A bunch of super rich people parading around in ultra-expensive clothes and/or costumes for “charity.” I guess these sorts of events aren’t all that uncommon but the weird slobbery attention the media gives to this one in particular is really off-putting to me.
You’re not wrong. Especially given that the amount of money they raise for the purpose of sticking old shit in boxes could likely be more efficiently used for social good elsewhere.
I’m no socialist, but the conspicuous gilded showoffy nature of it is just vulgar as all hell. If there is a revolution, those pictures will be in the history textbooks in the section “Why The Common Folk Rose Up And Put Celebrities Against The Wall.”
It can be gross to some, but can also be seen as entertainment and a lot of people will indeed find entertainment in it.
Are the Oscars gross, are billion dollar movie projects gross, are professional sports gross? That’s also super rich people doing super expensive things, and it doesn’t even contribute to charity.
How many spectators must something have for it to be gross rather than entertainment, or is it a value judgement of the spectacle and the spectators?
None of those things are being dishonest about what they are, though. The Met Costume Institute is a “charity” that really benefits hardly anybody. If it were the Meals on Wheels Gala I would likely feel differently.
I definitely think these are good points for discussion! Also why I put this topic in IMHO
Normally I don’t pay too much attention to this sort of stuff but there’s just such a weird “GAZE UPON THESE ELITE EXAMPLES OF HUMANITY!” atmosphere around this particular event that doesn’t sit right with me. Look at me, look at me, I can drop $100k on a dress that looks like a chandelier that will be worn for one party and only one party and not even bat a fake eyelash!
Ironically the whole thing reminds me of The Hunger Games, also a $$$ spectacle in and of itself.
Hardly anybody? So now we can add “value judgement of charitable purposes” to the mix. Meals on Wheels is a good charity, (some) museums are not, right?
Where are they being dishonest? It benefits the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute and it always has. You may not like the charity, but there are charity fundraisers for all sorts of things I don’t support that I don’t consider dishonest. It benefits the community the same way that other museums benefit the community, although granted the costume collection is a fairly thin slice. But it never claimed to be anything else.
Am I missing some controversy about the fundraising?
A dress that lots of people will find joy in admiring and/or criticizing. I think the ultra-rich drop $100k on a lot of things without batting a fake eyelash that are a lot worse and entertain no one.
Just be thankful the stock market is surging, otherwise the ballroom glitz would be a lot less impressive. I was shattered a few years ago when the Hamptons charity circuit went through a devastating slump.
*"Trustees of the Children’s Museum of the East End rejected a dinner dance at a rented farm in favor of a cocktail party on the museum grounds here, replaced a five-piece rock ‘n’ roll cover band with a teenage jazz combo and slashed ticket prices to $150 from $450, but still only drew about 150 guests.
At the Watermill Center, an artists’ enclave nearby, planners of the annual summer benefit scheduled for Saturday night (dress code: wild chic) have ratcheted back fund-raising expectations — and expenses, trying to spend a few thousand dollars less on the elaborate tents and other trappings that are used at such events.
And there are still hundreds of tickets left for the annual Art for Life gala, also scheduled for Saturday night, at the East Hampton estate of Russell Simmons, the rap impresario.
All along the East End of Long Island, a string of beach towns that represent a sort of New York version of the French Riviera, fund-raisers and their topiarists are suffering through a limp summer, with the rising price of oil and falling value of the Dow combining to cast a pall over the party-hopping set…perhaps it is the summer of sobering up. Dan Rattiner, who publishes Dan’s Papers in the Hamptons, cited a number of recent occasions on which the local police have closed down art gallery parties or confiscated their Champagne for serving alcohol without a license. “My opinion is that nobody can buy a $100,000 painting without alcohol,” he said.
Debbie Bancroft, a socialite in Southampton, said that although she planned to go to as many benefits this year as in the past, many of her friends have been dialing back. “It’s hard enough to get the Wall Street husbands to come to these things,” she said. “And that’s when Wall Street is doing well.”*
It creates work, does it not? The designers didn’t make those costumes stitch by stitch; they hired people to do that. Teams of people had to decorate the venue, make the food, serve it, and clean up afterwards. The important question, IMO, is if all those people were well paid for their efforts. If they weren’t, then we can talk about vulgarity and wastefulness.
I’d rather the rich wasted their money than hoarded it.
Obligatory theme song for the thread.
Yes. I feel perfectly comfortable making value judgments about the purpose and efficacy of charities. Money is a finite resource, and there are efficient and inefficient ways to use it to effect social good. If you want to support a museum for clothes, that’s fine, but don’t go on TV and congratulate yourself about how you’re helping people.
…yes? (Actually, the first one definitely is but only due to how much time the media gives to it. The second isn’t gross at all and pro sports are only gross due to how even the sports-indifferent public is on the hook for a lot of the costs.)
Maybe disingenuous would be a better word. I think the actual benefit that the Met Gala produces, compared to the amount of money involved, is miniscule. The participants like to think that it’s better-than-miniscule.
Based on what? The met gala is probably watched and enjoyed by more people pr. dollar spent than many million dollar movies, and unlike the movies the audience practically pay nothing and there are no millions going into the pockets of overpaid actors and studio executives.
TIL the Met Gala existed so I have no opinion on it. I just needed to say that I do find the Oscars and a lot of pro sport gross.
So, some people find value in something you don’t find value in. Got it. The benefit isn’t feeding the hungry or healing the sick, but some people value culture. Different squids for different kids.
But I still don’t see disingenuous. I see different.
Mrs. Wheelz really enjoys watching Red Carpet events such as this, the Oscars, the Grammys, etc. And she’s certainly not the only one. I get the appeal from an entertainment standpoint; it’s essentially a bunch of celebrities putting on a fashion show, and yeah, it can be fun to watch.
Anyhow, dressing up and giving some money to a museum is certainly no more vulgar than dressing up and handing out awards to each other.