dissecting the 2026 met gala theme (and predictions)

The 2026 Met Gala is but a stone’s throw away—May 4, 2026.

Depending on what the red carpet looks like, it could either be “Fashion’s Biggest Night” or “Fashion’s Biggest Fright.” And if we’re lucky, both!

As someone who was inspired to start this newsletter because of the positive attention I’ve received from my Met Gala roasts via Instagram Stories (since 2019), this truly is my Super Bowl—as cheesy as it is to admit.

So, what makes for a “good” Met Gala? It starts with an excellent theme. In my professional experience (watching the red carpet on my couch with a Coke and a double chin), the best themes I’ve witnessed are ones that are highly focused, yet can be interpreted in a few different ways…but not TOO many ways. There’s a sweet spot.

These opinions are only in regard to the theme and how it shaped the red carpet looks—not opinions on if the exhibits were good or bad.

Great Themes:

• Camp: Notes on Fashion (2019) - A theme that forced people to step out of their comfort zone and actually have fun

• Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination (2018) - A layered theme that allowed for so many interpretations and costumes that celebrities would never have worn otherwise

• Sleeping Beauties: Reawakening Fashion (2024) - A smart, topical theme that spoke to the current state of fashion/personal style/beauty. I was lucky enough to see this exhibit in person and was floored at how incredible it was.

Poor Themes:

• Karl Lagerfeld: A Line of Beauty (2023) - Almost TOO iconic/specific. Literally everyone either wore Chanel or black + white. Worst one in years.

• Charles James: Beyond Fashion (2014) - Again, usually a theme revolving around a specific person/designer tends to be a bit one-note on the carpet.

Chaotic Themes (Welcomed):

• In America: A Lexicon of Fashion (2021) - Literally, WAY too many interpretations that it was a hot mess, but entertaining!

• Superfine: Tailoring Black Style (2025) - Wonderful theme if everyone followed the dress code and had looks that were tailored (ahem!). It was a mixed bag.

Now that we’ve established what sucks and what doesn’t (according to me), let’s dissect this year’s theme and make some predictions about what celebrities will wear on the big night.

Last November, The Met announced that the theme of this year’s Costume Institute exhibit will be Costume Art. How utterly “duh,” of them!

The Costume Institute declaring the theme is “costume” is like your friend hosting a dinner party where the theme is “food.” Next up: water, but wet.

Anyway—here’s how The Met has since described this exhibit in a February 2026 press release:

“The show will examine the centrality of the dressed body, juxtaposing garments and works of art from across the Museum’s vast collection to create pairings that not only illuminate the indivisible connection between clothing and the body but also the complex interplay between artistic representations of the body and fashion as an embodied artform.”

The costumes will be divided into specific bodily themes, like:

• The Naked Body

• Classical Body

• Pregnant Body

• Aging Body

• Anatomical Body

• Mortal Body

• And probably many more!

Pictures have already been released of some of the featured pieces; we generally know what to expect, but I’m sure there will be countless surprises in store. I will be heading to New York City the week after the Met Gala to see these marvelous costumes in person, and I couldn’t be more thrilled.

I love that the walls look like skin. Great detail. Are we part of the exhibit, too?

It wouldn’t be an art show about the human body if it didn’t include the classic “Corset Anatomia” ensemble designed by Brazilian designer Renata Buzzo, which, I’m sure, you’ve certainly stumbled upon on Pinterest, if you pin the same ridiculous runway looks that I do.

Another no-brainer (and pictured in the second image) is a piece from one of Rei Kawakubo’s many amazing Comme des Garçons collections (Fall/Winter 2017). While Kawakubo has plenty of collections that explore a The Substance-like, body horror-esque interpretation of the human body, her Spring/Summer 1997 show titled "Body Meets Dress, Dress Meets Body," or more widely known as the “lumps and bumps collection,” is certainly the most famous.

It features lots of padding built into the clothes to achieve exaggerated organic shapes that subvert all expectations of what the human body is “supposed” to look like—playing with themes such as the pregnant body, the disabled body, and the #grotesque body.

Quasimodo-core. Uncle Fester chic. Monstro Elisasue.

I’m sure we’ll see some Armored Titan-looking body suits, vintage (and new) Schiaparelli (the lung necklace that Bella Hadid wore to Cannes), and that one Thom Browne Fall/Winter 2024 dress with the exposed muscles on one side. I’m anticipating spinal imagery going down the back, ribcage corsets, and tons of Grecian bust-related garments depicting the male and female body.

There are truly a ton of different avenues for this one—including classical sculptures, sketches, book illustrations, etc.

It’s important to note that the theme of the exhibition is not always the same as the “dress code.” Often, it’s different (in wording) but still related to the show itself. Honestly, it’s confusing, and I don’t think there should be a separate dress code. It makes things more convoluted, but I’m not Anna Wintour, so no one cares what I think.

