DG's Google Ads account has occasionally been feeding "Yes on Prop. 8" ads to our page, undoubtedly spurred by all the Groomzilla posts. (They also send us a lot of wedding photography ads.) Do not be alarmed. Better they should waste their money here.
Before Goth became a mall-rat style choice, there was Elvira, Mistress of the Dark. In 1981, Cassandra Peterson hosted a syndicated horror movie TV show, and a cult favorite was born. Peterson, a member of the Groundlings improv troupe, combined sexiness, camp and a genuine enthusiasm for low-budget gore flicks.
She's even looking for her own protege, via a FOX reality show.
KCRW asked her to guest-DJ and she's got a Halloween playlist, featuring herself, of course.
Like Batman or the Virgin of Guadalupe, Barack Obama's face has become an icon of popular devotion--unusual in American politics. As long as the election campaign is still going on, the Obama imagery is inspiring but innocuous, combining the escapist glamour of a tween's Hannah Montana bed linens with the fan enthusiasm of a Tony Romo jersey. While Obamania may seem excessive to outsiders, so do Comic-Con and Clemson tailgating parties. Besides, some of the merchandising is just that--an entrepreneurial way of playing to the passions of the moment. "Yes We Can Cola" is all in fun. (And Jones Soda did make other campaign colas.)
If Obama is elected president, however, the man in the pictures is no longer a symbol of identity and aspiration. He's the boss, "Leader of the Free World." He has power. Ubiquitous images of his face take on a creepy Dear Leader quality, implicitly commanding obedience. As Kaelan Smith wrote in an article about Shepard Fairey's famous Obama posters:
“Can anyone think of a time,” I asked, “when a presidential candidate used an image of himself as a primary campaign logo?” None of us had been alive during the Great Depression or the subsequent Great War, so we agreed unanimously that we hadn’t. Then a woman at the table said, “I suppose you see pictures like that of Castro in Cuba.” That reminded me of a trip I’d taken recently to Jordan. When I walked across the border from Israel I’d seen the huge, benevolent faces of King Hussein and his son, King Abdullah II. In fact, they had been everywhere, from the small, goat-herding villages along the highway, in Petra on a wall near my hotel, and in every shop throughout Amman.
In the United States there are not laudatory images of Bush hanging in stores or in living rooms, at bus stops or on billboards. But if Obama gets elected in November, thanks to Shepard Fairey’s efforts, his face will already be a ubiquitous, public image; I hesitate to, but must say, like the monarchs of the Middle East and the dictators of the remaining autocracies.
In an interview Fairey assured Smith that his imagery “anti-propaganda propaganda” that, he suggested, is “coming from a position of moral integrity.” In other words, he believes it, or at least believes it's in a good cause. The Obama posters were, of course, based on the famous propaganda image of Che Guevara. John McCain may suggest that Obama is a socialist. Fairey, a man of the left, literally paints Obama as a communist--which may involve as much wishful projection as the belief in other quarters that the candidate is a secret free-trader.
Although campaign posters are surely a form of propaganda, the Obama imagery is so empty of specific exhortation that we do better to think of it as a manifestation of the candidate's glamour--a seductive illusion in which the audience sees whatever they themselves desire. Glamour is manipulative, but not coercive. It requires the audience to suspend its skepticism and the object to maintain his mystery, a tacit form of cooperation. Give the object the power to compel devotion, and glamour is suddenly neither sustainable nor necessary.
As his many fans have no doubt realized, Groomzilla has been detained and could not make this week's post. He will, however, be back soon with wedding news. In lieu of a post, here are a couple of snaps from the big day.
According to the New York Times, people want music that "goes with" their decor. Consultants assemble playlists for those who want customized music:
“When someone walks in and hears great music, it’s like looking at a wonderful painting on the wall that gives you certain emotions,” said Mr. Wagner, who gets his playlists updated quarterly. “I love that I don’t have to think about what to put on. It’s already done for me.”
Emphasis on "think". Likewise:
Most of the tracks on the 10-hour compilation that she continues to play are by acts she had previously never heard of, like the contemporary pop singer Joshua Radin and the folk artist Brett Dennen. The playlist has an overall warm sound, Ms. Goldberg said, which harmonizes with her apartment’s open floor plan and casual, contemporary feel. “It was like they could read my mind.”
