Author: NicoleNg

In response to “The Circus of Fashion” by Suzy Menkes, I’d like to address the “seriousness,” or lack thereof, of fashion moguls and the level of austerity that is expected of the truly fashion elite.  Menkes explains that those truly dedicated to the art of fashion are, and should be, adorned in nothing more than black looks head to toe, in contrast with the fire-heeled, Margiela masks, and intergalactic sweatshirts of late.  The forefront of fashion, according to Menkes, has shifted from these serious types “into a zoo: the cattle market of showoff people waiting to be chosen or rejected by the photographers,” referring to the recent surge of Street Style celebrities captured by Tommy Ton, Scott Schuman, or Leandra Medine.  It seems as though Menkes believes that shows are meant for those of true fashion professionals: editors, buyers, and stylists;  those who peer off Style.com or Nowfashion are not worthy or fashionably educated enough to offer critique .

Yes, I agree that much of fashion “blogging” and amateur attempts at influencing fashion via the web are lackluster (read lookbook.nu and the oceans of unoriginality and sponsorship that follow).  And yes, the successors of Project Runway type shows do follow a somewhat ridiculous “American Idol”-style initiatives, in which a public vote selects the fashion winner.”  But to criticize the public availability and creation of opinion of fashion is itself even more ridiculous than all the rest.   What would art be if it were only meant for art collectors, and those “truly serious” about craft? Isn’t the purpose of all artistic forms to express a feeling or emotion, and emote that to the world?  And aren’t all collections ultimately at judgment of the public?  Yes, those who have been in the industry may be able to understand the originality or cohesion of a collection “better” most. However, this should not change the fact

that I am also entitled to view and form personal judgment. Without Style.com or NYMag or Refinery29, I, someone who is interested in fashion, would never have access to something that I am passionate about. The rise and importance of the social media generation has only helped to quickly spread information worldwide. How can fashion then be mutually exclusive from this sphere, where technology rules all, and anything remotely public spreads virally?

In that same light, aren’t those who blog about personal or street style attempting to tap into their own artistic expression via sartorial means? If an aspiring artist were to show the world her newest painting on the web, would she be subject to similar sentence?  Menkes contrasts the “circus-like” showing of show-goers outside fashion tents, those sporting high contrast prints, sky-high shoes, and surreal headgear,  with “the opposite of look at me fashion,” wearing the most basic but craftfully structured pieces.   But who is to say that fashion is meant to be entirely serious? What is the point of it all if we can’t live our lives in it? As a person entering the fashion arena, why is it that the Dedicated pros” must only be “dressed head to toe in black?” It seems to me that Menkes, and those who criticize, are missing the point.

In light of New York Fashion Week and following Tommy Ton and The Man Repeller on their respective adventures in the highly glamorous and daringly sartorial adventures at Lincoln Center, there are a few women on the University of Michigan campus that possess an eye for the unique and bring creativity to their everyday wardrobes in territory unbeknownst by most women.   While most women crown their heads with long, shiny hair and use it as a safety net for femininity, these women boldly tuck this safety net away, and instead adorn a Hijab in its place.   They use the Hijab as an additional accessory, creating visual interest in an ensemble and embracing the melded culture of their eastern and western make up.

A hijab is the traditional covering for the hair and neck that is worn my Muslim women to guard their modesty.   Traditionally, Islamic women are advised to not display their “beauty,” showcased by their hair, until marriage.

One particular classmate of mine layers her headscarf with feminine black lace, white, and lime green colors. She contrasts this femininity with a tough leather jacket and combat boots, creating an entire ensemble that not only merges cultures, but creates androgynous connotations which ironically is the opposite of what the hijab is meant to do. Another female student was head-to-toe in various floral printed chiffon pieces, creating a flowy, goddess-like outfit. She topped this look with a sequined hijab, generating an air of female empowerment. These women embrace their cultural influences and modernize the way that they are used and seen for the contemporary women.

On a recent episode of Fashion Police, a guilty pleasure television show in E!, Joan rivers and her team comment on Kanye West’s outfit at the Margiela fashion show ad call his head covering “terrorist chic.” A head covering of any kind should not immediately indicate the act of terrorism, or create any kind of generalization about the kind of people who wear head coverings. Even if this is not meant to allude to the use of a Hijab, it is

statements like these in pop culture that influence the way we view those in our everyday life that may wear culturally traditional garments.   Admittedly, Kanye’s choice of a head garment looks ridiculous.  This, however, should be kept separate from the already sensitive cultural stereotypes that we place.

