Kamala Harris criticized for wearing controversial label Dolce & Gabbana

[Boiler 45,946]

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2021/feb/02/kamala-harris-criticized-wearing-controversial-label-dolce-gabbana

 

Even I know that is a no no.

Quote

 

The timing of this so soon after her inaugural choices championed lesser-known American designers of colour is awful no matter how you look at it.”

Harris was praised for wearing clothes by three black-run labels (Pyer Moss, Christopher John Rogers and Sergio Hudson) during inauguration events.

Commenters on the Kamala’s Closet feed echoed Vignone.

“Someone seriously needs to tell her team about Dolce and their problematic issues with race,” wrote one. “I’m stunned she would wear them.”

 

 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2021/feb/02/kamala-harris-criticized-wearing-controversial-label-dolce-gabbana

 

Even I know that is a no no.

 

Tan Suits!

[laylalex 7,300]

There was a quite interesting interview with Bret Easton Ellis (problematic in his own way) that I caught the tail end of yesterday. He was talking about the loss of metaphor in today's culture in interacting with art, amongst other things. What struck me was his point that when it comes to art, we should consider only its aesthetics, and not the politics or ideology of the artist. He sees, for example, that the concept of cultural appropriation is a limitation on artists. The host asked an excellent rhetorical question about whether we want politics in charge of our art, when politics are often wrong, or right only in a particular period of time. Art outlasts politics, after all, at least great art should. 

 

Which takes me to D&G. Gabbana in particular is a noxious human being, and seems to get off on being "provocative." He's also a great designer. His work is exquisite and thought-provoking in good and bad ways. But that's what art should do -- challenge us to think and to question our perspective.

 

Haute couture and the ready to wear lines of top designers like D&G are frequently art, and we should consider them art in the medium of fabric. So do we remove the artist from the art? Can we? Should we? There are any number of "serious" artists who did terrible or problematic things. Should we judge harshly someone who says they love "Rosemary's Baby" or they hang Gauguin prints in their hallway? 

 

I don't have any answers to these questions, but there is, I think, a distinction is be drawn between admiring an artist and admiring their art. 

[Boiler 45,946]

19 minutes ago, laylalex said:

There was a quite interesting interview with Bret Easton Ellis (problematic in his own way) that I caught the tail end of yesterday. He was talking about the loss of metaphor in today's culture in interacting with art, amongst other things. What struck me was his point that when it comes to art, we should consider only its aesthetics, and not the politics or ideology of the artist. He sees, for example, that the concept of cultural appropriation is a limitation on artists. The host asked an excellent rhetorical question about whether we want politics in charge of our art, when politics are often wrong, or right only in a particular period of time. Art outlasts politics, after all, at least great art should. 

 

Which takes me to D&G. Gabbana in particular is a noxious human being, and seems to get off on being "provocative." He's also a great designer. His work is exquisite and thought-provoking in good and bad ways. But that's what art should do -- challenge us to think and to question our perspective.

 

Haute couture and the ready to wear lines of top designers like D&G are frequently art, and we should consider them art in the medium of fabric. So do we remove the artist from the art? Can we? Should we? There are any number of "serious" artists who did terrible or problematic things. Should we judge harshly someone who says they love "Rosemary's Baby" or they hang Gauguin prints in their hallway? 

 

I don't have any answers to these questions, but there is, I think, a distinction is be drawn between admiring an artist and admiring their art. 

The issue here is that Kamala wore them after everything she has said she stands for.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The issue here is that Kamala wore them after everything she has said she stands for.

 

    Unless there is proof of election fraud in the suit pocket, there is no issue here beyond the one being contrived by the grievance machine. Certainly relative to all the actual issues that people have ignored, not sure why this comes up. Let's not make NB post another nothing burger image, 'cause he'll do it!

 

    

[laylalex 7,300]

59 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The issue here is that Kamala wore them after everything she has said she stands for.

I'm not defending what may or may not be hypocrisy here. But there is, I think, a difference between explicitly endorsing the viewpoint of an artist as a person, and arguably implicitly endorsing that same viewpoint by consuming his or her art. I don't think there is a simple answer here, and that article seems to think that there is.

[Dashinka 24,735]

36 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I'm not defending what may or may not be hypocrisy here. But there is, I think, a difference between explicitly endorsing the viewpoint of an artist as a person, and arguably implicitly endorsing that same viewpoint by consuming his or her art. I don't think there is a simple answer here, and that article seems to think that there is.

