"Not to offend anyone directly, but this photo could quite possibly be of a homeless man, a street person, or whatever term you wish to use. It could also just as easily be an affluent hipster wearing a highly dysfunctional piece of high-fashion. I think the ambiguity of that is very dangerous."
Comment on a photograph at The Sartorialist.
Follow-on comment: "The ‘danger’ here is somehow thinking that this is in the territory of Zoolander’s “Derelicte” Collection. I don’t know if it’s a ‘trap’ … but when reading some of these comments, I’m thinking Brüno and Zoolander :-)"
२१ नोव्हेंबर, २०१३
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१९ टिप्पण्या:
Not really. We are past the point where dress is an indicator of status. I wear a coat and tie every day as much as any reason to piss people off. Plus very good shoes.
I remember when we called them Street People before "homeless" got popular. It was Mitch Snyder who made the big fuss back in the 80s and it became a bad thing.
Before that it was mainly a lot of kids hitchhiking around the country wearing backpacks and panhandling on the way. And Bag Ladies.
The idea of the "ambiguity" being "dangerous" lol!
Dangerous to... ?
People who are terrified of not being able to classify people by social or economic class at a glance?
Zoolander is an awesome movie.
Is there still a Mystery Date board game and, if so, with such ambiguity how can a young wom.... er, person, tell the "Dream" from the "Dud"?
Apparently there's a fine line between visual inspiration and exploitative asshole.
That entire comment thread was depressing. So much angst-ridden hand-wringing trying to think about the "right" reaction both to the photo and to the comments of others.
I concluded long ago that Sartorialist is high-level satire, and that a fair number of the commenters are in on the joke, just there to move it along. At least, I truly hope they are. O Dear God, what if I'm wrong?
The upside of being a hipster douche is that it gives you the freedom of laughing at anything, especially hipster douchiness.
It is very self aware in its cynicism.
The posture suggests homeless, yet I can't see The Sartorialist posting that; he seems like rather too kind a person to do so.
I concluded long ago that Sartorialist is high-level satire, and that a fair number of the commenters are in on the joke, just there to move it along.
If so, it's way over my head! But again, I believe Scott is earnest (being from Indiana and all) and the commenters sincere. Also I don't think they're quite bright enough to grasp high-level satire--I'm probably not either. Now I must spend the next few moments thinking about whether intelligence spawns cynicism...
Is that Will Ferrell?
Looks like Ming the Merciless with a bad peroxide job.
"Megaera said...
I concluded long ago that Sartorialist is high-level satire, and that a fair number of the commenters are in on the joke, just there to move it along. At least, I truly hope they are. O Dear God, what if I'm wrong"
Occam's Razor... You *are* wrong.
The commentariat over there are a flock of urban douches (Self-aborsorbus Cluelesserium).
The only question is - is "flock" the correct term...?
Maybe they are a 'fling' of urban douches...
"Shajavi Bahshir
November 18, 2013 at 5:14 pm
Great shot! I love the patina on his coat. I wonder why so many homeless people have such a great sense of style. I think there is a lesson here for all of us ‘rich’ people: you don’t need a lot of money to be fashionable! Just be yourself and have fun!
"
Seriously, in 20-plus years of Internet commentary this is the stupidest fucking thing I've read.
I hope Shajavi isn't Titus'significant other...
The garment obviously shows some wear, but it is not at all dirty. I'd rule out homeless.
The next time someone asks me exactly what I mean by self absorbed navel gazing, I have book marked the comments at the Sartorialist
"Hipster/homeless ambiguity could be very dangerous."
Color me hopelessly blasé, but I don't feel at all endangered.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा