She seems to have good taste when it comes to footwear.
Those are “vegan” shoes. $265.00 a pair. Profits go to charity, according to Walter Scott.
Proof - 07:03pm on 03/09/2008
Those are “vegan” shoes.
So that’s what the kids are calling CFM pumps these days! Go figure!
Kevin - 07:03pm on 03/09/2008
"vegan” in that there is no leather in them. ("Animal rights”, don’tcha know?)
Proof - 08:03pm on 03/09/2008
Rob,
When it comes to art and “the system” it isn’t as clear cut as you layed out.
But what great art came as a result of the Soviet Union?
Solzhenitsyn, Esenin, Ahmatova, Bulgakov, Nabakov… just to name a few. All had conflict with the Soviet system, but the troubles gave them something to write about. Look at the banality of today’s literature. Slice of life narrative has replaced the novel of ideas. Or as Rushdie once put it, artists have grown afraid to take a big bite out of the world.
While I’m 100% capitalist in all other respects, I do have my ambivalence when it comes to the arts. Pure capitalism seems to only to have American Idol, day and night, on the horizon as far as the arts are concerned.
Hairy Polemic - 09:03pm on 03/09/2008
I’d appreciate it if y’all quit criticizing my girlfriend.
gilbyguy - 09:03pm on 03/09/2008
Well, first, I’m not nearly as cynical about modern literature and art as you are. When it comes to those things, everyone seems to be a curmudgeon. What was done in the past is always better, no?
Plus, not all popular art is bad art. Some of my favorite bands - Led Zeppelin, The White Stripes, Johnny Cash - are very popular. But just because their music has mass appeal doesn’t mean they aren’t good.
Though a lot of people seem to think that unless an artist is obscure their not good.
But my point wasn’t that capitalism itself creates good art, but rather that a capitalist environment frees artists to be themselves.
After all, while America’s record isn’t spotless, we generally aren’t putting people in jail for writing a certain song or book. Natalie Portman isn’t put in jail for doing a nude scene, as that Chinese actor I linked to in the post was.
Rob - 06:03am on 03/10/2008
But my point wasn’t that capitalism itself creates good art, but rather that a capitalist environment frees artists to be themselves.
I agree with this completely. I just don’t think that the relationship between capitalism and art is as clear cut as when you asked, “But what great art came [from communist regimes].”
I agree that much more art has come from capitalist systems, but I disagree with the “great” part. I love all those bands that you mentioned, but here’s a little point on that one:
Led Zeppelin was representative of pre-commercialized rock. Most critics (particularly Lester Bangs) agree that rock died after that, it “became an industry of cool.”
The White Stripes are part of a counter-cultural reaction to the commercialization of rock known as “punk rock”.
I mean, you made a good point. More art is produced when artists are free and are rewarded for producing it. But you also risk creating an industry of art, which truly does have an affect on quality: the other day I was covering an art auction where 3 fist-sized rocks on a pedestal sold for $6,000. So yea, I’d say that the relationship between art and a “good free” system isn’t necessarily positive.
There is nothing beautiful about perfection without a flawed backdrop to bring it out.
Hairy Polemic - 06:03am on 03/10/2008
I think you’re confusing my point. Yes, more art is created in free societies. But quantity isn’t necessarily quality.
I’d argue that artists in oppressive societies created their art despite the government, and that there is less “chaff” mixed in with the “wheat” in art coming from oppressive societies is probably a symptom of only the most dedicated artists being willing to fight the system.
By the way, arguing that the White Stripes aren’t commercialized is a little silly. They seem to be selling plenty of t-shirts and albums. And saying that rock died after Led Zeppelin seems to be more of that curmudgeonly “the old days were the best days” nonsense.
Just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s not good.
Rob - 08:03am on 03/10/2008
Oh, I wasn’t saying all that stuff. But you’re confusing the value of the Stripes’ music with the reason they composed that music in the first place. Punk is a countercultural movement in rock to get away from its commercialized points (more grunge, less orchestra, etc...)—the fact that it has become popular doesn’t change why it was done in the first place (Nirvana never expected to get rich, and some punk bands continue to keep low-key despite their popularity). But to continue along that line, new punk is commercialized (in the sense that the artists started playing it purely to make money) and it tends to suck. Examples of bad punk bands that came after the White Stripes made punk lucrative again: 311, Fallout Boy, etc…
Anyway. You’re right, quantity isn’t quality. And whether or not I’m being curmudgeonly about today’s art lacking in quality compared to yesterdays is a discussion for a different forum (I’ll be glad to have it if you like—I have some theories on that). But I didn’t say that rock is dead… Lester Bangs did
She seems to have good taste when it comes to footwear.
http://www.shoeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/natalie-portman-shoes-te-casan.jpg
Those are “vegan” shoes. $265.00 a pair. Profits go to charity, according to Walter Scott.
