Barbie Girls...

It is my belief that the only thing worse than falling into a rut yourself is having to bear witness to somebody else's. Unfortunately a rut is exactly what we're witnessing with Gucci's advertising these days. Now realistically it's only been a year since Gucci first tapped Mert & Marcus to photograph their campaigns but because Gucci releases campaigns for more than just the main S/S and F/W collections it seems like it's been a hell of a lot longer. Also worth taking into account is that when the dynamic duo revert to their comfort zone, as they have with the Gucci campaigns they've shot so far, the result is instantly recognizable and, by this point in time, predictable. Sure every photographer has a signature style that they carry with them throughout their career, but I think Mert & Marcus's has the tendency to come off as repetitive because it's so specific. It's also a bit of an acquired taste. I myself have seen more than enough of their turquoise skies, bronzed skin, reflective crimson lips and highlight-laden tresses to last me a lifetime. I guess it's no wonder that none of their Gucci campaigns have impressed me. Here's the thing though; I don't blame Mert & Marcus for how tedious the campaigns are. As specific as their signature style is and as boring as it can become it's not the only thing that they're capable of doing, and in fact I tend to like what they do when they branch out a bit. Clearly the only reason that their Gucci campaigns have become completely indistinguishable from one season to the next is because that's what Gucci wants. Why Gucci wants to repeat themselves and have all of their seasonal advertising blur into one never-ending campaign of plasticized beauty I can't say for sure, but the only logical explanation is that it sells.

I can respect that this may work from a business standpoint, but I'm not looking at it from that angle. Aesthetically I'm just plain sick of this look. I mean I could learn to live with and even enjoy seeing this kind of hyper-glamorous unnatural beauty if the composition of the photographs changed a bit, which was the case when Mert & Marcus were the photographers behind Vuitton's ad campaigns. But there really isn't any change in any of the Gucci campaigns they've done. I mean how many times can you look at a photo of a beautiful young woman who's been airbrushed into oblivion shot from a low angle while striking ridiculously overdone poses in some sun-drenched exotic location while the solid mass of her so-shiny-it's-practically-sparkling hair is billowing down her shoulder like some caramel waterfall before the whole package gets boring? Clearly I have a low tolerance for it to begin with, which probably has a lot to do with the fact that I've seen it countless times before, but I know I can't be the only one who saw this campaign and promptly rolled their eyes at it's sameness. On top of the predictability this season's campaign in particular seems even more artificial than usual. I mean the satin clothes are practically glowing for chrissake. But bitching aside there are a couple of things I do like about it. For one the pops of bright color are extremely eye catching and very refreshing after two seasons filled with neutral clothes from the runway. They make a nice contrast to the ubiquitous turquoise sky and golden terrain. I also really like the models that were cast. Joan Smalls and Karmen Pedaru make a wonderful change from Natasha Poly and her cheekbones or everybody's go-to model Raquel Zimmermann. It's just a shame that two of the more beautiful models working today both look like they're the product of CGI in this campaign. It's also a shame that as long as Mert & Marcus are employed by Gucci this is all we're likely to see.

images from facebook.com/GUCCI

American woman, listen what I say...

