contemporary culture

Vogue World Milan and the spectacle of “Made in Italy”

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

The lost meaning of Italian elegance and craftsmanship


Vogue World Milan is all over social media, but not for the reason one might expect. Rather than embodying class and sophistication, it generated enough grotesque memes to last for years. Some viewers even described it as a “plastic surgery expo.” Even Miuccia Prada appeared to have something to say without saying a word. So, spectacle yes, but not exactly in a flattering sense.

However, some people commented, “It was so Italian” — which left us astonished. What was so Italian about it? Just Milano and those sitting in the front row. Certainly not what Vogue claimed. In fact, it seemed closer to the Met Gala idea of fashion spectacle than to any distinct Italian vision.

Created by Anna Wintour in 2022 for philanthropic purposes, Vogue World is an international event less a fashion show than a highly produced spectacle that brings together designers, models, celebrities, performers, and technology. This Milan edition took place in Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II, bringing together Italian craftsmanship, fashion, performance, and technology.

Staged on September 22nd, the event was in collaboration with the Milan Municipality, Teatro alla Scala and its Academy. More than 500 guests were seated along the four arms of the Galleria. The front row was historic and exceptional: many of the biggest names in Made in Italy were there — Miuccia Prada, Raf Simons, Donatella Versace, Pierpaolo Piccioli, Domenico Dolce, Stefano Gabbana, and more. The event raised €2.65 million for the Biblioteca di Quarto Oggiaro redevelopment and expansion.

According to the official programme, Vogue claimed to move through “The Artisanal Revolution,” “The Industrial Revolution,” “Made in Italy,” “The Age of Intelligence,” and “The Imagination Revolution.” Vogue specifically said the event was intended to address the value of craftsmanship in the age of AI.

But was Vogue World Milan really so? 

Elegance, craftsmanship, Italianness — these didn’t seem to be the main values. Elegance, in particular, seemed a lost concept. 

There is an interesting contradiction at the heart of the evening. Vogue explicitly presented the event as a celebration of “Made in Italy,” craftsmanship and the human touch in the age of AI, while sponsors including OpenAI and Meta supported the event. The very forces the spectacle claimed to examine were footing the bill.

So, Vogue World Milan claimed to celebrate “Made in Italy” and craftsmanship. Yet the spectacle seemed to undermine both. Most importantly, what does it mean to celebrate “Made in Italy” when the people and production system that actually make it possible are increasingly under pressure? 

For an event ostensibly celebrating human craftsmanship and “the human touch,” Vogue World Milan’s defining moment was four robots waving at the crowd. A fitting confession that fashion would rather borrow Silicon Valley’s hype than trust its own hands. The irony runs deep: Vogue World was billed as a tribute to Italian artisanal tradition, yet the segment everyone talked about featured Unitree humanoid robots wearing nothing at all, doing little more than waving and mimicking a lasso motion.

Il Fatto Quotidiano called the staging “extremely didactic.” A wooden model of the Duomo, tailors in white coats, then the Industrial Revolution, then the irruption of technology, all seasoned with ostentatious luxury and so much show-off that it left doubts about the event’s true meaning: a mere and self-referential celebration of fashion as the status quo.

On her Instagram, Frida Giannini highlighted the disconnection between the rhetoric of Italian craftsmanship, elegance and “Made in Italy”, and the extravagance of the event itself. She wrote:

“Tacky and ridiculous… Nonsense. Nonhumor. Nonelegance. Only an embarrassing circus. For Milano and Italy… With Open AI and robots??? Please, a bit of consistency. And dignity. So sad.”

She was having fun, she swore — but only because she could see all the details of those creepy faces having fun. The point stands: the inconsistency between the rhetoric and reality wasn’t a detail. It was the whole show.

While Italian craftsmanship was being celebrated as a marketing slogan, a few kilometres away the Made in Italy supply chain was enduring one of its most dramatic moments. The figures released by Milan’s CGIL paint a stark picture: in just three years, Milan’s fashion system has lost a quarter of its exports (−23.3%), sliding from over €3 billion to under €2.3 billion. Artisan businesses are shuttering (−19.7% in clothing, −17% in leather). And hours of temporary layoff schemes (cassa integrazione) soared in the second quarter of 2026. (source: Il Fatto Quotidiano)

The hands that actually make Made in Italy possible went unmentioned.

Is this Italian? Is this Italian elegance? Or is it simply a spectacular representation of what fashion has become — a circus of its own making?

Find the response in Miuccia Prada’s eyes.

