Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Circus of Fashion - Suzy Menkes | A Must Read

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Faust
    kitsch killer
    • Sep 2006
    • 37852

    The Circus of Fashion - Suzy Menkes | A Must Read

    Excellent article by Suzy Menkes on the pageantry and general shallowness and lack of critical perspective that surrounds the fashion shows.

    It touches on quite a few points we discuss here and I hope it will spur a good discussion.
    Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

    StyleZeitgeist Magazine
  • ES3K
    Senior Member
    • Oct 2008
    • 530

    #2
    Thanks for the link. I do sign anything she says.

    BTW, ironically I've just seen some NYFW pictures of Suzy Menkes on Mira Duma's Instagram.

    Comment

    • BSR
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2008
      • 1562

      #3
      Emmanuelle Alt coined as the paradigm for "understated chic" strikes me as the dumbest thing i've read this month.
      pix

      Originally posted by Fuuma
      Fuck you and your viewpoint, I hate this depoliticized environment where every opinion should be respected, no matter how moronic. My avatar was chosen just for you, die in a ditch fucker.

      Comment

      • Faust
        kitsch killer
        • Sep 2006
        • 37852

        #4
        You can always count on the incurable French optimism to highlight the one fault in anything good.
        Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

        StyleZeitgeist Magazine

        Comment

        • ES3K
          Senior Member
          • Oct 2008
          • 530

          #5
          Compared to Bryanboy she's understated.

          Comment

          • Dane
            HAMMERTIME
            • Feb 2011
            • 3252

            #6
            It's not totally fair to fault the bloggers for saying who sent them gifts...there was a law passed a year or two ago saying that such things had to be disclosed. I can't recall the exact rules, but it was intended to notify the reader that what they were reading may have some bias. That being said, most bloggers don't know how to interpret the law, so many just put in the disclaimer so they didn't get in trouble, no matter if it was relevant (many also just ignored it completely)

            That also being said, Menkes was probably referring more to how they don't just say they were given a gift, they give it a full 7-day tribute with many a selfie.
            i traded my LUC jeans + Julius belt + Neil Barrett jeans for a blamain biker jeans

            Comment

            • laika
              moderator
              • Sep 2006
              • 3787

              #7
              This is a good mantra: “It isn’t good because you like it; you like it because it’s good.”
              ...I mean the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent, the half of art whose other half is the eternal and the immutable.

              Comment

              • BSR
                Senior Member
                • Aug 2008
                • 1562

                #8
                ^sounds a bit naive, doesn't it?

                Originally posted by Spinoza's Ethics, Part 3, Proposition 9, Scholium
                It is thus plain from what has been said, that in no case do we strive for, wish for, long for, or desire anything, because we deem it to be good, but on the other hand we deem a thing to be good, because we strive for it, wish for it, long for it, or desire it.
                pix

                Originally posted by Fuuma
                Fuck you and your viewpoint, I hate this depoliticized environment where every opinion should be respected, no matter how moronic. My avatar was chosen just for you, die in a ditch fucker.

                Comment

                • laika
                  moderator
                  • Sep 2006
                  • 3787

                  #9
                  ^indeed. But I suppose the critic is supposed to strive to avoid those sensations of wishing/longing/desiring and to seek what is good regardless? It's impossible, of course, but how else do we distinguish a critic, if not by this aspiration?
                  ...I mean the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent, the half of art whose other half is the eternal and the immutable.

                  Comment

                  • Chant
                    Banned
                    • Jun 2008
                    • 2775

                    #10
                    Cet article est la pire merde que j'aie jamais lue... Cette truffe se plaint que ses privilèges ne lui soient plus exclusivement réservés et que les manants se piquent maintenant de s'habiller à la mode, et, qui plus est, de se prendre en photo pour les publier dans les magazines...
                    Quand au "sens critique" qui serait l'apanage de la seule aristocratie journalistique : il n'y a jamais eu aucun discours critique digne de ce nom dans la presse spécialisée - ne serait-ce qu'en raison du mode de financement de ces revues qui dépendent entièrement de la publicité. Alors la remarque sur les cadeaux que recevraient les bloggers, c'est la paille sur le gâteau poutré.

