Dream On!

“There are those who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American Dream.”

Archibald MacLeish (1892-1982)

I just finished reading Adam Kamp’s essay in the April edition of Vanity Fair called Rethinking the American Dream. He starts with Moss Hart and moves us to Brian De Palma. We go from the Cramdons of the Honeymooners to the Carringtons of Dynasty as Kamp shows us how warped the American Dream has become. The characters, homes and lifestyles become more and more elaborate to the point of the ridiculously unattainable. I think the United States of America is experiencing a hangover from the sexy version of resource allocation.

I am not the only one thinking about the American Dream these days. Back in November of 2008 John Quelch, Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, basically gave us the cliff notes to Kamp’s article in his blog. Liz Hamburg of Huffington Post reminds us that the American Dream is alive and well for some. Mortimer Zuckerman of USNews & World Report spoke about globalization and taxing “stratospheric” income while Bradley Kuhn, almost two years ago, open source community based software as an expression of the American Dream.

There seem to be two versions of the American Dream. We have the version of how it is lived vs. the version of what is written. When James Truslow Adams coined the phrase “The American Dream” for The Epic of America in 1931 he meant it as shorthand for the Bill of Rights. The authors of the Bill of Rights did not live them well in actuality; they held slaves and would not allow their wives and daughters to vote. Griel Marcus reminds us in his opinion feature for Salon.com in July of 2006 that “when the Declaration of Independence was presented, everyone understood that all men meant men, not women; whites, not blacks; Christians, not Jews or Hindi or heathen; decent people, not Sodomites. The idea that “all men are created equal” was not a “self-evident truth,” and when he goes on to say “people on both the left and the right tell the story of the country as if it were a story of power, not speech — a story of the movements of money and armies, not the acts of men and women, acting alone or together.” I’m reminded that this idea of money and armies is a hard one to give up. I was trying to find a way of answering the question: Why would anyone NOT want the dream that Mr. Adams so eloquently encapsulates; a society based on the notions presented in the Bill of Rights?

The American Dream Coalition advocates Homeownership, Mobility and Freedom. Sounds great, but when you read further you discover they only advocate certain aspects of these values. The idea that everyone should own a home is what tipped this economy off its pedestal. Barney Frank has long been the champion of rent and is eloquent about countering this argument.. The A.D.C. advocates for individual ownership of transportation via cars; as public transportation takes away from their perceived mobility goals. Yes cars. Advocating mobility in this fashion is threatening the future of the planet, though they consider it a threat to their version of the American Dream. And the freedom they’re talking about? No regulation of their business or land. No regulation is turning out to be also a precursor of our current status. This is not a coalition with which I or Mr. Adams has much in common.

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation operate a website called DefendingTheDream.Org that has Ronald Regan looking off into the distance as their banner. This site advocates halting the “encroachment of government in the economic lives of citizens, removing unnecessary barriers to entrepreneurship, and stemming the tide toward ‘over-criminalization’ of economic activity”. I don’t think they’re interested in making anyone but themselves prosperous. After all, they’re defending something. They’re in a fight! Somebody is after their prosperity.

These two groups are somewhat representative of the one percent of Americans who hold the greatest amount of wealth in this country. According to these two groups, The American Dream is about having things, stuff, goods and control over those resources. How did they get them? How are they going to keep them? I think that all Americans have felt a shift in priorities lately; the above groups interpret that shift quite differently. Maybe the top one percent is watching their privilege drop away. Maybe the attraction of privilege just isn’t as sexy to Americans as it once was. Perhaps it never was. Is there a dream that places equality above privilege?

When we talk about a society without privilege what are talking about? The constitutional congress grappled with this in 1776. The founders knew what a society with a king and powerful state religion looked like. They did NOT want that. So they attempted to level the playing field with laws that everyone could agree on. The Bill of Rights was born and in shorthand is written “The American Dream”. Some folks will tell you that when everyone is treated equally we’ll have socialism or communism. But those would be people with something to lose and something to defend. Those that are not excited about tackling this problem before us are quite upset about losing their privilege.