Well kids, it's that time of year again. That's right, it's Costume Gala time. What is it about the combination of fabulous fashion folk and starved to perfection A-list celebs that proves so exciting every year? Wait...I may just have answered my own question. That's exactly what's so exciting about it, because unlike at awards shows and premiers when celebrities are expected to dress according to some rigid fashion standard that will appease people who don't actually care about fashion, the Met Gala is an invitation to go a little over the top, to wear something more daring than normal. Well, that's the theory, anyway. Despite near unlimited access to clothing by all of the designers in attendance there are still many celebrities who go safe and unthreatening. Now I'm not one to criticize a starlet for choosing something simple, in fact in these days when the red carpet standard is a rigid mile-wide bulldozer of a gown with all manner of beads, sequins, feathers and ruffles by Marchesa, something simple but stunning is a welcome relief for me. Safe on the other hand....well, it doesn't really get my pulse racing. Unfortunately safe is largely what we got this year. Someone on the Fashion Spot, and I can't remember who, pointed out that in the past the best red carpet arrivals for the Met gala have been when the exhibit has a very specific theme, and naturally people dress to reflect it. Whoever it was that said it was absolutely right. I've watched the event since 2003's "Goddess" exhibit, and since then there have been a few years when the red carpet action has been off-the-charts. The goddess exhibit, the Anglomania exhibit in 2006, Poiret in 2007 and the Superhero themed 2008 gala all had people upping their fashion game, and the results were far more interesting than you're likely to find at your standard black tie affair. Needless to say for the second year running the Costume Institute team has gone with a pretty basic, pretty general theme and the attendees' fashions reflect that. This year, sadly, there wasn't one "wow" moment for me. Even Lady Gaga who skipped the red carpet entirely went safe in a Prada tux. So while there were some beautiful looks, and while there were some really bad looks, most of the night's attendees filled up the huge gray area between gorgeous and God-awful.

Anyway, enough of my b.s. On with the dresses.

The Good

Kate Bosworth in Valentino Haute Couture

It doesn't hurt that Kate is stunning regardless, but the fact that she picked one of my favorite pieces out of the mixed bag that was the Valentino HC collection for Spring scores points from me. I knew it was only a matter of time before some stylist snatched that dress, and frankly I'm surprised it took 5 months for someone to wear it. She looks gorgeous, and even though it's hardly a challenging or unusual look, it's styled (and worn) beautifully.

Donna Karan in Donna Karan

Love it. Yeah it's a predictable Donna Karan dress, but it's gorgeous. Donna is proof that her clothes work just as well on a woman with an average body as they do on someone who fits into the sample size.

Sarah Jessica Parker in Halston

So I was definitely in the minority of people who liked SJP's Chanel Oscar gown. The hair should have been more polished, but overall I liked the whole 60s vibe she went for, and I loved the dress itself. But she took a lot of flack for that dress, and while I get that it didn't appeal to most the fact is that she was one of the few attendees who did something unusual. Now I dare anyone to question her fashion cred. I don't even know what it is about her look that I love, I mean it's such a simple dress, almost boring except for it's metallic sheen. It's by no means the most interesting or fashionable thing she's ever worn. I guess it's just a case of the right dress, right hair/makeup and right accessories coming together to bring life to a look. Honestly I think this was my favorite look of the night.

Charlotte Gainsbourg in Balenciaga

I'll freely admit that I am one of, like, 10 people who don't swoon over Ms. Jane Birken jr. style-wise. I really only see her at events, and at events she is always in Balenciaga straight off of the runway. I don't think that wearing a runway look makes you stylish. It says more for your taste level than it does for you style or individuality. Needless to say the only reason I like her look is because I liked that dress. Not sure why it was cropped to cooch level though.

Diane Kruger in Calvin Klein

When I saw the first picture of Diane last night I nearly died because my first thought was "OMG is she wearing one of the white Gucci gowns from 1996?". Then I saw another picture and realized no, she is not. But still, her stark fitted white column looked fantastic. This is what I was thinking of when I said there's a difference between simple and safe. It's such a plain dress, a plain look in fact, but it just isn't the kind of dress that shows up on the red carpet these days. Were I Francisco Costa I might have cut out the back just to add a little something (although that might just be my obsession with the aforementioned Gucci gowns talking). My only complaint is the hair and makeup. It's not bad, I just would have gone with lighter eyes and a side part instead of center. Other than that she looks gorgeous.

Gisele in Alexander Wang

I do like the dress, and it DEFINITELY stands out, but even though I like the dress and even though Gisele looks great in it I don't think that's the kind of dress you wear to an event like this. It's not that it's too short or whatever, but that the look of it just isn't formal at all. I can handle a little bit of trash, after all I still count Courtney Love in John Galliano's destroyed Dior trashbag gown at the 2000 Golden Globes among my favorite red carpet moments. However this particular look is a little too trashy and clubby for the setting. But I'll lump it in with the good because ultimately I think Mrs. Brady looks good.

