From Politics to Red‑Carpet Dazzle: Experts Unpack the 2026 Oscars in Hollywood

Jessie Buckley, wearing Chanel by Matthieu Blazy, and Michael B. Jordan, in Louis Vuitton, took home the awards for Best Actress and Best Actor at the Oscars. Cover picture of Dua Lipa by Andrea Heinsohn for DAM 

By Dominic Knight, Adam Daniel, Ari Mattes, Gregory Camp and Harriette Richards

Despite Conan O’Brien joking he was the last human Oscars host, the 2026 edition was exceptionally human, with folly, filler and an f-bomb (ironically during the Best Sound acceptance speech). This 3.5-hour marathon will seem quaint in 2029, when YouTube takes over and every segment feels like 20 seconds.

Many speakers faced the same dilemma: how can we justify celebrating escapism in a war-ravaged world that only agrees on liking animated Korean popstars?

The world feels harsh in 2026. Even K-Pop Demon Hunters wasn’t immune, with the Golden song team harshly played off the stage – a policy only applied to them.

It was tough to watch Billy Crystal’s tribute to his murdered friends Rob Reiner and Michelle Singer Reiner – a note of real horror. Reality intruded again with the documentary Oscar for Mr Nobody Against Putin, about a teacher who used the Kremlin’s demand for video surveillance of his school to expose that process. Despite Jimmy Kimmel’s Melania gags, it was clear who the bravest guy in the room was.

Even Conan went dark. His Casablanca re-enactment featuring clunky plot-point repetition eviscerated smartphone culture. I loved his random arrival with a leaf-blower, which he should’ve deployed during Robert Downey Jr and Chris Evans’ lame banter. Ironically, the flatness of the bit perfectly illustrated the value of scripting – while the pair honoured the nominees for Best Screenplay.

Sinners and One Battle After Another won most major awards, as tipped on an anticlimactic night. In a dour final sketch, Conan was gassed, and replaced by Mr Beast – a pointed end to a ceremony that acknowledged legitimate questions about whether the Oscars even matter any more.

Autumn Durald Arkapaw brought a rare moment of joy as the first female cinematography winner, while the funniest presenters were the stars of Bridesmaids – who should host next year – especially if Stellan Skarsgård is available as a sight gag.

– Dominic Knight

A good film – not the best film – for Best Film

Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another is a good film. It’s not as good as Anderson’s Boogie Nights or The Master, and can’t hold a candle to this year’s other Best Picture nominee Sentimental Value, but it’s a rollicking romp of a yarn, more comedy than thriller, beautifully shot on 35mm film.

Indeed, several nominees this year used film, proving again what we already know – film looks better than digital.

The performances are solid. Sean Penn has had a great career, but here, as the buffoon Colonel Lockjaw, he is the weakest link, and shouldn’t have won Best Supporting Actor. But his hammy caricature is offset by the excellence of Leonardo Di Caprio, Benicio del Toro and Chase Infiniti, who effectively balance comedic elements with the kind of dramatic intensity necessary to bring the viewer along for the ride.

And a fun ride it is.

– Ari Mattes

A big year for big scores

2025 was a year for big film scores, either in terms of the size of the orchestra, their length, or their wealth of musical material. Perhaps Hollywood is finally getting over the ascendency of the Hans Zimmer-inspired chugga-chugga of interminably repeated minor thirds over low-pitched synth loops, and is embracing musical complexity again.

The ceremony itself had only a few musical moments of note. The Best Score announcement was hijacked by a Bridesmaids reunion and an overlong comedy routine that had nothing to do with music. At least we were shown the orchestra playing a short suite of the scores.

Sinners, the winner, is one of Ludwig Göransson’s most complex scores, drawing on various musics of the American South in a rich thematic tapestry. I hope its success might spur on more musical risk-taking in large-budget films.

The In Memoriam segment is always musically tricky. The producers need to find music that doesn’t pull focus from the people being remembered, but is engaging enough to keep the audience interested. The use of the love theme from Rob Reiner’s The Princess Bride was a good choice; the sappy reharmonisation of Amazing Grace was less inspiring; Barbra Streisand ended the sequence with a few croaky phrases from The Way We Were.

