2013 Costume Institute Exhibit : "PUNK: Chaos To Couture"

This obsession with any and all celebrities being forcefully shoehorned into every damn event to appeal to everyone is stripping every event of its uniqueness and identity. The majority of these people don't even belong there.

I hope this type of generic parade of the "stars" will get tiring to people soon. There was a time when certain stars would attend a fashion show because they were actually interested in being there-- or they were friends with the designers and wanted to show their support. Now stars like Beyonce are paid a billion dollars to attend because the designers' PR think that'll get all the trashy shows like TMZ to E! covering it... Just so cheapening. If I were a designer, I wouldn't pay 5 dollars to have Beyonce attend, but she would be welcomed if she wanted to come of her own accord. Although I doubt she would unless she were paid-- I get the feeling her entire career is all about making money and nothing else. No substance-- not even style, just instant flashiness: Gaudy and cheap. That's the perfect summation of her and how these events are handled.
^^^^I wish I could give a million karma.
This is exactly what I'm saying. How many people actually show up to a fashion show because they're actual friends with the designer? I'm going to use Madonna as an example. In the early nineties, does everyone remember when she walked JPG's show? She did that because she wanted to do that. Not because of some PR thing. The reason this is all happening is because of the digital age. Today's culture is the way it is because anyone can get famous. Making a sex tape, being rich, or both. It's easy. It's changed the whole world for the worse. Two years ago, most of the people at the Met Ball belonged there. Monday night was like a bunch of people accidentally walking into a party next door to the party they're supposed to be at and just pretending like they were supposed to be there to save them the embarassment.


I'm actually planning on re-watching the whole thing just so I can make fun of all these people.

PS. I would like to say how hard it was for me to use Madonna as an example. I have a loathing for her that goes beyond her loathing of hydrangeas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:lol:...
:magic:
listen---
it really was like that...
my mom took me to the met OFTEN...
have you been there?...
it really IS like a castle...
complete with grand marble staircase and real suits of armor, etc...

softgrey-ella! Plays The Pogues and Kirsty McColl's "Fairytale of New York" (Picturing softgrey-ella racing down that grand staircase of the MET in her Yohji dress with the crotch flaps open flailing in the wind, as the clock strikes the midnight-hour... And wearing very sensible CdG sneakers so they won't be lost.:(lol:

I adore Nick, but even a visionary like him strikes out some times, so I'm not expecting bliss with the videos. Some of his collaborations with friends' of mine have been less than stellar, while some are simply stunning. As much of a visionary as Nick may be, I'll never support anyone blindly. Just like who would think Guido Palau (and Julien D'Ys?) was/were the ones responsible for those horrible clown-hair throughout the entire show... I'm probably one of the few who feel the celebrity mess cheapens the whole exhibits/events. I understand the need for these people to bring such an event to the masses and to raise money, but it's just so excessive nowadays. Celebrities, celebrities... for everything-- complete turn-off. I now instinctively cringe whenever I see, read, or hear that deplorable word...

As much of a miss as this exhibit seems to me, BeastTV (thanks Littlearthquakes) totally missed the point: It's not an exhibit on the true punk aesthetic-- it's high fashion's take on punk, and in that context, it'll never be genuine punk, grungy and dirty and will always appear to be antiseptic-- especially to those who already think high fashion is a joke anyway. Maybe the exhibit should have pushed the high fashion part more and made it a stronger, and have the punk part be the lingering influence, rather than have it lead.

PS. I would like to say how hard it was for me to use Madonna as an example. I have a loathing for her that goes beyond her loathing of hydrangeas.

