This

http://blip.tv/file/3122155/

is a great intro to the idea of "the essential subject" and "the other"--which, I should mention, is the most applicable-in-my-own-life bit of philosophy I've yet encountered.

I should also mention that I think the clip provides a really interesting example of something that may be hypocrisy--I find myself critical and sympathetic. The piece critiques something foundational to current gender construction, and at the same time uses current gender construction (maybe ironically, but functionally as well) to market itself. You can see this in the visual storytelling; the visual and comedic style constantly stops you and says, "Look! Pretty girl! Pay attention." Whether that undermines it's broader message or not (I think it does) is an interesting question.

Lately, I've been thinking about a lot of things that I'd traditionally consider a waste of time. In honor of this: my first fashion post. Not cultural critique of fashion, just fashion. With no commentary. At all.

We'll call it an exercise in restraint.

Outfit--

Shirt:

http://www.textilejunkiebrand.com/inc/sdetail/142

Corset: I love the green, but for this particular outfit, I think greys--maybe with one that matches the hat color.

http://www.clockworkcouture.com/?q=handsoftimecorset

Gloves:

http://www.clockworkcouture.com/?q=woolengloves

Skirt:

http://www.totally-ballroom.com/images/details/d_2836.jpg

Boots:

http://www.shopping.com/xPO-Born-Born-Thicket-Womens-Boots

Overcoat:

http://www.clockworkcouture.com/?q=blackwoolmilitarycoat

Hair: something like this, but with a bit more pulled back--and maybe in a more interesting color, or more than one more interesting color:


Hat:

http://media.rei.com/media/ll/5b6e1928-453f-40c1-8599-147c57008471.jpg

Jewelery: maybe these? I'd also keep the pocketwatch, but in silver.


http://ruthwaterhouse.com/studio/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/276e.jpg

Speaking of

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar06/health0306.htm


http://kateharding.net/

Highly, Highly recommended.

Fashion and Beauty

What isn't evil about it:

-Presenting the best of yourself; using creativity, craftsmanship, color, texture, line, drape, and function; self expression through physical appearance; fashion as one of the ultimate forms of art which is for people in an incredibly tangible and concrete way.

What is:

-Excessive valuation of physical beauty; beauty as an essential component, or even the most essential component, of identity--particularly for women

-Defining beauty as being some incredibly unhealthy and incredibly unobtainable standard

-Thereby a) generally screwing people over psychologically and b) making sexuality competitive, which diminishes the quality of sexual relationships



Solutions?


One obvious thing is an attempt at reclaiming; to use creativity, self expression, and craftsmanship to reject unobtainable standards of beauty. I see three problems with this.

First and most obviously, it doesn't address the incredibly excessive emphasis placed on appearance. This is a huge problem, and I'm unaware of any easy solutions to it. I can only suggest we try and remember that it's always more important to be amazing than to look amazing--always.

Secondly, reclaiming is not going to win the war. This kind of action alone, contrary to liberal mores, is never going to create a world where people have a healthy attitude towards their bodies, their appearance and their sexuality. The best you can hope for is to create a liberating subculture, a chance for a few people to practice democracy in discourse, a chance for a few people to have freeing experiences. If reclaiming does not win the war, and something else--say, lobbying for restrictions in advertising--possibly could, should we be spending our resources on this?

Thirdly, lots of things about aesthetics are not universal. Current aesthetic standards will influence what we find to be appealing; this is inevitable. I haven't studied aesthetics a lot, either practically or philosophically. However, it seems that to an extent, you would have to play into the current consumption-oriented aesthetic standards to successfully create something beautiful. I need to read and think more about this.


The other obvious thing is to simply disengage--to act in a way that doesn't accept making yourself an object for the aesthetic consumption of others as a value. It seems like an ineffective and unsatisfying option; it's not going to win large scale against corporate hijacking of aesthetic values, it has lots of practical disadvantages in day to day life, and it looses all of the potentially healthy things the art of personal appearance has to offer.