Privilege is for sale in this country. In some others it is not. In most others you must be born into a certain class or have the correct skin color, etc. In this country, because privilege is for sale, we have the boom and bust cycles of the economy and much worse. Believe it or not, I think that this is much better than what the rest of world operates under; organized crime. But we need to move beyond even our successes if we are going to lead in the future; we must begin to live the rights and laws on which this country was founded. When the top 400 Richest Americans have a lower tax rate than working families we have a system of privilege. When the top one percent of this country controls forty percent of its wealth, we have a system of privilege. I don’t believe most of us would CARE who has the wealth if it was put to improving the world and those that live in it. But it’s NOT…that’s why I call it privilege. It does nothing but separate and it always fails. Ask Marie Antoinette.

When taxes are spent on tanks we call it capitalism. When taxes are spent on jobs we call it socialism.

The American Dream Project has a three part agenda. The first is to live your dream because we all need it. The second is to serve; do what you feel called to do. Lastly, they demand better leadership by citizens and politicians. They call the American Dream “the most noble human purpose any nation has yet seen conceived”. They state “Our vision is to ensure that each of us is striving to live our personal dreams and that America is a physically and psychologically healthy society for all of our children”

The New American Dream is an organization that is difficult to categorize. Their vision statement, in part says “New American Dream is dedicated to helping support and nurture an American dream that revives the spirit of the traditional dream—but with a new emphasis on non-material values like financial security, fairness, community, health, time, nature, and fun.” It has five key elements 1. A Higher Quality of Life, 2. A Healthy Environment, 3. More Fairness, 4. Strong Communities, 5. Healthy Economy and Marketplace.

Privilege is how some of us view the American Dream. How many people can engage in the American Dream? Some believe that this dream is limited. Others believe its essence is community. I agree with Kamp. I think that the American Dream is definitely returning to the notion that giving each citizen a ‘decent chance’ at living fully is a good thing.

Edward Albee predicted this drift in his play The American Dream. Of the characters Mommy, Daddy, Ms Barker, Young Man and Grandma, it is Grandma’s duty to hand off the American Dream to Young Man in Albee’s Absurdist play. I think that the Young Man is a great characterization of the Baby Boomer; he is young, sexy, brawn, and will “do almost anything for money.” Grandma skips her children and hands off the Dream to Young Man. She says: “Yup. Boy, you know what you are, don’t you? You’re the American Dream, that’s what you are. All those other people, they don’t know what they’re talking about. You . . . you are the American Dream” (p. 108). Most would agree that the Young Man character is the Hollywood version.It is the version that we’ve just bottomed out on. The Young Man is the sexy materialism that has pervaded our psyche since the sixties and is now dead. “On American Idol, Simon Cowell has done a great many youngsters a great service by telling them that they’re not going to Hollywood and that they should find some other line of work” Kamp reminds us.

Who would he be passing the American Dream to? The Young man would be around 70 today. I suspect that she looks more like the New Dream than Defending the Dream. I suspect that Albee’s Young Man would pass on the dream to a young, lithe, brown skinned woman who volunteers, eats locally and organic when possible, is spiritual without being evangelical, has a healthy excitement about technology and is likely self employed. I can see the scene now. Young Man is emphatically telling her how very important and unique this gift is, and attempting to pass on all those endless boxes. She recognizes it immediately of course as nothing more obvious than sunlight. It is the freedoms so eloquently represented in the Bill of Rights, over two hundred years old. The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” I believe that most power is with the people. Therefore people will define the American Dream, and not just Americans, all the people of the earth. We are currently deciding who to hand the American Dream to, of course.

