Jean-Michel Basquiat and Kate Lanphear

Ran into an extract about Basquiat on Arte. It seems that he's been talked about quite a bit lately. The other day there's just an opening or something like that for an exhibition or a film about him. Heard or read about people saying how talented he was and so on. Somehow I still think that as long as one is not a gigantuous banal entity, with that amount of drugs and stuffs, one can always more or less come up with some stuffs that could be interpreted as art work.
Of course, once again, it depends on how you see the stuffs and for what reason you talk about it.
Actually, it occurs to me that there weren't many brilliant artists, so-called artists, writers, so-called fashion designers, philosophers, musicians, so-called this and that, who were sober, or clean in that sense.

Performance and good luck.



A situation a little similar is that about Kate Lanphear.
Let's say that one can of course dress hi/herself with such sharp style as long as one got such wardrobe which provides an incredible abundant choices......  However, the reason why I say it's only "a little similar" is that most of the time, if you observe clearly, an uniform suits most of people.
Simple, they don't know how to dress themselves.

Kate knows what and how, do you?

What about Martin Margiela

About Martin Margiela

Still, I don't get why Sarah Mower and Nicole Phelps got so many negative opinons about MMM's recent women collections. Mostly due to the so-called absence of Margiela in the house. Well, what else beside that? From an amateur's point of view, I can't really tell those differences and the lack of this and that. Indeed I should spend more time on "studying" collections and make some more efforts on "codes reading" but to be honestly, seldom was I into Margiela's show pieces, and I still don't now. From this angle, it's still pretty much coherent, those collections, at least to me.
Of course some of them are better than the others, but that isn't what those critics and journalists are talking about; all they point to is the absence of the person. And that comes along with fashionistas and who-knows-what-wannabes' original opinions/criticisms. Fairly bugging.

The point is that you cannot tell. He's there. He's not there. Who's ever being there? The fun thing is that it's so manipulative. And once again the power of media as well as the enthusiasm of parrots.


Wouldn't it be so simple that it's how they want you to see and to think in a certain way?
By they I mean MMM or the person behind or the person behind the person behind.
Ain't that funny. Drop an ink into a glass of water and see how it becomes. Somehow it coincides with the idea in Le Placard I watched earlier this evening. A hilarious story by the way.

                                                  
So, the whereabouts of Margiela.
It reminds me of collections he made while he's in Hermès when I see Céline's collections lately, especially when it comes to those leather-made garments. Who's doing what? Who's where?
Phoebe is adorable, so is her style.

By the way, MMM's last collection 2010aw isn't that good; I don't have the faintest idea what Sarah were praising about and what Nicole are bitching about the latest one comparing to which.

I might be the dumbest one that care about them after all.

What about Martin Margiela again?