Filed under: 2011, HEROES, MY WOMEN, NEED TO KNOW, WORDS | Tags: Lady Gaga, Memorandum No.3, V Magazine
Doesn’t the integrity of the critic become compromised when their writings are consistently plagued with negativity? When the public is no longer surprised or excited by the unpredictability of the writer, but rather has grown to expect the same cynicism from the same cynic? When we can predict the same predictable review from the same predictable reviewer? Accomplished creators of fashion and music have a visceral effect on the world, which is consequently why they are publicly distinguished. So why do so many notable critics seem so impervious to the emotion of the work? Why such indifference? Does intellectualism replace feeling? It’s so easy to say something is bad. It’s so easy to write, “One star, hated it, worst show of the season.” It’s much more challenging to reckon with and analyze a work. It requires research, but maybe no one does their research anymore. So my question, V readers, is this: when does the critique or review become insult and not insight? Injury and not intellect?
I’m going to propose a term to describe this movement in critical journalism: Extreme Critic Fundamentalism. I define this term as instilling fear in the hopes and dreams of young inventors in order to establish an echelon of tastemakers. There is a difference between getting a B- in Biology with a series of poignant red marks from your teacher and being given a spanking with a ruler by an old nun. The former we can learn from, while the latter is just painful. The artist is the general and captain of his or her artistic ship, always ready and willing to take the first blow and drown if an iceberg is hit. But in reviews, should critics not reveal all the scientific, mathematical, and pertinent information to explain why the Titanic could not withstand the blow, or why other cruise ships were successful?
* The temperature of the water.
* The construction of the ship.
* The weight of the cargo.
* The number of passengers.
* The disorganization of the crew.
Where my argument leads is to the perspective space of art, which is subjective and not ultimately rooted in mathematics or physics. Is it not even more critical for fashion and art critics to be profusely informed not only in art history but in the subliminal? The public operates with the assumption that critics are experts in their respective fields. But are they? Does every critic have the soul to really receive a work in the transcendental sense? The out-of-body experience of art?
In the age of the Internet, when collections and performances are so accessible to the public and anyone can post a review on Facebook or Twitter, shouldn’t columnists and reviewers, such as Cathy Horyn, employ a more modern and forward approach to criticism, one that separates them from the average individual at home on their laptop? The public is certainly not stupid, and as Twitter queen, I can testify that the range of artistic and brilliant intellectuals I hear from on a daily basis is staggering and inspiring. In the year 2011, everyone is posting reviews. So how does someone like Ms. Horyn separate herself from the online pack? The reality of today’s media is that there are no echelons, and if they’re not careful, the most astute and educated journalists can be reduced to gossipers, while a 14-year-old who doesn’t even have a high school locker yet can master social media engines and, incidentally, generate a specific, well-thought-out, debatable opinion about fashion and music that is then considered by 200 million people on Twitter. Take Tavi Gevinson. She’s 15, and Rodarte created an entire project inspired by her. Her site is thestylerookie.com. I adore her, and her prodigious and well-written blog is the future of journalism. The paparazzi has similarly been usurped by the camera-toting everyman. That magical moment of the movie star posing in front of the Metropolitan Museum is no longer so magical. Now everyone has a fucking cell phone and can take that same fucking picture.
Why do we harp on the predictability of the infamous fashion critic? The predictability of the most notoriously harsh critics who continue writing their notoriously harsh reviews? Why give the elephant in the room a peanut if it has already snapped its trunk at you? That peanut was dead on arrival. To be fair,
Ms. Horyn, the more critical question to ask is: when did the pretense of fashion become more important than its influence on a generation? Why have we decided that one person’s opinion matters more than anyone else’s? Of all the legendary designers I have been blessed to work with, the greatest discovery has been their kindness and their lack of pretense. They care not for hierarchy or position. They are so good, and so precise, that all that matters to them while they’re pinning their perfectly customized garment to my body is the way it makes me feel. Perhaps the pretension belongs in formaldehyde. And the hierarchy is embalmed — for us all to remember nostalgically, and honor that it once was modern, but is now irrelevant. Peanut.