I have some sort of idea about the balance on this that I personally want to strike, but I'm interested in other people's thoughts. :)

thoughts on Twilight

^^a postsecret item that reminded me of twilight fan art.

Over the past month or so, I've read the first and the last of the twilight novels, watched the recently released movie, and encountered four interesting related reviews.

1)The one on Mary's blog

2)The one on Stormfront (the largest gathering of "white nationalists" on the internet)

3)My absolute favorite (thank you very much Heidi)

4)and this deeply desturbing one by Caitlin Flanagan.


It's this last one that I'm interested in discussing right now. Certainly there's something to be said for treating the metaphors and sexuality in the story candidly, and certainly it's about time someone noticed (or perhaps I should say, noted) the underlaying message about sex and morality, and its connection to Stephanie Meyer's faith.

While not brilliantly written, this review is at least, for a change, intelligent--and I can't help feeling that it somehow misses the mark. I know a lot of my readership are twilight fans, and I know that they tend to be the quieter lot. . . . but I'm asking you now; what do you think of her analysis?

Happpy first day of Christmas, everyone. :)

How communism serves the American right

This is how I explain my awesome family to radical communists. :D

If you had some sort of illusions that I was a not a radical communist, you may consider this a sort of late halloween costume for my blog. ;)


I like to advocate class struggle by pointing to material conditions. For all it's posturing to the contrary, capitalism creates material conditions deeply toxic to freedom and democracy. In the accumulation of capital is the accumulation of power; in the concentration of power, widespread opportunity for self-determination is destroyed. So far my favorite depictions of this process come from Domhoff and Chomsky.


As for the path to victory, I am far from a master tactician, but I prefer to take the words of Marx and Engels to heart:

"(Communists) have no interests separate or apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement."

Along with this comes the injunction to form the proletariat as a class, and from this combination my preference in strategy is born. It seems we must re-articulate cultural struggle as class struggle--and this goes for (what appears to be) both sides of the culture struggle.


Consider the interests of the American (United States) proletariat, as they presently perceive them. Besides the materialities of survival and comfort, the issues they are most aware of being concerned with are families, immigration, gay marriage, abortion ethics, and a certain kind of self-determination. All of these social issues can be subsumed more or less neatly into the framework of communism or socialism. The possible quality of relationships in a family are intimately and inextricably connected with types of exploitation and quality of work; global socialism renders concern with immigration issues obsolete; availability of universal health care (a class issue) makes the question of gay marriage no longer a life and death matter*; socialism has the potential to vastly reduce the incidence of abortion**.

Saul Alinsky, in describing the class conflicts of political organizing, cast Americans as haves, have-nots, and have-a-little-want-mores. It is this last group, he says, that offer the greatest resistance to change; they have gained some ground under the existing system, have just enough that they no longer are free from fear of loosing it. This is the illusory self-determination with which the American proletariat is so entranced; not that they are "Joe the plummer" who has something to loose, but for the most part they have just enough that they can dream of being him, and want to hang on to that dream. It seems best to work out of this by constantly presenting more meaningful forms of self-determination. In this, whether or not we might choose a planned economy in the longer run, the concept of syndicalism is extremely useful.


* It removes the state's involvement with gay marriage as a property relation, thus rendering the question of "marriage" or not purely cultural.

**The details of this position I will, actually, publish in subsequent posts

Prop 8

Takes a gutsy man to say this on the national news.

I can see--while I don't agree with--the free speech "we don't want our children learning this is OK in schools" argument--but it is genuinely far beyond me how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage in any substantive way.

jam for thought

Or is it. . . better than jam?


note for my dear paranoid parent friends: mild profanity in some images.

Perhaps this is rather silly of me, but I never really considered--until Darrin made that comment--culture jam as art. As far as wholesale acceptance of herd mentality. . . well. . . that's quite a larger topic.

But I was thinking about the comment, and did a bit of poking about for images of culture jam. Certainly some of them qualify as art, and I think some of the ones I came up with that I've included here may likely not have been intended as culture jam at all.

What I'm trying to do is consider the potentially powerful use of images as a tool to goad people into thinking more, and perhaps in certain directions, about their world.

