It was 2000, and a grande dame attending the Costume Institute Ball — the Metropolitan Museum’s annual red-carpet fund-raiser — was aghast at the gum-chewing woman sitting across from her.
“Who is that?” she asked her friend.
“Lisa Marie, the King’s daughter.”
“What king?”
“Elvis.”
“I don’t care,” sniffed the couture-clad matron. “She’s still common.”
Tomorrow’s ball — considered the New York society event of the year — will feature about 700 of the world’s best-dressed luminaries, a mix of hot Hollywood and high culture. But that elevation of celebrity (this year’s theme: models!) sickens those who value the Met’s reputation as the oldest, most-prestigious museum in America, says Michael Gross, author of “Rogues’ Gallery,” an unauthorized history of the 139-year-old institution.
And he lays the blame squarely at the Manolo-clad feet of Vogue editor in chief Anna Wintour.
Wintour, who has hosted the event for 13 years, uses the ball to prove her worth in society and even to one-up her magazine rivals at publisher Condé Nast, charges Gross in his first exclusive interview before his book hits stands May 5.
Her prime target: Vanity Fair editor in chief Graydon Carter, who hosts his own annual star-studded Oscar bash in February. Carter also reportedly makes more money than Wintour, who rakes in $2 million a year.
“[Condé Nast CEO] Si Newhouse fosters a climate in which editors are competing for the favor of the king,” Gross told The Post.
“Graydon and Anna are competing for the social crown. It’s the social-status factor that defines those magazines, and anything that gets your name and your magazine’s name in the papers is going to get the king’s attention,” Gross continues.
“The party gives Anna Wintour a way to compete with Graydon Carter within Condé Nast.”
With Vogue’s advertising revenues plummeting and rumors flying that Wintour could lose the post she’s held for more than two decades, she needs this year’s ball to mark her place in the spotlight more than ever.
It won’t be easy. Even though this year’s gala will draw Kate Moss, Justin Timberlake and Marc Jacobs as co-hosts, the $75,000 tables haven’t sold as quickly due to the economy, said Gross.
The Costume Institute couldn’t confirm how many guests were expected to attend, and Vogue spokesman Patrick O’Connell said: “Given the millions of dollars the Costume Institute gala raises for the Met’s programs, [Gross’ viewpoint] seems particularly cynical.”
But Gross is undeterred. While the recession is bound to affect the ball, he says Wintour has been cheapening the hallowed museum for over a decade.
“The most highly publicized event at the museum has been turned into a magazine and movie-promotion party, where Anna sells herself and movie stars sell their latest projects,” said Gross. “What gets lost in the process is the museum.”
In “Rogues’ Gallery,” Gross compares the Met to a good girl playing the promiscuous hussy, “tying her fortunes to fashion magazines . . . to generate cash.” And turning tricks for a glossy bible certainly has brought in a lot of spending money.
Last year, the gala raised a record $7.3 million for the Met’s Costume Institute, which stages exhibits on Jackie Kennedy’s wardrobe and haute couture designers like Versace and Chanel. But the museum’s fashion department accounts for just .25 percent of the 2 million-square-foot institution.
The rest of the museum, which boasts 2 million art objects spanning more than 5,000 years, is stuck playing second fiddle to a pile of clothes, said Gross.
“The museum has struck a Faustian bargain with Vogue that diminishes the museum,” Gross said. “The tail is wagging the dog.”
The Met is usually discreet about how it brings in cash. Throughout the mid-20th century, John D. Rockefeller Jr. quietly became the museum’s greatest benefactor. Trustees in the past have “disdained the clamoring hordes,” Gross writes.
But while hordes clamor to see the Costume Institute’s “Model as Muse” exhibit tomorrow, the Met’s most expensive acquisition ever — a $45 million painting by Renaissance master Duccio di Buoninsegna — sits in an unvisited gallery.
“You could say anything that gets people in the door of a museum is a good thing, just as you could say anyone who reads a book is supporting literature,” Gross said. “But it’s the difference between reading a Harlequin romance novel and reading Samuel Beckett or Proust.”
SEE ALL THE STARS FROM 2008’s GALA
SEE THE STARS FROM 2007’s GALA
He recalls a recent conversation with one museum stalwart, who was upset by the highbrow museum’s marriage to pop culture.
“He said his heart sank when he saw the lines stretching out of the galleries where Jackie O’s clothing was and there was nobody looking at the Renoirs. He thought it was one of the worst things that ever happened to the museum.”
The Costume Institute, whose collection includes 30,000 costumes and accessories, was acquired by the Met in 1946. Its first party, held in 1948, was attended by fashion industry players and attracted little press.
In 1973, former Vogue editor in chief Diana Vreeland revived the soiree as a highbrow society event before passing the torch to Wintour in 1995.
Wintour, in turn, introduced the Met to Hollywood and guests like Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, George Clooney, Nicole Kidman and Scarlett Johansson.
“She hosted one party, then two. Eventually, it wasn’t known as the ‘Party of the Year’ anymore. It was known as ‘Anna’s Party,’ ” Gross said.
Today, Gross argues, the ball has been transformed into a “crass, commercial event.”
He points to a 2006 incident, recounted in his book, which raised a few perfectly plucked eyebrows.
That year, John Lydon, a k a Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols, attended the “Anglomania”-themed bash. In a punk-rock move, Lydon stripped the sweater off of his back and offered it to Wintour (who handed it to a museum officer).
Leaving the party, Lydon circled the room giving a Nazi salute to museum guards while barking, “Fashion!”
It was a particularly unfortunate adieu for the Met.
The oldest and most illustrious museum in North America, after all, should have an image that’s timeless.
“Fashion,” Gross adds, “is the opposite of timeless.”