THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU ARE ENCUMBERING MY MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICE

Yeah, you've already watched Lady GaGa and Beyoncé's video for "Telephone". Not as good as "Bad Romance". I really just wanted an excuse to post the image below. Bless you MemeGenerator.

ARTPARIS+GUESTS 2010

Yet another reason why I should jet to Europe, by hook or by crook.

ARTPARIS+GUESTS is a contemporary art fair, which attempts to promote collaboration in addition to the individual work of artist. To boot, it's happening at the lovely Paris venue Le Grand Palais.



Image via Jezebel. Just like a news wire photographer to identify neither artwork nor artist.

A Bit Late, My Best-Dressed at the Oscars List

10. Charlize Theron, in Dior Haute Couture

9. Zoe Saldana, in Givenchy Haute Couture

8. Sarah Jessica Parker, in Chanel Haute Couture

7. Maggie Gyllenhaal, in Dries Van Noten

6. Sandra Bullock, in Marchesa

5. Gabourey Sidibe, in Marchesa

4. Diane Kruger, in Chanel Haute Couture

3. Anna Kendrick, in Elie Saab Haute Couture

2. Julianne Moore, in Calvin Klein by Francisco Costa

1. Carey Mulligan, in Prada

Because what pairing of designer and wearer could make
elegance and tiny forks, knives, and scissors happen?

SANDBERG&TIMONEN "Live Alive" Tour Shirts

Brachfeld Gallery and Dorothée Perret present a fantastic way to do some good. SANDBERG&TIMONEN have created a "Live Alive", a series of tour style t-shirts featuring the rock stars of fashion. There is nothing else to say besides I must procure the Elbaz edition pictured above.

And Now, the Desires of an Over-Ambitious Reader.

Norbert Schoerner

This series appeared in Above Magazine's premiere issue as "Emergence: A Life in Ten Chapters", and its absolutely ruling me. Take a look at more of Schoerner's work at his website.

Images from New Industry Arts via LOUDreams

Today in Things Shaking my Faith in the World: The New York Times Knows What Ladies are Like

My relationship with cable news—and being up on the state of things generally— began with the presidential election of 2000. During the time leading up to the 2008 election, I grew to loathe most of these channels. Rachel Maddow (can we say awesome?) became MSNBC's only redeeming factor, I couldn't even muster up a laugh in response to Fox News. Even CNN, the closest one to neutral—I know, outrageous word to use when discussing this—became ridiculous, ceasing with the whole journalism thing in order to jump on the Twitter/Facebook bandwagon. I mean really, I don't so much care about what @WhoGivesaFuck tweeted about Obama as much as I care about being INFORMED.

SO. In the interest of keeping my blood pressure at its exceptionally low level, I followed the progress defining my generation and turned to the Interwebs. Online, problems like every female news anchor conforming to an apparent standard of blonde and surgically enhanced would not be relevant, nor would I be prompted to question whether the ranting of ideologues was sincere or just some elaborate performance art. I even thought the storied liberal leanings of the New York Times would not be too offensive. And of course I certainly share those leanings, but come on, no one wants to feel like they're drinking the Kool-Aid.

While this supposed bias of "The Gray Lady" has not jarred me, other aspects have. When Sarah Palin released her memoir in winter 2009, of course I expected coverage. I did not expect a rerun of a slideshow featuring the politician's wardrobe (and the controversy it caused) to be front and center on the New York Times' digital front page. Was this the most important information? Even the most interesting or entertaining? Of course not. Standards are even lower for the Styles section, but I'd rather not be prompted to exclaim "Homeboy, PUH-leasssee" when reading it. This was my experience Sunday when I came across an article about the experience of women attending colleges where they outnumber men significantly.




A valid concern? Certainly. The composition of undergrads at my college is 62% female and 38% male. I get it. But the author of this article, one Alex Williams, doesn't even consider anything apart from the heterosexual angle or acknowledge the fact that he is limiting his scope with this. Perhaps this failure to define the issue hints at the second problem (of many) that I have with the article, and comes as a general warning to the reader about the narrow and outmoded perspectives they will be getting. In this spirit, I will reproduce one quotation here that really says it all:

"Thanks to simple laws of supply and demand, it is often the women who must assert themselves romantically or be left alone on Valentine's Day, staring down a George Clooney movie over a half-empty pizza box."

Reprehensible. Gross. Insulting.
There are many things I could say to give my take as one of the young women apparently characterized in this gem of a sentence. I think for now, as I inevitably react in my hysterical unreasonable girlish way, I'll let Foster Kramer at Gawker articulate some of my thoughts (do I have those?):

"*Throws hands up, tosses laptop on floor*

Right, well. We're done here. New York Times, please go fuck anybody but us, today. Particularly, yourself."

Indeed.