Now, I wasn't sure whether or not to wait to do this post, seeing as the Cannes Film Festival is still in full swing, and there are still several red carpets to, so maybe I'll end up doing some special weekend posts about the rest... or maybe not. Anyway, I realized a fun way for me to cover red carpet events without it just being another runway fashion review - I'll sort the gowns I like or don't like by time period! Here we go:
1900s
Romantic lace, a soft decolletage, and the diamond collar necklace all make for a beautiful Gibson Girl silhouette on the lovely Eva Herzigova. The a-la-Draper hair is simple and elegant.
1910s
Grecian detail, a wide belt, and chiffon shoulder panel all give a dash of Lucille to Eva Longoria's gown.
1920s
The simple design, drop waist and tiered ruffle skirt all give Ms. Rossy de Palma a Flapperish Flair. This gown is also reminiscent of the Sevillanas.
Honorable Mention
1930s
A Clingy silhouette, halter top, and bangles bring back memories of Nancy Cunard.
Honorable Mentions
1940s
Woah. Who brought Gilda to life? This is 100% Rita Hayworth. Lovely!
Honorable Mentions
1950s
It's no surprise that Marion Cotillard should be chosen for the 50s when she's decked out in Dior. Gorgeous.
1960s
I find it ironic that Ms. Fonda should have been picked for this decade, as it was the decade of her youth. Her sweetheart neckline, ratted hair, and cinched waist all bring back the stylin' sixties.
1970s
I'm torn. I really can't tell how I feel about these disco era digs. They are very seventies, and very very much the color of mustard. Either way that is Charlie Chaplin's grand-daughter.
Hope this was fun! I might go through this again next week to round up some more dresses... Or I may simply update this post. Either way you'll be updated of anything I do with this. Have a great weekend, readers!
It seems that Mrs. Beyoncé Knowles-Z has decided that her entire career is going to be dedicated to providing fodder for my blog posts. I don't have a problem with that, I'm just sayin'... This time it's her new video for Countdown:
For me, the most obvious inspiration is right here:
Yes, everyone remembers that famous Gap commercial that features Audrey Hepburn dancing (but not wearing Gap clothing). Fewer people remember where that footage of Ms. Hepburn came from:
That dance comes from Funny Face, one of my all-time favorite movies, and clearly also one of Beyonce's, as she's drawn inspiration from it before. The outfits of the musicians match those of Hepburn's backup dancers, and even the layout of the bandstand shots mimics that of the nightclub set from the movie. The dancing, however, doesn't match. It clearly took me too long to write this article because just in the week or so since I began researching this article, there has been an explosion of press regarding similarities between "Countdown" and the choreography of Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker. To see a side-by-side comparison of De Keersmaeker and the music video, click here.
Left and right, Beyoncé is being accused of stealing the choreography from De Keersmaeker. So much so that Knowles decided to release an alternate version of the video that excluded all of the controversial footage. Even De Keersmaeker herself had some things to say about the music video, though she seems kinder than most. This is similar to the criticism rained down on Lady Gaga every time she does anything that even remotely resembles anything Madonna has done. Because Madonna has never, ever imitated anyone herself, right?
Right?
If you're like me, you were incessantly lectured about plagiarism in school (if you're really like me, you worries about being accused of plagiarizing even after taking every precaution to avoid it). What were the things we were told to do to ensure we weren't plagiarizing someone else's work?
Re-write the information in your own words.
Use multiple sources.
Credit the author(s) of the work.
Knowles has done all but one of those things- she took the parts of the dances she liked and changed the context; she set it to different music and put different bits of the choreography together. De Keersmaeker has pointed out that even though they are performing the same dance, what Knowles and her dancers are doing is distinct from the films they mimic because of their context:
"In the 1980s, this was seen as a statement of girl power, based on assuming a feminine stance on sexual expression. I was often asked then if it was feminist. Now that I see Beyoncé dancing it, I find it pleasant but I don’t see any edge to it. It’s seductive in an entertaining consumerist way."
Knowles also took inspiration from all kinds of other sources: Op art, Pop art, Mary Quant, Whtiney Houston... even Gap commercials! All of these things together created a unique work that is separate from all of its inspirations yet tied to them at the same time.