It's not just the floorplan that's empty. As someone who owns roughly 1200 albums, CDs, tapes and so on, I can't fathom having someone pick music for me based on my taste in furnishings.
Having a bad day? Tough. The playlist insists that only perky music is suitable, not Mahler.
A professor quoted in the piece plays Luther Vandross in the living room but Alison Krauss in the kitchen. Gee, I wonder what room gets the Bonzo Dog Band or Dave Edmunds and Rockpile? I'd guess the home gym, but that might be too matchy-matchy.
I haven't ordered anything yet, as I'm still trying to figure out how I can get an approximation of Jobs Handtryk's Tistlar without actual theft and with my limited artistic skills.I've got a sofa that's crying out to be re0covered.
Manolo the Shoeblogger answer our "wickedly hard set of questions." As his answers suggest, The Manolo (who is not Maestro Manolo Blahnik) is not just a very funny shoe lover and blogging tycoon but an erudite intellectual whose style comes with loads of substance--something that should surprise no one familiar with his little book, The Consolation of the Shoes, which is modeled on the medieval classic The Consolation of Philosophy (but much more fun).
Manolo: Who wears them. Manolo Blahniks and Christian Louboutins are glamorous because they are worn by glamorous peoples. Aside from this, however, they are also exceedingly beautiful and costly objects, to be desired in their own right, and one would wish to own and wear them even if they were not on the feets of the famous.
DG: Glamour requires mystery, something you know a lot about. Short of creating an anonymous persona, what do you advise people who want to maintain some mystery and glamour?
Manolo: The Manolo is convinced that it is almost impossible to make yourself glamorous, especially since you have no way of judging if you've succeeded short of being feted by the President at the Kennedy Center. After all, if you wake up one morning and say to your self, "Huzzah, I have achieved glamorousness!" you may be certain that you have not, and that are you are surely and unattractively self-deluded.
If you feel the need to talk, as the Manolo frequently does, keep your conversations glittering and light and witty. Avoid telling everyone about your difficult childhood, your terrible divorce, or the details of your recent colonoscopy.
However, it is always and forever the good idea to surround yourself with the little bit of mystery, and the easiest way to do this is by shutting your mouth. Strong silent men and mysterious women who say little will always be objects of desire and admiration. It is not necessary in ordinary conversation to reveal every detail of your life, so do not. If you feel the need to talk, as the Manolo frequently does, keep your conversations glittering and light and witty. Avoid telling everyone about your difficult childhood, your terrible divorce, or the details of your recent colonoscopy.
As for the glamour part, nothing we mortals can do will ever get us closer to glamorous than putting on formal wear for the evening-time event. If, like the Manolo, you are not possessed of physical beauty and great wealth or fame, dressing up in the tuxedo and going out for the fancy dinner and dance is perhaps the best simulacrum of glamour that can be achieved.
Otherwise, you should dress stylishly, wear excellent shoes, be confident and cheery, and treat others with courtesy and kindness. That may not be glamorous, but it is the Manolo's definition of super fantastic.
DG: What books would you recommend for understanding glamour?
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Antony and Cleopatra by William Shakespeare
The Story of My Life by Giocomo Cassanova
Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings by Amy Kelly
Garbo by Barry Paris
The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen
The DG Dozen
1) How do you define glamour?
Glamour is the peculiar and elusive characteristic that combines, in unspecified and unspecifiable proportions, the qualities of charisma, style, beauty, desirability, confidence, rarity, and mysteriousness. In fact, it is almost impossible to fully define what makes something glamorous. As with the Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition of obscenity, we have trouble defining glamour, but know it when we see it.
Having said that, the Manolo further avers that of all the previously mentioned characteristics, the most important are beauty and mysteriousness.
That which can be held closely and examined intimately loses its glamour, which is why the most glamorous of persons (Jackie O, Greta Garbo, Lord Byron, Galla Placidia, Cleopatra, Sappho) have always had something wonderfully opaque about them. Their motives are not well known, perhaps even to themselves, and thus it is this mysteriousness that in large part makes them glamorous. Likewise without beauty, such mysteriousness does not fully compel us.