The Bad

January Jones in Yves Saint Laurent

Besides starring on one of my favorite shows January has quickly become a part of the list of women that I look forward to seeing on the red carpet at events. She's nailed it more than once, and she's taken some chances along the way. But this look is unforgivable. January, I urge you, repent now. Fire whoever styled you and start fresh, preferably with a new designer ally. And as for Stefano Pilati, I haven't liked his work in years because for years he's been neglecting his job of making women look beautiful. This is just the hot pink straw that broke the gay camel's back. He's dead to me.

Kristen Stewart in Chanel Haute Couture

I'll give her this, she's clearly trying to up her style ante, and in theory this dress is perfect for her. It's edgy, with that slight punk vibe from the mesh fabric, but whoever hemmed it completely botched it. It's too short, and that isn't helped by the platform shoes which I don't like with the dress. The top looks kind of fucked up too. Overall whoever was altering this butchered what could have been (and was, in it's runway incarnation) a striking dress. I also don't like what her peeps did with the hair.

Elizabeth Banks in Gucci

Poor girl. It's a shame that she and/or her styling team chose that dress out of all of the dresses Gucci showed for fall. I hated this one on the runway because there's way too much going on, and all of the surface decoration gives the wearer's body an indecipherable shape. From the front she looks bigger than she actually is because of all that extra fluff. From the side it's no better because those feathers just looks like a giant landing strip. You tell me, which sounds worse?

Janet Jackson in Lanvin

In case you don't recognize the dress, here it is on the runway. Now I realize that what I'm about to say will probably offend someone, but she doesn't have the body for that dress. It does nothing for her and she does nothing for it. I'm not a size Nazi, and I definitely don't think that only skinny women look good in high fashion, but if your body distorts the garment you're wearing to the point that it takes away from it's design, or conversely if a garment distorts your body to the point that it no longer makes you look good, that garment isn't for you. Besides that the styling is bad regardless....not that the Jackson's are known for their subtlety or taste.

Carey Mulligan in Miu Miu

Mulligan caught my attention during awards season when she was making the rounds of events and ceremonies while parading a variety of dresses and gowns for all to see. While I didn't always love what she opted to wear, her quirky choices piqued my interest because she usually managed to stand out. I personally loved her tool embellished black Prada gown and newly blond pixie cut at the Oscars in March, so I was looking forward to seeing what she'd wear to an even more fashion-conscious event. Turns out it was a dud. The lilac colored granny lace Miu Miu babydoll she chose couldn't have been more anticlimactic. I still haven't warmed to the collection it came from, and I just don't think it was dressy enough. On top of that I honestly think it's kind of ugly, like some relic in the Brady Bunch costume department.

Honestly, those are the only looks that I even had a strong reaction to, and at the end of the day none of them are particularly extreme; the good ones aren't mindblowing and the bad ones aren't horrifying. Pretty much all of the other looks were predictable red carpet fare. If you've ever watched an awards show you know what most of the people will turn up in; draped one shoulder goddess chiffon, Barbie-worthy mermaid dresses and big, beaded ballgowns. I certainly hope that this is just a slump and not a sign of things to come. If the last event on Earth where fashion trumps mass appeal goes down the same individuality-free, pre-packaged crapper that the Oscars, Golden Globes, Emmys, et al have gone down I honestly don't know what I'm going to write about when there isn't a fashion show happening each Spring.

all photos from zimbio.com

Not A-mused...

I finally took the time to go up to the Met and check out this years Costume Institute exhibit, The Model As Muse before it closes this Sunday, and as promised here's my $.02. Honestly there was a part of me that was debating whether or not to even bother since it's such a schlep up Madison by bus to get to there. I just wasn't as interested as I've been for past exhibits, and the only reasons I went were a) because you're not required to pay the full admission fee at the Met and there aren't many things to do in Manhattan for $3 and b) because I haven't missed an exhibit since Chanel in 2005, and I wanted to keep that track record going. Plus, I figured maybe I'd be surprised and it would be better than I thought...didn't quite work out that way, such is the power of positive thinking. I'm sure I'm making it sound like it was just a train wreck, and that's really not the case. As always Julian d'Ys did an amazing job with the wigs, masks and "makeup" that adorned the mannequins, and the set design was pretty good, particularly in the "Grunge" room (graffiti on the walls, dim lights and Nirvana on the sound system). But on to the subject itself. Being that the focus of the exhibit was models there were a lot of photographs, more than any other Costume Instititute exhibit I've seen anyway. There was everything from prints by Penn, Avedon, Newton and Meisel to archival issues of Vogue displayed in showcases. Getting to see such iconic images, like Avedon's "Dovima With The Elephants" or Erwin Blumenfeld's January 1950 Vogue cover of Jean Patchett up close and personal was actually pretty cool.

