If you're like me (a little bit clumsy, uncomfortable and awkward during socialising), this might be something for you: The tea brand Pickwick has (some time ago) released their teabags with questions on the tags called 'Tea Topics'. This is, as expected, meant as a nice conversation starter or pick-me-up conversation goer. You know, that little extra boost when a conversation slowly dies and you're just staring at each other. In silence. Wishing the seconds away. These Tea Topics will have you talking for hours and hours on end! No silence anymore for you, my awkward tea-drinker! You'll be wishing they'd put a sock in it after asking these questions! Life saving! Children bearing! Peace resolving! (Not really, but it's a nice suggestion). Anyway. As it's getting colder outside I thought it'd be quite nice for us ('us') to cozy up a little bit. Litting the fire. Burying yourself in blankets. Anxiously holding on to a cup of tea that's actually just a little bit too hot to hold. Asking and answering questions. On a Sunday. Because you can. (Building 'teamspirit' and whatnot). You get me? So without further ado: start questioning/answering!


I seriously don't know. There's never been a name that popped up whereby I thought 'that's so me'. I think you just sort of grow into the name you've been given. And otherwise it'll either naturally change into that what it supposed to be. Take for example the Dutch painter Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, who's actually called Lourens A. Tadema.* He firstly, smartly, added his middle name to his surname BECAUSE, when he would be mentioned for instance in a catalog, he would be at the beginning of it. As A tends to come before T. So in this way his works would be mentioned first (as I said 'smartly'). When he moved to England Lourens swapped his Dutch name for the English version of it. So Lawrence it is. AND then he was made a 'sir' by the Queen of England (which is a very rare and special occasion for a foreigner). So Sir Lawrence it became.

Naturally you could say that nowadays usernames online can be seen as a way of 'giving yourself a new name'. Although I think it's more a case of creating an alter ego instead of a rightful representation of 'you'. I mean, David Bowie isn't just Ziggy Stardust (and David Bowie isn't even just David Bowie). But then again: a name is just a name. ("Call me whatever you like; I am who I must be" Friedrich Nietzsche). It's a way of representing a unity, an identity to what we otherwise would call 'I' or 'you'. It basically creates the definition of 'I' as being one, namely me being Dominique. But, as alter egos demonstrate (and I guess to some extend acting), there can be so much more to an 'I' that doesn't necessarily concludes under one name. Although I'm always a little bit cautious when somebody is trying to give themselves a nickname. I mean, it's something that I -again- think should come naturally. Lovingly, even. I thought it to be funny when I heard that Catherine II of Russia aka Catherine the Great herself added 'the Great' to her name.** Why? Well firstly, probably, because she thought she was great. But secondly, smartly, because she wanted to have her image connected to that of Peter I of Russia aka Peter the Great (as he was a great leader and she wanted to be a great leader too). She, again very smartly, commissioned a statue of Peter the Great (The Bronze Horseman) whereby her name, Catherine the Great, is written underneath his; seemingly as a sign to say 'he was first, now I'm second' or 'here's your new great leader'. Marketing, basically it all comes down to good ol' marketing. Same goes for our Sir Lawrence. Everything to get your work noticed...

Fun fact: if I were a boy I would've been called Pascal.


My first thought was: when the house is on fire or flooded or if someone's hurt etc. etc. *touch wood* However I think this is meant in a more jolly way. Or, you know, it is meant to scare us and it intentionally, quite literally, wants us to wake up from our oblivious lives and self-centred-worlds, while drinking tea. For what can I wake you up? YOUR LIFE? Or, like, chololate will do fine too.