The Best Song nominees this year were mostly unmemorable – recognised by only two being performed during the ceremony. Golden (which won the award) brought some necessary KPop energy to the last hour of the show, but needed another verse to make its musical and dramatic point. A good decision in terms of the structure of the broadcast was marred by the structure of the arrangement itself.

This was also true of the chaotic performance of I Lied to You from Sinners. Considering the poor pacing and overlength of some of the comedy segments, this stuck out as especially misjudged.

– Gregory Camp

One extraordinary, and one earnest, performance

How does one assess performance across films of mixed qualities? This question is brought to the fore by this year’s Oscar winners for Best Actor and Actress.

Ryan Coogler’s Sinners is a riot of a film, following blues musicians and gangsters duking it out with vampires and rednecks in 1930s Mississippi. There’s nothing serious about it – it’s an absurd film from an absurd premise that just works from opening to closing images. And the performance by Michael B. Jordan, playing twin gangsters who are similar in temperament – but not the same – is extraordinary.

His intense and muscular energy drives the film, perfectly complemented by the standout music. Watching him on screen is always pleasurable, but in Sinners he’s finally been matched with a technically masterful film.

Hamnet, in contrast, is a very earnest, very serious film, and it proudly displays its earnestness at every turn. But earnestness in art is not particularly interesting (or, perhaps more accurately, not sufficient to make a film interesting), and the whole thing feels like a self-important Instagram post. The result is a film alternately pretentious, dreary and annoying.

Now Jessie Buckley is fine (as is Paul Mescal) – they’re both great actors in a big Hollywood movie – and, though Renate Reinsve’s performance in Sentimental Value was, like the film at large, much more compelling, it’s difficult to begrudge Buckley her Oscar.

Then again, film is a collaborative medium, so perhaps actors should also bear some of the brunt of critical wrath …

– Ari Mattes

A whole new award category

The introduction of the Academy Award for Best Casting this year marks the first new Oscar category since Best Animated Feature was introduced in 2001. The creation of this award reflects a long-overdue recognition of casting directors as core creative contributors to filmmaking.

Casting directors help shape performance, cast chemistry and, ultimately, the emotional credibility of a film – often through their identification of actors who can bring something unique to the role. By honouring casting as a distinct craft, the Academy is acknowledging the artistry involved in building ensembles, discovering new talent, and discovering performers who align with a director’s vision.

Cassandra Kulukundis’s win for One Battle After Another is a clear recognition of the importance and complex nature of casting large-scale ensembles. Writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson is known for his distinctive tonal and stylistic approach, particularly to performance. Kulukundis has worked with Anderson since 1999’s Magnolia. Her filmography speaks to her ability to balance star power with character actors who enrich the world of the film.

From my perspective, One Battle After Another’s critical and commercial success lies not only in its narrative scope but also in the authenticity with which its performers inhabit a world that is at times hyperbolic and at other times very relatable to the contemporary moment.

Kulunkundis’s win can also be traced to her ability to identify relative newcomers who can command the screen, such as One Battle’s feature film debutant Chase Infiniti, and Best Supporting Actress nominee Teyana Taylor.

– Adam Daniel

Costume designers who stole the (fashion) show

The Guardian’s fashion editor Morwenna Ferrier summed up this year’s Academy Awards fashion: “A lot of brown. A lot of feathers. A lot of Chanel.”

To this, I would add: a lot of white, a lot of brooches and a lot of red lipstick.

Beyond these themes, highlights included Sinners Best Actress in a Supporting Role nominee Wunmi Mosaku in sparkling emerald Louis Vuitton and beautiful baby bump, and Marty Supreme’s Odessa A’zion in louche black Valentino embroidered with glittering embroidery and three long diamond necklaces, including one worn by Pamela Anderson at the 2024 Met Gala.

Both Best Actor winner Michael B. Jordan (Sinners) and Best Actress winner Jessie Buckley (Hamnet) were on my list of best dressed. Unlike most of his compatriots, Jordan eschewed the usual tuxedo, or the trendy brown chosen by his co-star Miles Caton, and opted instead for an all-black custom suit by Louis Vuitton featuring a sharp Nehru collar, shining onyx buttons and double silver chain at his hip.

Buckley, the first Irish winner in the category, exemplified the strength of Matthieu Blazy’s newly reinvigorated Chanel in an off-the-shoulder red and pink gown paired with diamonds and a perfectly matched red lip.