By this definition, to be glamorous is to be extraordinary, perhaps even uncanny, unheimlich, if you will; the exact opposite of ordinary. What makes someone glamorous cannot be fully and clearly comprehended.
This, of the course, naturally raises the important question, can inanimate objects can be "glamorous" in and of themselves. Or is it perhaps true that only people can be glamorous?
The Manolo is of two minds on this topic. On the one of the hands, objects can be indisputably and often indescribably beautiful. And, as we know, beautiful objects clearly have the ability to evoke powerful emotions, of lust, love, desire, envy; indeed, they can even inspire some to commit great crimes, or others to great acts of charity.
Mysteriousness does not apply to something as comprehensible as the Aston Martin automobile; it is the work of mechanics and men, of designers and engineers. There is little of that necessary glamorous mystery about it.
The Manolo believes that what we consider to be the glamorous object is only is only glamorous by reflection, because of the person or persons who are closely associated with the specific things.
For the example, our Aston Martin automobile is glamorous because it is associated with James Bond and rich English playboys, not because it is inherently glamorous in itself. The Aston Martin is beautiful, costly, well made, rare, and extremely desirable, and yet it was not fully glamorous until it was adopted as the symbol of the particular and desirable mode of life. Without Ian Fleming, the Aston Martin would simply be one more marque of luxury automobile.
Thus glamorous objects are glamorous by association, and are not inherently glamorous. And here, in the matter of objects of desire, the Manolo nods in the direction of Thorstein Veblen, even as the Manolo denies that personal glamour can be explained by reference to theories of class. (The glamour of the glamorous person is too individually unique to be explained by such methods.)
And so, to come back in the circular fashion to the Manolo's original point, glamour is intensely difficult to define. It is elusive and will-o-the-wisp, but beauty and mystery are its chief components.
3) Is glamour a luxury or a necessity?
It is neither. True glamour is like the shooting star, it is unpredictable and transitory, it cannot be willed into existence, and can be destroyed far too easily to be relied upon. You cannot buy glamour, you can only buy objects that reflect the glamour of others. Glamour is created within the individual person, and is not the style to be worn like the suit of fashionable clothes, but rather something inherent.
4) Favorite glamorous movie?
Napoléon by Abel Gance.
5) What was your most glamorous moment?
The Manolo knows himself too well to have had the glamorous moment.
6) Favorite glamorous object (car, accessory, electronic gadget, etc.)?
Ray Ban aviator style sunglasses. Because they are the rare example of the object this is very common, relatively inexpensive, and yet indisputably glamorous. If objects reflect the glamour of those who wear them, then Ray Bans reflect the glamour of heroic fighter pilots, who like bullfighters, astronauts, and football quarterbacks, have the sizable portion of glamour baked right into their jobs. Also, sunglasses are inherently glamorous accessories because they conceal.
7) Most glamorous place?
Can the place be glamorous? Yes, but only until you visit it, and then your illusions of glamour are dispelled by the mundane things of the everyday world that you cannot help but notice, like traffic jams, and garbage collection, and sewers that back up when it rains too much. Thus Venice is glamorous, until the breeze off the Adriatic brings in the smell of rotting fish and raw sewage, at which point it is like Hoboken with better architecture.
And so, the Manolo would have to say, that for him, the current most glamorous place in the world is Saint Petersburg, but only because he has never been there.
As the footnote, the Manolo must explain that romantic and glamorous are not the same. The place like Venice, which sometimes smells of rotting fish, or Paris, where the traffic is sometimes horrific, are still terribly romantic, while Hoboken will never be romantic, even if it were to smell constantly of roses and freshly roasted coffee.
8) Most glamorous job?
9) Something or someone that other people find glamorous and you don't
Madonna, George Clooney, Scarlett Johannsen, Kate Hudson, Katherine Heigl, and 99.97% of the people who are commonly considered glamorous, to include almost anyone seen in the most recent issues of Us and People magazines. Also, by definition, any person who appears in the regular network television series cannot be glamorous.
10) Something or someone that you find glamorous whose glamour is unrecognized
George Washington. Tall, handsome, wealthy, mysterious, and possessed of real charisma. This is the test of true glamour: If your countrymen wish to make you king, you are probably glamorous. If you then refuse to be made king, you are indisputably glamorous.