Uhmm... depends on where I'm going... Say, going back in time to when I was a young kid and -with the knowledge that I have now- I'd prevent myself the hurt of being bullied time and time again by my 'friends'. We were kids, I was often ill, not there to 'secure my place', I get it (I actually don't because I don't see the point in bullying people just as a form of entertainment, just as something to do during lunch hour). We all get older and wiser (I hope). But maybe trying to stop myself from caring about them and feeling guilty about it back then would've helped me today. But it was hard for me to just give up our friendship. My first ever friendship. My friends, who would send me 'sorry I hurt your feeling' card one day and running away from me the other. (they were supposed to be my friends, but why did they make me feel so bad about myself? Ignore me? Runaway from me? Call me names? Call me stupid? It must've been me. It was all my fault. I am stupid). When we were just with the two of us everything was fine. It was only when others came into the mix that she turned her back on me (which would've been fine too, friendships come and go (or as I'm told), but it's not fine turning me into a target instead). So remember kids, shitty double-sided people who put you down because they 'feel like it' or are 'peer pressured' aren't worth your energy. They don't really care about you, they only care about themselves. And you don't need that shit. You're better off alone. Look at me! I'm alone and I'm doing perfectly fine. You don't need anyone else to 'complete' you. You need to be able to feel comfortable with yourself, on your own. Basically: Love yo' self! Don't wait for anyone else to do it for you. (That's not to say that you suddenly should be cured from all your doubts. I'm a walking doubting-machine, filling my head up with worries. But... you know... being alone isn't worrisome to me and neither should it be for you. End of preach).


That's it! Don't be shy to answer these questions in the comment section below. I'd love to read your answers. Also: if you've got some questions of your own, please leave them there too! Just give me all that you've got (maybe I'll use them for the next post... OoooOoooooOOooh!). Also Also: the new issue of Local Riot magazine is out! This issue is all about letters, including one of myself!*** (aahh!) (mine's so bad in comparison to everyone else) (but still go and have a look at it because my ego made a jump when seeing my letter was featured and I'm sort of weirdly proud/happy but also very nervous/hating my 'work'). It's all looking very swish and I'm just in love with the concept. Makes me want to go DIY myself (maybe I should start a zine of my own... maybe... not...).

[EDIT: Just a question that popped into my mind: Am I generic? Is this generic? Same-old same-old? Unoriginal? Boring? Uninteresting? Ol' school? Whatever? Ugh? 'I've seen/read this a thousand or so times before by other more interesting people than you and I think I'm going to either 1) die of boredom or 2) scratch my eyes out'? If so: what would you rather read that doesn't want to make you want to swallow your eyeballs after you've scratched them out of your skull? Just wondering...]

Love,
Dominique


*I went to a lecture about him last Thursday (13 October 2016).
**Last week (6 October 2016) I went to a lecture about her.
***Page 63-64, if you were wondering...

Not to brag but las Tuesday was my birthday. And people got me stuff (again, not to brag). And I thought maybe I could share them with you (yes you), to fill up an otherwise empty space... (and because I really like my gifts and stuff and I don't need an excuse because it's my blog, dammit, I can post, share and brag whenever and whatever I want).



I probably have some of the most boring stuff from Lush. I mean, basically anything that isn't a bathbomb can be described as boring. However I for one don't have a bath and for two am pretty much allergic for all the bathbombs. Putting me in a bath with a Lush bathbomb would make for quite an explosion. Ha. Ha. Ha. *silence* So instead I present you the more 'boring' Lush products. Or maybe even: the more less-ingredient based Lush products. As it happens, I'm quite allergic to quite a lot of stuff. That's why I adore Lush: they list all the ingredients nice and neatly so I can happily not buy them (and die). I've noticed, however, that the products that have a green light always happen to be the products with very, very few ingredients. I think 'the lesser of all' is the Ultrabalm with only three ingredients. I mean, that makes you think about life... Only three ingredients? Why not start scavenging in the forest and give up on modern life?



The second thing I got from Lush is the Celestial facial moisturiser. For my face. To moisturise. It's for sensitive skin and -I'd like to argue- sensitive minds. I needed a moisturiser for quite a while now but didn't get one because... I lead a busy life. I'm busy, I got so much to do. Anyway. This is the first time I've tried this moisturiser and, for now [9 October 2016, 23:53], I'm very happy with it. My skin is quite awful at the moment, dry, itchy, grossness etc. and this stuff has really helped to get the dryness down, the itchiness gone and the grossness, well, less gross. That's all I'm asking for...


Now I can see clearly: A lipstick in Perspective. Giving you perspective. On the world, your life, decisions and past memories that suddenly pops up in your mind... This is my second lipstick from Lush and I really like them. They are easy to apply and last for quite a long time. Although it must be said that the other one that I've got, in Strong, is somewhat tricky because of its brightness and my fairness (and love for tea and food). You can actually also use them as blusher (which I do) (which is great) (ab fab) (seriously).