Best Cinematography winner Autumn Durald Arkapaw was the first woman ever to win in this category for Sinners. Wearing a black Thom Browne suit with intricately embroidered long coat, black tie, slicked hair and fine jewellery, Durald Arkapaw struck a cool figure alongside the extravagant feathered Gucci concoction worn by Demi Moore to present the award.

The Best Costume Design nominees really shone this year. Marty Supreme’s designer Miyako Bellizzi was divine in archival SS99 Dior by John Galliano. Hamnet’s Malgosia Turzanska made a political statement with her ICE OUT pin affixed to her structured dress covered in thousands of safety pins.

Personally, it was wonderful to see Kate Hawley, who won for Frankenstein, wearing a voluminous white gown and black taffeta coat by Aotearoa New Zealand designer Rory William Docherty, adorned with magnificent archival Tiffany jewels. She wore the de rigueur red lippy too.

– Harriette Richards

Dominic Knight, Lecturer in Media Law, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Sydney; Adam Daniel, Associate Lecturer in Communication, Western Sydney University; Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia; Gregory Camp, Senior Lecturer, School of Music, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau, and Harriette Richards, Senior Lecturer, School of Fashion and Textiles, RMIT University

Is Social Media Addictive? How it Keeps You Clicking and the Harms it Can Cause

The consequences of social media overuse can be significiant. Recent studies have identified a wide range of pernicious effects. 

By Quynh Hoang

For years, big tech companies have placed the burden of managing screen time squarely on individuals and parents, operating on the assumption that capturing human attention is fair game.

But the social media sands may slowly be shifting. A test-case jury trial in Los Angeles is accusing big tech companies of creating “addiction machines”. While TikTok and Snapchat have already settled with the 20-year-old plaintiff, Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, is due to give evidence in the courtroom this week.

The European Commission recently issued a preliminary ruling against TikTok, stating that the app’s design – with features such as infinite scroll and autoplay – breaches the EU Digital Services Act. One industry expert told the BBC that the problem is “no longer just about toxic content, it’s about toxic design”.

Meta and other defendants have historically argued that their platforms are communication tools, not traps, and that “addiction” is a mischaracterisation of high engagement.

“I think it’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” Instagram chief Adam Mosseri testified in the LA court. He noted that the field of psychology does not classify social media addiction as an official diagnosis.

Tech giants maintain that users and parents have the agency and tools to manage screen time. However, a growing body of academic research suggests features like infinite scrolling, autoplay and push notifications are engineered to override human self-control.

Video: CBS News.

A state of ‘automated attachment’

My research with colleagues on digital consumption behaviour also challenges the idea that excessive social media use is a failure of personal willpower. Through interviews with 32 self-identified excessive users and an analysis of online discussions dedicated to heavy digital use, we found that consumers frequently enter a state of “automated attachment”.

This is when connection to the device becomes purely reflexive, as conscious decision-making is effectively suspended by the platform’s design.

We found that the impulse to use these platforms sometimes occurs before the user is even fully conscious. One participant admitted: “I’m waking up, I’m not even totally conscious, and I’m already doing things on the device.”

Another described this loss of agency vividly: “I found myself mindlessly opening the [TikTok] app every time I felt even the tiniest bit bored … My thumb was reaching to its old spot on reflex, without a conscious thought.”

Social media proponents argue that “screen addiction” isn’t the same as substance abuse. However, new neurophysiological evidence suggests that frequent engagement with these algorithms alters dopamine pathways, fostering a dependency that is “analogous to substance addiction”.

Strategies that keep users engaged

The argument that users should simply exercise willpower also needs to be understood in the context of the sophisticated strategies platforms employ to keep users engaged. These include:

1. Removing stopping cues

Features like infinite scroll, autoplay and push notifications create a continuous flow of content. By eliminating natural end-points, the design effectively shifts users into autopilot mode, making stopping a viewing session more difficult.

2. Variable rewards

Similar to a slot machine, algorithms deliver intermittent, unpredictable rewards such as likes and personalised videos. This unpredictability triggers the dopamine system, creating a compulsive cycle of seeking and anticipation.

3. Social pressure

Features such as notifications and time-limited story posts have been found to exploit psychological vulnerabilities, inducing anxiety that for many users can only be relieved by checking the app. Strategies employing “emotional steering” can take advantage of psychological vulnerabilities, such as people’s fear of missing out, to instil a sense of social obligation and guilt if they attempt to disconnect.