Filed under: 2010, MY WOMEN | Tags: Dree Hemingway, Lady Gaga, liquor, Nick Knight, NYC, Show Studio
Filed under: 2009, MY WOMEN | Tags: Angela Ahrendts, Barbra Streisand, Belizean Grove, Donna Karan, Dunhill, Lady Gaga, Liz Beshel, Margaret Thatcher, Michelle Obama, Private members clubs, Shami Chakrabati, The Alexandra Club, The Colony Club, Tory Burch, Vivienne Westwood, Women-only clubs
After having a rather heated conversation with an acquaintance of mine who works at Dunhill, it struck me that there was something of vital importance missing in the world…
Prior to our meeting, I had gone onto the company website and discovered something much more delightful than a few exquisite-yet-shockingly-expensive cigarette cases – The Dunhill Homes. Three rather special buildings have been lovingly restored and refurbished: one in London, another in Shanghai, and a third in Tokyo. The Homes aren’t just emporiums of all things menswear, motoring and modernity – they are exclusive clubs that men can retire to; retreating from the stresses and strains of demanding jobs, claustrophobic commuter traffic, and (most likely) tiresome wives and girlfriends.
By way of emphasising the last point; on the first webpage of the ‘Homes’ section there is an introductory sentence that immediately alienates the female browser: ‘Committed to advancing the pursuit of male indulgence.’ It is never explicitly stated that women are forbidden from entering the premises; but any such behaviour is subtly discouraged throughout the descriptions of each of the Homes. Clearly, women simply don’t feature in the Dunhill world. But, rather than feeling alienated or put off by these male institutions, I found it very satisfying to discover that these wonderful places even existed – and it implied that there were men worthy of enjoying them.
What really struck me in the wake of this discovery was that women don’t seem to have anything remotely comparable to these Dunhill male oases. Off the top of my head, I could not think of a single luxury womenswear brand that catered to their core customers in such a distinct and confident way. They all miss the mark by a long shot.
I mean, Donna Karan is a high-end womenswear label that stands for elegance, practicality, intuition and empowerment; her clothing freed women from restrictive dress and took them into the work place with confidence and self assurance – but where is the celebration beyond that? Didn’t we ‘make the grade’ in terms of achievement to warrant the creation of a DK Club? Did Donna feel like she put it all out there, gave us everything we needed to succeed, but then was so disappointed with the results that she thought it unnecessary to provide us with such a club?! I seriously hope not. Even if the women buying her clothes didn’t cut it – didn’t she crave a few beautiful rooms to retire to in the company of a few of her equally successful peers? Maybe to discuss supplier/manufacturer issues; customer’s changing attitudes; the promising growth of the Asian market; ethical business practices, etc, etc? I guess not.
There are, infact, some women-only clubs that exist today. For example, The Core Club, The Colony Club and the most famous federation of all-women clubs being the GFWC. But even this last one ended up changing it’s initial purpose as a place for women to meet, self-educate and develop, to putting an emphasis on community service and improvement. It’s like Jane Cunningham Croly (founder of the GFWC,) started out with all of the best intentions, but then her aims and ideas became diluted and turned into yet another charity project. There’s nothing wrong with setting up foundations or charities to give back to the community or to help those less fortunate, (all of the leading female-owned/run fashion brands that I looked into were either actively involved with several charities or ran their own foundation of sorts,) but don’t women also need a place to get together just for themselves? Do we naturally always fall back into care-giving roles? There are a few clubs that exists, and are near perfect parallels to that of the Dunhill Homes; the Alexandra Club in Melbourne, Australia, for one. This was a club set up by women for women in 1903, and it’s aim was to be a social, non-political club that its 800-or-so members could treat as a second home; offering rooms in which to dine, stay, rest and entertain. It has stayed true to these intentions and is still catering to its valued members today. That must have been an incredibly radical undertaking in the early1900′s when women were still very much bound to kitchen counters, cots and prams.
Another more recent example is the Belizean Grove club in New York City, founded in 2001. It’s members are all women who are accomplished leaders in a wide range of fields, and are described by the club as being ‘dedicated to giving back to their communities, have a sense of humor and excitement about life and are willing to mentor and share connections.’
On the edge of 2010, women are independent, educated, infiltrating places of work at every level, and hold top positions of authority in every industry. But don’t we want to get together to celebrate our achievements? I like to think that we do. I can think of a number of high profile women that would find the concept of an all-female version of a Dunhill Home very appealing and appropriate – Ms. Karan, (of course,) Vivienne Westwood, Lady Gaga, Shami Chakrabati, Margaret Thatcher, Michelle Obama, Angela Ahrendts, Barbra Streisand, Liz Beshel. Even though they may have very different lifestyles and professions, these women are not worlds apart from each other in terms of their drive, ambition and intellect. If you got all of them together in one room, put some liquor on ice and had a lock-in, who the hell knows what they could achieve!? A signed, sealed and delivered Kyoto Treaty? A more sustainable, seasonal fashion cycle? Infallible Financial Regulations? The possibilities are endless.
