Heavenly Bodies, the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s latest installation in partnership with the Costume Institute, seeks to demonstrate the influence of Catholicism on fashion. The curators did a great job of culling fashion archives for pieces that satisfy that goal, as well as creating an interesting juxtapose between the Met’s permanent medieval and Byzantine collections and the curious mash up of religion and couture. What they created, however, was a spectacle rife with sacrilege, tone deaf curatorial decisions, and contradictions all in the name of fashion.

            Beginning with the inclusion of the term “Catholic Imagination” in the title, there seems to be liberties being taken in the Met’s interpretation of Catholicism. Though connections can be made between God and material things here on earth, the idea that this translates to this particular exhibition of fashion items is a stretch. The papal vestments on view, one could argue, are the exception to this; though the excess and near secular preoccupation with luxury they exude present other issues that are not addressed. Ross Douthat, a columnist at the New York Times who identifies as Catholic, said of the Met gala and exhibition, “When a living faith gets treated like a museum piece, it’s hard for its adherents to know whether to treat the moment as an opportunity for outreach or for outrage.”

The idea that an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art could address religion through the lens of fashion, without concrete contextual and supplemental information is the most egregious error. Though this is not the Met’s first run in with cultural insensitivity, as sited by Joan Mertens in reference to China Through the Looking Glass, it seems the institution could do a better job of addressing more than just how interesting fashion objects are created as an “homage” to religion. The issue of diversity within the exhibition is a problem as more than a quarter of the world’s practicing Catholics are non-white. Though the backdrop of this exhibit is western art, it is the duty of institutions like the Met -- that possess an immense amount of research and educational resources – to make strides at giving a more informed experience to museum goers.

            The most obvious misstep sited by viewers of Catholic or other religious upbringing is more than likely the choice of placement of more provocative fashion garments near or around religious relics, liturgical vessels and other religious paraphernalia.  Catholicism holds chastity and modesty as two of the most sacred values for followers, and the inclusion of garments bearing cleavage or emphasizing the bosom should have been reserved for the Costume Institutes exhibition space, not the medieval and Byzantine galleries.  The swap of spaces could have solved many of the issues of respect and insensitivity and makes more sense from a curatorial stand point. Having the papal vestments and the fashion items used in sacramental ceremonies (wedding gowns and nuns habits for example) in the areas that most closely resemble religious spaces is for reasons unknown not explored by the curators.

            The fascination of the public with the “drama and pageantry of the Catholic ritual,” as so eloquently put by a colleague, is the driving force behind this exhibition and possibly also the missteps. Matthew Schmitz of First Things (an academic journal of religion and public life) comments that “people should pay attention to the real Catholic imagination and the meaning behind it, and not the overly sentimental and shallow aesthetic that was on display at the [Met] gala.  It is not however, the job of the museum goer to extrapolate from this exhibition the ideas and issues that are lacking. That responsibility rests on the institution.