Vulnerability in children

The issue of social media addiction is of particular concern when it comes to children, whose impulse control mechanisms are still developing. The US trial’s plaintiff says she began using social media at the age of six, and that her early exposure to these platforms led to a spiral into addiction.

A growing body of research suggests that “variable reward schedules” are especially potent for developing minds, which exhibit a heightened sensitivity to rewards. Children lack the cognitive brakes to resist these dopamine loops because their emotional regulation and impulsivity controls are still developing.

Lawyers in the US trial have pointed to internal documents, known as “Project Myst”, which allegedly show that Meta knew parental controls were ineffective against these engagement loops. Meta’s attorney, Paul Schmidt, countered that the plaintiff’s struggles stemmed from pre-existing childhood trauma rather than platform design.

The company has long argued that it provides parents with “robust tools at their fingertips”, and that the primary issue is “behavioural” – because many parents fail to use them.

Our study heard from many adults (mainly in their 20s) who described the near-impossibility of controlling levels of use, despite their best efforts. If these adults cannot stop opening apps on reflex, expecting a child to exercise restraint with apps that affect human neurophysiology seems even more unrealistic.

Potential harms of overuse

The consequences of social media overuse can be significant. Our research and recent studies have identified a wide range of potential harms.

These include “psychological entrapment”. Participants in our study described a “feedback loop of doom and despair”. Users can turn to platforms to escape anxiety, only to find that the scrolling deepens their feelings of emptiness and isolation.

Excessive exposure to rapidly changing, highly stimulating content can fracture the user’s attention span, making it harder to focus on complex real-world tasks.

And many users describe feeling “defeated” by the technology. Social media’s erosion of autonomy can leave people unable to align their online actions, such as overlong sessions, with their intentions.

A ruling against social media companies in the LA court case, or enforced redesign of their apps in the EU, could have profound implications for the way these platforms are operated in future.

But while big tech companies have grown at dizzying rates over the past two decades, attempts to rein in their products on both sides of the Atlantic remain slow and painstaking. In this era of “use first, legislate later”, people all over the world, of all ages, are the laboratory mice.

Quynh Hoang, Lecturer in Marketing and Consumption, Department of Marketing and Strategy, University of Leicester

The Oscars are not a Meritocracy - There is a Complex Formula for Winning

Chris Rock on stage at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood where the annual Academy Awards ceremony for the Oscars is held. Photograph: Adam Taylor/Disney General Entertainment. 

By William Simon

Every January, Hollywood is overtaken by a massive Oscar prediction game, with studios, critics and commentators all playing a role in shaping the debate. But choosing a winner is more complicated than acknowledging a film’s artistic merit. The Oscars are decided on by a large peer group of some 10,000 Academy members, who confidentially vote for their colleagues in their specialised field. All eligible members, however, can vote on Best Picture.

In an era where nearly every major film is carefully packaged and marketed for profit, predicting an Oscar winner seems like a complex science.

The most crucial way a film positions itself as a contender relates to its status as a “prestige” picture. This is earned through highbrow themes, strategic release timing, critical acclaim, and plenty of lobbying.

What gives a film prestige?

Prestige pictures typically examine subjects that hit a nerve with Academy voters, such as injustice, intense relationships, and the triumph of the human spirit.

This thematic preoccupation is amply demonstrated through previous Best Picture winners including The King’s Speech (2010), 12 Years A Slave (2013), Philadelphia (1993) and Schindler’s List (1993). The only recent winner that seemed to deliberately reject such tropes was No Country for Old Men (2007).

This year’s top contenders also have these recognisable tropes. Hamnet, for instance, focuses on the misfortunes of William Shakespeare’s tragic family life.

Chloé Zhao’s Hamnet received eight Oscar nominations and won the 2026 Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture Drama. Focus Features

Meanwhile, Sinners (which has earned a record 16 nominations) is a thrilling genre-bender, combining supernatural horror with historical injustices endured by African Americans. Its originality places it in pole position for Best Original Screenplay.

Starring Michael B. Jordan as Stack (left) and his twin brother Smoke (right), Sinners became the most-awarded movie by a Black director at the BAFTAs. Warner Bros. Pictures

Timing, marketing and previous acclaim

The timing of a film’s release remains a key component of its prestige status. Most Oscar-nominated films are released between September and December. This keeps them fresh in voters’ minds during the nomination and voting periods.

