Nearly nine years ago, in 2016, the “Manus x Machina: Fashion in an Age of Technology” Met Gala painted a picture of how the fashion world views a future where technology and art develop hand-in-hand. Long before this Gala, however, fashion pondered what a future like this would look like: Retrofuturism of the 20th century envisioned an almost robotic, chrome-filled utopia with the material textures, bright colors and sincere charm of the past. Mugler’s 1995 chrome bodysuit sported by Zendaya at the “Dune: Part Two” premier perfectly encapsulates this energy — a vision of a world where futuristic fashion and technology retains an intricate and unmistakably human quality, reminiscent of fem-bots or maybe even C-3PO.
“Manus x Machina” echoed this optimistic sentiment toward the budding relationship between art and technology; metallic silvers and gold-clothed guests made the red carpet appear as a glittering trove, cold and robotic in feel, but still human in form. Taylor Swift’s Louis Vuitton dress from the event, consisting of silver scales, embodies this relationship compeltely: a marriage between nature and technology, art and the future.
The Gala’s intention was to examine the cultural conversation around haute couture (or hand-crafted, specially fitted pieces) and pret-a-porter (or mass-produced pieces). Haute couture, while higher quality and often regarded with more respect, also carries implicit connections to elitism and inaccessibility. Pret-a-porter, on the other hand, is a more democratic medium, able to combat issues of fast fashion and lower-quality pieces without being cost-prohibitive. With ever-developing technologies and practices allowing for more mass production of clothing, it’s relevant to grapple with the societal impacts of both kinds of fashion, how they are distinguished and to what extent they should be allowed to coexist.
While the exhibition was hosted less than a decade ago, the conversation of technology’s relationship with fashion and art has already evolved to embody a much different focus today. While the original event still questioned the role of the machine and to what extent it should be involved in these creative spheres, the theme of the Gala took something significant for granted: the human designer. The idea that a person, the manus, would play some kind of role in the development of pieces was a given, no place for concern. Matters of physical creation and reproduction were at play, and as shown through the styles of attendees, concerns were mostly overshadowed by possibility. What technology could do for fashion design was a shining possibility — a dream of what could be, rather than what could be lost.
So when did this outlook dim? I would argue that it died in the generative artificial intelligence boom. The 2020s ushered in a normalization, and glorification, of AI and its use in everyday life. AI could now create audio deepfakes, write an essay, hold a conversation and, perhaps most controversially, create “art.”
AI art was widely regarded as a joke in its beginnings, due to its pretty unremarkable ability to create anything that could even vaguely meet the qualifications of realism. Yet, even in these early stages, and especially as it progressed, AI became a popular avenue for easy, quick and cheap designs. More instances of this began to emerge in popular culture — Lil Yachty’s 2023 album “Let’s Start Here” used an AI-generated image for its cover, frilly AI Nike sneakers took Pinterest by storm and AI became an assumed shorthand for the more tedious aspects of creation, such as how production of “The Brutalist” used it for language correction.
With AI’s integration into the creative world came increased concerns over its use. Specifically, AI’s use of art without the original artist’s consent, its place as a cheap replacement for human artist labor and the general environmental impact of AI servers are among the main grievances. There is also an issue with the practice on a purely moral and theoretical basis: Can something created completely by a machine truly be art?
For artists who fear the soulless mass-production of AI art, or even just generative AI’s hand in performing what used to necessitate human work, the relationship between technology and art seems incredibly bleak — perhaps even irreconcilable. If “Manus x Machina” were the Met Gala theme this year, would the positive, utopian depictions of the future’s fashion be present? Even if they were, would these depictions ring true, or would they come across as superficial and insincere, perhaps even childish?
Nine years later, I don’t think fashion, or any art for that matter, can truly be on good terms with technological development. A dream of how technology could enhance the possibilities of human creation is slowly being drowned out by advancements that promise to replace it entirely, a frightening path to anyone attached to the sanctity of design.
Senior Arts Editor Cecilia Dore can be reached at cecedore@umich.edu.