In the opening quote: Archibald MacLeish’s “liberation of humanity,” I think is about the loss of privilege. What happens in liberation? The inequity of power is removed. Today we have the ability to remove the inequity of power and privilege, which is so evident and distasteful in our financial and social arenas. These are not people, ideas, or things. I think they are the beliefs we hold in our hearts about what is possible. For the second part: “the freedom of man and mind” to me is the essence and the movement of the American Dream. What is the future like? What is the mind FOR? Are we going to be honest about we want? It is only the desire to deceive that has cost us so much. Can we imagine what peace is available for the freedom of man and mind? In our present newness and joy the threat is gone. Peace is here.

A NEW WORLD WAITS.

DREAM ON!

ARE YOU BUYING?

I can’t help it. I was perusing my issue of W and I had thoughts. Thoughts I would like to share with you. The major houses spend a fortune on adverstising in W and other magazines, that I’m sure you’ve seen. If you seen Vogue, W, Vanity Fair, GQ etc you know what I’m talking about.

Let me give you some thoughts about what I’ve seen and see if they don’t jive with your thoughts as well.

Cue achingly hip chill-lounge-music (which I love, by the way). Minus 8, Cafe del Mar, Brazilian Girls, Kruder & Dorfmeister, Mylo, Sofa Surfers, Portishead etc

Louis Vuitton is the first add. She seems to be atop a semi-collider in construction. She is sporting fantastic handbags and a very hairy fur vest. She stands in the sky no less. In one she seems to be using the handbag as a water bladder from the stomach of a goat, as in days gone by. Is Vuitton telling us they are the water of life, the sustenance that we crave?

Dior: The model here is one of the most gorgeous women in the industry, in my opinion. We see her looking directly as us in a timetravel vintage coat. She of course has a handbag that is the oversized black plastic shoping bag we’re all trying to avoid, but in patent crocodile. The background is a blur of lights, perhaps from the timetravel machine. (Coco Rocha, I believe is the one channeling an iconic Jackie.)

Prada: All I’m seeing here is the shoes. I am so in love with these shoes, I cannot stop myself! Very clean environment in cool blues and blacks. Again we’re in the past, but this past looks like the future. The shoes have wings! Two more shots of beautiful feet in extraordinary shoes. Louboutin-you got the shape as usual, but Prada has something here. Where will this go? I’m excited about that.

Georgio Armani: Pubescent prostitutes in blurry Polaroids. Please tell me what I’m not seeing.

Chanel:The environment is a 1940′s crack house, complete with a stained mattress on the floor. We are shredded. The model looks high on heroin and is in what looks like rubber sequins. She even has her arm extended like the needle is just out of camera shot. Next is a black lace dress against a machine lace curtain. Opulence before the decay. We are in a decline here. Decaying, fraying, shredded elegance.

Bottega Vaneta: Two pages of the same dress, same model in a smokey blue and white back ground-why does this look so much more hopeful than the cool blues of Prada? She is wearing essentially a belted toga. The power of the simplicity of the garment is fantastic! This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we will be wearing in future. It certainly looks like the past, but is much more than the past. It is the lessons of the past and the best of it we can use to build the future. Mr. Maier. Thank you for your intelligence.

Marc Jacobs: Girl in grey leather pants and pumps looks at you in a blurry photograph skipping through what looks like vomit.

Dolce & Gabanna: Resistance is Futile! Three identical women walk down the street in nearly identical outfits of jeans and western inspired shirts. Please someone knock them over. Please someone tell them that resistance is very easy, we’re not all 14.

St. John: I think there are five maybe six models featured in the next several pages for St. John. We stand in Poet’s Way in Central Park, walk down the library steps, lounge around a leather and steel basement and strut the wet streets of Hell’s Kitchen. The basic message? We ate the men. The men were here; we liked them; they were delicious so we ate them.

Donna Karen: The setting seems to be a 1940′s train station. Our blond model is in a throw back coat and exquisite leather bags/totes. She’s got the same color on her mouth as the coat. Black silouette of a fedora’d man walking away. This is the glamourous depression. Lots of tecture, her skin, the leather and nubby coat. She is tired and waiting. Aren’t we all? the next page she’s draped over another oversixzed bag in a gray velvet/velour dress. Is some one comming for the bag. Never mind her body, she must protect the bag!