Critical recognition also matters enormously. Voters are often fond of following the crowd and, as a result, will favour films that have already triumphed at significant events such as the Cannes Film Festival.

This year’s Best Actor race also illustrates how previous near misses, and commercial success, can build momentum for an actor.

Timothée Chalamet was previously nominated for A Complete Unknown (2024) and Call Me by Your Name (2017), and has been widely praised for his work in the blockbuster Dune franchise. This makes him a top contender for this year’s Best Actor award, even though his character in Marty Supreme is an unlikable parasitic hustler.

Similarly, front-runner Paul Thomas Anderson seems poised to claim the Best Director prize, after 11 previous nominations in various categories. His film, One Battle After Another, also connects with the zeitgeist. The current headlines about ICE raids, immigration detention centres and police crackdowns make it ahead of its time.

Oscar-winning potential is also determined by what industry insiders call “positive buzz”. Creating this buzz is a strategic and expensive undertaking, funded by major studios, that propels certain films into awards contention.

Greta Gerwig’s Barbie (2023) was a good example. Warner Bros is reported to have matched the film’s production budget with an equally substantial marketing budget and secured more than 100 brand partnerships (including Airbnb and Burger King). “Pinkification” dominated social media and positioned the film as having significant cultural relevance.

20th Century Studios appear to be adopting a similar strategy for the upcoming The Devil Wears Prada 2.

Networks and lobbying

Professional networks allow certain films to benefit from what American sociologist Robert K. Merton called “cumulative advantage”. Applied here, this principle explains how established talent attracts more prestigious collaborators, producing films that Academy voters are more likely to take seriously, and therefore vote for. As a result, Oscar success becomes increasingly concentrated in the same elite circles.

The Academy’s newly introduced Achievement in Casting category is a good example of how collaborative advantage plays out in films with A-listers.

Consider Leonardo Di Caprio’s commanding presence in One Battle After Another, or the ongoing partnership between director Yorgos Lanthimos and actress Emma Stone. Stone’s cold and calculating character in Bugonia is a departure from her more empathetic roles, while Di Caprio’s fallible anti-hero father is equally far removed from previous “leading man” characters.

When famous actors play against type, they generate conversations that amplify a film’s visibility – creating awards-season talking points.

Yorgos Lanthimos’s Bugonia has earned four Oscar nominations, with Emma Stone already a two-time winner. Universal Pictures International Australasia

Lobbying also has a role to play. Direct lobbying involves public relations ploys to embed a movie into the audience’s consciousness and, crucially, into the minds of Academy voters. This might look like issuing industry notices, setting up magazine features, screeners, previews, free ticket offers, and special events (such as question and answer sessions).

But there’s also a form of indirect lobbying, that is arguably more effective in planting favourable stories about a film, or denigrating opponents.

Shakespeare in Love’s Best Picture win over Saving Private Ryan in 1999 remains the best example of how an aggressive campaign can override merit. In this case the campaign was backed by Harvey Weinstein – then head of Miramax (and not yet a convicted sexual abuser) – who, among other things, resorted to badmouthing Saving Private Ryan to journalists.

Oscar prediction remains a science that combines art, commerce, marketing and – to some extent – merit. It’s a dazzling lottery that rewards not the “best” in Hollywood, but the more “probable”.

William Simon, Casual Lecturer (Education and English Departments), University of Tasmania

Paris Fashion Week: The Feather Forecast, Lùchen's Reclaimed Couture Takes Wing in the French Capital

The Lùchen presentation in Paris was the first for the New York designer. Photograph (above) by Rahul Rekapalli for DAM 

At Paris Fashion Week, New York-based designer Lu Chen debuted her latest couture collection in the French capital. The presentation focused on sculptural silhouettes, layered textures and innovative surfaces constructed from reclaimed elements. Combining experimental fabrication with disciplined structure, Chen proposed a contemporary vision of couture, highlighting both the creative potential of reused materials and a new generation’s approach to craft and design. Story by Antonio Visconti. Photographs by Rahul Rekapalli

Designer Lu Chen with  

her new pieces in Paris.