You will learn to adore her. :lol:
 
i would just like to state that i do not and would not ever own anything with 'crotch flaps'...whatever that is...
*are you referring to the little flaps in front and back of bondage pants?


my bondage pants are helmut lang and have no such flaps...
:D



yes- i am guilty of owning the designer version...
but i also have pants by TRIPP from Trash n Vaudeville...
i like to mix it up!
^_^...:innocent:...

you could actually put one of my outfits into this exhibit...
original punk style and the high end designer stuff that was influenced by it...
:lol:...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I went and saw punk the exhibit earlier today, and even though I really wanted to like this show, it definitely falls short in several areas, but not necessarily the ones that so many critics have been complaining about IMHO.
Firstly all this posturing about about how ironic and sad it is to be doing a show about punk at the Met is starting reek of hipster elitism, yes we all get it, punk is dirty and angry and ugly and rude, and most importantly..Cool, and fashion and the Met, and Anna Wintour are not..but I just wanted to see a good variety of amazing clothes presented in an interesting way, and that's where the show didn't quite live up to my expectations.
I don't understand Suzy Menkes complaint that there is no context given for anything shown, that is just silly, all you have to do is read the writing on the wall (literally) there are well written introductions on the walls off each section of the show which give a very good introduction to the basic history of punk, explaining for example the differences between the downtown NYC CBGB scene and the more angry London scene, and the reasons for that.
People are so hung up on the fact that this show doesn't authentically convey the feeling of the music and the politics of punk, but the Met is not a social history museum, it's an Art museum, and this is a Costume exhibit, and the fact is that punk style was co-opted by the mainstream and sanitized a very long time ago. Punk styling quickly came to represent a fantasy of rebellion, urban danger and rule breaking that most people will never actually experience. But the show makes a good argument ( on the walls at least ) that punk broke down the final barriers in fashion, and opened the door for a lot of creativity and freedom in clothing design.
Which brings us finally, to the clothing on display which I thought was not nearly as diverse as it could have been, there were far too many redundant looks from some designers and not enough, or non at all, from certain other designers.
The first section focusing on early Viv and Malcolm's designs including walls lined with many variations of their screened muslin shirts and cotton tees that I'd never seen before was quite good, especially because you could get very close to the clothes.
The next room focused on designs embellished with studs pins and chains etc..and although the set looked great ( a long white classical hall with the models raised on pedestals like iconic sculptures) it was hard to really appreciate the clothes because they were on platforms as high as a kitchen counter top, forcing you to stare up at them from below, unable to really connect. There were also a few too many Givenchy pieces in this section ( I wonder how that could have happened ).
After that came a room about bricollage, which had some great pieces, a couple of Wild Galliano dresses from around 2000, and some amazing Margiela artisanal peices like a broken plate vest, as well as the only Helmut Lang piece in the show, a silver men's leather jacket embroidered with flattened bottle caps.
But there were actually too many Margiela outfits in this room, many in sets of almost identical looks focused on repurposed plastic bags. In the middle of the room there were at least four of the Gareth Pugh shredded plastic bag styles from his most recent show which are great, but only one was needed, and then they could have fit in severel other designers as well.
The following room was about graffiti and agitation propaganda ( I didn't actually know what the term agitprop stood for before, so I guess I learned something from this show). This room had some beautiful and important clothes like very early eighties Stephen Sprouse, but here they were placed on even higher platforms than in the classical hallway, so they felt really removed. There was a collection of the hand painted and splattered huge Dolce ball gowns in the center of the room that worked nicely because they are each so different from each other, and because they at least we're at floor level.
The next and final room is where the show really fell flatt for me, and it should have been amazing, the theme was deconstruction and destroy. This is where all the Comme des Garçons was, there were eight pieces in a line down the center of the room, yet they were from only two collections four from the current spring collection, and four from I think aw 2005, neither of which were particularly punk. I can think of so many past Comme collections with more of a punk or deconstructed look that I would have loved to have seen here. Most of the other designs in the room were kind of dull, or just editorially over exposed already, like a couple similar looking Rodarte knit looks, and the Chanel suit with holes in it.
After that anti climax it just sort of morphs into the gift shop, where the only thing worth buying is the book, which is quite nice, although the cover art is a major missed opportunity. I also find it interesting that it's the first Costume institute book that doesn't actually catalog the exact same garments that are in the show, but in this case that's a good thing.
After leaving the Met, I got to thinking about all the amazing things that weren't included, and I realized that there wasn't a single piece of Gaultier in the entire show! ( a show devoted to punk inspired high fashion without any 80's or 90's Gaultier is crazy!).
I did change my mind a bit on the fuzzy head pieces however, I still don't love them, but They didn't bother me as much as I thought they would. I can see how they wanted something that would fade away and not compete with the clothes, after all it's not about beauty and hair so much with the costume institute.....however!...I can't believe there wasn't at least a small section devoted to punk inspired jewelry and accessories, I mean that's where the look has really filtered into people's daily lives in a major way. I can't believe there wasn't any Tom Binns mixed in somewhere for example.
Anyway, I'm still glad I got to see it, and I might even go back later this summer. Unfortunately for them, all future Met shows will be compared to the McQueen exhibit, and I seriously doubt they will ever be able to match that one.
 