"The Doe Eye" by Erwin Blumenfeld
Vogue Jauary 1950

Sunny Harnett in Gres by Richard Avedon
Harper's Bazaar September 1954

"Dovima With the Elephants" by Richard Avedon
August 1955

Marisa Berenson by Hiro
Haper's Bazaar February 1966

Twiggy at FAO Schwartz by Melvin Sokolsky
1967

"Fetching is Your Dior" by Chris von Wangenheim
Christian Dior advertisement 1976

But the photos were just part of the story. The other part of the story was the clothing. The exhibit was divided into rooms which each housed a decade, and therefore represented a "look". It started with post-war Paris, since really the mid-to-late 40s were when the idea of the supermodel was born. In that room there were poised, haughty looking mannequins with arched brows and red pouts dressed in clothes from the golden age of haute couture like Balenciaga's "shawl" coat and sack dress, and evening gowns by Charles James. The next room focused on the 60s youthquake, the mod era of Pierre Cardin, Paco Rabanne, Rudi Gernreich and early Saint Laurent. The centerpiece of this room was three aluminum dresses worn in the movie "Qui êtes vous, Polly Maggoo?" rotating on a platform under psychedelic lighting. Then came the 70s, which was pretty much glossed over with one small display showing what was supposed to be a V.I.P room at a club, but struck me as looking more like a painfully hip Williamsburg loft space than Studio 54. Lounging on a couch were one group of mannequins in gilded peasant blouses and ball skirts from Saint Laurent's Ballet Russes collection, and another group in slinky Halston jersey. Like I said, the 70s disco era was completely glossed over in terms of clothing. Then of course came the 80s and the supermodel era, which you'd think would be treated as some sort of holy grail kind of experience given that everyone (not including me, however) worships the supermodels. Here's what the supermodel era amounted to as far as Harold Koda and his team of curators is concerned; a couple of Versace, Chanel, Armani(?), Ralph Lauren(??) and Donna Karan (???) looks in front of a projection of George Michael's "Freedom" music video. That's all. The pinnacle of the model obsession and all we got was a music video and some clothes. I can't imagine why Azzedine Alaia wasn't featured in the exhibit given that this room was so utterly flat. I mean, are Ralph, Donna and Giorgio really the designer names that come to mind when you think of the supermodels? Where was Mugler, or Galliano, or Dolce and Gabbana even? After that came the phase of alternative beauty embodied by grunge and unusual looking models. The clothes were nothing special, mainly just some grunge looks from MJ's infamous Perry Ellis collection and some Anna Sui with a side display of Prada and Helmut Lang to cover the "minimalism" end of the 90s, but the room itself was pretty cool and completely blew the f-ing supermodel section out of the water.

The post-war years: Balenciaga (left photo), Charles James (right)

The 60s Youthquake


The late 70s


Alternative beauty - 90s grunge

One thing that was done in an attempt to really combine the two concepts of models and clothing was to recreate iconic images using mannequins and the actual clothes that were photographed. So there was a life-sized recreation of Dovima with the Elephants or a group of models dressed head-to-toe in Charles James photographed by Cecil Beaton, Peggy Moffit in Rudi Gernreich's "monokini" from 1964 and Brooke Shields' infamous Calvin Klein jeans ad. Unfortunately these little vingettes were limited, and the majority of the clothes were really just like a brief walk through fashion history, and were basically incidental to the pictures of models wearing them. Ultimately they weren't the focus, and about halfway through the exhibit I found myself thinking that the theme would make for a much better photography exhibit than a fashion exhibit since the images were what it all boiled down to.