                    Abstract for non French readers :

                    Suzy's good ol'times


                    The Repugnant Present


                    Short translation : Despite what this very gentle lady likes to think, there was no added value in the former "fashion journalism" compared to the bloggers' offer, since they never offered any critical discourse. And the reason why is that the magazines depend entirely on publicity. Hence her critics to the lack of ethic is absolutely laughable. Her whining about how nice times were in the aristocratic/analogical era are nothing but pathetic, and the symptom that the times have changed, and let her on the downside of the road.
                    Last edited by Chant; 02-11-2013, 09:51 AM.

                    Comment

                    • BSR
                      Senior Member
                      • Aug 2008
                      • 1562

                      #11
                      Originally posted by laika View Post
                      ^indeed. But I suppose the critic is supposed to strive to avoid those sensations of wishing/longing/desiring and to seek what is good regardless? It's impossible, of course, but how else do we distinguish a critic, if not by this aspiration?
                      if spinoza is right, i suppose the critic is the one who seeks for the causes that account for his desires, and is capable, in turn, to explain why what he finds good seems good to him. but the 'good in itself' is certainly not something that would exist in this theory.

                      ps for the anti-relativist league: it does not mean that there is nothing to say beyond 'to each his own', since the causal relation between the things that affect me and the birth of my desires is certainly something that is subject to laws, and then, to universality.
                      pix

                      Originally posted by Fuuma
                      Fuck you and your viewpoint, I hate this depoliticized environment where every opinion should be respected, no matter how moronic. My avatar was chosen just for you, die in a ditch fucker.

                      Comment

                      • Fuuma
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2006
                        • 4050

                        #12
                        FASHION, YOU'VE CHANGED, IN THE 90S YOU USED TO BE ABOUT THE RUNWAYS, MAN!!!!
                        Selling CCP, Harnden, Raf, Rick etc.
                        http://www.stylezeitgeist.com/forums...me-other-stuff

                        Comment

                        • Fuuma
                          Senior Member
                          • Sep 2006
                          • 4050

                          #13
                          Originally posted by BSR View Post
                          if spinoza is right, i suppose the critic is the one who seeks for the causes that account for his desires, and is capable, in turn, to explain why what he finds good seems good to him. but the 'good in itself' is certainly not something that would exist in this theory.

                          ps for the anti-relativist league: it does not mean that there is nothing to say beyond 'to each his own', since the causal relation between the things that affect me and the birth of my desires is certainly something that is subject to laws, and then, to universality.
                          Selling CCP, Harnden, Raf, Rick etc.
                          http://www.stylezeitgeist.com/forums...me-other-stuff

                          Comment

                          • Fuuma
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2006
                            • 4050

                            #14
                            Originally posted by copacetic
                            reputable newspapers often go to great pains to separate business interests from editorial decisions. equating the ethical standards of bryanboy with those of the new york times is absurd.
                            He was referring to specialized magazines (think Vogue) which are pretty much embedded in the fashion production and distribution system in a way bryanboy will never be.
                            Selling CCP, Harnden, Raf, Rick etc.
                            http://www.stylezeitgeist.com/forums...me-other-stuff

                            Comment

                            • Fuuma
                              Senior Member
                              • Sep 2006
                              • 4050

                              #15
                              Originally posted by BSR View Post
                              if spinoza is right, i suppose the critic is the one who seeks for the causes that account for his desires, and is capable, in turn, to explain why what he finds good seems good to him. but the 'good in itself' is certainly not something that would exist in this theory.

                              ps for the anti-relativist league: it does not mean that there is nothing to say beyond 'to each his own', since the causal relation between the things that affect me and the birth of my desires is certainly something that is subject to laws, and then, to universality.
                              But isn't the prototypical critic as a torchbearer showing the way toward new artistic expression (e.g. Greenberg) doing much more than simply connecting his desires to a manifestation and then explaining the relationship? I mean they actually anticipate (cause?) new forms of art to emerge by letting their desires dictate what should be.
                              Selling CCP, Harnden, Raf, Rick etc.
                              http://www.stylezeitgeist.com/forums...me-other-stuff

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X
                              😀
                              🥰
                              🤢
                              😎
                              😡
                              👍
                              👎