well i was walking around forever 21 the other day with ben chen and we saw this shirt that had woodstock (the snoopy character) perched on one end of a guitar, and a slogan saying 'peace, love and woodstock'. we both kind of sniggered at the irony and then bantered a bit about taking a poll to see how many people who picked up the shirt understood the reference, and how many understood the irony implicit in commercializing woodstock. (it's like having a tight trendy tee made in china by child labour, marked up by a large company with good branding, that says 'i support the hippies!' on large print. Goes well with skinny jeans.)
i think we're losing something here.
it seems to me that modern culture is referencing previous movements, whether philosophical, political, cultural, artistic or whatever-- without fully understanding their meanings, and passing them on mangled to the next um, time frame? The thing is that these concepts and works have all been fabricated with an intention; a sort of essence. there is a myriad of possible interpretations, all valid, but there are also wrong interpretations. Reading the Holocaust, for example, you can suggest millions of interpretations of the motivations of various actors and victims; you can draw morals or inspiration; you can condemn or forgive; but you can never say that it didn't happen-- as David Irving has tried.
to apply this to commercialism-- case in point: van gogh. while i think he deserves the posthumous recognition for his talent, and perhaps adopt an image as a badge of your misunderstood depth of emotion and personal pain/depression/ insert mental disease crutch here. because in van gogh there is always a sense of frustration-- he is the stereotypical starving artist, painting by compulsion to express something intense and internal in an impatient sweep on the canvas. Snap summary truncated here
well so imagine my horror when i find 'starry starry night' used in an ad for skin serums. Sure its a painting of a night sky, but its extremely dynamic, if not turbulent. there is an incredible sense of motion thorughout the painting, and the brush strokes are vigorous and far from peaceful or smooth. it's a picture of great immensity and profound beauty and power. But who would want skin like this??? it's like saying HEY COME BUY THIS ITS ACNE IN A BOTTLE! by using van gogh as such, the value of this painting is reduced to little more than just a pretty picture.
beyond the har-har-stupid-plebs value of slimming centres advertising their services with reubens, i think we are dealing with a monumental loss: made all the more so by the fact that we don't even know the value of what we are losing. i'm not arguing for taxi drivers to be able to name and date every single movement or historical event, but i'd certainly like a greater selfconsciousness and awareness. so think of me and my more-informed-than-than-thou condemnation the next time you shop 'vintage'.
mellie contemplated 2:51 AM
comments go here.