Now, I do believe Knowles and her team should have credited De Keersmaeker since they did borrow so heavily (and directly) from her, especially since they credited Boyz II Men after sampling from their song "Uhh, Ahh". However, according to a GQ interview with the video's director, Andria Petty, it was the team's intention to credit her but they overlooked this due to the tight deadline.
Can you say Andy Warhol?
This isn't the first time Knowles has borrowed heavily from others, nor will it be the last. This is also not the first time this sort of happened in the music video industry, nor in the music industry at large. Paula Abdul's "Rush Rush" is basically "Rebel Without a Cause", and Madonna's "Express Yourself" is basically "Metropolis". Music sampling has existed for decades. "Ice Ice Baby" sampled from "Under Pressure", "Rapper's Delight" sampled from "Good Times", "U Can't Touch This" sampled from "Super Freak"... The list goes on and on... If artists can't borrow from each other or imitate or build upon the work of others, then art cannot advance.
Knowles in Thierry Mugler
In addition, Beyoncé used the choreography to a different end than De Keersmaeker. The original footage was a work of choreography. It was a dance film. Knowles was presenting a video for her song. She was not presenting a dance, she was presenting a music video.
Finally, I think this whole climate of ideas as property contributes to rise of dangerous legislation such as CISPA. If we continue to consider artistic ideas as property in every context then we will be left with major corporations holding a monopoly on creativity because they're the only ones with the money to consistently defend "their" properties. We need to chill out about these kinds of things and start worrying about bigger problems.
Yesterday, pop culture icon Lady Gaga released the video to her latest single, "Judas".
Normally, this would be outside the scope of my blog, since I deal mostly with vintage or nostalgic elements. However, there is a nostalgic slant to this story. In addition, this would normally be dealt with on Music Mondays, but I felt it deserved a more in-depth article than those I do for music videos.
The main controversy surrounding Mother Monster as she is called by her fans (myself included) and her new album "Born This Way" is that the title song - the first single released from the album - sounds suspiciously like one many people remember from Madonna's album "Like A Prayer". If you follow pop culture at all you will have heard in the weeks and months since the release of "Born this Way" many call-outs on Lady Gaga for the song's striking similarities to "Express Yourself".
How does she plead? Not guilty. In an interview with NME she called claims that the video was a rip-off of Madonna's "Express Yourself" ridiculous: "If you put the songs next to each other, side by side, the only similarities are the chord progression. It's the same one that's been in disco music for the last 50 years."
There are many differing opinions on the matter, mostly falling into the camps of "guilty" or "not guilty". Personally, I feel that either of these views are overly simplistic and cannot really address the issue as a whole. Plagiarism is something we've dealt with a lot as a society since the Information Revolution of the 1990s. The Internet has made it much easier to share and/or steal both ideas and intellectual property. Most of the debates regarding the Internet over the past ten years have been about protecting copyrights for musicians, photographers, publishers, etc.
In a 2002 exposé on this subject and its appearances in the fashion world Cathy Horyn, New York Times Fashion Critic (who made a guest appearance at my school this past week) asked "Is Copying Really a Part of the Creative Process?" To summarize the article, she took the example of designer Nicolas Ghesquière's apparent "lifting" of a designer vest from the 70s in his Spring 2003 Collection (see side-by-side here
The original on the right and the copy in Balenciaga's Spring 2003 show on the left.
A quote from the article:
"''I think it's a phase of our time,'' said Harold Koda, the costume curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. ''Part of it is post-Warhol. It's just rummaging through extant material culture and juxtaposing it with other things to create something different. Postmodernism has really pervaded our culture.''"
Another quote:
"Mr. Wong [Kaisak Wong's brother. Kaisak died in 1990] knows about the Balenciaga copy. ''Is it like plagiarism?'' he asked. Copyright laws don't cover fashion as they do publishing and music -- nor should they, said Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford University law professor. ''We borrow and change -- that's the creative process,'' he said."
We can understand two things from these quotes: first, that in the modern artistic climate we borrow from others in order to create and second, that in order to avoid plagiarism, we must take what we borrow and make it our own. There is little doubt that Ghesquière's actions were, in fact, plaigarism, since he took an existing design and changed only the actual fabric - not even the type of fabric, but did Lady Gaga do the same thing?