daydreamer---thanks for that !
it's just what i thought it would be and you did a great job bringing us in with you!

just wondering- you also did not mention anything about video...
NO ONE has...

what's the deal with that?...
weren't there videos playing of some punk bands or punk music etc...?
and what about this Nick Knight directed video?

also- you know the Mcqueen dress that was spray painted on stage during a show?
did they have the runway footage of that playing near the dress on display?

Suzy talked about missed opportunities with video footage, so i am really wondering about this because i thought they were going to project footage of the clash playing larger than life on the wall behind the dresses...
at least that is how i pictured it and how i would have done it if i were working on the show...
that way you really bring the fashion INTO the punk scene...

anyway- if you have any info regarding how/if they used video, that would really interest me...

thanks in advance...
:flower:
 
i also think it would have been nice to get a stylist in---
oh- like maybe judy blame or melanie ward...

and then mix the clothes up and style them...
rather than head to toe one designer...
maybe not for the whole show...
but at least in the beginning section that was all westwood anyway...
would have been way more authentic in showing real punk style and useful in comparing it to what it has been watered down to by designers...

**totally agree that accessories are the place that punk has most infiltrated the mainstream...
tom binns is a great example...
tom binns ----->fenton----->eddie borgo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i have to say that disappoints me to hear that of all the work by HL only a single jacket exists as part of this exhibit.....or is it because helmut destroyed his archive?? i dunno. surely somebody had some of iconic pieces....like the latex coated lace dresses or his spray-painted army fatigue or the gazillions of slashed pieces.

also kind of disappointing they focused only on margiela's plastic dry cleaning bag stuff....certainly there were the moth eaten oversized cardigans,the patchworked silk scarf pieces.....there was also the graffitied tabi boots and the tabi sole shoes he did that were held onto the foot with masking tape.

agree with you,softie,especially on judy blame. he's as punk as you get really.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Softgrey,

Yes, Suzy was right about the videos being a big missed opportunity. There were huge video displays in some of the rooms, and in the entryway, but they were not very engaging, and for me at least, they just wound up as decoration and background noise.
At the entrance was a huge video wall showing images of punks moshing, but it was in slow motion, and the images were almost abstract. I had read about this video before going, and thought it sounded interesting ( this may have been the Nick Knight project ) but the effect was underwhelming I thought. It was flanked by two models in couture outfits, but they weren't really blocking the video in any way. It would have been better the way you pictured it, with the mannequins standing right in front of the screen, bringing the two worlds together.
In the first room with the CBGB toilet diorama, there was a wall of old tv monitors creating a large video of the Ramones playing on stage, but again, it barely registered. If they had put footage of several different bands and stage performances on each of the small screens, it would have made me stop and look more closely. There was no clothing in this room, and the intro on the wall mentioned how in those early days in New York there really wasn't a conscious style to the scene, but surely Debbie Harry still has something from back then that could have been shown, and here in DC they recently had an exhibit about women in rock, that included a pair of Pattie Smith's old boots that were held together with duct tape ( they looked amazing! ) so there's yet another missed opp......anyway!...back to the vids.
In the Westwood room was the only video which really grabbed my eye, and it was just on a small monitor hanging from the ceiling. It was old footage of someone (maybe Malcolm? ) standing outside the shop SEX, in broad daylight wearing a full body rubber gimp suit, then walking right up to, and putting it's face into the camera, which was very creepy and effective. There was also some interesting audio of Westwood and Mclaren taken from old interviews that was playing on a loop throughout the room.
The next two rooms had huge ceiling high video displays, one was a close up black and white shot of Sid, I think, and the other room had some concert footage of maybe the New York Dolls, but not totally sure. Still neither of these were really integrated with the clothing displays in any way, and they just felt like wallpaper.
There may have been another video display in the graffiti themed room, but If so, I honestly can't remember anything about it. That was however where the McQueen graffiti dress was displayed, but it was not shown with the runway footage like they did for the savage beauty show.