I was actually looking for a dupe for the Rouge Allure Velvet La Raffinée (#34), as it is my favourite lipstick but not animal friendly (damn you, Karl). So when I saw perspective in pixels on my computer screen I was like 'that looks pretty close' and bought it. Was I right? Well, the colours do come close but Perspective is a bit more brown-ish and has a shimmery metallic finish (while the Chanel one is more pink and matte). So no photo finish result, but still a beautiful colour I think I'll be wearing much. (or not, I don't know, I just got it).


This is the second time I've ordered something from Lush, after two tries of getting into a Lush store and aborting mission mid-way because I was feeling like I was being crushed. Alive. While being anesthetised with strong fumes in preperation for an alien abduction. Because, man, those shop assistents are chatty and, well, pushy. And, man, those stores (in Amsterdam) are small and, well, crowded. I can't handle that. Luckily the internet provides me with all the space I need (and doubts). I love that it automatically comes with one-day delivery (at least here in the Netherlands. Don't know how the traffic is where you're living, sorry). And I just love all the boring products I got. There. I've said it. Boring is best.



As a combined Christmas gift I got from my aunt the Boudoir perfume by Martin Gras for Vivienne Westwood.** I didn't sniff it (as I couldn't find it anyware in 'real life') and had to base my nose-senses before buying it on the power of the internet. Tricky. But as the smell of the Lush products (it can be a hit or a miss) I took the risk. And I'm so glad I did! It smells absolutely lovely. The 'main' smell is viburnum, which is musky but also sweet. It's a very autumnal smell. As I said literally about two hours or so ago to my mum, who was watching the Dutch version of The Great British Bake Off and very much appreciated me interrupting her programme: it's just so useless to describe a smell if you can't smell it. Especially when you go 'it's a very autumnal smell'. What does that mean? What does autumn smell like? Does autumn smell the same in your head as it smells in my head? Warm, sweet but definitely not sickly sweet, not too male not too female but not unisex (to reinforce the trusty ol' gender binary system)? Anyway. It smells nice. I like it. Also: the smell lingers on for a very long time. After spraying it I could still smell a faint smell of it three days later (and yes, that's to say that I hadn't changed my clothes or washed myself in those three days. What's to say? I don't go out much... and I also didn't smell badly as I was still smelling of Boudoir sweetness/muskness/smells, so... I did brush my teeth. I always brush my teeth. I get nightmares about my teeth. It's 0:35 [10 October] and, after writing this, I will brush my teeth. It's hygenic. It's the right thing to do. People who don't smell their teeth are gross (opposed to people who don't shower for three days and wear the same stuff they slept in). I'm scared of the dentist).

I started this year with a Westwood book and it seems most likely that I'll be finishing with one. I love Viv. She's cool, isn't she? Cool AND smart. So when I saw she had a new book coming out, Get A Life, I was hooked. Already. Haven't read a word yet. (because my copy hasn't arrived yet) (sad face). But it demonstrates the power of a name. The power of a book (?). [Edit: Guess what the mailman just delivered? My oh my, it's a beautiful BIG book. I'm in heaven.]


On another thought bubble: I also got silver earings with 'pearls'. What's to say. They are silver earings with 'pearls'. They pretty. They mine. And socks. I also got some fluffy socks. I had these Hello Kitty fluffy socks which were on my foot for about five years (not, like, for five years straight on my foot, but, like, I 'owned' them for five years long and wore them, occasionally). But they all had holes in them and the fluffiness level was dangerously low (also the 'keeping my feet warm' level was deadly low (because holes)). So, very attentively, I got given a lot of new grey/pink/bordeaux animal printed socks. Without holes. Fluffiness level high. What more do you need in life?


And that's it! I hope you've liked this post (but not as much as I liked my presents). And yeah, would you like to see similar posts in the future? Or not? Or what else? Or wish me a happy -belated- birthday? Or go outside, walk your dog, interact with other human beings (your mum) and say you love them? Or not? (awkward) (sorry) (sorry not sorry) (no, I'm really sorry) (sorry) (it's exactly 1:00 now) (goodmorning to you, goodnight to me) (I need to do serious work tomorrow) (I'm, like, really bad when going to bed late) (and this is almost record late for me) (oh no) (ok) (night night) (have sweet dreams) (or when reading this while it's daytime: have sweet daydreams) (so creative) (ok. byeeee).***

