who looks funny?
I hate the cover of the style issue. To the point where I might tear it off and throw it away. Sometimes funny and fashion don't happen.
Sometimes they do; I kept up a steady chuckle reading Henry Alford on the solar panelled jacket. That's just the abstract.
The article itself opens with "History has not been kind to garments that serve a function other than that of keeping their wearers warm or unnaked or adorable." Too true.
And yet, I think he's right in his enthusiasm for the solar panels in his new jacket. I think that there is a secret desire that clothes should become more like computers and bikes and our bodies and DO something. They have too much to-be-looked-at-ness so to speak. Fashion isn't even, usually, 3 dimensional enough, for god's sake.
The only other Donatella Versace profile I ever read was in TNY - when and by whom? And why does Lauren Collins not even mention that it's been done? Or does she? I lost interest.
Basics, but as usual so smart. James Surowiecki. On fasion, copyright, and the capitalist temporality of the trend.
And what else is news?
Electic Warrior is reading the NYT Sunday Style Magazine, or at least looking at the pictures, and thinks you should too.
The Determined Dilettante isn't reading that rather dull thing about olive oil, is reading something interesting from Mark Singer, which is in an issue of TNY that I misplaced.
Juniper Pearl's abiding love for TNY is tested by Adam Gopnik's drive to eat local.
Kitchenography entertains the Live Chicken! fantasy (past the recipe).
Sepoy declares, "I am sticking to not-reading NYT’s editorial page." Or did declare this in a heated moment.
Sometimes they do; I kept up a steady chuckle reading Henry Alford on the solar panelled jacket. That's just the abstract.
The article itself opens with "History has not been kind to garments that serve a function other than that of keeping their wearers warm or unnaked or adorable." Too true.
And yet, I think he's right in his enthusiasm for the solar panels in his new jacket. I think that there is a secret desire that clothes should become more like computers and bikes and our bodies and DO something. They have too much to-be-looked-at-ness so to speak. Fashion isn't even, usually, 3 dimensional enough, for god's sake.
The only other Donatella Versace profile I ever read was in TNY - when and by whom? And why does Lauren Collins not even mention that it's been done? Or does she? I lost interest.
Basics, but as usual so smart. James Surowiecki. On fasion, copyright, and the capitalist temporality of the trend.
And what else is news?
Electic Warrior is reading the NYT Sunday Style Magazine, or at least looking at the pictures, and thinks you should too.
The Determined Dilettante isn't reading that rather dull thing about olive oil, is reading something interesting from Mark Singer, which is in an issue of TNY that I misplaced.
Juniper Pearl's abiding love for TNY is tested by Adam Gopnik's drive to eat local.
Kitchenography entertains the Live Chicken! fantasy (past the recipe).
Sepoy declares, "I am sticking to not-reading NYT’s editorial page." Or did declare this in a heated moment.
Labels: food
posted by zoe p. at 10:56 AM
8 Comments:
Interesting -- she doesn't mention (I don't remember her mentioning at least) the former Versace article.
I liked the solar panel jacket story too! And did you read the story on Vicomtesse Marie-Laure de Noailles?? I really enjoyed it -- of course, it appealed to my love of ridiculous, soap-opera-type stories, but with more high-brow references.
I wanted to read Anthony Lane's piece about the Leica... but I just couldn't do it! Maybe one day...
Vicomtesse Marie-Laure de Noailles looked promising. And written by a not usual New Yorker writer.
And it is odd, then, about the Versace article, especially as it was written about a transition, that it didn't mention where she was, how she was described, etc in the last profile . . .
This calls for the Complete New Yorker . . .
that mark singer piece is in the 9/17 issue; you've lost it already? it really was a good article, but i forgot about it in my moment of apoplexy over the others that were, um, not.
i liked the solar-jacket article, too--until the guy went out and bought himself a collection of small electronic gadgets just so he would have something to charge with his solar jacket, thereby negating any of the energy-saving benefits of a solar jacket about four thousand times over. it seems like these writers so often start out with an excellent idea and then completely forget about it two-thirds of the way in. i always hear people saying that it can't be terrible for things like alternative energy to become hip, because as long as people are getting involved, it shouldn't matter that much why. leave it to the new yorker to exemplify the tragic downside of a little bit of (solar) power in the wrong, smug, spoiled little hands.
wasn't this cover image a "caption contest" entry not too long ago? or something like it, anyway? it looks so familiar, and immediately familiar . . . but it could have been something i saw in a dream, or nightmare, as the case may be.
all right, not so recently, then . . . but keep in mind that i probably read the march issue it was in this past july.
Yeah, I remembered that caption contest and not fondly, either.
As for Singer, I was travelling the week of 9/17 and, honestly, I lost my New Yorker en route. And without reading much of it.
Emdashes linked to a response to Gopnik in which the author came to a similar conclusion as the one cite - that even dumb writing about green movements or technologies does more good than harm. Sort of like Surwiecki's knock-off logic. But is that a reason not to write it smarter?
But don't ask me, in general, I hate (1) thing you plug into a USB port and (2) i pod things. I like music to vibrate air and the objects in a room and I like to listen to my environment.
Smug seems to be bugging you recently (to say nothing of TNY) . . . what's up?
I did a quick peek in the Complete New Yorker; not seeing any Donatella profile. There's one about Sean Combs in which she is mentioned.
I'm now amusing myself by trying to imagine the phraseology William Shawn would use in commissioning a profile about Sean Combs.
Martin! I swore I would not take out my disks and waste a lot of time looking for this thing! But you threw down the proverbial gauntlet.
I think it might have been Andrea Lee's Postscript (which was quite long) in July 28, 1997.
But then I think not, because I remebered not the written profile but a photo that was quite similar to the one that appeared in this style issue. I guess the photo could have been anywhere (Vanity Fair?) but I could have sworn it was a jewel in the classic New Yorker setting.
Hey, where's Bill "Grill Guy" Buford ? He was conspicuously absent from the food issue and hasn't been seen in the magazine's pages for quite some time. I miss him. Regarding James Wood's debut piece, am I the only one disappointed? I thought for sure he would tackle Denis Johnson's "Tree of Smoke." I've yet to read a really good analysis of it. Instead, Woods opted to go yawn-provokingly cosmic. Louis Menand completely outshone him. The last paragraph of Menand's essay, where he shows how "On the Road" got into his blood, is amazing!
Post a Comment
<< Home