All in all, not a great exhibit. Like I said in my post about the Gala back in May, I think calling the exhibit "The Model as Muse" is completely misleading because the truth is that the models didn't actually inspire the clothing, they merely embodied an aesthetic that the designers were striving to achieve, so to imply that Peggy Moffitt inspired Rudi Gernreich to bare a woman's breasts, or that Gianni Versace never would have printed Warhol's image of Marilyn Monroe on a gown had it not been for the models he surrounded himself with is simply untrue. The most that can be said about the women to whom this exhibit was dedicated is that their images defined an era in fashion, which is nothing to scoff at. But ultimately that doesn't have anything to do with clothing because the clothes would have come about with or without the models who wore them. This wasn't so much a fashion exhibit as it was an examination of changing ideals of beauty throughout the second half of the 20th century. I stand by my statement that this subject would have made a much better photography exhibit, since that was really the focus here. But since there was also a Francis Bacon exhibit open, I wouldn't consider my $3 completely wasted.

condenaststore.com, vam.co.uk, staleywise.com, harpersbazaar.com, wornthrough.com, missomnimedia.com, flickr.com/the metropolitan museum of art

Bitchin'...

So here we go folks, a brand new ad season is closing in and the first glimpse of something new is a preview of Givenchy's F/W 09 campaign. I've never been really wowed by a Givenchy campaign before, often finding them boring and kind of uninteresting. Since Riccardo Tisci started in 2005 his campaigns for the label have been shot by Dutch duo Inez & Vinoodh, which could perhaps be why I've never been especially moved by them (I don't want to say I've never liked anything by I&V, but it's rare that I do). But in the past, despite not liking the images much, I have always been intrigued by Tisci's choice in models which can only be described as eclectic. Lately he's been mixing hot new faces (Iris Strubegger, Edita Vilkeviciute, Lakshmi Menon), Givenchy perennials (Lara Stone, Mariacarla Boscono, Natasha Poly) and interesting curveballs (Frankie Rayder, Ujjwala Raut, Kristen McMenamy, Adriana Lima) on his runways to great effect, and the result is some of the most interesting casting around. This season Tisci decided to replace I&V with another dynamic duo, Bourdin-worshipping golden boys Mert & Marcus. I have sort of a love/hate relationship with M&M. Occasionally they really bring it, but more often then not their formula of inhumanly airbrushed perfection and cartoony color just grates on my nerves and bores me to tears. So I wasn't really sure what to expect when the results were unveiled. The fact that for a while Adriana Lima was the only girl mentioned as part of the cast wasn't exactly reassuring. However, what we wound up with is actually pretty solid, if the preview is anything to go by. Set in a fancy-pants boudoir, the cast, with their death stares and severe makeup, looks like some kind of really chic cult of sexual predators or something along those lines. I really like the contrast between the fussy interior and the aggression of the girls and clothing. Then there's Adriana's solo shot. It's kind of what you'd get if you crossed a George Hurrell photo of Jean Harlow with a Marilyn Manson groupie circa 1997, and I mean that in the best possible way. She looks nothing like "Adriana Lima" the bubbly, boobalicious, ultra-glossed Victoria's Secret angel everyone loves, and for that alone I'm kind of impressed. I wouldn't have thought it possible. There's also this Leonor Scherrer, the one who looks quite a bit like Malgosia Bela, thrown into the mix. Until I read the blurb posted from WWD on tFS, I had never heard of her before, though I found out she's the same woman I had seen in a picture by The Sartorialist that I loved. Overall the result is pretty different than what I would have expected, and if I didn't know that Mert & Marcus were behind the images I probably wouldn't have guessed it.

I don't want to say that I'm in love with them just yet, because I've yet to see the rest of the campaign and it'll probably be a few more weeks at least until more campaigns debut, but there is something about these that I like very much. Hell, it could just be that I really like the cast and the look, the whole "I might drain your blood as foreplay, I might not" kind of vibe. One thing's for sure, I can't wait to see more.

