted itself as an art form in its own right. Swipe to see the artworks behind the looks.

#MetGala #FashionIsArt #TheEditByZahra