Calvin Klein: Android. Cold mannequin female with plastic expressions model black on black on black in triangles of shadows and corners. Seems she can’t find where she left her car in one of those huge underground garages. The clothes are unremarkable. The android is an extraordinary beauty, but she overpowers them. Easy when it’s Calvin Klein. I didn’t even like the shoes.

Yves Saint Laurent: Naomi Campbell is the print face of YSL now. We have one of the most beautiful women of our era standing on a black box in an empty Upper East Side apartment photographed in essentially men’s clothes. She looks at us. Shiney black over-sized handbag. Naomi on a pedistal. Hmm. Discuss.

Burberry: A young couple, photographed in black and white, stand in a park looking into the distance. I can speculate about the conversation. “I’m sure my dad will be here soon.” “I’m cold! It’s getting dark!” Or “Do you think we missed the bus?” “I hope it gets here soon!” Someone forgot the children in the park. The bag she carries is an excellent take on a very old dress making texture (the name escapes me). The texture on her coat is nice too. I’m worried about them though.

Michael Kors: “Exuse me Madam! Were you planning on paying for that item you slipped into your bag?” Man in sunglasses grasps the elbow of blonde in animal prints and a tan patent leather crock print bag with gold hardware. Her expression seems to be “Huh?” In the next photograph we have the two of them in new outfits, though she has retained the furred scarf from the first picture. We’re on a private runway dealing with a privae driver and a pilot. The theif has seduced the officer. Nice. Wear black and tan.

Gap: Six pages of nothing new. Mall wear. Lots of Khaki. Thanks for the check. You can say “Have you seen our spread in W?” “Um, no. I rip that right out, first off.”

Nordstrom: Thank the Gods for these folks. Same for Bergdorf Goodman, Neiman Marcus & Takashimaya. We get a shot of the blonde photoshoped to the Nth degree. Iconic and idealized. She takes on a trip through YSL, Halston and Lanvin. The back drop is expressionistic naturure. We’re not decayed so much, but we do blur (which would be decay in another way, but it seems to be resisted somehow). Why does YSL’s black on black look simple and light when Calvin Klein’s seems cold? Then two pages of Halston. THe simplest of patterns. The bag is an over-sized black plastic bag, just like Dior, only this one is in chocolate suede. More watercolor back drops. I love these back grounds!  Last photo is of our swan in Lanvin. She is on the pedistal before ocher, maroon and black back drop. This is a power dress in blcak with one balloon sleeve. Lanvin is the top! Simple Simple Boom! The little black dress you have to earn?

Andrew Marc: Redneck girls don’t have to look awful. Big hair is an asset! It matches the big bags, you know! Wear more leather. Streak your hair. Wear boy’s clothes. It helps.

Victoria Secret: Our young blonde seems to be waiting in a hallway picking at the pleats on her dress. The photograph is a study of blue and gray (better as a painting). The “dress” is a slip with pleats at the bottom. If you are older than eighteen you should not wear this dress unless you live on Ranch. In Nevada.

Neiman Marcus: We’re in a forest! We’re green and new and earthy!

Gold Prada with winged shoes is first out. I keep coming back to this dress. Lace as armour. It seems to speak volumes about where we are right now.

Monique Lhuillier: Olive gathered silkish shif with a turquoise feather and crystal neck?-throw it back.

Dior: Emerald green silk with encrused jewels at the cuffs and hem. Too much. Gucci: Joan Crawford would wear this blood red full lenth gown. Metal holds up the thing with a chain and a tassel belt.  Orgy anyone? (I actually like the direction this is going-classical etc-but blood red? chains?)

Giulian Teso: Long hiared fur. short sleeved and tunic. okay. whatever.

Oscar de la Renta: Black lace over a wet green moss strapless gown. Shredded over green. This is the look! Oscar got it. Very nice. (The model is too thin though to get the look across-In my humble opinion.)