So that’s what the kids are calling CFM pumps these days! Go figure!
"vegan” in that there is no leather in them. ("Animal rights”, don’tcha know?)
Rob,
When it comes to art and “the system” it isn’t as clear cut as you layed out.
Solzhenitsyn, Esenin, Ahmatova, Bulgakov, Nabakov… just to name a few. All had conflict with the Soviet system, but the troubles gave them something to write about. Look at the banality of today’s literature. Slice of life narrative has replaced the novel of ideas. Or as Rushdie once put it, artists have grown afraid to take a big bite out of the world.
While I’m 100% capitalist in all other respects, I do have my ambivalence when it comes to the arts. Pure capitalism seems to only to have American Idol, day and night, on the horizon as far as the arts are concerned.
I’d appreciate it if y’all quit criticizing my girlfriend.
Well, first, I’m not nearly as cynical about modern literature and art as you are. When it comes to those things, everyone seems to be a curmudgeon. What was done in the past is always better, no?
Plus, not all popular art is bad art. Some of my favorite bands - Led Zeppelin, The White Stripes, Johnny Cash - are very popular. But just because their music has mass appeal doesn’t mean they aren’t good.
Though a lot of people seem to think that unless an artist is obscure their not good.
But my point wasn’t that capitalism itself creates good art, but rather that a capitalist environment frees artists to be themselves.
After all, while America’s record isn’t spotless, we generally aren’t putting people in jail for writing a certain song or book. Natalie Portman isn’t put in jail for doing a nude scene, as that Chinese actor I linked to in the post was.
I agree with this completely. I just don’t think that the relationship between capitalism and art is as clear cut as when you asked, “But what great art came [from communist regimes].”
I agree that much more art has come from capitalist systems, but I disagree with the “great” part. I love all those bands that you mentioned, but here’s a little point on that one:
Led Zeppelin was representative of pre-commercialized rock. Most critics (particularly Lester Bangs) agree that rock died after that, it “became an industry of cool.”
The White Stripes are part of a counter-cultural reaction to the commercialization of rock known as “punk rock”.
I mean, you made a good point. More art is produced when artists are free and are rewarded for producing it. But you also risk creating an industry of art, which truly does have an affect on quality: the other day I was covering an art auction where 3 fist-sized rocks on a pedestal sold for $6,000. So yea, I’d say that the relationship between art and a “good free” system isn’t necessarily positive.
There is nothing beautiful about perfection without a flawed backdrop to bring it out.
I think you’re confusing my point. Yes, more art is created in free societies. But quantity isn’t necessarily quality.
I’d argue that artists in oppressive societies created their art despite the government, and that there is less “chaff” mixed in with the “wheat” in art coming from oppressive societies is probably a symptom of only the most dedicated artists being willing to fight the system.
By the way, arguing that the White Stripes aren’t commercialized is a little silly. They seem to be selling plenty of t-shirts and albums. And saying that rock died after Led Zeppelin seems to be more of that curmudgeonly “the old days were the best days” nonsense.
Just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s not good.
Oh, I wasn’t saying all that stuff. But you’re confusing the value of the Stripes’ music with the reason they composed that music in the first place. Punk is a countercultural movement in rock to get away from its commercialized points (more grunge, less orchestra, etc...)—the fact that it has become popular doesn’t change why it was done in the first place (Nirvana never expected to get rich, and some punk bands continue to keep low-key despite their popularity). But to continue along that line, new punk is commercialized (in the sense that the artists started playing it purely to make money) and it tends to suck. Examples of bad punk bands that came after the White Stripes made punk lucrative again: 311, Fallout Boy, etc…
Anyway. You’re right, quantity isn’t quality. And whether or not I’m being curmudgeonly about today’s art lacking in quality compared to yesterdays is a discussion for a different forum (I’ll be glad to have it if you like—I have some theories on that). But I didn’t say that rock is dead… Lester Bangs did