The integration of cultural differences through fashion is something that should be encouraged.     Fashion is a creative outlet, much like painting and writing, which can be used to express feeling, progression, and individuality.   By incorporating cultural pieces, such as the hijab, it creates fashionably intriguing and challenging suits in addition to bold statements about cultural integration.

On whole, the movement to diversity in corporate, educational, political, and institutional bodies has increased immensely in the past few decades. After all, we have elected our first black president for a second term in the land of the free, let a Chinese-American basket ball player run headlines for months, and decreased the contempt toward affirmative action.

And yet, why is it that discrimination against those of other races is integrated into the way people perceive others, despite their overt openness and even push toward cultural diversity?

In a recent Chinese-speaking practice session with a native Chinese speaker from Taiwan, studying literature in the school of education, I realized the inherent judgment I held from the moment I met her.  I had so quickly stereotyped her as a socially incompetent, not so smart, small awkward Asian female; a profile that I have tried so hard my whole life to separate from.  She was quiet, had broken English, and led to me to the room with another white female where I assumed would be a perfectly nice, and slightly awkward, hour and a half.

However once the gate was open to her native language of mandarin, with idioms she could use ad sarcasm at her disposal, her personality bloomed. She was so personable, funny, outgoing, and intelligent.   She was well travelled, participated in philanthropic education events in countries I had only dreamed of, and was studying classical Chinese literature at a Masters level. I loved her company and completely forgot the preconceived notions I had about her “social incompetence.” If anything, I was the one who was inept and unable to communicate. While I tried to show my slightly extroverted personality, explaining what I meant in detail and color became increasingly difficult. Frustrated, I began to withdraw from the conversation for fear of embarrassment that I couldn’t express myself properly.  I became quieter, until

finally I seemed unintelligent and unable to communicate properly, awkward because I didn’t know how to properly enter the conversation, and instead focused on the piece of paper in front of me.  This retroversion to a much quieter state is against my natural state, and was caused by a mere language barrier.

Too often do we judge others intelligence and personality types because of language barriers.   Regardless of what true personality types may be, barriers to expression and embarrassment from them result in awkward encounters where people leave themselves vulnerable to judgment, and then withdraw entirely from uncomfortable social situations.  As a result, cultural groups form so that they can relate and be their true selves, and express themselves in the way they most comfortable. This results in a cyclical pattern where similar and comfortable people find each other, avoid those that are “awkward” based on preconceived and invalidated notions, and form further judgment of others because of cultural seclusion.

With regard to my personal observation, minority persons who defy their cultural stereotypes are the most critical of their less culturally integrated counterparts, and actually denounce those who haven’t adapted to American Culture.   It’s the perception of being accepted as a “true American,” without any of the negative connotations that come with the stereotypes that are rewarded and reinforce the built-in discrimination today.

While we want those of other cultures in our work environments and admitted to our schools, I think it’s time for us to push further, open our social circles, and discover the true personalities of those who we may have judged and passed on.  We need to eliminate the integrated modern-day racism that we don’t even recognize, and allow ourselves to break the next frontier in racial equality.  Discomfort may arrive and we may not be used to cultural differences or interacting with people who don’t understand the latest Girls reference you made, but it is the discomfort and push outside of a comfort zone that leads to improvement and change.    The discrepancy between what many so strongly believe in, social and racial equality, and how they act, unintended racial discrimination, is something that I don’t believe I stand alone in.   However, through recognition and resolve we can change the way we think, and make many new friends.

The culinary arts without a doubt require the skill, dexterity, creativity, and thoughtfulness as artworks of sculpture, painting, or installation. Similar to fashion and pulling away from traditional forms of art, the culinary arts are transformative because you can live your life with it.  However, similar to “hipsters” of late who only know Pollock’s “Autumn Rhythm” or Warhol’s “Campbell Soup,” the culinary arts have become more and more of a blockbuster spectacle, throwing around words such as “confit,” “aoli,” and “truffle fillintheingredient,” making dishes seem elevated to gourmet heights when really, there’s just fried food and mayonnaise.

(Note: There is definitely still an appreciation for fried food, mayo, and truffle ANYTHING, but the regularity of these words to attempt to elevate food make the usage of these deceitful and manipulative).

The culinary mass culture is something that I most definitely do not denounce. In fact, I find it exciting to learn about other cultures and cuisines. However, the pretention that follows in restaurants creates an environment that falsely advertises poorly made cuisine into something that tricks people into liking it based on its fancier forename.

