The 2026 Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute Gala has delivered, as per usual, the who’s who of Hollywood, decked out to the nines.

This year’s dress code was “Fashion is Art”, linked to the Met’s new Costume Art exhibition, open to the public from May 10.

The theme invites us to focus on the human silhouette as a kind of canvas – pushing beyond haute couture into the domain of wearable art. Here’s our pick of ten attendees who we think nailed the brief.

---

Read more: The 2026 Met Gala dress code is ‘Fashion is Art’. But is it?

---

1. Heidi Klum

Model Heidi Klum wowed spectators as she made her way up the famous Met stairs. Her outfit was inspired by Italian sculptor Raffaele Monti’s (1818–81) iconic Veiled Vestal statue, replicated in latex and foam to give Klum a stony look.

Marble statues with draped fabrics gained popularity in the 1700s, with many giving the illusion of translucence through careful composition.

Klum is well-known for pushing the envelope and embracing complete bodily transformations during themed events.

2. Luke Evans

Actor Luke Evans brought up the temperature up with an iconic head-to-toe leather outfit designed by Palomo Spain and inspired by Finnish drawing artist Touko Valio Laaksonen (1920–91), known by his pseudonym “Tom of Finland”.

Laaksonen developed a series of artworks depicting homoerotic fantasies which have become part of wider queer culture symbolism. He pioneered a recognisable gay aesthetic embraced by the likes of Freddie Mercury, and which pushed the boundaries of queer representation globally.

3. Ben Platt

Singer and actor Ben Platt wore a custom hand-painted and embroidered Tanner Fletcher suit inspired by the work of French post-Impressionist artist Georges Seurat (1859–91).

Specifically, his suit jacket references Seurat’s 1884 painting A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. This painting was also the inspiration behind Stephen Sondheim’s Broadway musical A Sunday in the Park with George.

Seurat was known for his incredibly small paint strokes, which inspired the term “pointillism”.

4. Dree Hemingway

Wearing a look shown on Alessandro Michele’s Valentino Spring Summer 2026 Couture runway, along with draped lab-grown diamond jewels by Pandora, actor Dree Hemingway embraced an oversized and fluid interpretation of an Elizabethan collar decorated in gold.

5. Miles Chamley-Watson

American fencer Miles Chamley-Watson embraced this year’s theme by turning himself into a Cubist artwork, walking down the Met carpet in an abstract painted suit and fencing kit.

Cubism is an abstract art movement popularised in the early 20th century by artists such as Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque. It depicts figures, objects and scenes through radical fragmentation.

6. Kendall Jenner

Media personality Kendall Jenner wore a GapStudio by Zac Posen dress reminiscent of the Winged Victory of Samothrace. This 2nd century Greek statue of the goddess of victory sits proudly the top of the Daru staircase in the Louvre.

With a digitally-scanned leather corset and breast plate that hides yet celebrates the nipple, it is yet another example of marble reinterpreted through textile. Discussing the look, Posen explained how he stretched, twisted and reinterpreted a white Gap t-shirt to bridge the gap between accessible fashion and costume.

7. Hunter Schafer

Euphoria actor and transgender rights activist Hunter Schafer’s custom empire-waist Prada look was directly inspired by Gustav Klimt’s (1862–1918) seven-foot painting Mäda Primavesi.

This portrait is part of the Met’s permanent collection. It depicts 9-year-old Mäda, the daughter of Otto and Eugenia Primavesi, two patrons of Austrian art.

8. Gracie Abrams

Another nod to Klimt came from actor and singer Gracie Abrams. Abrams’ gold Chanel dress was inspired by the Austrian painter’s portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I (1907), popularly referred to as the Woman in Gold.

The look was an embodied representation of the painting, which itself has had a tumultuous history. It was once stolen by the Nazis (as recounted in the 2015 movie Woman in Gold).

9. Anne Hathaway

Actor Anne Hathaway’s ball gown by Michael Kors Collection was hand-painted by artist Peter McGough and inspired by John Yeats‘ 1819 poem Ode on a Grecian Urn. A large, instantly recognisable figure reminiscent of a Greek goddess turns Hathaway into an object of art herself.

10. Naomi Watts

Actor Naomi Watts graced the red carpet in a floral, strapless, floor-length Dior gown inspired by the still life paintings of Dutch artist Rachel Ruysch (1664–1750). Most notable here was Watts’ manicure by nail artist Iram Shelton, who spent five hours installing 30 hand-sculpted 3D flowers.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Everyone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press? BE HONEST.

This question is the latest thought experiment to set off waves of controversy on social media, following classic examples such as the trolley problem and the prisoner’s dilemma.

Most people think the choice is extremely obvious. However, not everyone agrees whether the obvious answer is blue or red – and they want to argue about it.