Vogue World Milan and the spectacle of “Made in Italy” Read More »

Feminism today: Michele Mari, Premio Strega finalist, and his insult toward Michela Murgia

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

On writers, contemporary culture and the eye that judges — still patriarchy


A recent controversy involving Michele Mari, writer and Premio Strega finalist, made us reflect on a broader question: what does feminism today actually mean? Is it true liberation, or oftentimes patriarchy repackaged by women — or even fully digested — by women theselves?

The debate began after remarks attributed to Mari about Michela Murgia — the acclaimed Italian writer, Campiello Prize winner, unapologetic feminist, queer icon, and fierce critic of patriarchy.

He reportedly said:

“She was intransigent and violent because she was ugly — that was her way of letting out her rage.”
“Through her aggressive behaviour, she made everyone else pay for her ugliness.”
“Every woman who is unhappy and unloved turns spiteful.”

Mari has since disputed parts of the reporting, but the controversy itself reveals something worth examining. How quickly we still use a woman’s appearance to explain her ideas, her anger, or her public presence.

Black-and-white photograph of Michela Murgia's book Stai zitta on a writing desk with glasses, notebooks and a pencil. The image offers a reflection about feminism today.

Of course, it’s a comment you wouldn’t expect from a writer of his calibre. Let alone a candidate for the prestigious Premio Strega. 
If culture and literary prestige cannot dismantle patriarchal thinking, then what can?

Our instinctive reaction is this: if the dominant aesthetic appeals to the male eye almost more than to the female one, we wouldn’t call that feminism.

That may sound provocative, but it touches on a central question in contemporary feminist thought. Feminism is not about conforming to patriarchal standards in order to gain visibility, approval, or power. It is about questioning those standards in the first place.

What does feminism today mean?


One of the defining questions of feminism today is whether women are becoming genuinely freer, or simply learning to navigate old power structures more successfully.

When we still discuss a woman’s value through the lens of attractiveness, desirability, or likability, the underlying hierarchy has not disappeared. It has merely changed its language.

Exposing false emancipation

An idea, or aesthetic, or even a form of empowerment, does not become subversive simply because women embrace it. Especially when, oddly enough, it remains more pleasing to the male gaze. That is not liberation; it is repackaging.

There is only a renegotiation of patriarchy.

Some scholars describe this phenomenon as “pop feminism” or commercial “post-feminism”: a version of empowerment that appears liberating while leaving existing power structures largely intact.

It sells — and its commercial success is often mistaken for social progress. We should also question who pulls the threads of that commercial success and market demands.

The theory of the male gaze

The controversy also recalls the work of feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey.

If the ultimate criterion of approval remains the male gaze, then men remain the subjects of the story while women remain its objects. Even when women believe they are acting freely and autonomously.

The question is not whether women make choices. The question is: who taught us what is desirable, acceptable, and worthy of admiration?

Distinguish feminism from performed femininity

Authentic feminism does not ask women to be pleasing to anyone but themselves.

Nor does it require them to conform to a prescribed ideal of beauty in order to be accepted into positions of influence, authority, or cultural legitimacy.

A woman should not need to be attractive in order to be heard, any more than she should need to be agreeable in order to be respected.

Final thoughts


Perhaps the most important distinction is this: feminism is not about giving women the same tools to compete in men’s games. It is about changing the rules of the game altogether.

That is why controversies such as this one matter. They remind us that, despite decades of progress, we still invoke a woman’s appearance to explain her character, her success, her failures, or even her convictions.

When that happens, we are forced to ask what feminism today really means.

If women are still judged through the lens of attractiveness, desirability, or conformity to a dominant aesthetic, then the rules of the game have not changed nearly as much as we like to believe.

The dominant gaze has simply become harder to recognise.

And if the final judgement still rests there, then it is not liberation.

It is merely a gilded cage.

Feminism today: Michele Mari, Premio Strega finalist, and his insult toward Michela Murgia Read More »

Horror and beauty

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

On dignity, clothing, and what we owe each other


Horror and beauty. 

Every time we sit down to talk about clothes, we look at the news — people being bombed, displaced, losing their lives—and think: does any of this really matter?

This is where we’re coming from. That feeling of futility, of powerlessness — wondering how fashion can matter when set against a backdrop of human suffering. 

We mistrust easy answers. The world feels too fractured, too painful, to allow for certainty.

Is it irresponsible to talk about fashion right now?

Clothes document the human condition.


What people wear when everything falls apart is a story — one that speaks of dignity, resistance, and survival. Still, we recognise that we speak from a place of privilege. We can choose what to wear. For many, that choice no longer exists.