Even if we consider that she "lifted" the melody for "Born This Way" from "Express Yourself" (which I don't really believe, though I do see strong similarities between the two songs), she changed the lyrics, cadence, rhythm, and message of the song entirely. Even if she "borrowed" the melody she still took it and made it her own. This is not copying, this is the postmodern creative process.
I'm sure some of you are out there saying that Gaga's Madonna get-up at the end of the "Born This Way" video proves the accusations of plagiarism. However, we must remember that these allegations had been bandied about even before the video went into production. Being Lady Gaga and enjoying ironic commentaries, she naturally wanted to reference the similarities in an irreverent way. This was how she did it:
Two stills from "Born this Way" showing the Madonna look.
Here's the part of my article that I think is really cool. For the first time I think I may actually have a somewhat legitimate scoop. I don't know exactly how many of my readers were alive when "Express Yourself" was first released, but I wonder if the media at that time made any references to this song when Madonna's hit came out:
Skip to the one minute mark and I'll wait for you to pick your jaw up off the floor. If there is any plagiarism going on in this situation, the guilty party is Madonna. Unlike "Born This Way" to "Express Yourself", here the chorus is melodically identical to its predecessor.
However, do I actually think Madonna is guilty of plagiarism? No. I don't. To be frank I don't think that either of these women are guilty of copying something. Did they borrow as part of the creative process? Maybe, but I am a strong believer in Zeitgeist and the philosophy that ideas don't really belong to one person or another and instead exist all around us. It is those who take those ideas and create something uniquely his or hers who can then claim the product as their own.
An artist can be inspired by a tree and choose to paint it. Does this mean that he owes the tree a royalty check? If a designer (say Yves Saint Laurent) is inspired by an artist (just picking names out a hat here.... Mondrian) and creates a dress that maybe kinda sorta looks something like this:
Would that make Monsieur Saint-Laurent a plagiarist or a genius? Whether or not he owes royalties to Mr. Mondrian is a question of legal procedure. This is a philosophical debate.
Very little of what we create comes from thin air. A good example of this is explained in a theory about dreams - that we can only dream about people or places we've seen in real life. This makes sense to me, despite what some of you have just shouted at the computer in disagreement: "What about that dream I had where I was in a land made of cotton candy/a place I've always wanted to go but have never been to/a place that did not exist in my lifetime?!?" Simple: We take elements from what we see every day and mix them all up in our heads to create new places. We might take the grass from our backyard and the mountain range from that travel magazine you flipped through at the doctor's office. The toaster in that tree came from the Highlights under the travel magazine. The key here is the creative combination or alteration of these basic elements.
"OMG they TOTALLY ripped of Highlights!!!1!!"
You can also think about it this way: Most people know that mythical creatures are based on misunderstandings of real animals. Think about how the ancient people tried to explain them. Someone who has never seen a rhino before and who has no word for rhinoceros in his language would naturally, upon returning to his tribe, explain what he saw as a horse with a horn.
What I'm trying to say - in a rather roundabout way - is that it's practically impossible to be completely original. All ideas come from somewhere outside ourselves. The challenge is finding an original way of expressing those ideas and creating a product therefrom.
Adding a drum kit to an extant song does NOT count.
Madonna and Lady Gaga have both done this indirectly. Gaga has admitted that she is a huge Madonna fan. There was likely some indirect inspiration there. Did she sit down with the sheet music to "Express Yourself", change three notes and release a new song? No. MOVE ON. Madonna probably heard "Respect Yourself" growing up. Maybe she felt that chorus could be taken in a new direction or maybe that phrase just stuck in her subconscious and came out as a new song. Did she sit down one day and say, "Gee, I think I'll rip off talented artists and make gobs of money off of their hard work"? No. That job is already taken (I'm looking at you, Forever 21).