All images from wwd.com via MissMagAddict at theFashionSpot

The Party of the Year?

Every year I, along with countless other fashion following die-hards, await what could arguably be called the most fashionable event of the year, especially these days now that the Oscars has become so predictable in terms of the red carpet. The Costume Institute Gala, held every May, always packs a major fashion punch because the rules that apply on other red carpets just don't hold any water here. It's encouraged, if not expected, that anyone in attendance go all out. So why is it that this year there were many, many looks that either did nothing for me at all or left me scratching my head thinking 'WTF?". This year's exhibit "The Model as Muse" has left me feeling a lot less anxious to trek up 5th Ave. to see it than I normally am, mainly because I think it's stupid-bordering-on-insulting that the models, most of whom cannot be called muses, are the focus instead of the clothing. But I'll await judgment on that until I do drag my ass uptown to see it. I will say this though, given the evening's theme I was expecting big things on the red carpet if only because every non-model female guest would have to contend with unnaturally beautiful women and presumably up their respective antes in order to do so. Unfortunately that was not to be, and a lot of the models upstaged everyone else. Last year's Superhero themed event, 2007's Poiret event, 2006's Anglomania, 2005's Chanel and 2003's Goddess themed evenings all had some fantastic fashion moments, so what exactly went wrong here? First, as my fellow tFS-er Kimair already pointed out there were just too many people in miniskirts, and for every one that worked, there were many more that looked cheap or underdressed. Call me crazy, but I love a gown, I always will, and really, even for a celeb how many events can you go to where "the more dramatic, the better" may as well be the dress code? Combined with an overwhelming amount of tough, clunky shoes and booties too many people wound up looking more appropriately dressed for clubbing than they did for a gala. But like I said, there were some mini-length looks that worked for me.

First there's co-chair Kate Moss in Marc Jacobs. Now normally I find her style pretty overrated, and I still don't get what the whole obsession is about. But as sick as I am of her face I gotta say, the dress is gorge, kind of a modern take on 30's movie glamour, and the turban is a fun, theatrical touch. The only thing I don't love is the shoes. A sandal with tiny, painful little straps over the toes and ankle would've looked better.

Next there's Stam in Rodarte. Love it. Love the colors, love the soft hair and darker makeup. Love the accessories (here the tough, chunky shoes work). Need I say more?

Then there's the stunning Alek Wek, who has never looked better imo. The truth is, I'd probably hate the dress on someone else for being too garish, but with her coloring and that dramatic makeup I'm kind of swooning over it.

Another look that under normal circumstances I'd be hating was Sasha P's Giambattista Valli. With the exception of the tiara, I think it's just the right side of kooky and dramatic. Either that or it's true that models do in fact know how to wear clothes, and can make a peacock feather cape and mini dress seem like a great idea.

Now, onto the gowns...

Iman. Donna Karan. Platinum/ivory hybrid color. There was just no way in hell it could've looked bad.

Natalia Vodianova in a pink Fortuny "Delphos" looked great. The color was just unusual enough to be noticed in the sea of neutrals and brights, she's gorgeous as it is, and I'm obsessed with Fortuny. It wasn't a standout look per se, but her choice to wear Fortuny is pretty fabulous in and of itself.

Iris Strubegger (who has quickly become one of my favorite faces on the runway) looked amazing in one of my favorite looks from the Givenchy S/S 09 couture collection. I rarely say fierce, preferring to save it for special moments when my inner queen just can't help herself, but I'd say it applies here...

Another stunner in Givenchy was Kristen McMenamy. I love her, and I love the dress, so even though I'm slightly disappointed that she chose something from an older collection, I'll get over it. Plus, how ballsy is it to wear white when you choose not to color the gray in your hair? I love ballsy. Always will.

Erin O'Conner looked just as fab as always in Gaultier Couture. Seriously, the dress and pose makes her look even more long and lean than she is.