Celebrities will pick and choose what theme they actually want to follow—either the exhibit one OR the actual dress code.

This year’s dress code is “Fashion is Art.” Another “duh” moment, if you ask me, but whatever. And also, wildly similar to the exhibit theme (on paper), which could have gone without saying. It does, however, shed the human body aspect and allow for a myriad of new interpretations. It opens the door for literal renditions of art as fashion…that may be goofy and too “on the nose.”

Head curator for the Costume Institute, Andrew Bolton does not approve of this kind of direct costume dressing. He told GQ in a recent interview:

“My fear is that people will come as a Campbell’s soup can or [John Singer Sargent portrait subject] Madam X, that they’ll take it too literally and interpret a painting—or wear an Andy Warhol wig. This year, there's so much room for experimentation. I do think some might be literal, and literally have a painting embroidered onto the back of their suit. But I hope people will be more imaginative.”

Basically, anything by Jean-Charles de Castelbajac is Bolton’s biggest nightmare.

So, what will celebrities be wearing? Here’s what I predict:

The Costume Institute exhibit is literally about body parts—so expect the human form to show up ON the clothes, not just in them.

I’ll be honest, this interpretation (while typically cool) wouldn’t be the most exciting. We see it soooo much on the red carpet that it would have to be done in a truly unique way for me to be phased.

We will almost certainly come across custom Schiaparelli designed by Daniel Roseberry. This seems to be his bread and butter, as of late.

Emily Blunt actually JUST wore a couture gown from the Spring 2026 collection that featured a raffia bodice depicting a woman’s breasts to The Devil Wears Prada 2 New York premiere. Very Met Gala of her.

My favorite design of his (maybe so far) is a black, long-sleeved dress (also from Spring 2026) with the female form sketched onto it with a white charcoal stick. Reminds me of my art class days!

Balmain, Jean Paul Gaultier, and Moschino all have archival pieces that would totally work for this vibe. I wouldn’t say that any of these brands are in a strong place (celebrity-dressing-wise), so it’s hard for me to feel confident that cool custom pieces will come out of these houses for the event.

I could also see custom Matthieu Blazy Chanel dressing guests in some sort of detailed human body atop a two-piece ensemble using stacked sequins, faux feathers, or beads.

I sincerely hope that no one decides to wear a naked dress and call it a night. I’m talking to you, Kim!

However, there is a human skin angle to be tapped into. Again, Schiaparelli has been toying around with this. Zendaya literally wore a skin-skirt suit to CinemaCon. Rest in peace, Ed Gein, you would have loved Skindaya.

Instead of wearing a “naked dress” that you can see through, I think it would be MAJOR if somebody had a custom look made that is completely made to look like their own naked body—complete with tattoos, birthmarks, and folds. Like the concept that the crazy (genius?) Central Saint Martin’s student came up with, but with Lee McQueen’s lab-grown skin.

Oh, you don’t know about that?

Insane tangent, but relevant: In 2016, Tina Gorjanc, a student at CSM, basically applied for a patent to gain access to the late fashion designer Lee (Alexander) McQueen’s DNA (via hair he used in his CSM thesis collection) to produce a human leather that would then be used to create bags and jackets. I don't think this ever actually came to fruition, but the concept art is truly terrifying, but cool, but horrific, but amazing?

Am I looking for someone to make real human leather at the Met Gala? No, but I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t be thrilled if they did. Sue me! Just don’t skin me. I’d love to see some crazy custom garments made to look like discolored, veiny, or wrinkled skin. Maybe someone will bust out the Robert Wun 2024 couture look that felt very Pan’s Labyrinth.

This one is all about anatomical construction. Exoskeletal dressing.

Vivienne Westwood's corsetry as a ribcage—the literal boning in couture that normally lives inside the dress being brought outside. Think Iris van Herpen’s, well, anything. Elsa Schiaparelli's skeleton dress from 1938. It’s sculptural. It’s art. It’s body. It’s everything.

I can imagine someone showing up in a 3D printed dress of this nature. I could easily see Anya Taylor-Joy in a Dior look with some sort of big skirt, or Emma Chamberlain in a skin-tight corseted number with the whole backside in contrast stitching to give the illusion of a spine. Jenna Ortega in a skeleton dress would KILL.

Finger bones crossed.

Andrew Bolton’s worst nightmare, imagined. This would be a celebrity showing up in a Dolce & Gabbana Botticelli dress with little to no glam and acting like they did the ABSOLUTE most. It could also be a Viktor & Rolf picture frame dress moment. Let’s just say one is better than the other.