I wish I could say that we've moved on from this controversy, but people are already comparing "Judas" to Madonna's "Like a Prayer", saying there are similar religious overtones and bla bla bla. It's kind of irritating. In En Vogue's "Free Your Mind" they feature a spoken introduction just like "Express Yourself". Are they plagiarists, too? As a society can't we learn to concentrate our energies on debates where there is, in fact, plagiarism going on? (I'm still looking at you, Forever 21).
As I try my hardest to get into the groove of writing this blog while juggling a steady stream of work and social activities, I'm trying to find ways to post less while not detracting from your reader experience. One of the ways I'm going to do this is through "Music Mondays". Occasionally I'll feature music videos I think have a certain nostalgic flair and talk a little bit about the artist.
This week I feature Beyoncé's "Why Don't You Love Me?"
I like Beyoncé a lot. As I talk about in my Beyoncé and Fosse post (which, for the purposes of this new post, I've refurbished with in-text videos!), she borrows a lot from the past. This video is a kick-ass blend of 50s, 60s, and 70s retro glam! Was anyone else seriously coveting her hair in the bedroom sequence?
No? Just me? Okay, moving on.
None of the clothing in this video is vintage - in fact many of the garments and accessories look very modern - yet it all has a distinct retro feel. This really shows the power of styling to steer the mood of an outfit and really create a look. It's a good example of how all of you out there can incorporate a retro flair into your everyday outfits.
My thoughts and feelings on Katrina five years later are still all mixed up. While I gather my thoughts to better express them to you, here's a little on what I saw yesterday during the 5-year anniversary celebration.
Five years to the day, yesterday, Katrina made landfall here in New Orleans. Katrina began a new chapter for New Orleans, and for the United States. The impact of Katrina attracts worldwide attention - one of the film crews in Jackson Square yesterday was filming for Aljazeera!
Well, this year the people of New Orleans have decided it's finally time to close the Katrina chapter, and to leave painful memories of flood and ruin behind. This lead to many mock jazz funerals held around the city, including the one at the Hotel Monteleone, where blue tarps and packaged meals were symbolically buried along with the old girl herself. The ceremony we followed featured a live jazz ensemble, mourners, and a tap dancer:
It was quite the festive weekend, what with the presidential visits and memorial concerts, ecumenical masses and the like. It's absolutely incredible to think where New Orleans is today. Five years ago, in the wake of Katrina no one could have imagined the courage and dedication with which the residents of this city would Rebuild, Restore, and Renew.
It's exciting to be starting a new chapter in my life just as New Orleans is opening the door on a new era. The ghosts of Katrina may still come knocking at our doors, but we as New Orleanians have made a vow not to let them in anymore, and not to rest until we've driven them all out of this city once and for all.
You will definitely be hearing more about this, so stay tuned! Nostalgically Yours
Ladies and Gentlemen, Good afternoon and welcome to Post number 74 headed to Nostalgia and Thoughtfulness. Emergency exits are located in your task bar and in the big red "x" in the upper right hand corner of your window. We ask that you kindly take your seats and make sure that Facebook is safely stowed in another tab or under the seat in front of you. All electronic devices must be turned off at this time, except for the computer or mobile device you are using to read this entry. Thank you, and enjoy the flight.
A century ago, everyday people such as you or I would never dream of sitting in giant metal flying machines, being hurled across the country at thousands of miles per hour. One hundred years ago, the words "airport" and "airline" were almost completely unheard of. In 1910 we could never in a million years have fathomed a situation as unpleasant as the Steven Slater JetBlue incident.
At the dawn of the last century, just before the first world war, the only ways to travel were by train or boat. Neither cars nor planes were considered objects for extended travel. In fact, planes were still just odd scary contraptions that were used in spectacles and air shows. Comfort and safety were unheard of in these early flying machines. It was not until the Great War broke out that planes were seen as viable tools of war and were taken seriously. The twenties saw the beginnings of Air Mail and Air Travel, though passengers came second to the mail cargo. Finally, the Ford Motor Company bought out an aircraft manufacturer in 1925 and began producing 12-passenger "Ford Trimotors", and just like that airline travel was born.
Until the end of World War II, airline travel was successful, but not in any huge scale. Air travel was still relatively dangerous and expensive, so it was reserved only for a select few. The late forties through the seventies were the golden age of Air Travel. This is the same life-span that the Flight Stewardess lived as a sex symbol:
Note the glasses and how the food cart actually fit down the aisle without killing anyone.