Throughout history, clothing has never been only about choice. It has been a form of resistance, a way to preserve identity, a silent protest. In moments of displacement, a garment can become the last piece of home a person carries.

Think of the garments of the displaced. What does a refugee wear? Clothes become tools: extra layers against the cold, hidden pockets for money, protection from the elements. What remains on the body is reduced, essential. And still, within that, there are gestures of agency.

A woman in Gaza evacuates wearing her neighbour’s borrowed sandals—her own destroyed in the chaos. She didn’t choose them; they were simply what was available. Weeks later, in a tent, she washes her only remaining dress by hand and hangs it to dry on a wire. This act is not about fashion. It is about dignity. In caring for that dress, she affirms, I am still here.

We still dress. In cities under siege or after natural disasters, people wash a shirt, mend a seam, fix a shoe. Not out of vanity, but to hold on to something human.

If clothing can be a tool of dignity, it can also be part of systems that strip it away. Not only in war zones, but in the everyday violence of how fashion is made. The way we produce and consume fashion is not neutral. It is tied to labour, to resources, to lives. Choosing differently, when we can, is one small way of refusing that indifference.

So is it irresponsible to discuss fashion right now?


It could be. We’re not sure. And maybe that uncertainty is the only honest place to start.
What we do know now is that it becomes meaningful if we use it as a door to talk about crimes against humanity and the planet—including who is bombing and what we can do. That includes naming power directly. 

We’ve opened that door. 

Writing, or doing our job in fashion, does not mean turning away from suffering. It means staying with the discomfort. And recognising that even in the darkest moments, people hold on to small, fragile expressions of self.

Without excess, we hold space for horror and for beauty. Not because we have an answer, but because letting go of either would mean losing what makes us who we are. Perfectly aware that for many, that horror doesn’t stop. So we use our platform to amplify these voices, to speak against Netanyahu’s government and the Trump regime devastating humanity.

As historian Timothy Snyder wrote on his Substack, Thinking About:

“If we do not say something ourselves about this horror, we allow ourselves to be changed.”

We don’t speak for the woman in Gaza. We cannot know what her dress means to her. What we can do is listen — and, where we can, act. And say clearly whose side we are on, because we do not want to normalise this.

Horror and beauty. We hold both.

What will you do with what you’ve just read?

Horror and beauty Read More »

Milano Cortina Olympics: snow needs cold, not crude

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

The uncomfortable truth behind “sustainable” and “neutral” Winter Olympics


There is a lot of excitement in the air for Milano Cortina Olympics. In fact, the Games are set to showcase sport, landscape, and international cooperation. We are told to celebrate fashion, food, culture, and people.

In reality, it risks becoming yet another glossy exercise in greenwashing. And not only that. The Games also reveal a deeper, more disturbing contradiction: selective ethics, selective exclusions, selective silence.

Winter sports need snow, not fossil fuels


Winter sports depend on snow, ice, and stable temperatures. Yet the Milano Cortina Winter Olympics are sponsored by Eni, one of Italy’s largest oil and gas companies—an industry that directly fuels the climate crisis threatening the very existence of winter itself.

This contradiction is not accidental. It is strategic.

As Greenpeace Italia recently stated:

“Winter sports need snow, not polluting companies.”

Milano Cortina Olympics: when sponsorship becomes image laundering


Sponsorships like these are not neutral acts of support. They are tools of reputation laundering, designed to associate fossil fuel corporations with values such as resilience, excellence, and sustainability, while diverting attention from the environmental damage caused by their core business.

Eni’s presence at the Olympics does not reduce emissions.
It does not protect glaciers.
It does not safeguard mountain ecosystems.

What it does is offer a powerful stage to rewrite a narrative.

The climate crisis is not an abstract backdrop


The climate emergency is already reshaping winter sports:

  • artificial snow replacing natural snowfall
  • shortened seasons and shrinking glaciers
  • increasing environmental pressure on fragile alpine territories

Allowing companies that actively contribute to global warming to sponsor the Winter Olympics means ignoring this reality—or worse, normalising it.

As Greenpeace puts it:

“Those who fuel the climate crisis, threatening the survival of ice and snow on which the Winter Games depend, cannot be sponsors of the Games.”

This is not radicalism. It is coherence.

The IOC’s responsibility


The International Olympic Committee often speaks the language of sustainability. But language without action remains branding.

If the Olympic movement genuinely wants to protect the future of winter sports, it must take a clear stance and end sponsorships from oil and gas companies—just as tobacco sponsorships were once banned from sport for ethical reasons.

Some industries are simply incompatible with certain values.
Fossil fuels and the Winter Olympics are one of those cases.