What’s going on here? From the point of view of philosophy and game theory, the question shows two different intuitions and views of decision-making with starkly contrasting results. And the very popularity of the question highlights the fraught existential stakes many of us feel in modern life.

Red or blue? It’s complicated

The case for red seems simple. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, red pressers survive. If not, red pressers survive anyway. So basic self-interest leads to red.

In game theory, this choice leads to what is known as the Nash equilibrium. This is the best choice for a participant looking to advance their own interests.

However, in several polls, the majority of respondents pick blue. At first glance, this may seem irrational and self-destructive.

Why would anyone stake their own life on the collective decisions of others? This is where, as with any good thought experiment, the real value of the provocation shows itself, as we ponder the “why” behind the choice.

Blue pressers might proffer a diverse set of responses: “I’m worried my family and friends might pick blue and I want them to survive”; “I’m concerned people might find out if I pick red and judge me”; “If I picked red I would feel responsible for the potential deaths of others”; “I believe humanity is inherently good”, and so on.

Such responses hint at what game theorists call the Pareto-optimal outcome, where the least potential damage is done by one’s choice.

Why now?

What’s also interesting is why such a thought experiment has gone viral in 2026. In any society, what cultural theorist Raymond Williams called a “structure of feeling” holds sway: an affective atmosphere, a set of moods and emotions that are most visible in its symbolic output.

We can here point to popular culture. Shows such as Netflix’s hit series Squid Game, the glut of Survivor-style reality TV shows, the digital game Among Us and the Hunger Games books and films rely on similar setups.

The fundamental questions tend to remain the same. Who can be trusted? How do incentives change our moral stance? Do systems reward altruism or selfishness?

More than at any time in human history, we are interdependent on a global scale: politically, economically, militarily, technologically, culturally. When a domino falls on one side of the planet, we now see it, hear it and feel it on the other side.

This engenders a distinct sense of vulnerability and precarity. We are bombarded every day with information from all around that can stress, enrage, and exhaust us.

Why here?

The specific formulation of the thought experiment, condensed down into a simple binary choice, is also perfect for social media, where hot takes dominate and extremity is rewarded by the algorithm: yes or no, right or wrong, gold-and-white dress or blue-and-black.

It’s also where similar questions are often asked of influencers, who might sacrifice their own moral viewpoints in pursuit of attention and visibility. It’s a perfect quick moral apocalypse for a doomscrolling public.

Another useful idea here is the “Promethean gap” described in 1956 by philosopher of technology Günther Anders. The idea is that the more technological capacity grows, the less humanity can comprehend emotionally, intellectually and morally.

We have, in a sense, outsourced too much of ourselves to technology. In doing so, we have let some crucial competencies atrophy, and so the gap grows.

Under rapidly advancing technology, our capacity for action exceeds our capacities for moral imagination.

This fear is readily apparent in the thought experiment: the world ended at the push of a button. By comparison, the stakes of the prisoner’s dilemma or the trolley problem seem positively quaint.

Steven Conway does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The Australian Law Reform Commission is currently reviewing Australia’s surrogacy laws to ensure they’re fit for purpose and reflect the population’s current views.

One aspect being considered is whether surrogates should be allowed to receive financial payments for gestating a fetus on behalf of another person or couple.

The commission’s final report is expected in July.

There are several types of potential surrogacy arrangements. Let’s look at how they work, what might work best in Australia, and how an appropriate payment could be determined.

Only ‘altruistic’ surrogacy is allowed

Surrogacy laws are inconsistent across Australia but no state or territory allows surrogates to be paid for their services.

However, reimbursement for reasonable expenses associated with the pregnancy and birth are allowed.

Currently, only “altruistic” surrogacy arrangements are permitted. This means the surrogate volunteers to carry the pregnancy and receives no financial incentive or compensation for the time or risk involved.

Other countries that only allow altruistic surrogacy include the UK, Canada, Greece and South Africa.

What is commercial surrogacy?

“Commercial” surrogacy arrangements are available in some countries around the world, meaning surrogates are able to contract their gestational services for a fee. Examples include Georgia, Ukraine and some states in the United States.

In these arrangements, the “commissioning” or “intended” parents (those who intend to raise the child) often negotiate surrogacy contracts through third-party brokers or agencies.

One study of ten surrogacy agencies in the US found significant variation in the amount commercial surrogates were paid. They report most “compensation packages” were listed in the range US$30,000–70,000, but it was not always clear what the breakdown for these packages was.

Another study of 30 specific contracts cited rates of US$18,000–$50,000, with an average payment of US$23,000.

Commercial surrogacy arrangements can vary dramatically in price and may involve transnational agreements: where the surrogate resides in another country, often one less economically empowered than that of the intended parents.