This was also the Golden Age of Legroom and Comfort:
Here's another, much longer clip you can skim through. It's another glimpse into a very different time. I really got a kick out of seeing the "modern" communications technology they kept touting throughout the first half of the film:
Not by coincidence, the rise of the airplane saw the end of the golden age of ocean liners. Ships became too slow for Jet age travelers, so more and more they opted for a small sacrifice in comfort for a huge boost in speed. As a result ocean liners were turned mostly into a vacation industry now that the transatlantic crossing could be achieved in a few hours instead of a few days. More on this later. It was also around this time that trains and buses began to suffer huge losses because everyone was taking planes. Naturally it follows that inter-city bus lines began shutting down and the train system was simplified to carry mostly freight. Now, I have nothing against air travel in principle, but pretty soon the airplane literally became the only way to travel... As demand for air travel increased, it killed other modes of transportation, which in turn created more demand for air travel - it had become a vicious cycle which continues to this day.
At the peak of the Jet Age was the Boeing 747 - the Jumbo Jet. These would have been quite a site to behold. Even the steerage accommodations seem more comfortable:
Ironically, this also marked the end of the good old days. The American deregulation of airlines starting in 1978 was what eventually created the modern airline experience. Once economic downturn hit in the 80s, most of the major airlines were bought out by large conglomerate corporations just as a slew of small airlines began emerging thanks to the deregulation. The newer companies couldn't compete with the big money, and were mostly stamped out. More people were flying, and the parent companies wanted to increase their profits, so they had designers fit more and more seats into their planes, including the 747 which is still used today.
So, air travel was getting pretty cramped, no big deal right? Companies have to make a profit off their investments, don't they? It's part of the deal, isn't it? Just wait. There's more.
After the attacks that occurred on September 11th, 2001, security in airports and on aircrafts increased dramatically. Which is completely understandable, considering the circumstances. However, when you have to wait in line for half an hour, take off half your clothing, and throw away half of the contents of your carry-on, the least you could possibly expect from the airline is to be treated like a human being. Now, though, in the wake of the 2008 Economic Collapse, airlines have cut the most basic of services.
My grandmother used her miles to upgrade to First Class on a flight between Bogota, Colombia and Washington, DC. They had no blankets, no pillows, not even a newspaper... in first class!!! Have you noticed that we are no longer "passengers", but are instead "customers"? Listen to the gate attendants next time you're waiting for your flight. They will call you "customers". This is the exact problem with air travel today. Instead of passengers to be treated with respect and dignity, we are customers to given the run-around on an automated voice system when we try to call them.
This customer vs. passenger issue stems from a mindset we were put into in the 1980s - where low prices supersede good value. As long as the price is low, the true value of the item is meaningless. This is the mindset that allows airlines to manipulate us. We think that spending more money for a better product is bad, so we're willing to sit through hell just to get where we have to be. That's how companies make money billions of dollars off of us. They produce to the cheapest possible product to sell at a moderately discounted price and remind us that paying less for something is more important than getting what you pay for. Now, I'm not saying you should go out and splurge on a thousand-dollar ticket for a fully reclining cocoon-seat, but airlines can't make these changes for free. If we want better service we'll have to be willing to pay for it. Luckily, interest seems to be turning toward a new standard of comfort. Check out these commercials for the 2011 Toyta Avalon:
Companies are using these nostalgic memories as a standard for excellence - as they should! The standards of the time were much higher. People believed that comfort and service were just as important as convenience and cost. Today convenience and cost dominate the human psyche, so we have people like Steven Slater and Bonquiqui:
Which of these ladies would you rather have as a flight attendant?
It's kind of strange to think about, but wouldn't you agree that cars are generally more comfortable than airplanes? I recently drove from DC to New Orleans and I did not get the least bit tired of sitting in my Jetta for the two-day journey, whereas two hours on any plane is more than enough to keep your neck in a crick.
