If there’s one outfit that has the world talking, it’s Kim Kardashian’s faceless silhouette. People have had mixed opinions about the look, with most of the internet turning the Balenciaga design into mostly humorous content.
@ramo1002The last one? ##fypシ ##metgala ##metgala2021 ##kimkardashian♬ Happy Laughing – Sound Effect
In my opinion, writes Cape {town} Etc’s Ashleigh Nefdt, the full body in dark did exactly what it was supposed to do, and the purpose was not to be the ‘most gorgeous’ look of the evening.
The purpose was two-fold:
1. Have people talking.
2. Show the epitome of heightened power.
Recognition without even showing your face – now that says something about grandeur status.
The theme for the Met is well versed by now – In America: A Lexicon of Fashion. If we think of America and the concept of fashion, who is more responsible for setting vogue than pop culture icons? What Kim’s look really indicated was that she’s at the level of status where even without her face, she is fashion. A literal ‘public’ figure that is responsible for setting the tone of many trends.
Different fashion commentators have offered their own opinions on the look, as well as their own conspiracy theories of the subtle messages.
Here are a few:
For TikTok’s renowned fashion analyst, @fashionboy, the message was a “celebrity culture desire to remain anonymous”, which epitomizes America’s fashion of obsession with American celebrities.
For another fashion commentator, Charles Gross, the look combined “simplicity” with a “visceral reaction.”
For @Gabidaigi, it was a marketing move. “She didn’t have to show who she was for you to know that, that was her.” She goes on to mention the Kardashian’s marketing genius, and a sort of epitome of the marketing minds of the Kardashian empire, summed up in Kim’s piece.
In continuation of the ideology of marketing strategies, I might add that the message gave a metaphor of a canvas, in my opinion. A blank figure. Tying in to Kanye West’s Donda balaclava aesthetic, we can consider that both of the ‘once power duo’ are sort of expressing that they are canvases, to which the public will design them as the public deems fit.
The cultural take:
As Hafsa Lodi wrote in an opinion piece, we can’t ignore the controversy, the look stirred in terms of Muslim women. Lodi references the burka, and how in some cases, it’s a symbol of extremism, and in other cases, like the Met, it becomes a sample of shocking ‘modesty’.
“Burkas can provide wearers with anonymity, which is deemed a “threat to security” in many areas of the Western World. However, when the narrative is portrayed by a different power figure, it’s an ask for ‘incognito’ mode, as Elle expressed. Perhaps in light of this point, the look could have been a bit more sensitive in regard to the plight of Afghan women at the moment. Again, this looks at power. The power of a public figure being called an icon for something others are discriminated against.
At large, the look has been interpreted in a myriad of ways, but there is one common denominator that is certain. Whether it was humour or a deep glance at what figure status really means, power was present in every conversation.
Read Also:
Picture: Instagram/ posted by @kimkardashian