Annoying New York Times articles

[Amor de Cosmos]

Annoying New York Times articles

Reed John wrote:

Vox goes Full Monocle

I love the Victorian era. So I decided to live in it.

I'd say this couple are genuinely eccentric rather than merely pretentious. I did wonder though if their desperation for authenticity included chafing underwear, and a lack of toilet paper, sanitary towels, and toothpaste. Not to mention antibiotics, and other medical impertinences.

Whatever one thinks of them though, they don't warrant the harassment and hate-mail they receive. That's well past annoyance.

[WOM]

Annoying New York Times articles

I also wonder weather the lime green El Camino in the street out front is theirs. Sadly, I doubt it.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Annoying New York Times articles

Well if they don't want it I'll have it.

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

The article is a ridiculous load of wank but the Comme des Garcons designer contributes something, as all innovative designers do.

I'll take your word for it.

I'd never heard of her, so I googled and turned up a lot of runway pictures of stuff looking like models wearing stuff like this. And this was some of the more practical garments I found.
I also turned up a lot of $125 t-shirts, $250 sweatshirts and $110 sneakers that are literally just Chucks with a simple logo painted on.

Maybe her designs matter, but as a business, it seems to be another way to separate fools from their money. I certainly don't know why anyone would care what she thinks of Hillary Clinton or Feminism.

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

Amor de Cosmos wrote:

Vox goes Full Monocle

I love the Victorian era. So I decided to live in it.

I'd say this couple are genuinely eccentric rather than merely pretentious. I did wonder though if their desperation for authenticity included chafing underwear, and a lack of toilet paper, sanitary towels, and toothpaste. Not to mention antibiotics, and other medical impertinences.

Whatever one thinks of them though, they don't warrant the harassment and hate-mail they receive. That's well past annoyance.

Certainly. I meant it more as "snap out of it!!!" then "You people deserve to be beaten." They do seem to be kind of smug about it, but maybe that's just the way the article is presented.

It reminds me of that not-so-great M Night Shamylan film where the people were so traumatized by modern life that they created an 19th century rural village and never left it.

I can understand wanting to retreat from modernity, to focus on more important things, but it would seem that maintaining that lifestyle would take up even more mental real estate - where does one even find Edison lightbulbs without the internet? - Than life with TV and the internet and other nonsense. And they're taking lots of other pointless hassles, like corsets and waistcoats and managing assorted household fire hazards.

The 12th century. That's where it's at.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Annoying New York Times articles

Reed John wrote:

The article is a ridiculous load of wank but the Comme des Garcons designer contributes something, as all innovative designers do.

I'll take your word for it.

I'd never heard of her, so I googled and turned up a lot of runway pictures of stuff looking like models wearing stuff like this. And this was some of the more practical garments I found.
I also turned up a lot of $125 t-shirts, $250 sweatshirts and $110 sneakers that are literally just Chucks with a simple logo painted on.

Maybe her designs matter, but as a business, it seems to be another way to separate fools from their money. I certainly don't know why anyone would care what she thinks of Hillary Clinton or Feminism.

Runway clothes are portfolio stuff. There to establish a style, rather than to sell. The frocks people might actually buy are these:

[ursus arctos]

Annoying New York Times articles

And I happen to know people who do (not ms. ursus)

[Amor de Cosmos]

Annoying New York Times articles

Reed John wrote:

Vox goes Full Monocle

I love the Victorian era. So I decided to live in it.

I'd say this couple are genuinely eccentric rather than merely pretentious. I did wonder though if their desperation for authenticity included chafing underwear, and a lack of toilet paper, sanitary towels, and toothpaste. Not to mention antibiotics, and other medical impertinences.

Whatever one thinks of them though, they don't warrant the harassment and hate-mail they receive. That's well past annoyance.

Certainly. I meant it more as "snap out of it!!!" then "You people deserve to be beaten." They do seem to be kind of smug about it, but maybe that's just the way the article is presented.

Mildly defensive for sure — which can sometimes come across as smugness. OTOH many would say smugness was a 19th century middle-class characteristic, so maybe they're just staying in character.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Annoying New York Times articles

ursus arctos wrote: And I happen to know people who do (not ms. ursus)

Price aside, I think La Signora would buy something like the piece on the left — certainly pre-stroke.

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

I've read that's the case, but I don't really see the connection. I'm surprised no designer has decided to just dispense with the cost of putting on a show of all that weird stuff and just market the real clothes, which are still obscenely expensive.

They could spin this break with tradition as "iconoclastic."

