Jill Biden made an unexpected appearance at the Grammys this weekend, where she wore a frumpy, 1980s-esque gold floral gown. Not only was the design outdated and aging, but we’ve seen it before. The first lady wore the exact same Oscar de la Renta dress in black back in December for a state dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron.
It doesn’t matter that Jill Biden looked like she was wrapped in aluminum foil or that she wore the same dress two months ago, the media used the Grammys as another opportunity to excessively fawn over the first lady. “Jill Biden shines at the Grammys,” wrote The New York Times, likening her dress to “the gleam of Lizzo’s smile” (whatever that means). “It was blinding, and so beautiful,” declared The Philadelphia Inquirer. A “brilliant frock,” wrote Vogue.com. “Stunning,” concurred InStyle, adding that she “nailed the dress code.”
This is “The Emperor’s New Clothes” in real-time. No serious critic of fashion would look at Jill Biden’s antiquated dress and declare it “stunning” and “beautiful,” Yet that’s exactly what the corporate media and fashion industry have done.
Artistic standards have been replaced with a social justice litmus tests, forcing the fashion industry to become entirely politicized. The greatest example of how corporate fashion has become style-blind is its treatment of former First Lady Melania Trump. We’re seriously being told that Jill Biden, in frocks that look like they’re picked out of the grandma section at Target, is somehow more fashion-forward than Melania Trump? Please.
The industry doesn’t even hide its bias. Melania Trump was the only first lady in recent history not to be featured on the cover of Vogue, and the reason has nothing to do with her sense of style, which is irrefutably impeccable. When Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour was asked about Melania directly, Wintour refused to acknowledge the former first lady and instead professed her adoration for Michelle Obama (who’s been on the cover of Vogue three times).
“I think first lady Michelle Obama really was so incredible in every decision she made about fashion,” said Wintour. “She supported young American designers. She supported designers, indeed, from all over the world. She was the best ambassador that this country could possibly have in many ways, obviously, way beyond fashion.” Indeed, the style standards are beyond fashion. They are overtly political and a symbol of civilizational decline.
Psychologist Carl Jung once said that “art is the unwitting mouthpiece of the psychic secrets of the times.” True artists are sensitive to the zeitgeist, and they give us invaluable insights into the modern age via symbolism. The heads of corporate fashion are not insightful, they’re posers.
The only thing we can be sure of when reading a Vogue profile on the next Democrat starlet is that modern artists have been shackled by Marxist-inspired thought police. In places like the Soviet Union or Communist China, art is a slave to activism.
Every painting, fashion statement, sculpture, piece of poetry, movie, or song must serve the regime. If it does not, then it is a threat that must be terminated. In America, it’s no different. The First Amendment is in direct conflict with cultural Marxism.
Just like academics, journalists, and doctors are mercilessly punished by the left for wrongthink, so are the actors, painters, sculptors, and fashion designers. When modern art critics aren’t praising Democrat first ladies, they’re applauding ugly and anxiety-inducing pieces.
Recall the recent “big reveal” of the bizarre Martin Luther King Memorial that looks more like a penis than an “embrace.”
“Art is always the index of social vitality,” said English philosopher and art historian Herbert Read. In a thriving civilization, artists glorify the human body and beautify the world. Their work enriches civilization and propels society to be better.
Post-modern art and Jill Biden’s frumpy dress do nothing of the sort. To be sure, the ludicrous reaction to the first lady’s tinfoil gown is a sign that our society is heading down a deeply concerning, unstable, and unfashionable path.