I am not claiming to be a connoisseur of the refined culinary arts, nor do I have the skill to create food much better than those of the restaurants I criticize and dine. However, what is frustrating are those who lack in execution, complexity in flavor, service, and authenticity that create an environment seemingly counterfeit.   The appreciation for true gourmet is becoming lost upon us as we demand foods that are fancier than their true being. For example, “Lean and tender pork loin chops crusted with panko and togarashi, with grilled vegetables, lentils and a shallot soy-mustard sauce” actually translates to a regular Don Katsu Pork Chop with overly sweet and salty vegetables (not actually grilled), dry lentils, and a sugary sweet glaze to top.  Why not make the food simpler, better executed, and honest?

Live at the Metropolitan Museum of Art is “Stag by Sharkey’s,” (1909) perhaps George Bellows’ (1882-1925) most famous painting.  Filled with action, movement, and perfect lighting, the painting depicts a boxing scene that is as graceful and beautiful as it is raw, real, and violent.

Bellows died at the young age of 43 as a painter part of the Aschan School. The artistic school was known for its rejection of French impressionism and glorification of the American West in favor of portraying the real disarray of new American cities. Bellows in particular depicted the “grittiness, violence, and masculinity” of New York City.  However, throughout the remainder of his career, Bellows experimented with other painting subjects, varying from standard portrait types exhibiting piercing and frightening eyes, to landscape and an extreme use of light contrast, perhaps to portray his perspective on the disparity between light and darkness within the new city.  In personal opinion, his earliest works of the budding city are his most invigorating and impactful on the viewer.

The scene of “Stag by Sharkey’s” depicts a turn of the century illegal fight club in New York. At the time, prize fighting was illegal, so men turned to underground alternatives for prize fighting.

Upon live view, Bellow’s painting is a hundred times more powerful than its digital replica. The command of Bellow’s rough and thick brush strokes reach out to the viewer and pulls him into 1909. The painting places the viewer in the third row of the fight, amidst the crowd, the noise, and the sweat. While both men are fighting each other, their grace in movement resembles a choreographed dance. The man on the left’s leg is extended, almost at point, and

continues through the arch of his back. The man on the right reflects a mirrored curve to his back, as they meet in collision in the center.  These lines are also present in the muscle detail of each man; strong and graceful pieces that work together to generate a force much larger than the individual.

Standing in front of this painting elicits real emotion. It is the perfect balance between light and darkness, roughness and grace, detail and ambiguity.    It tells the story of a dirty and real New York, filled with excitement and uncertainty. While the city faces accusations of gentrification and a loss of its once gritty backbone, Bellows reminds us of the raw backbone of the city, and how it is perfectly balanced and beautiful in all of its glory.

In a conversation had earlier this week about the separation of art and business as analogous to that of church and state, I would like to prove my extremely business purist ounterpart wrong. The integration of art and business, and the ability to generate new, creative ideas from the minds of the most avant-garde is not outlandish or even novel. I’m sure that this isn’t even the oldest example, but to pull the focus away from the hipster days of late that emphasize the degradation of large corporations and capitalism, I would like to turn the year back to 1966, during the Experiments in Art and Technology convention (E.A.T.).  EAT “encouraged the collaboration of artists and engineers across the country in interdisciplinary technology-based art projects.”  The project linked two entirely separate spheres of studio art and scientific engineering to meet on common ground and participate in new product innovation. One of the most iconic results of the collaboration was the “Pepsi-Cola Pavillion,” an experimental multimedia theatrical space and interactive environment in Osaka, Japan. Although most notable as a historical form of media art, it clearly exemplifies the possibility for collaboration between the artistic and business world.

Fast forward to 2012 and the evidence of artistic presence integrated into marketing campaigns remains relevant. It’s no doubt that the creative virtues of advertisers are present in every magazine flipped open or cinematography in commercials that make you cry. But even more overtly, Warhol’s iconic Campbell’s soup print was celebrated on the soup cans themselves this fall, with bright colors and a clear homage to the late artist. Warhol was also celebrated in a recent NARS cosmetics campaign, released during Spring 2013 Fashion Week.   Louis Vuitton collaborated with Japanese artist Yayoi Kusama, which inspired the line’s luxury handbag for this season. Kenny Sscharf, a Brooklyn based street artist comparable to the works of Basquiat, collaborated with Kiehl’s to create a line “Crème De Corps” that donates 100% of net profits to children’s charity with a focus on authentic art in children’s medical facilities. While I realize that the majority of the most recent examples come from fashion based companies which inherently have the tenacity to be more accepting of artistic perspectives and integration, I also hope that this is the step toward a greater trend that is to be incorporated into the natural business world. Too often do we disregard the completely valid perspective of those that think with a different set of neurons, and deem them to be either corrupt or an anarchist. Can we find common ground? Long live the banker artist!