Love,
Dominique


* BUT MCFLY'S HERE FOREVER! I Always, for some weird reason, get teary when they sing that live. I'm not even a 'hardcore' fan. I just like to listen to their music, occasionally. Although I do admit that I've got the McFly book which I read in one day and follow Tom on youtube and, I think, I follow them all on Insta... Not a fan, not a fan... ;) I LOVE MCFLY!!
**As you can read in the description, they don't ship this perfume to outside the UK. For my fellow Dutchies who are craving for this perfume after my very very good description of it, you can also buy a bottle on bol.com [here]. And you can actually get the 50ml one for the same amount you would've paid for the 30ml bottle on the website of Vivienne. Which saves you 29 euros (and the imaginary shipping costs). Bargain!
*** Right. So I just looked at the 'views' I got today. 1. Literally 1. I'm proud. I'm sad. I find it funny. Just thought it worth to capture and share this moment. That's to say: that 1 person was me. I'm my biggest fan. (I am). (except for my mum. She cares, man, she cares). Anyway, not to brag, just a little something to remember when I break record after record when I finally hit fame. Ha. Ha. Ha. Jokes. Bad jokes. (sorry). I will probably delete this. Or I won't. As a joke on me. Ha. That will teach me! Anyway, when they say that views don't count, do they mean that literally? (please don't hate me).

Not to brag but today's my birthday. I had planned this whole week worth of blogposts for the occasion (again, not to brag). Everything was ready, written (spoiler alert: knitted), all I needed was some pictures. However, unfortunately, my photographer (mum) got ill and the shoot we had planned was cancelled. So no pictures of me standing in a forest, sitting in a forest, hiding behind a tree (in a forest). No worries though, I'm sure we'll be rescheduling the shoot and I'll simply post my 'birthday bash extravaganza' some time later... no problemo. She said, while one single salty tear slowly makes its way down her face while she looks prolongedly in the imaginary camera with puppy eyes. No. Pro. Blemo.


Besides my mum *ahum* professional personal photographer *ahum* being taken ill, it also didn't help that there are some really big deadlines coming my way. Therewith it also also didn't really help that most of my writing was/is being rejected. IT'S A BLOODY HARD LIFE. I'VE LOST ALL SENSE OF WILL POWER TO CARRY ON. EVERYTHING'S FINE. Anyway, as I always post the best of the best, the most eloquent content on here, I thought 'why not re-use some of my bad writings for the bloggy-blog?'. Spice it up a little and we're good to go (or, in reality: translate it from Dutch to English. Spicy). Indeed, instead of birthday cake, candles, celebrations etc. etc. you get blood, sweat, tears, desperation, rejection, fear... all the good stuff, basically. So without further ado, here's Punk: Physical Fashion & Museum Commodification (working title), hope you enjoy...


Before you start reading, just a heads up (yes, this is an introduction after an introduction, what of it?): It's about fashion museology/fashion exhibitions (or at least it's supposed to be this sort of introduction to this), and the idea how the simulation of movement in (more recent) fashion exhibitions is one way or another a recognition from the museum world that clothes are something that once upon a time were attached to 'our' bodies. As Rafaelo Norogrando and Joao A. Mota have said during the second International Fashion and Design Congress (you can find a pdf online): "(...) in the history of fashion, the aspect relating to wear is often overlooked. As a result, the relationship of the object with the physical and psychosocial body does not receive a great deal in the narratives." And thus, the idea of weaving movement into the fashion exhibition is a way -from a museum perspective- to try to acknowledge/simulate the body back into the garments. In this bit I'm sort of, but not really, using the idea of 'the cycle of fashion' by Jean-Gabriel Tarde, but then instead of innovation, immitation and opposition, I say it's quite like the way subculture signs, dress, becomes part of popular signs, dress. I use the example of punk. But, as I said, they thought it was stupid/that it didn't made any sense. So yeah... that's why it's on here and not in my actual paper. You may read it now...



This year, 2016, is the 40th anniversary of the punk movement. Rumor has it that the queen has given her blessing for the occasion. Following this, Joe Corré (founder of Agent Provocateur, son of fashion designer Vivienne Westwood and first manager of the Sex Pistols Malcolm McLaren) has threaten to burn all his punk memorabilia. Corré explains: "The Queen giving 2016, the year of punk, her official blessing is the most frightening thing I've ever heard. Talk about alternative and punk culture being appropiated by the mainstream. Rather than a movement for change, punk has become like a fucking museum piece or a tribute act."