I hope that gives you some idea about the video aspects softgrey, sorry I couldn't give you more specific details.
I should mention that I am not usually a very big fan of video art or most short fashion films unless they are totally epic, like the Plato's Atlantis film, or the animated film that Prada did for their fairy tale collection a few years back. So that kind of slow motion minimal style video rarely piques my interest, though someone else might find the videos they used in the show to be really intriguing.

Have you gone to the Met's website? They might have a short video tour of the show. I seem to recall them doing that with the McQueen exhibit, and if so it might show some of the videos in motion.
 
Thanks for that very detailed review Daydreamer70. That sounds just about consistent with what the previews and reviews had disappointedly suggested: a very expensive Forever 21 window display. As I had mentioned before, I'd had preferred the organizers had gone full, unapologetically, unabashedly, proudly high fashion does punk-- rather than lead with the history of punk, complete with those horrid dioramas of the infamous CGBG washroom and SEX shop. I hate dioramas. As softgrey had suggested, huge projections of infamous punk performances with their high fashion creations alongside one another would have created in recapturing some of the excitement and energy of the time, place and people-- and the exhibition. Projections onto the actual garments would have given them a sense of movement, vitality, urgency, life...

Oh well.

LOL sorry softgrey-- I misunderstood you about one of your Yohji dresses!
 
Everytime i read about this show the only image that comes to my mind is of those 50 year old punks, with their leathered wrinkly faces, that hang by the canal at Camden town wearing their "stereotypical" garb (apparently real punks did not get the no mohawk memo) and that make their money by standing on the street holding sign posts pointing to waxing saloons.
How far is all of this from the Met...no wonder they are unable to capture the essence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yeah everybody has been talking about the CBGB stalls and the consensus from those who who were there is generally that it looks like a pathetic caricature of the real thing. even the scribbles on the walls were laughable.
 
Softgrey,

Yes, Suzy was right about the videos being a big missed opportunity. There were huge video displays in some of the rooms, and in the entryway, but they were not very engaging, and for me at least, they just wound up as decoration and background noise.
At the entrance was a huge video wall showing images of punks moshing, but it was in slow motion, and the images were almost abstract. I had read about this video before going, and thought it sounded interesting ( this may have been the Nick Knight project ) but the effect was underwhelming I thought. It was flanked by two models in couture outfits, but they weren't really blocking the video in any way. It would have been better the way you pictured it, with the mannequins standing right in front of the screen, bringing the two worlds together.
In the first room with the CBGB toilet diorama, there was a wall of old tv monitors creating a large video of the Ramones playing on stage, but again, it barely registered. If they had put footage of several different bands and stage performances on each of the small screens, it would have made me stop and look more closely. There was no clothing in this room, and the intro on the wall mentioned how in those early days in New York there really wasn't a conscious style to the scene, but surely Debbie Harry still has something from back then that could have been shown, and here in DC they recently had an exhibit about women in rock, that included a pair of Pattie Smith's old boots that were held together with duct tape ( they looked amazing! ) so there's yet another missed opp......anyway!...back to the vids.
In the Westwood room was the only video which really grabbed my eye, and it was just on a small monitor hanging from the ceiling. It was old footage of someone (maybe Malcolm? ) standing outside the shop SEX, in broad daylight wearing a full body rubber gimp suit, then walking right up to, and putting it's face into the camera, which was very creepy and effective. There was also some interesting audio of Westwood and Mclaren taken from old interviews that was playing on a loop throughout the room.
The next two rooms had huge ceiling high video displays, one was a close up black and white shot of Sid, I think, and the other room had some concert footage of maybe the New York Dolls, but not totally sure. Still neither of these were really integrated with the clothing displays in any way, and they just felt like wallpaper.
There may have been another video display in the graffiti themed room, but If so, I honestly can't remember anything about it. That was however where the McQueen graffiti dress was displayed, but it was not shown with the runway footage like they did for the savage beauty show.