Aren't most artists expressing what they believe themselves to be?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

This issue is #579 on a list of stuff we have to worry about, behind whether we need two masks and whether we are eating too much mayonnaise. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by CanAm1980

[laylalex 7,300]

33 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Aren't most artists expressing what they believe themselves to be?

No, to be blunt. I think "most" is stretching it. Great artists currently working -- your Jeff Koonses and Cindy Shermans and David Hockneys -- get to do what they want, produce the art they believe in, and they get paid for it, handsomely. Most artists who are working as artists and getting paid for it moderately well are painting watercolors for greetings cards or doing graphic design or producing art at the direction of a patron (think: portrait artists, people working in the Thomas Kinkade studios...).

 

My SIL is an artist, and is rarely paid for it at all, except for giving drawing lessons in her community (pre-COVID). My MIL is an artist, and she DOES get paid for it, but she's a decorative artist so her items are most accessible when they are useful. No one wants a vase with a hole in the bottom, unless you're a figurative artist of some mild note and the hole is a comment on society or whatever.

 

There are plenty of artists who use their art to express what they believe themselves to be, including the types of jobbing artists I mention above. But it would be incorrect to say, in my opinion, that most artists express who they are in every artwork. Sometimes there is banal work to be done to put money on the table and still work in your field.

 

In any event, this is wildly off topic, even for me.  If Harris wants to use this as a teachable moment for herself, that's up to her. I think everyone anticipated that as the first female vice president, her clothing choices would be under scrutiny, and here it is. I would like her to wear US designers as frequently as possible, however, and consider wearing designers based in other countries when visiting those countries as a mark of good will. There's a strong message to send about wearing Dior in France and Issey Miyake in Japan, for example.

[Boiler 45,946]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Unless there is proof of election fraud in the suit pocket, there is no issue here beyond the one being contrived by the grievance machine. Certainly relative to all the actual issues that people have ignored, not sure why this comes up. Let's not make NB post another nothing burger image, 'cause he'll do it!

 

    

And Barbour in England.

[laylalex 7,300]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

And Barbour in England.

Yes, wearing Barbour in England would be appropriate, depending on the circumstances and locale. What's right for mucking out the stables or an afternoon browsing at John Lewis or a pint at your local might not be right for a state dinner, for example.

[B_J 2,752]

27 minutes ago, laylalex said:

No, to be blunt. I think "most" is stretching it. Great artists currently working -- your Jeff Koonses and Cindy Shermans and David Hockneys -- get to do what they want, produce the art they believe in, and they get paid for it, handsomely. Most artists who are working as artists and getting paid for it moderately well are painting watercolors for greetings cards or doing graphic design or producing art at the direction of a patron (think: portrait artists, people working in the Thomas Kinkade studios...).

 

My SIL is an artist, and is rarely paid for it at all, except for giving drawing lessons in her community (pre-COVID). My MIL is an artist, and she DOES get paid for it, but she's a decorative artist so her items are most accessible when they are useful. No one wants a vase with a hole in the bottom, unless you're a figurative artist of some mild note and the hole is a comment on society or whatever.

 

There are plenty of artists who use their art to express what they believe themselves to be, including the types of jobbing artists I mention above. But it would be incorrect to say, in my opinion, that most artists express who they are in every artwork. Sometimes there is banal work to be done to put money on the table and still work in your field.

 

In any event, this is wildly off topic, even for me.  If Harris wants to use this as a teachable moment for herself, that's up to her. I think everyone anticipated that as the first female vice president, her clothing choices would be under scrutiny, and here it is. I would like her to wear US designers as frequently as possible, however, and consider wearing designers based in other countries when visiting those countries as a mark of good will. There's a strong message to send about wearing Dior in France and Issey Miyake in Japan, for example.

yeah, that's what I was gonna say.

[laylalex 7,300]

2 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

This issue is #579 on a list of stuff we have to worry about, behind whether we need two masks and whether we are eating too much mayonnaise. 

Trust me, whether we need two masks and whether we are eating too much mayonnaise is easily in the top 100 of my mother's worries, though far behind whether we are using Sensodyne and flossing sufficiently and "not just staring at the Water Pik, Alex, actually using it."

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Trust me, whether we need two masks and whether we are eating too much mayonnaise is easily in the top 100 of my mother's worries, though far behind whether we are using Sensodyne and flossing sufficiently and "not just staring at the Water Pik, Alex, actually using it."

Is the Sensodyne from the USA or UK? Just wondering since I import mine.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

Is the Sensodyne from the USA or UK? Just wondering since I import mine.

Domestic, but I sense there is a market for some folks to buy imported, maybe I will buy some a slap a made in the UK sticker and sell them on Amazon, how much would you pay?