Approaches to fashion

[Fuuma]

if by this you didn't mean specializing in terrorism but rather your specialty being on terrorism/ists, i know one. an anthropologist who has a dual appointment including one at université de paris :-D

There are dudes on American tv who are "terrorism experts", they don't speak Arabic, Farsi or whatever, don't know the culture or history except as amateurs etc but they get to speak on what is happening in Iran or why Hezbollah is doing what it is doing cause they are "terrorism experts", gives them a lot of corporate and gov speaking gigs too. Everything sorta revolves around bearded dudes+bombs in your face if you don't do X according to these dudes.

[galia]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think there is such a thing as "université de paris". There are many universities in Paris, and all of them are called "université de paris + something" none is just plain that

[525252]

No Faust, no brownie points for those who poo poo intelligence and then call themselves the "REAL intellectual"

[Fuuma]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think there is such a thing as "université de paris". There are many universities in Paris, and all of them are called "université de paris + something" none is just plain that

I'm assuming he means IV or something.

[shah]

i didn't think it appropriate to reveal his exact location but anyway he's at another institute there in paris not one of the paris I-XIII

[Faust]

My problem is that you attack global edifices (i.e. academic writing is crap) instead of "author x for thing x". Now there are many illegitimate fields (i.e. being a terrorism specialist is absurd) but I'm pretty sure philosophy or whatever are as legitimate as the novel.

Quality of writing varies wildly: i.e. Kant is very methodical and boring but Nietzsche isn't. Bataille is a hoot while Sartre is tedious etc.

Of course it is (not sure about whatever being as important as literature though ). And by the way, plenty of intellectuals have made the same points I make (George Orwell on bad academic writing, Richard Rorty on literature v. philosophy and so on). Or would you accuse them of anti-intellectualism as well?

Yet, you would undoubtedly dismiss someone like Lionel Trilling, for example, when he writes on authenticity and laika has no patience for the writing of Robert Hughes. I could accuse both of you of anti-intellectualism, but I know better (and I thought you did too).

[Lane]

but seriously guys is this a joke

I think its a joke people drop 20k a semester to study fashion

[laika]

Yet, you would undoubtedly dismiss someone like Lionel Trilling, for example, when he writes on authenticity and laika has no patience for the writing of Robert Hughes. I could accuse both of you of anti-intellectualism, but I know better (and I thought you did too).

Interesting suspension of logic here.

I don't like Robert Hughes, but I like many other art critics, theorists, and historians. I have specific reasons for not liking Robert Hughes--he is culturally conservative,self-congratulatory, likes to substitutes opinion for argument, and and often has frumpy taste. I also have specific reasons for not liking Clifford Geertz, but that doesn't mean I consider his work to be worthless poseur crap. Oh no.

Being intellectually critical of a specific intellectual for particular reasons does not make one anti-intellectual. To the contrary, it is part of the work of being an intellectual.
It is not the same thing as dismissing wholesale an entire dimension of production because you find it hard or boring to read. Orwell did not do that, nor did Rorty.

In the end, a person maintaining your position is left with this, and Fuuma put it perfectly.

if you don't want tackle great THEORETICAL work or questions because you like great work of arts (novels, paintings) but not things like sociology and philosophy (Heidegger or Barthes are at least as important to the XXth century as ANY novelist including Proust) it is your loss. There is no way you'll be able to properly demonstrate their lack of importance though as you would need the proper structure of some of said theoretical works to do that.

We all have to lose something. But how odd that you are a self-proclaimed elitist when it comes to fashion and completely disparage what is elite in the intellectual/academic field.

[Faust]

I will reiterate for the last time, because it's obviously falling on death ears, that I disparage what is laboriously written in order to substitute hot air for substance and that which is culturally irrelevant in the big scheme of things because it shuts out the outside world. Nothing anti-intellectual about that, so please stop twisting my words. We've been through this debate before, it's becoming exhausting, so why don't we just agree to disagree and move on.

And there is no suspension of logic on my part at all. I don't like certain intellectuals' writing (Judith Butler), but I like others. Same goes for you. And that does not mean I don't like dense reading. I like it, when it says something worth saying.

Barthes didn't have to write a mind-numbing book to conclude that signifiers attached to fashion terms are arbitrary - what a discovery! Same one that took Elizabeth Hawes an entire sentence to summarize thirty years prior, "Fashion is apt to insist one year that you are nobody if you wear flat heels and then turn right around and throw thousands of them in your face."

(Yes, you will now accuse me of reductionism, a favorite academic pejorative, we've been through this one before as well.)

[laika]

Barthes didn't have to write a mind-numbing book to conclude that signifiers attached to fashion terms are arbitrary - what a discovery! Same one that took Elizabeth Hawes an entire sentence to summarize thirty years prior, "Fashion is apt to insist one year that you are nobody if you wear flat heels and then turn right around and throw thousands of them in your face."

Unfortunately for your argument, that's not the point of the book. It's the point of departure. Sorry you're not interested. I'll move on as well.

[Chant]

Let's not turn this into a psychoanalytical session, shall we? I could also speculate that your rigorous defense of academia is insecurity.

There is a slight difference between defending and attacking. I don't see how defending a field that you're part of could be seen as a proof of insecurity. On the other hand, feeling the repetitive urge (you did it many times and in many places) to attack it globally as a whole, wich is the pathognomonic sign of primary anti-intellectualism, is very strange. And if at least three members here have the very same impression, there must be some truth in it. Laika is not twisting your words at all, I could quote you.

But, on the contrary to Fuuma, I don't find it puzzling. Where are you talking from ? Journalism. Where are we talking from ? Academic field. And it's not a surprise to realize that there are some frictions between these fields.

[Chant]

To say it even more shortly : "numbers" + "hot air masturbation" makes me wonder where this place is exactly going.

EDIT : "Hot air masturbation" looks like a nice sex-toy project. Or maybe for another manifesto...

[BSR]

Heidegger or Barthes are at least as important to the XXth century as ANY novelist including Proust

Immense facepalm at this.
Heidegger is 100% useless and probably the most overestimated philosopher of the century. And Barthes is a nice critic, and is ok for Sunday afternoon, but isn't very innovative. And he wrote many crap articles and books.

Well, I agree with you only if you equate 'important to the XXth century' to the sum of (bullshit) papers one has devoted to an author between 1900 and 1999.

[525252]

I think its a joke people drop 20k a semester to study fashion

universities: joke
academia: not really a joke

having just witnessed an art school reform its curriculum so that twitter and tumblr accounts are compulsory, I can safely say I have had enough of cynical institutions that treat their students and staff like idiots in exchange for money. I found refuge a year or two ago here to share ideas which otherwise would have been tossed around with half interested doubt. More importantly I've learnt from SZ more than a university could dream to offer. It is a most disappointing thing though, when I see that familiar cynicism appearing around here.


speaking of cynicism: BSR, what do you enjoy?

[Faust]

BSR enjoys Disney cartoons and Grand Theft Auto. Because obviously there is nothing in between that and Heidegger.