Carol Christian Poell

[justine]

I'd really like that all the hidden french intellectuals on this forum, including french primary anti-intellectuals, french primary anti-intellectuals with a sense of humor, french intellectuals simulating french primary anti-intellectuals should reveal their true nationality.

Papieren Bitte!

[Faust]

i'm not sure if it's because i had a lot of exposure to twentieth century viennese literature before i discovered ccp - but i immediately made a connection from ccp themes to the aphorisms of karl kraus, and, especially, the tone and themes of the work of thomas bernhard.

Yea, it's definitely not Jelinek... or is it?!

[Faust]

Papieren Bitte!

nicht fierstein

[laika]

Yea, it's definitely not Jelinek... or is it?!

I shudder to think of clothes that would embody that world....
she is amazing though.



Pnod, I'm still thinking about the matthew barney thing. I definitely see it visually, but Poell actually seems much more straightforward in what he's trying to communicate.

[Faust]

I don't know about that.

[laika]

I don't know about that.

yeah, I can see why not everyone would be a fan. I have rarely read writing that elicited such a physical reaction from me though. I had to put it down a lot.

sorry, OT.

[zamb]

I'd really like that all the hidden french intellectuals on this forum, including french primary anti-intellectuals, french primary anti-intellectuals with a sense of humor, french intellectuals simulating french primary anti-intellectuals should reveal their true nationality.

Im an irie Jamaican, we brought weed, football (soccer) and Dancehall to paris........Marcus Garvey...............
Jah Rastafari........

[kira]

Pnod- I see the Barney relationship very much now. I am not sure if I can be unbiased given my situation though... But my initial thoughts after reading your post:

For MB, I see his work as an exploration of what it is/could be/was to be female. It is a desire to satisfy or express a part of the female psychological self that exists within, but comes from a physically male perspective. It is not denouncing or reversing the rolls to me but more of a way to unite the two (within his own context and understanding) without loosing the qualities of both, or having one be dominant. Or perhaps that being one of the goals. There are many other layers for sure, but this is what I think about in terms of this discussion.

I feel similarly about Poell. There is a physical exploration of the female 'idea' in the female pieces and very much so in his male pieces. I think they are more successful in the male pieces and that perhaps why that is the more dominant avenue. Or perhaps there is no need then to explore the idea of the female form, that would make most sense. Because it is not about exploring the form in that way. (I think the pregnant pieces are another are that speaks to this but in a different way). I am still learning about Poell and this is a more instinctual answer.

I guess what I think I am trying(maybe failing) to articulate, is that it is the male psychological side trying to physically interpret, understand, explore the notions of the female, in various historic contexts in both cases...

There are so many similarities between to the two to me, that make so much sense now. Orifice - plugged or open, Restraint in so many forms, Animal- skin, blood, Sexuality- embracing, combining, hiding, etc.

It would be very interesting to find out if they know each other...

I need to think more on this so that I can be more clear.

[AKA*NYC]

It would be very interesting to find out if they know each other...

i doubt it but i'd be curious to know if they know of each other

[kira]

i doubt it but i'd be curious to know if they know of each other

that would be more likely yes, interesting either way...

[AKA*NYC]

that would be more likely yes, interesting either way...

let's find out

[kira]

am on the case.

[crouka]

in the days they were doing those collections for women, the team consisted of six indispensables (except him), and four of whom were women.
each collections and pieces there carried stories about which there is not enough time to say things now. but none of them were for expressing likes and dislikes of sexes.

Q: what do you think fashion today is losing?
"its significance it used to have, since it has lost its meaning and social reference.
in fact, it has become superficial and is mostly about self celebration, styling and making money."

this statement was also from the same days (and his thought was to lead to the mainstream/downstream).
it seemed that he wanted to object to the way the then industry was.
and the fashion world for women might have looked escalated and worse because of the larger scale.
I guess that had something to do with those collections being ironic and defiant.
the pent-up objection might have reached the critical state around the time.
although every profile says they started womens from 99 somehow, they had been doing it much earlier. and the clothes had been classic and beautiful.

a polaroid he took in 2001

[Fuuma]

Pnod- I see the Barney relationship very much now. I am not sure if I can be unbiased given my situation though... But my initial thoughts after reading your post:

For MB, I see his work as an exploration of what it is/could be/was to be female. It is a desire to satisfy or express a part of the female psychological self that exists within, but comes from a physically male perspective. It is not denouncing or reversing the rolls to me but more of a way to unite the two (within his own context and understanding) without loosing the qualities of both, or having one be dominant. Or perhaps that being one of the goals. There are many other layers for sure, but this is what I think about in terms of this discussion.

I feel similarly about Poell. There is a physical exploration of the female 'idea' in the female pieces and very much so in his male pieces. I think they are more successful in the male pieces and that perhaps why that is the more dominant avenue. Or perhaps there is no need then to explore the idea of the female form, that would make most sense. Because it is not about exploring the form in that way. (I think the pregnant pieces are another are that speaks to this but in a different way). I am still learning about Poell and this is a more instinctual answer.

I guess what I think I am trying(maybe failing) to articulate, is that it is the male psychological side trying to physically interpret, understand, explore the notions of the female, in various historic contexts in both cases...

There are so many similarities between to the two to me, that make so much sense now. Orifice - plugged or open, Restraint in so many forms, Animal- skin, blood, Sexuality- embracing, combining, hiding, etc.

It would be very interesting to find out if they know each other...

I need to think more on this so that I can be more clear.

To be fair Poell didn't make his whole career about his penis...

Sorry, cheap shot but I had to say it.

[philip nod]

dude its not about the penis its about gender indifferentiation