A double standard dressed as neutrality


Russia is out. Israel is in.

The official justification for excluding Russia from the Olympic Games was the violation of international law and the incompatibility of war with Olympic values. Yet the same principles seem to dissolve when it comes to Israel, despite the scale of destruction and civilian deaths in Palestine far exceeding many past conflicts that have led to sanctions.

This selective morality undermines any claim of neutrality. When sport chooses silence in the face of certain atrocities and outrage in others, it stops being a space of peace and becomes a mirror of geopolitical hypocrisy.

The discomfort was impossible to fully contain. During the opening ceremony, J.D. Vance was met with loud boos from the audience—an unplanned rupture in the performance of neutrality. Even as cameras attempted to manage the narrative, the reaction exposed a growing gap between institutional silence and public conscience.

Israel’s parade was embarrassing. 
Just as embarrassing was the attempt to erase Ghali through selective camera framing—an evident effort to censor his words and silence his pro-Palestinian stance.

Is it really still unclear that Israel is committing genocide, as widely documented by human rights observers?

Ghali, Rodari, and the words that should never be censored


Ghali recited Reminder, a poem by Gianni Rodari:

“There are things to do every day:
wash, study, play,
and set the table at midday.

There are things to do at night:
close your eyes, sleep,
have dreams for dreaming,
ears for hearing.

There are things never to do,
neither by day nor by night,
neither by sea nor by shore:
for example, WAR.”

Words simple enough for a child. Apparently too dangerous for a stage.

What kind of future are we celebrating?


The Olympic principles are excellence, respect, and friendship. They aim to unite people through sport, promoting peace, solidarity, and inclusion.

And yet, this is what Ghali later wrote on Instagram:

“Peace? Harmony? Humanity?
I did not feel any of this last night, but I felt it through your messages.
People are what truly matter, and in a time of so much hatred, please do not play their game. Respond as we would want the world to be.
‘There are things that must never be done.’”
Ghali

Beyond the beautiful façade


We can celebrate Italianness at Milano Cortina Olympics. We can take pride in the landscape, culture, fashion, food, and athletes and everything else. But this could also be an opportunity to rethink how major events relate to territory, climate, and responsibility.

Instead, it risks becoming another case study in how sustainability is used as a decorative word—applied after the damage is done. A study in beautiful façades.

Snow is not a metaphor.
Ice is not a logo.
The climate crisis cannot be sponsored away.

And humanity does not come in Series A and Series B.

If they sold you the Winter Olympics as ethical and sustainable, this is greenwashing.

Milano Cortina Olympics: snow needs cold, not crude Read More »

Portrait of contemporary madness

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Feeling overwhelmed? Perhaps we all are


Portrait of contemporary madness.
Milan men’s fashion week.
The buzz of Prada on sustainability.
Doing our work “at its best” doesn’t change reality.
Doesn’t solve anything.
A five-year-old child arrested in the US.
What is innocence in the age of surveillance?
Tear-gas shadows across playgrounds.
Twelve thousand people killed in Iran —
grief measured in hashtags, silence in policy halls.
The world scrolls.
Paris men’s fashion week.
Dior: what’s the point?
Identity disrupted, a punkish take designed for someone else’s customers.

A cyclone, Harry, devastates Sicily —
a climate out of control is no longer news.

Runways glowing while real lives bleed outside the glass.

In Minneapolis on January 24, Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse and US citizen, was shot and killed by federal immigration enforcement agents during protests against a swelling ICE operation — the second fatal shooting by federal agents in the city this month. Videos and witness accounts show he was filming and attempting to help others when the confrontation escalated, raising intense public anger and prompting investigations and lawsuits over denied evidence access and use of force. 

The official narrative and the evidence clash.
The streets erupt in outrage.
Protesters push back as cities shudder.

The runways continue:
models beneath spotlights, ideal silhouettes, future trends.
In the streets:
crowds march in frozen cities, shouting,
“We want justice.”
“We want dignity.”

One world churns in couture,
the next bleeds on asphalt.

Israel admits at least 70,000 people killed in Gaza —
numbers turned into headlines, then scrolls.

But what is life without empathy?
What is fashion without empathy?
What is style when bodies are collateral?
When governments shoot their own citizens?
When children are detained? Or when faraway wars count their dead by the thousands?

And when horrors are normalised, and a global war feels closer?

This is not future fiction.
This is now.

A portrait of contemporary madness.

And still — the fashion industry speaks of next season’s must-have.
Feeling overwhelmed? Perhaps we all are.

Portrait of contemporary madness Read More »