AMID the elegant Belle Epoque salons on Boulevard de Courcelles in Paris, designer Lu Chen introduced her most recent work. Models struck poses among the mannequins and demonstrated how the designs challenge conventional ideas of couture. 

Presented during a sunny spring afternoon, the collection unfolded as a quiet study in material experimentation, where editors, journalists, photographers and buyers moved closely around the pieces to observe their intricate surfaces and unusual structures.

Rather than treating clothing as static form, the designer investigates how fabric and unconventional materials react when placed in dialogue with the human body. 

The silhouettes in this collection shift between restriction and release. Some pieces appear suspended around the figure in tight volumes, the body kept in carefully engineered shapes, while others fall into looser draped forms that respond to gravity and movement.

Lu Chen’s new work shows a designer intent on expanding the vocabulary of contemporary couture, with a fusion of recycled materials, delicate skill, and structural innovation

Feather-like materials create

an elegant tromp l'oeil effect.

Central to the collection is an exploration of feather-like textures. Instead of relying solely on natural plumage, Chen constructs elaborate surfaces from fragments of reclaimed textiles and synthetic materials. 

These small pieces are meticulously cut and assembled, creating layered fields that resemble feathers at a distance but reveal their composite origins up close. The resulting effect suggests a new kind of couture embellishment: one formed through accumulation and reconstruction rather than traditional ornament.

This dialogue between authenticity and artifice runs throughout the presentation. Real feathers appear sparingly, introducing a moment of softness and fragility among the denser, constructed surfaces. 

Their presence draws attention to the contrast between organic delicacy and the engineered textures built from reclaimed materials. In doing so, Chen subtly questions the hierarchy of preciousness that has historically defined couture craftsmanship.

Instead of relying on natural plumage, feather-like elements are created from fragments of reclaimed textiles and synthetic material which are central to the collection

Using recycled materials is

central to Lu Chen's ethos.

The material palette extends well beyond fabric. Recycled acrylic forms part of the structural framework in several garments, while unexpected elements, such as crushed shells, fragments resembling eggshell, and small glass spheres, are incorporated as textural accents. These details lend the pieces an almost geological quality, as if the garments had grown through layers of sediment rather than been assembled in an atelier.

Despite this experimental spirit, the collection remains grounded in a finely tailored approach to structure. Chen’s training at Parsons School of Design is evident in the precise manipulation of form. Panels are suspended, layered, and offset to create tension between rigidity and fluidity. In some looks, fabric cascades in weighted folds that shift with each step of the wearer; in others, sculptural shapes appear to hover slightly away from the body, suggesting both protection and distance.

What emerges is a vision of couture where each fragment, seam, and textile acts as evidence of the designer’s investigation into how clothing can evolve. As Paris Fashion Week continues to welcome a new generation of experimental voices, Chen’s presentation signals a designer intent on expanding the vocabulary of contemporary couture. Through its fusion of recycled materials, delicate skill, and structural innovation, Chen evokes a future in which luxury is not defined only by opulence, but by intelligence and imagination.

See more highlights from the Lùchen couture presentation during Paris Fashion Week 

Paris Fashion Week: Ghost Protocol Anrealage’s Futuristic Runway Where Clothing Becomes Code and Identity Becomes Fluid

Anrealage's scintillating designs lit up with lights embedded in the textiles, on the runway at IRCAM in Paris. 

At Paris Fashion Week, Kunihiko Morinaga delivered one of the season’s most intellectually charged shows, exploring unsettling territory between visibility and disappearance. Drawing on the cyberpunk philosophy of Ghost in the Shell, he imagined garments that could merge with their surroundings and dissolve into digital imagery. The result was thought-provoking, transforming fashion into a meditation on identity and the boundary between the real and the virtual. Story by Jeanne-Marie Cilento

The designs merged with the iridescent

background on the runway in Paris. 

AT a moment when technology is reshaping not only how we communicate but how we perceive ourselves, Japanese designer Kunihiko Morinaga continues to position fashion at the intersection of philosophy, science and spectacle. His new Autumn-Winter 2026/2027 collection, titled Ghost, is an ambitious exploration of visibility, identity and the increasingly porous boundary between the body and the digital world.

Held at IRCAM (Institut de Recherche et Coordination Acoustique/Musique), where science, architecture and the avant-garde arts regularly intersect, Kunihiko Morinaga staged one of the most intriguing and provocative shows of Paris Fashion Week. The designer’s collection evoked the shifting relationship with the human body in an increasingly digital age.