Countries have wound back ‘reproductive tourism’

“Reproductive tourism” is when individuals or couples seeking assisted reproductive services, including surrogacy, travel to places where these services are cheaper or have fewer restrictions for access.

This can lead to the exploitation of women in lower-income countries and can make surrogacy less safe for surrogates, intended parents and future children.

In India, commercial surrogacy arrangements involving foreign nationals were banned in 2015. This ban was then extended to everyone by 2022

Before this, the average payment reported for commercial surrogates was US$5,000.

This made India a popular global destination for those seeking cheaper surrogacy arrangements than in their own home country.

Thailand followed a similar pattern. Once a major hub for international commercial surrogacy, it also banned the practice in 2015.

Thai officials reported that average payments to surrogates before this time were US$10,000–15,000.

The much publicised case of “baby Gammy” a child born through commercial surrogacy in Thailand, is often cited as the catalyst for the changes in surrogacy law in Thailand and beyond.

Baby Gammy was the genetic child of an Australian commissioning couple. But he was born with Down syndrome and a congenital heart condition and was not brought back to Australia with his twin sister.

This sparked international concern over the ethical and legal obligations to children and surrogates involved in transnational surrogacy arrangements.

---

Read more: Baby Gammy case reveals murky side of commercial surrogacy

---

How is ‘compensated’ surrogacy different?

Another potential type of paid surrogacy arrangement Australia might consider is “compensated”, rather than “commercial” surrogacy.

In a compensated model, surrogates would be paid a standardised rate for each month of completed gestation, in addition to having their expenses reimbursed. The regulation of the standard fee is often considered the key difference to the commercial model, with no bidding or broker competition allowed.

Israel’s unique state-controlled surrogacy payment model is arguably one example of this type of arrangement. While still typically referred to as “altruistic” rather than “commercial”, this model does allow strictly regulated payments to compensate a surrogate’s “time and suffering”, rather than just permitting reimbursement of direct expenses.

How could this work in Australia?

If a compensated model is permitted in future, the payment rates should be comparable across the country.

Consistent prices and regulatory harmony at the federal level would ensure intended parents are not driven to travel to other states due to differences in service availability or cost.

For those who believe gestational labour should not be commercialised, no method of calculating a fair wage will be acceptable.

But for those who are open to considering a model of compensated surrogacy in Australia, it will still be necessary to determine how much is appropriate compensation.

How could a fair price be calculated?

One way to determine a fair price for compensated surrogacy in Australia would be to make the rate similar to what surrogates are paid for commercial surrogacy in other high income countries, such as the US.

But payment ranges of US$20,000–$50,000 (A$27,800–69,500) are fairly common, and some agencies promise surrogates rates as high as US$100,000-150,000 (A$139,000–208,500). So there is significant disparity in the rates paid.

Assuming surrogacy is a minimum ten-month engagement, monthly payments at the lower end of this range would be around US$2,800. If using the higher US values, monthly rates could fall anywhere between A$7,000–21,000. A US$70,000 payment translates to approximately A$10,000 a month.

As the Australian context differs from the US in many important ways, another method of determining a fair rate of compensation would be to survey the Australian public, including those with lived experience of surrogacy.

Multiple submissions to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of surrogacy laws suggested A$1,000–$2,000 per month would be reasonable, based on the results of these kinds of discussions. This is 20–50% of minimum wage.

Another method would be just to use minimum wage as the rate, equating to just over A$4,000 a month.

But gestational labour isn’t the same as other jobs

Just considering a few hypotheticals makes it clear we cannot just slot surrogacy into our existing workplace rules.

If we decide to pay minimum wage, for example, this is calculated on an average 38 hour work week. But pregnancy is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Does that mean penalty rates should apply after the first “shift” every day?

Also, this would be one occupation where it is not only possible but essential that you sleep on the job.

Would a reduced rate be payable if the surrogate was otherwise employed during the same “work hours”? Or would a surrogacy payment be better classified as an additional loading on top of their regular salary? How would surrogacy as a “second job” be taxed?

Given the health risks associated with pregnancy, what kind of hazard pay bonuses should apply? What about public holiday loading?

These questions may sound silly, but they make it clear that gestational labour will need to be considered differently to other forms of paid labour.

This should be a comfort for those who are worried that allowing compensated surrogacy might devalue pregnancy as “just another job”.

The review of Australia’s surrogacy laws is trying to ensure couples aren’t forced to travel overseas to have a family. If the commission recommends adding compensated surrogacy as an option in Australia, and the government accepts this recommendation, more debates are likely to follow.

I am a member of an internally funded grant team on surrogacy research at Swinburne University of Technology. I have previously been invited to speak on surrogacy ethics for organisations that potentially have financial interests in the topic, but have not received any payment or incentive for these talks, and all content presented was free from external influences and represented my personal views, rather than those of any institution I was employed by at the time.