"Just Kids" is the headline on a New York Times "T" magazine photo spread featuring a model on her back on a half-bare mattress on the floor. The text with the picture asserts that "virginal white lace paired with leather and suede evokes the sexy decadence..."Dot dot dot. What is elided after "sexy decadence"? ".... of Patti Smith’s punk-rock days..."
"Just Kids" is the title of Smith's National Book Award winning memoir about her starving-artist days in New York City with Robert Mapplethorpe. They considered themselves "just kids," but they were in their early 20s.
Now, there may be a whiff of underage-sex to the NYT photo spread, the NYT may have consciously (or unconsciously) sought to titillate readers with the word "kids," and if some conservative had somehow produced the same pictures and text liberals would have gone in for the kill, BUT you cannot convincingly or intelligently make that argument without acknowledging the Patti Smith title!
AND: Eliding Patti Smith looks like deliberate distortion.
ALSO: The models don't look at all like children or even like teenagers below the age of consent. And we refer to adults with words like "kid," "boy," "girl," and even "baby" all the time. Next time some man refers to a woman as his "girlfriend," why not accuse him of pedophilia? I mean, if you'd like to be regarded as insane. Now, calm down and listen to that
The appeal of “Oh, You Kid!” lay mainly in that slangy endearment, “kid.” Like another novel usage of the period, “baby,” “kid” held a hint of pillow-talk intimacy—a frisson that was enhanced by the threat to “scold” the kid who fails to deliver a quick kiss.
AND: One of the most-loved lines in the history of cinema is "Here's looking at you, kid." Humphrey Bogart was not infantilizing Ingrid Bergman.
Posts
19 comments:
The New York Times died for somebody's sins but not mine.
I am Laslo.
Another example of folks excitedly waiting for that GOTCHA moment. Happens on both sides of the aisle. Should be embarrassing when discovered. But embarrassment is a lost art.
I love my wife but oh you kid.
So it turns out that has nothing at all to do with hircine husbandry.
Now I know.
I agree this accusation founders. The clothes look inspired by the New York punk rock days, and Smith in particular. And the models don't look like teens.
Maybe this guy should have pushed "The Times is promoting anorexia" meme instead.
... and if some conservative had somehow produced the same pictures and text liberals would have gone in for the kill, BUT you cannot convincingly or intelligently make that argument without acknowledging the Patti Smith title!
Shhh! I'm listening to George Allen's " Rock 'n Roll Maccaca".
Listen to the intro:
"Hi, I'm Patti Smith. I'm an American artist. I have no guilt!"
I looked at the pictures, and, I think that it was pretty clear that it wasn't children. The other thing that struck me was the cost of those outfits - some upwards of $10k or so. None of them cheap, or, indeed, anything that a sane person would wear, at those prices. Is that what it is like living in NYC? Or, indeed, downtown in major cities? It is a sure bet that those starving artists couldn't afford those outfits - unless they were starving, like the Clintons were right out of the White House, with two (multi-million dollar) mortgage loans, college, etc. Thank you very much, but I will continue to live where I can get by on a much more modestly priced wardrobe.
"...Smith's National Book Award winning memoir about her starving-artist days in New York City with Robert Mapplethorpe."
And that $12,252 Louis Vuitton dress is the appropriate symbol of her struggle.
To Sexualize children is the last Christian morality red line in popular existence. Have fun with that one.
Meanwhile an appeal to innocence of youth as a cover for doing bad things to yourself and others "unintentionally by accident" over and over is one of the most irritating Pop Culture tricks being used today.
Maybe prepubescent kids are not experienced, but getting experience has always been quick and easy for homo sapiens. And that was before uncensored internet wifi became universally available.
My rule of thumb is that innocent childlike voices used by a thirty somethings are con jobs or they are computers.
The Katy Perry halftime show was a perfect demonstration that sexiness/attractiveness requires no youthful innocence shtick. Adult assertiveness is attractive at any age.
I have a copy of her Horses album. It’s pretty good, but not exactly good times music.
Punk music was such re-boot of the overproduced arena super groups. But when the music gets all serous starving artsy, it goes south real fast. Who wants to hear about junkies in NYC.
Lester Bangs:
The Doors? Jim Morrison? He's a drunken buffoon posing as a poet.
Give me The Guess Who. They got the courage to be drunken buffoons, which makes them poetic.
At a glance, the article features a young model in a carelessly loose garment lying on a mattress under a bit of copy where the words "just kids" and "virginal" jump out.
If you know anything about layout, then you know they did this on purpose. The Patti Smith reference is a nice defense, but ultimately irrelevant to the look they were going for.
I bet an editor, or even an intern, wrote the headline to grab views because it has nothing to do with what Ira wrote.
Ira puts "kids" in quotes and primarily bitches about the decadence of diverting significant funds for a glamour shoot at a time when they are trimming staff.
Nothing to see here.
Someone has to be paying something for the article - the clothing being highlighted costs way too much otherwise. And, the fact that each item listed had its seller and price furthers this.
There is a Sean Connery film where he is reminiscing about his days as a military spy in Havana with his past lover. He says something like, "You were the sexiest 18 year old I'd ever seen." She interjects, "15." His eyes widen, but he makes no further comment.
Sometimes just ignoring mistakes of the past is the only appropriate way to handle them, at least in Hollywood. Most likely in Time, too, although every instance of their public notice surprises me. I always expect that Time has gone the way of Newsweek and Life and the Saturday Evening Post.
There was a character in the 1924 film "Greed" wearing a button on his lapel. I kept waiting for a close-up to see what it said; it was
OH
YOU
KID
"I love spherical geometry, but oh, Euclid..."
Manufactured fake outrage is getting really tiresome. Both left and right do it. Drudge today pulls an Obama quote from the National Prayer Breakfast out of context to make it look like the President excuses radical Islamic terrorism by saying Christians used to be just as bad. Meanwhile, the liberals are pretending that Walker is trying to destroy higher education and both Rand and Christie are anti-vaccine. Utter BS all around.
So say all of us robots.
(Whisper}: "What are you wearing?"
"Tom Ford jacket, $7,900, and skirt, $5,500, (212) 359-0300. Givenchy bodysuit, $1,725, givenchy.com. Louis Vuitton ear cuff. Alice Waese rings, $805 (left hand), and $575 (right hand). Photographs by Matthew Kristall. Styled by Jason Rider"
About a $15k outfit and she still looks like a crack whore.
Look at the illustration for "I love my wife, but...." In that illustration the guy's big head looks exactly like his little head. Not by accident. In such a way are men objectified and made to serve one purpose only.
Humphrey Bogart was not infantilizing Ingrid Bergman.
I suppose not. On the other hand, Ilsa, the character played by Ingrid Bergman, refers to Sam, played by Dooley Wilson who at the time was in his late fifties, as the boy playing the piano.
Perhaps historical examples aren't particularly useful here.
Post a Comment