Chefs don't make inedible food to lay the groundwork for real food (maybe they do, but I've not heard of that. Yet). Architects don't build impractical monuments to practice making a real building.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Annoying New York Times articles

I'm surprised no designer has decided to just dispense with the cost of putting on a show of all that weird stuff and just market the real clothes, which are still obscenely expensive.

Many do begin with what used to be called Ready to Wear. But, assuming you're successful, it's hard to both meet the demand and maintain creative control. The answer is to move up-market to build a presence on the runway, while sustaining a on-going marketing operation others can manage. MsD can probably give you more detail, so could my step-daughter.

Interesting you mention chefs. The restaurant and fashion industries are two of the most difficult to work in, for both employers and employees. Exploitation and drug use are rife and the suicide rate disproportionately high. Neither are easy on anyone.

[ursus arctos]

Annoying New York Times articles

There's also the oodles of free publicity that one gets out of runway shows.

And while it isn't anywhere near on the same scale as runway fashion, there are/were certain elements of molecular gastronomy that some people found to be borderline inedible.

[WOM]

Annoying New York Times articles

I guess runway fashion is meant to be an exploration of ideas without the expectation that they'll really be bought or worn. In the same way that car designers or architects would engage in design exercises that have no hope of being built.

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

WOM wrote: I guess runway fashion is meant to be an exploration of ideas without the expectation that they'll really be bought or worn. In the same way that car designers or architects would engage in design exercises that have no hope of being built.

Right. They don't actually build them. Of course, making costumes is cheaper than making a nuclear car, or whatever.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Annoying New York Times articles

Yeah. They're the equivalent to the auto-show custom models the large manufacturers produce.

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

ursus arctos wrote: There's also the oodles of free publicity that one gets out of runway shows.

And while it isn't anywhere near on the same scale as runway fashion, there are/were certain elements of molecular gastronomy that some people found to be borderline inedible.

But surely it costs millions to put on one of those shows, does it not? All those models have to be paid, for one.

Is "molecular gastronomy" over? I never had the opportunity to try it. It's not the kind of thing I can get on OrderUp.

[WOM]

Annoying New York Times articles

I can't think of many beyond Bjork and Lady Gaga that could get away with wearing those getups.

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

Amor de Cosmos wrote: Yeah. They're the equivalent to the auto-show custom models the large manufacturers produce.

I guess it's just that I can see the connection between concept cars and real cars. I cannot see how this translates into a real dress (though those tights are cool). Maybe if I'd gone to FIT I could.

[ursus arctos]

Annoying New York Times articles

Very few haute couture runway shows will cost "millions".

Victoria's Secret is not typical of the fashion industry.

[Fussbudget]

Annoying New York Times articles

I don't know, I think there's another dimension to (some) runway fashion (and I would certainly include Comme Des Garçons in that) which is more akin to art, or at the very least exceptional craftsmanship. The clothes are not practical and might never be worn in everyday situations, but that doesn't mean that they can't be appreciated for their own sake.

Obviously if you have no interest in clothes or dressmaking/tailoring that might well be lost on you. But to me that's like dismissing experimental music because it doesn't sound very nice and you can't dance to it. That's not the point of it.

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

Fussbudget wrote: I don't know, I think there's another dimension to (some) runway fashion (and I would certainly include Comme Des Garçons in that) which is more akin to art, or at the very least exceptional craftsmanship. The clothes are not practical and might never be worn in everyday situations, but that doesn't mean that they can't be appreciated for their own sake.

Obviously if you have no interest in clothes or dressmaking/tailoring that might well be lost on you. But to me that's like dismissing experimental music because it doesn't sound very nice and you can't dance to it. That's not the point of it.

Art as art makes a lot of sense. I'm not dismissing it. I just don't see how it's existence leads to paying $150 for a fucking T-SHIRT.

[San Bernardhinault]

Annoying New York Times articles

Reed John wrote:
Is "molecular gastronomy" over? I never had the opportunity to try it. It's not the kind of thing I can get on OrderUp.

Yes and no. As a standalone thing it's pretty much gone. But all the techniques are still being used. Lots of the best steaks you'll get now are reverse-seared (sous vide to perfectly cooked and then blasted at a super-high heat to get a sear). And you'll get the 63 degree eggs, or people using alginates to create gels and things. But this will now all now be in service of whatever the new trend is - the Scandiniavian locovore; or the fancified-retro-southern-cooking; or whatever

[ursus arctos]

Annoying New York Times articles

Some people would be equally incredulous at the price of replica jerseys

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

Sous vide is all the rage right now. I know normal people who have the gizmos. I don't see the point in getting one though as I'm trying to not eat meat.

[ursus arctos]

Annoying New York Times articles

I recently got one, but we do eat meat.