Anyway, I hope those commercials are a sign that things are changing. Maybe people are starting to understand that everything shouldn't be about the price. More and more airlines are including options like "Economy Plus" on United Airlines which features more legroom. Basically, the more people buy the slightly more expensive seats, the more legroom people will have in general. You can't expect big companies to do these things themselves. These companies will only make decisions based on bankroll. So, logically, if we as travelers show a demand for better seating and service, and show that we're willing to pay a little more for it, we'll get what we want. The only other answer would be to threaten their bottom line, which is basically impossible since other options are now so limited. If you want to travel you simply can't boycott these airlines... What are you going to do? Take a boat?
Perhaps instead of blaming Slater for his actions directly (though he is responsible), JetBlue and the entire Air Travel community should look inwardly and see that Slater's outburst has its roots in the problems created by the airlines and their parent companies. Perhaps instead of seeking to increase dividends, companies should work to enhance the travel experience. At the same time, if we expect these changes to occur, we must look inwardly and change our mindset to be prepared to pay for what we ask for. After all, the only language these companies speak is money.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have arrived at the end of this post. We hope that your journey was to your liking and that the next time you need some reading material you'll keep us in mind. Please use caution when clicking the links to older posts in the sidebars, as contents may shift your interests and prevent you from leaving this website. Once again, thank you for flying with us.
Nostalgically Yours
If you enjoyed this post, you might also like reading some posts on old-fashioned travel on David Toms' blog Savoir Faire. Just don't forget to tell him who sent you!
This review contains spoilers. If you wish to watch the premiere online before reading, you may do so here. Please do not read this review if you do not wish to know who was eliminated.
Well, as many of you know, the latest season of Project Runway premiered yesterday. Now, to tell the truth, I'd recently fallen out of love with this show. Last season, especially, seemed to be a culmination of drama and petty fighting, and choosing personality over talent... However, from the first scenes of this episode, there was a palpable change in tone from all of the previous seasons: the show seems lighter now, almost auto-satirical. Heidi, Tim, and the judges seem to take themselves a little less seriously this season.
I have a good idea who I'm going to like and dislike throughout this season. Casanova and Ivy are definitely my favorites at this point. I can tell I'm not going to like Jason - mostly because he thinks Bowler Hats are intimidating and has no concept of Hat Etiquette, but also because he just comes off as a jerk. I might be wrong, but I think he's definitely going to be this season's main villain. I get the feeling that Peach isn't going to be a total peach throughout the show - did anyone else get some serious Laura-from-Season-3 vibes? Also, I predict that Michael Costello is going to be the one who gets on everyone's last nerve. More on my predictions next time.
One of the other major changes fans of the show will notice is the way the contestants are introduced. In all the past seasons, the designers were shown arriving at Atlas or Gotham apartments - wherever they happened to be staying that season - they have them meeting each other outside, in the streets of New York, on their ways in to the Big Apple. I suppose this is because of the challenge I'm about to explain, but I hope they keep it that way for a bit. I really enjoyed seeing how the designers interacted outside the comfort of the dorms; the edge of competition, the awkward silences, etc.
They also showed parts of the audition interviews, which is something I don't remember from previous seasons. I liked that simply because it reminded me of American Idol and I couldn't help but picture a line of thousands of designers, each carrying a bundle of their clothes.
I suppose the main reason for them meeting outside their rooms this season was that they hadn't finished the audition process. The more observant fans (myself excluded) probably noticed there were seventeen contestants instead of the usual sixteen. This was because (according to Heidi and Tim) none of the present designers had yet made it to the actual show. They would all have to prove their worth in a 5-hour challenge before they would officially be on the show, and they were warned that maybe more than one of them would be going home.
I really did not like this about the first episode. I felt it came completely out of left field and if you're going to invite the seventeenth person to fly out to New York, at least tell them they made it onto the show.
Anyway, the designers were asked to take one piece of clothing out of their suitcases to use in this challenge. Then, the designers were asked to pass this piece of clothing to the person to their right! I really enjoy seeing the designers' faces when twists like these are thrown at them. I felt really bad for Casanova, though, who (for some ungodly reason) chose the $1,000 Dolce & Gabbana pants he had just bought and had never worn...
Most of the work time isn't really worth talking about here. Suffice it to say that I don't think Tim Gunn has ever been seen without a hand somewhere on his face.