Founded in 1977 by composer Pierre Boulez, IRCAM has long served as one of the world’s leading laboratories for experimental sound and multimedia research. The complex, which also has spaces underground, has hosted generations of artists exploring the frontier between art and technology. Morinaga’s decision to present his collection here felt especially apt: like IRCAM’s composers and digital pioneers, the designer treats creativity as a form of research, using fashion to test ideas about perception, space and the future of human expression.

Morinaga has long approached fashion as experimental design, using clothing to explore philosophical questions about reality and illusion. This season he turned to the cyberpunk universe of Ghost in the Shell, a cultural touchstone that imagines a future where the boundaries between humans and machines dissolve. Translating that concept into fashion, the designer proposed garments that challenge the very idea of visibility.

The collision of retro glamour and futuristic technology created a visual tension that ran throughout the collection

Seventies references made an 

interesting combination with 

the futuristic designs. 

Yet Morinaga’s collection was not solely a technological demonstration. Beneath the digital spectacle lay a strong sense of form and craft. Many silhouettes were sculptural and protective, their rounded volumes recalling biological forms or futuristic armour. 

Others referenced the exuberant spirit of 1970s fashion, with flared trousers, layered structures and flamboyant ruffles introducing an unexpected note of theatricality. The collision of retro glamour and futuristic technology created a visual tension that ran throughout the collection.

Several looks appeared to merge with their surroundings, their surfaces animated by shifting patterns and projected imagery that responded to the environment around them. Instead of presenting clothing as a static object, Morinaga transformed it into a responsive interface. 

Dresses, coats and tailored pieces seemed to flicker between presence and absence as visual information flowed across their surfaces. At moments, the wearer appeared almost absorbed into the background, as though the body itself were dissolving into a digital landscape.

This illusion was achieved through an ambitious collaboration with Led Tokyo, whose advanced display systems allowed garments to function like moving screens. Thousands of tiny lights embedded within the fabric generated constantly changing imagery, enabling clothing to mimic surrounding patterns or display entirely new ones. The effect suggested a future in which garments operate less like textiles and more like dynamic media platforms.

Thousands of tiny lights embedded in the fabric generated changing imagery, enabling clothing to mimic surrounding patterns or display entirely new ones

The blurred, painterly effects made 

the designs seem out of focus.  

Prints played an equally important role in shaping the narrative. Psychedelic florals appeared alongside motifs reminiscent of circuit boards, digital code and fragmented imagery, evoking the visual overload of contemporary life on multiple screens.

Some fabrics carried painterly effects that seemed almost blurred, as if the images themselves were slipping in and out of focus. 

These textiles were produced using advanced printing methods developed by Kyocera, allowing highly detailed imagery to be rendered while significantly reducing water consumption in the production process.

The setting amplified the conceptual drama. As projections moved across IRCAM’s interior, garments and environment began to interact in unpredictable ways.

Models appeared at times sharply defined, at other moments nearly invisible against the shifting visual backdrop. The runway became a constantly transforming field where clothing, architecture and technology blurred into a single immersive experience.

In a world increasingly mediated by screens, data and digital environments, the collection suggested that the human presence may no longer be fixed 

Romance and history meet in this enchanting

 jacket: futuristic in construction but 16th 

Century in silhouette 

Morinaga founded Anrealage in 2003, combining the words “real,” “unreal” and “age” to describe his vision of contemporary fashion. Over the past two decades he has steadily built a reputation for pushing the boundaries of what clothing can be, frequently merging traditional craftsmanship with experimental technology.

With Ghost, that inquiry reached a new level of sophistication. Rather than simply presenting futuristic garments, Morinaga posed a deeper question about identity itself. 

In a world increasingly mediated by screens, data and digital environments, the collection suggested that the human presence may no longer be fixed or easily defined. Fashion, in this context, becomes a powerful tool for exploring how we appear.  

In the end, the collection lingered as a haunting thought experiment. If clothing can dissolve the body into its surroundings, what remains of the self? 

Morinaga’s answer is deliberately ambiguous. Somewhere between presence and absence, between human and machine, fashion reveals a new territory, one where identity flickers like light across a screen.

See more highlights from Kunihiko Morinaga's Anrealage AW26/27 collection in Paris