Here are my favorites from the search--images I found particularly effective, artistic, interesting, or powerful.



Deurbanization


Nike


London, after (global warming)


When we grow up




Playfulness can go a long way too. . . consider:

Live in Russia (instead of playing games)


Speeding (what's your excuse)


Clear Speech


Democracy


Abstinence


P.S. Looks like these images are cut off. The idea in most cases gets across, but if anyone knows how to fix the html and wants to give me a hand, it would still be much much appreciated. Thanks all for putting up with my learning curve.

In "when we grow up", the foot in the foreground belongs to an elderly woman.

What do you think of radiohead?

And also, what do you think of the culture jam movement?

Radiohead is the jam, by the way. I think. *snark muffled by sincere respect for radiohead. . .*

I've some pretty mixed feelings about adbusters, the organization who's page hosts this. Here's a documentary about them, if you're interested. . . I find it's a pretty good concise exposition, at about 40 minutes.

So here's my gripe about culture jam. Is it enough? Is it everything someone can do? Is it effective? At all?

And I confess, the cheerful font of the sticker that said "enjoy debt" on the ATM was pretty striking. But most of the work they do? Not so much. I don't think soundbites will ever be enough to convert someone away from capitalism. Without development of the ideas behind it--without an understanding of the reasons one would wish to deface ads, and background for the alternative message presented--it doesn't come to much.

Perhaps some of my resistance comes from the book culture jam, which is simply not well written, and the official adbusters website, a recently de-slickified construct full of what look exactly like ads and--paradoxically--selling their own brand ("black spot") of products. I believe them when they say they aren't in it for the money, but it feels very odd to support someone who uses the Exact methodology they're dedicated to fighting.

It's not that I don't appreciate what they're trying to do, but it's a superficial makeover. Alone, it's no more than a pitiful attempt to turn vast impressionist sweeps of advertiser's image building into a dialogue. .. but a dialogue where no one ever says anything that takes longer than those two seconds it takes you to look at an ad.

It doesn't work.

Is deconstructing and elaborately mocking adds the best way for a cultural revolutionary to spend their time?

And then comes another question: exactly what are they proposing instead? Economic suicide isn't useful for much, and to support only ethical companies, at this point, is still economic suicide for most of us. The votes of dollars will never be enough until supported by a real public discourse, and meanwhile the majority of our time and our dollars go to the enrichment of those same people we "jam." In perspective, it's like leaving informative little notes in bigoted history texts as a protest against their use in public education. . . except, following that metaphor, all the textbooks would have to be bigoted, and they would have to be most of what was available. Hmn.

I can see it as a useful tool, but only when used more substantiatively. . . in conjunction with a more substantiative discourse, and a more substantiative plan for action.

P.S. Also, everybody shout out a big happy birthday for my sisters number three and four, for birthdays yesterday and today, respectively. They rock, each in their own awesome way. :D

Gender Studies, Plus!

When you have a spare hour or two, I'm interested in what any of you think of these cultural critiques. They were both produced by the most excellent Media Education Foundation.

This first one is about the essential role of violence in our culture's idea of masculinity. (53 minutes)

The second one is about what advertising says about/to women's identity. (34 minutes)

I'd have rather posted this and this, which I feel address the same material more potently (less than ten minutes to watch both) but all I could find were previews.

I know for me, these ideas and some related ones have really changed the way that I see my culture. . . Especially when considered in combination with realizations about how fantastically, destructively materialistic*(55 minutes) our culture is.

It causes me to want to become a buddhist nun in Thailand. . . no wait, it makes me want to take a vow of non-materialism and renounce media constructions of gender. . . no wait, it makes me want to be a buddhist nun in Thailand.

*sigh*

Decisions, decisions. . .


*if you watch one, start with this one (unless the other ones specifically seem more interesting to you). Fantastic work from PBS, featuring the disembodied voice of that guy from NPR!


P.S. Edit: ok. . . so I promised you the *cough* judicious *cough* use of pictures and links. . . and so, for kicks: