
Alexander McQueen image from book that accompanies exhibit
A NY Times articles covering the Alexander McQueen “Savage Beauty” show at the Metropolitan Museum of Art brought up some interesting points. First, the show is mostly paid for by the Alexander McQueen fashion house, which suprised me. I didn’t realize you could essentially pay your way into a museum as prestigious as the Met. And apparently this is even “the norm,” according to the article:
“Two years later the Guggenheim — though it denies this — effectively rented its Manhattan premises to Giorgio Armani for his retrospective. (Such deals are now the norm, and the Met is forthright about stating that most of the money for the McQueen retrospective comes from the fashion house called Alexander McQueen.)”
The other thought-provoking point was author Holland Cotter’s observation that while fashion designers often want their work to be viewed as art, they’re very rarely critiqued as such with the end result exhibits that are big on fluff and lacking substance. In speaking about the McQueen exhibit, he says,
“The Met exhibition passes all this off as manifestations of a Romantic temperament, but you have to ask critical questions. The chief problem with the fashion-as-art fad of the 1990s was precisely that it didn’t ask them.” And then later adds, “My point is: If you’re going to deal with fashion as art, treat it as art, bring to it the distanced evaluative thinking, including social and political thinking, that scholars routinely apply to art. Such an approach is standard in exhibition catalogs that accompany most Met shows, but not in the McQueen catalog, which, beautiful though it is, is heavy on pictures, skimpy on text.”
Holland also challenges some of McQueen’s assertions about his design intent, as well instances in which he feels the designer was hypocritical. A fascinating read, which challenges how we view fashion. Plus, there are lots of pretty pictures from the show.