Back when I lived in NYC, I had a season subscription to the Met, in years when I could afford it. I’m well aware of the incredible costumes that may take months to painstakingly create. Ticket sales don’t begin to cover these and other expenses. They add a huge amount to each performance. If this is some people’s “charity,” I for one applaud it. The only thing that’s “gross” is someone’s opposition to it.
I don’t think it’s gross, grody, or icky. Some of the participants plastic surgery notwithstanding. Ultimately, what people choose to exchange currency for is their business. We signal what we value by how we act not by exclamation of what we value.
If society values entertainment and fashion more than some other field than that’s what society values.
Me too.
There are tons of charities that provide basic services to the poor. Could we always use more? Sure. But people don’t just need food and clothes. They also need something to live for. Art and culture provide this function.
If you think the Met Gala gets an unacceptable level of “weird slobbery attention” from the media, make sure never to watch the Super Bowl.
That’s an often used, but bullshit argument. This money would create activity anyway. It would be spent on something else, or invested, in both cases giving work to some people.
So, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to question on what money is spent. If you spend a million dollars on a diamond, you most certainly give work to a number of people, but in the end you only have a small shiny stone. If you hadn’t bought this diamond, you could have spent it on producing vaccines, which would also have given work to a number of people, and saved many lives.
I’m involved in several performing arts organizations that do these annual “gala” fundraisers. The basic idea is to get rich people to dress up in formal wear and spend an evening blowing their money in some fancy hotel ballroom. It’s a pretty typical way for cultural organizations to raise funds; you get more bang for the buck than you do with bake sales. Most such events aren’t as extreme as the Met Gala, but the concept is essentially the same.
If the rich want to spend their money to support things like symphony orchestras, theaters, museums, etc., I think that’s great. I’d rather they do that than spend it on yachts or Learjets or wine cellars.
Perhaps you should visit a museum sometime – they’re much more than just “old shit in boxes”. :rolleyes:
The Meta Gala benefits the Metropolitican Museum of Art, particularly The Costume Institute, not the Metropolitian Opera.
:smack: Ok, but the concept is the same.
Bill Gates owns his own plane and likes to buy “nice things” for his wife Melinda.
He’s also (through his foundation) spent billions on vaccines and other health care initiatives in poor countries.
So go figure. 
I found interesting The Atlantic’s take on the Met Gala – that it has devolved into a big display of how Anna Wintour can summon the “It” People to put on a show for the fundraising. Which is how it should be looked at: it’s a show, with performances – only that it’s essentially the celebs performing for one another and for the camera pit. Isn’t actually hurting anyone except some celebrities’ dignity, at times, but nobody’s forcing them.
I’d never heard of it until now. So there.
It’s an organization raising money for itself. I don’t see how this aligns with the concept of a charity.
Yes, it is a lavish display of wealth. But that’s exactly what attracts both the people who are in it, and the people who want to watch. Without that lavish display, no money is given at all. Special effects in movies are lavish displays of wealth, too, and people like to watch those. That in and of itself isn’t wrong.
Would I rather there be something like it where all the money goes to actual charity? Sure. Use the rich’s desire to show off for charity. But that doesn’t make the Met Gala wrong. It just isn’t a charity.
Now, if these rich people don’t give back, then that I will say is wrong. But not any one particular act they spend their money on. Bill Gates, mentioned above, is a good example of someone who may buy lavish things but spends a ton of money on helping the world.
Sure, we could fall back to “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism,” but seeing that as literally true only means that nothing we buy is ethical, and there ceases to be any distinction. What matters more is if you are causing active harm.
Charities of all stripes commonly host fundraising events, even “galas”, to raise funds for themselves. Forbes even has a “how to” article to help maximize the results.
Yup, it works or it wouldn’t be done every year.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art and by extension it’s Costume Institute is absolutely a charity, compete with 501(c)3 status and a Charity Navigator rating of 95.8/100. It’s stated purpose is to promote the study and application of fine art. I think I get what you are tying to say overall, but I’m just not sure what you mean by the “not a charity” statements.
I’m not sure how it contradicts what I said. You still could get more vaccines with the money he blows on diamonds.
We could all live in tar paper shacks and eat nothing but rice and beans, freeing up lots of money for various charities. You first.
its a charity fashion show for the historical fashion part of a museum …hell some of the outfits will probably end up in it…
why it gets so much attention is its in the celeb fashion worlds version of February the award shows are done …the spring-summer shows were months ago and fall and winters arent until July and August and next years previews arent until Oct or so
Stupid [adjective] people walking around being all [adjective] and shit. Why they gotta be shoving it in our faces all the time?
Still, the people I mentioned are already seamstresses, hairdressers, makeup artists, cooks, waiters, bartenders, custodians and security guards by profession. They earn a living doing those things, and an event like the Met Gala is a chance for them to earn a lot of money. Which they will spend in ways that put money into their communities. And so forth.
Also, I love when people talk about nebulous “giving to charity” without specifying a particular charity, or examining how certain charities are managed.
Or the people who buy Microsoft products they don’t absolutely need could instead spend that money on vaccines for the poor, while not enriching Bill Gates.
While I’'m not into telling people how to spend their money, I don’t entirely buy the argument that events like the Met gala are good because they employ lots of little people. Seems to me they were making that argument back in turn-of-the-20th century England, when Their Lordships had huge staffs of servants to keep their giant estates running (true, the underlings are much better paid now).
You just described every reality TV show ever.
The relevant question is why any of the rest of us pay it any attention.
As for the celebrity charity thing, humorist Dave Barry explained it best: “Raising Funds for Charity” makes a more palatable headline for these people than “Rich People Amuse Themselves.”