I hope that gives you some idea about the video aspects softgrey, sorry I couldn't give you more specific details.
I should mention that I am not usually a very big fan of video art or most short fashion films unless they are totally epic, like the Plato's Atlantis film, or the animated film that Prada did for their fairy tale collection a few years back. So that kind of slow motion minimal style video rarely piques my interest, though someone else might find the videos they used in the show to be really intriguing.

Have you gone to the Met's website? They might have a short video tour of the show. I seem to recall them doing that with the McQueen exhibit, and if so it might show some of the videos in motion.

thanks again for the feedback...
haven't seen anything on the website but maybe they will update...
in any case, i'm sure to be going eventually so i'll see it for myself...

^_^
 
i have to say that disappoints me to hear that of all the work by HL only a single jacket exists as part of this exhibit.....or is it because helmut destroyed his archive?? i dunno. surely somebody had some of iconic pieces....like the latex coated lace dresses or his spray-painted army fatigue or the gazillions of slashed pieces.

also kind of disappointing they focused only on margiela's plastic dry cleaning bag stuff....certainly there were the moth eaten oversized cardigans,the patchworked silk scarf pieces.....there was also the graffitied tabi boots and the tabi sole shoes he did that were held onto the foot with masking tape.

agree with you,softie,especially on judy blame. he's as punk as you get really.
He did destroy a lot of his archive unfortunately :( In the "FASHION ! : anti fashon" documentary, he explains that he created art pieces from his old collection to show his hate for fashion or something like that
 
^^^ He hates fashion? I can understand hating the system if you're anywhere near intelligent-- just looking at the CFDA Fashion Award nominees is enough to despair at the constant and blatant favoritism and political support of the same, usual suspects.

Helmut is my all-time fav fashion designer. I still wear his pieces. I have no intention of being precious preserving them-- they're just clothing, and meant to be worn until they've outlived their use. It's a shame he's become so boringly pretentious with his art-- unlike his fashion design, which spoke for itself and stood out so strongly without being contrived. His art reminds me of Joseph Beuys and Louise Bourgeois-- so nothing outstanding in terms of originality. It's horrible he destroyed his amazing fashion archive to create his bland art, but whatever: It's his choice and just fashion. No tears shed here.

Anyway, it is terrible they've excluded any of Gaultier's amazing contributions-- must be a political decision. As amazing as the McQueen dress worn by Shalom Harlow that was spray-painted by a robotic arm iwas in its performance, it's anything but "punk"...

I think I loathe this exhibition.
 
I'm pretty sure he hates the system, not fashion per se.

I take issues with people like myself who never comprehended this exhibit to begin with as being labeled neo hippie elitists. That's akin to mixing peanut butter with caviar and calling anyone who dislikes it a food snob.
 
I have yet to see the exhibit and I can't say I'm as knowledgeable about punk as most of you are, but I received the book for the exhibit in the mail the other day and I enjoyed flipping through it. There are interviews in the front and the rest of the book is split into categories with real photographs, runway shots and editorial shots to illustrate the category.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,461
Messages
15,185,463
Members
86,314
Latest member
BeneathTHEsurFACE
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->