Then came the runway show! If you'd like a refresher, you can see the runway fashions here. Here are my favorite looks: Andy's, Gretchen's, and one of the Michaels.
At the end of the show, as usual, six designers were left on the runway while the rest were sent backstage to the green room. However, the first thing they did was pick the winner - Gretchen. I was a bit thrown off by this, but even moreso by the fact that the remaining five designers were the bottom five. They really didn't treat the contestants well in this first episode.
Some guest judges tend to be a little tentative in railing on the contestants, not this week's! She went off on pretty much everyone, which I think adds insult to injury to the fact that they were tricked into thinking they were on the show.
Finally, after a commercial break, the bottom five were narrowed down to three: McKell (the sympathetic contestant), Casanova (the ESOL rating magnet), and Ivy (the talented one who misunderstood the challenge). At this point it was obvious to me what was going to happen - McKell would be out and they would continue with sixteen contestants, and I was right!
McKell, of course, was crushed, especially because she had left her nine-month-old child to come to New York. Yet, besides the whole sympathy thing, I really cannot for the life of me remember what she made... Especially since the Lifetime website makes my dinosaur of a computer crash. Clearly, whatever it was wasn't memorable enough. Goodbye, McKell! We hope your baby is happy and healthy!
Don't worry, I'll keep watching and giving you the skinny on what's going on up at Parson's!
Nostalgically Yours
PS: Did anyone watch that new show "On the Road with Austin & Santino"? Well, at least it's a more creative follow-up than "Models of the Runway"...
In a post today, friend of the blog "The Annoyed Feminist" mentioned an article on Jezebel. The article talks about a recent St. Louis court case that found the victim of a sexual assault in a Girls Gone Wild video didn't need to give consent (or somehow had actually given it) for her breasts to be distributed in videos nationwide.
"Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, explained later to reporters that they figured if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film. They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying "no, no" when asked to show her breasts."
(Jezebel)
I wouldn't be surprised if we end up hearing about this again. I certainly hope the victim (known only as "Jane Doe") will appeal the St. Louis court's decision.
This is exactly the sort of thing that has influenced my decision to pursue a law degree after I get my bachelor's. I want to work pro-bono and help people like "Jane" get the justice they deserve. If women can have their tops ripped off and their breasts filmed against their will, the sick logic of the jury implies that if any of those girls had been raped, their "consent" would have been "implied" by being involved in the filming.
There is certainly a fine line between an "entertainment" company and a company of sexual predators. This is not to say that the people at Girls Gone Wild all seek out women to assault. There are plenty of women (drunk and sober) who are more than willing to expose themselves for the camera. However, that just brings about the question of why the camera person at this shoot felt the need to remove this woman's top, when they were at a party full of dancing girls... It doesn't make sense.
It seems a new Urban Outfitters [UO] t-shirt has the entire fashion community in a tither. In an article on her blog, Sophia Bush (star of the CW's One Tree Hill) has vowed to boycott UO and has demanded an apology and a recall of the controversial t-shirt. You see a picture of the actual thing on her blog. Above you can see my take on it.
I do agree with Ms. Bush. The idea it conveys, though hopefully ironic, can have impact with the impressionable teens UO caters to.
Do I think that UO has the right under the first amendment to distribute these t-shirts? Yes. Do I think that the people at UO meant it ironically? Yes. Do I think it's a good idea to market "ironic" t-shirts like these to impressionable teens who already have enough body image issues? No.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a firm believer in the fact that it is possible to find humor in any (and I literally mean any) situation. This is probably why I appreciate comedians such as Kathy Griffin or Joan Rivers. However, when dealing with humor, you have to tailor it to be effective towards your audience. Instead of using the words "eat less", which could be interpreted as promoting unsafe weight-loss practices, UO should have used a t-shirt with a more clearly satiric message.
UO messed up, and they will undoubtedly pay for it, but they are, after all, a company, and companies have to answer directly to their customers. UO has the right to put out these t-shirts, but if they don't want to lose the business of "One Tree Hill" fans, then they'll have to stop selling them. Effectively, it's democracy at work... Certainly more directly effective than with our government.
.jpg)
.jpg)