Individual glamour never survives intimate contact (hence Marilyn Monroe's many divorces), and very rarely can it survive the ravages of old age (Garbo and Jackie O. are perhaps the only counter examples) which is why dying young is the surest way of maintaining one's glamour indefinitely.
As for the larger question, can glamour survive the ravages of our paparazzi-and-Perez-Hilton-ridden, Age of Full Disclosure? The Manolo does not know. Glamour depends upon mystery, which is becoming harder and harder to maintain in our time.
12) Is glamour something you're born with?
The uncanny nature of glamour, the mysteriousness of its genesis, and its persistent elusiveness tempts the Manolo to say yes, and yet, real glamour can only be expressed in the full bloom of adulthood. Can you train yourself to glamour? The Manolo supposes anything is possible, although it seems to happen far more by accident than planning.
1) Angelina Jolie or Cate Blanchett?
Cate Blanchett. Until the few weeks ago, it would have been Angeline Jolie. But then the People Magazine published the pictures of her in the matronly cotton nighty. Matronly nighties are like kryptonite to glamour.
2) Paris or Venice?
Neither. The Manolo has been to both places.
3) New York or Los Angeles?
Neither. The Manolo has lived in both places.
4) Princess Diana or Princess Grace?
Princess Grace. Without the single tiny second of hesitation.
5) Tokyo or Kyoto?
Kyoto. But, then the Manolo has been to neither place.
6) Boots or stilettos?
Boots. There is more mystery and fable in the good pair of boots than in all the stiletto-heeled sandals combined.
Art Nouveau. The 1890s are far more glamorous than the mundane 1930s.
8) Jaguar or Astin Martin?
9) Armani or Versace?
10) Diana Vreeland or Anna Wintour?
Diana Vreeland. Please this one is fish in the barrel.
11) Champagne or single malt?
12) 1960s or 1980s?
1960s, but only because of the first three years, which rightly should be grouped with the 1950s. Likewise, 1980s glamour is confined mostly to the person of Ronald Reagan alone. All else, including Nancy, is not especially glamorous.
13) Diamonds or pearls?
14) Kate Moss or Naomi Campbell?
Models are rarely glamorous. Only those like Charlize Theron who become actresses have achieved true glamour.
15) Sean Connery or Daniel Craig?
Sean Connery, then. Daniel Craig, now.
Circa 1935. Thanks to Lee Sutton for permission to reprint from his Flickr collection of vintage ads.
Brigid Berlin, Warhol pal, has turned out the most amazing needlepoint ever. Front pages of the NY Post and Daily News, immortalized in yarn, are on display at John McWinnie at Glenn Horowitz through Nov. 22nd.
It is not uncharacteristic that Berlin in later years has turned to the traditionally ladylike craft of needlepoint to create work that continues to challenge the social status quo, defy convention, and pose questions about taste and society.
She'd also done a series of pillows, based on his favorite trials, for Dominick Dunne.
New York Social Diary has an interview and tour. Warning: Berlin is just wild about pugs.
“The great promise of photography was that it would tell the ‘truth’. Yet the ‘truth’ of photography is only a more convincing illusion, selection and artifice lurking behind the seemingly impartiality of the mechanical eye. Fashion drawings often give more accurate information, yet it is the photographic image that has captured the feel of modern clothes, and in doing so influenced them. Lartigue, who was taking informal photographs of fashionable ladies just before the First World War, Baron de Meyer, who flourished between the wars, and Steichen, whose work continued into the post Second World War period, all took pictures that reproduced the illusion of movement, and so the suggestion of movement became an element essential to fashionable dress. Black and white photography intensified the importance of line, contrast, and abstract, architectural form.
Photography paradoxically enhanced both the mystery and the suggestiveness of fashion—and fashion magazines come on rather like pornography; they indulge the desire of the ‘reader’ who looks at the pictures, to be each perfect being reflected in the pages, while simultaneously engaging erotically with a femininity (and increasingly a masculinity) that is constantly being redefined.”
—Elizabeth Wilson, Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity
[Photo by Toni Frissell, courtesy of the Library of Congress]