While on the nose, I still think there is an element of fun here, depending on who the wearer is, what the context is, and how they style it. I love outrageous, campy fashion, and boy, do I love a (good) reference so long as the look delivers. Sure, it’s the “easy way out,” but if it looks cool, can’t it still be major? Execution is key here.

Call me tacky, but I’d be delighted to see some crazy Jean Charles de Castelbajac or Moschino or the Vivienne Tam Mao Zedong dress being styled in a fresh way. I feel like any time we get an “archival look” (and it’s quite often) from someone, it’s typically the most forgettable thing from whatever collection they plucked it from. The fact that it’s archival is the main attraction—not the look itself.

Hailey Bieber should take a break from wearing minimalist, skin-tight slip dresses and do a custom Yves Saint Laurent dress inspired by some of their amazing vintage art-centric designs from 1960s.

Yes, she gets her own category.

Put Addison Rae in the Schiaparelli hands bra now! If Marissa Barenson isn’t invited and wearing the shoe hat, I’ll simply die.

Elsa Schiaparelli was one of the first (and best) designers to fuse high fashion and art by way of Surrealism in the 1930s, and her frequent collaboration with artist Salvador Dali. It only makes sense that her designs are referenced in some way, shape, or form—whether it’s Daniel Roseberry’s version of the classic 1938 Tears Dress or the lobster hat.

My favorite thing about Elsa Schiaparelli’s designs is that the artwork featured on them is original. She wasn’t taking already existing designs and printing them on clothes. The print was the art itself and the clothes were the canvas.

I think a Kardashian couldn’t go wrong donning Schiaparelli—I could see a subversion like this from Kim. I could even see Kylie going this route, as long as we know she has a good body. She will never let us forget, not even for a second.

The real fashion freaks will go the Comme des Garçons route and show up looking positively lumpy with cartoonishly unnatural body shapes. Think Marc Jacobs’s past few collections. Viktor and Rolf’s insane proportions. 2026 Issey Miyake with the high shoulders and no neck. I know Thom Browne can turn out some wonky shapes.

We know Doechii can hang. Janelle Monáe. Lady Gaga. Sarah Paulson. Doja Cat.

Prosthetic limbs, anyone? Let’s see some of that. Give me a three-legged Gayle King. I’m begging you.

I’ve actually seen a lot of people saying that they think a lot of people WILL be wearing the “lumps and bumps” collection, but to be honest, I disagree. Sure, it’s the classic choice here, given the exhibit and all, but there aren’t a ton of celebrities right now that play around with proportions in this way.

Soooooo many of the #youth are chained to wearing form-fitting dresses to EVERYTHING—simply allergic to the idea of a proportion other than “body is tea.” The repeat offenders are:

• Olivia Rodrigo

• Hailey Bieber

• Kaia Gerber

• Margaret Qualley

• Zoe Kravitz

• Sydney Sweeney

• Gigi Hadid (except for that one Met Gala with the puffer)

• Bella Hadid

I would be gobsmacked if one of them switched it up this time. My respect for Sydney Sweeney would skyrocket if she simply showed up to the Met Gala in a normal tight gown, but instead of 2 breasts (her usual), she had some sort of prosthetic that made it look like she had 3. That’s my fashion fantasy. It’s funny. It’s self-aware. It’s on-theme. It’s subtle. It’s just enough.

This category would be a dress that looks like a sketch, a look that references a painter's smock or work clothes, something that suggests the making of art rather than the finished product. Every designer seems to be into the “unfinished" and “unrefined” right now.

There's something interesting about a look that references process, materiality, paint, clay, and the mess of creation. Maison Margiela's raw hems and deconstructed tailoring live here 100%.

Let me see some hands built into the clothes, as if the artist/designer is working on perfecting it before our very eyes.

What’s a theme about the human body if not an excuse to whip out a merkin? Maybe not the SKIMS merkin, but something along the lines of Galliano’s last collection for Maison Margiela. It’s subversive. It’s body-centric. It’s raw. It’s art.

Aubrey Plaza and Natalie Portman are both pregnant right now. And you know what, let’s see the bump in full force. What better theme to showcase your pregnant belly? The answer is: there is none. This is it. Go full Sienna Miller Schiaparelli.

Realistically, anyone could show up in a well-crafted, creatively made gown with the perfect glam to accompany it, and they would technically be “on theme.” If the stylist and muse have taste, they can’t really go wrong.

Fashion IS art. I’ve never understood why that question is such a topic of conversation. It doesn’t feel controversial to me.

Anyway—let me know your thoughts in the comments. Who are you most excited to see? Who do you think will be a train wreck? How do you feel about this theme? Give me all your opinions.

Stay tuned for a full newsletter dedicated to the roast and review of this year’s event and follow my personal Instagram if you want real time story critiques. See you on the other side.