Ralph Lauren: Another over the shoulder black velvet full length gown. thank you. cash your check.

Valentino: She lays upon the earth in a strapless blue-green cocktail dress in layers of lace and silk. We seek you, the marriage of strength and fragility. Consistantly good attention.

Chanel: I’d like this gown a lot more if there were less referrences to Sado-Masochism. Why continue the black leather strap below the bust line? I realize that it was a design element for the top half, but what happened? The dress is fantasitc, but I would cut off the lower straps. Ahem!

WHAT IS A MODEL?

I don’t know if I qualify as a fahionisto. I do read American Vogue, Men’s Vogue, Allure and W every month however. (in addition to Vanity Fair, The New Yorker and Wired)

Now that Fashion Week is over and the models have walked the designs, some pundits, outside of the industry, are again declaring the women are too thin. This is more proof that that we are not all looking at the same thing, nor do we all agree what a model is, or does. What is a model for anyway?

There are very talented men and women that span the globe looking for these people that walk our runways. They look for beauty, unusual beauty. There are pretty people that walk for these designers, but most of them are beautiful. They must exemplify the beauty expressed in the ideal of the clothes. These bodies must be able to quickly show the drape and exquisite cut of handmade garments. These people must be able to glow beneath a designer’s vision; they are the under painting a designer works upon. Before the runways these figures were flat outlines in a sketchbook. The dresses, gowns, skirts, etc hang on these glorious bodies for a reason. They are human, walking hangers. I do not want to be derisive here. Let me explain a bit further.

A model is the face and body of a brand name. A woman typically puts herself in the dress on the runway and tries it on for size in her mind, with her own idiosyncratic body. I should say the woman who is buying will do this. The rest just look and say how ridiculous it is that they do not see themselves on the runways. Those that are not buying see bodies, those that are buying see clothes. The designers put models before the buying public. (the rest of us get to watch) Are you buying these clothes? Have you ever had an appointment with a couture house? Do you understand what happens there? The models that walk the clothes are idealized perfection. They are not meant to be the standard. They are not. The designers likely do not produce another size 2 outfit in any of the designs they showcase with these exquisite hangers of human beauty that walk for ten minutes before a small crowd. A designer puts the best of the best before the buying. What is the brand? What is the sell?

Adolescent girls idolize the model. Eating disorders are supported by the impossible bodies of women and men that walk for couture. I’ve heard it and I’m not buying. I do not believe that models cause anorexia (and neither do psychologists). Anorexia is caused by a person who believes that they can not control anything else in their lives but what goes in their mouths. Please look at that.

There are a ton of stories about how Kate Moss could and does eat anything that crosses her maw and does not seem to gain an ounce. (she was the original ‘waif’ of the ’90′s, some say the last supermodel-not me.) There are those people that do starve themselves to reach the ideal that sells the clothes. That is unfortunate, and I applaud the industry for getting the message out that unhealthy is not beautiful. I can assure you though, in three months of the runway shows, most of the designer stuff will knocked off to size sixteen, off the rack. Please understand that the power a Kate Moss has to sell size sixteen knockoffs.

There are roughly 20 girls that show for Versace. What do you think the competition is to represent this brand? Gucci? Yves St. Laurent? I tell you, I have no idea. I can only imagine it is fierce. And the girls have nothing to do with it. It has to do with who is buying. What sells.

I can assure you that if all the women who bought couture were size 20 and would only buy from designers that showed size 20 on the runway, we would be talking about how fat models are and what we could do about getting diabetes education to these girls. We are living in an abundant earth with a great deal of food. The ideal is skinny. When we live in a world of depravity and starvation the ideal will be plump.

I want to live in world of plenty. I live in world that is able to feed all it’s people (not that it chooses to do so…that’s another post.) The ideal is thin. Our models are getting healthier, thank the gods and will continue to do so, I’m sure.

Long live skinny girls in impossibly high heels!

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/11/america/Fashion-Week-Skinny-Models.php