A controversial choice as far as most on tFS were concerned last night; Blake Lively in Versace. I love the color, I love the sleek hair and makeup, sure the girl can't pose and the dress is slit down to here and up to there, but my guess is that if that dress showed up on someone else very few people would be ripping the wearer to shreds and saying she looked like a slut. Do you really mean to tell me that Gisele didn't look just a smidge on the trashy side in a sparkly blue micromini? Come on people, double standards!!!

As for Shalom Harlow, let's just say that Lisa Fonssagrives would be proud. This isn't the first time she's worn a dramatic, borderline weird look to the event. in 2007 she wore a fringed Viktor & Rolf gown and cape, and just like I did then I think this look works.

I adore Coco Rocha in this bronze Isaac Mizrahi. The color with her pale skin and deep red hair is a risky, but pretty damn fabulous, combo.

And finally, some much needed guy candy in the form of Mr. Chuck Bass himself, Ed Westwick. I couldn't care less what he's wearing. I will throw this suggestion out there though, him + Tom Ford menswear = a very good thing....just sayin'.

Other than that, nothing much to write home about. Due to the drama between Azzedina Alaia and Anna Wintour, the red carpet probably missed out on some fabulousness since something like 7 people were slated to wear his clothing, including Naomi Campbell and Stephanie Seymour, who decided to sit out in protest with him. I think the whole thing is so silly. I get why Alaia's pissed that his work was completely ignored for the exhibit despite the fact that he was HUGE during the Supermodel era, but to me his asking the women he designed clothes for not to wear them was kind of foolish. The ultimate revenge would have been to have all of those women show up looking incredible in clothing by a designer who wasn't given his due. Instead the whole thing comes off like a hissy fit from a temperamental diva who asked his friends to pick a side.

Now for the WTF moments I had mentioned earlier.

Erin Wasson in Phi: This is a look that's begging for someone to give her a good slap across the face for completely ignoring the fact that she's attending an event that's become known as "The Oscars of the East". Wintour and Co. should institute a door policy or something. Anyone looking like they've got a hypodermic needle in their clutch and day old underwear on is not permitted.

Dr. Lisa Airan in Balmain: This isn't a Kiss concert, hon. I usually think she looks ridiculous and overdone though, so this is no surprise.

Agyness Deyn in Burberry: No joke, the first thought I had was of Gene Hackman in drag in "The Birdcage". It's a shame cause the dress was pretty on it's own.

Molly Sims in Dolce & Gabbana: You know what that beautiful gold Christmas gift-wrap looks like after a kid rips it off of the box? This is it in ensemble form.

Anne Hathaway in Marc Jacobs: I actually liked this dress on the runway. But here the hem looks about half a foot too short. I'd almost be willing to overlook that if it wasn't for the Jacqueline Susann hair and jewelry.

Victoria Beckham in Marc Jacobs: I'll admit, I like the dress. It's cute and kinda fun. But she always, always overdoes everything. Her skin is too tan, her posing is too posed, her hair and makeup are always too severe for her bone(y) structure. No matter what she wears the bad always seems to overshadow the good for me.

Rhianna in Dolce & Gabbana: The word dopey comes to mind, trying too hard is a close second and ridiculous comes in third. A safe bet is this, if an outfit looks silly ON the runway on a model it's practically a given that it's gonna look silly on a real person in real life where you aren't strutting to a thumping beat with a spotlight glaring on you. And WHAT is with her obsession with driving gloves? They don't go with everything ya know!

Madonna in Louis Vuitton: If you can't figure out my reasoning for this one, what the hell are you doing reading this blog?!?! Seriously though, I kinda liked that dress on the runway (though even without the stupid styling the dress is way too youthful for a 50 year old woman). I kinda liked those boots on the runway. I even kinda liked those bunny ears on the runway, but combined as one outfit on someone who, it must be said, is becoming more and more past her prime everytime she's seen the whole thing comes off as tragic.

It was a pretty odd night as far as Met Galas go. There wasn't much "WOW" to be had on the carpet, and even the selection of guests wasn't as fabulous as usual. I just pray that the exhibit isn't as much of a letdown as the event was, but be assured that when I do go to see it you'll be getting a rundown.