Dick Hebdige (media theorist and sociologist) describes in his book Subculture: The Meaning of Style this socalled appropiation from (youth) subcultures into the mainstream or popular culture. He says that this process of recuperation exists out of two parts: firstly the 'copying' of subculture symbols (clothing, music, etc.) into mass produced objects (the socalled commodity form). And secondly the redefinition of deviant behaviour within the dominant, popular culture (the socalled ideological form).

The threats Joe Corré has made, has caused quite some revolt. Not only because we're talking about an x amount of financial worth of the objects in question, but mostly because we're talking about a certain representation that the objects portray. However this representation is, according to Corré, lost because of its commodification. Punk has not only become part of popular culture, it's also been transformed into a museum artefact. When looking at the bigger picture, the same thing can be said about fashion exhibitions in museums. Whereby a moving culture is being commodified into a 'frozen' process. David Nolan (music journalist) agrees therefore with Corré: "Some people hold on to old T-shirts and posters from that era that weren't meant to last more than a week." The process of putting items, especially punk, into a museum collection can be seen as a double commodification. Marie Riegels Melchior (assistent curator Designmuseum Denmark) pleats therefore that fashion isn't art, it only gets to be seen as such because its being actively shown in (art) museums.

According to Colin McDowell (fashion journalist and academic) a clothing item is there to protect the body. If that's succeeded, everything that proceeds is fashion. Garments reflect the different functions and needs of the body. When a dress is being made, it's made to fit a body. Clothing is not only draped around the body, but is also a way to identify that body. McDowell: "Once everyone in society wears clothes, how one dresses becomes a form of projection and differentiation. (...) Clothes do not simply conceal the body: they alter it. (...) clother become part of our personalities (...)." Clothing is something that sits close to the body. It literally and figuratively moves with you. This idea is also being reflected by Claire Wilcox (head curator fashion V&A Museum London): "Clothes are the shorthand for being human." This 'closeness' is one of the benefits of exhibiting fashion in museums. You don't have to know much about it to understand it. Fashion is therefore very accessible.

However it's not the question whether fashion does or does not belong in a museum. The question is: what role does fashion fulfill in a museum? In the case of the punk memorabilia it's not only the body that's being removed from the garments, but mostly the symbolic, representational value of the garments are being subverted. It's not literally turned into a commodity form whereby the single becomes triple and counting, but the single is being interpreted and made part of and frozen as an ideological form. The ideological form hereby not only accepting the 'deviant behaviour' but also glorifying it, making it part of a museum collection. Fashion isn't perhaps art, but within the walls of a museum it sure can be. As Ad de Jong (professor Dutch cultural history) has stated in Vitrines Vol Verhalen (translated: Showcases Full of Stories), objects that are being made part of a museum collection is only the beginning of its meaning-making process within those walls. De Jong: "These objects [in museum collections] point to something outside themselves." I agree with Joe Corré that these thoughts goes against the initial ideology of the punk movement. However this subvertion of representation isn't only punk-related. Or a good reason to simply burn it all.

Please remember that this is firstly a rejected piece and secondly that this is therefore not further developed (in thought or in the way it's been transcribed). Anway, I hope you enjoyed this little excerpt. Joe Corré said he would 'burn it all' in November, do you think he will proceed? Why would/wouldn't he? In the BBC article David Nolan says that what Corré is doing is brilliant: "If he's going to upset the sort of people who get upset over this sort of thing, great. I wouldn't be surprised if all this is exposed as a stunt - a way to rouse people's anger. If that's the case, it's even better." Do you agree with Nolan? I personally am in a dilemma. On the one hand I believe it's important to try to keep (and present) the physical objects that the punk movement has created. As said: as a representation of something that goes beyond the physical object and touches on the ideology, going against the grain-mentality. Which I believe is an important something to keep and cherish (that's also to say: a lot of movements are now only based online. There's nothing solid to show. I wouldn't say that that's necessarily a bad thing or not, but it undermines and actually underlines the power of an object). On the other hand I agree with the idea that the meaning, that what it represents, has been lost due to the signs of it being made part of the mainstream (without the ideology attached to it). However, in its new environment, it can (and often is) presented with the ideology attached to it. Perhaps reintroducing the meaning -as the body- back into the objects. Not as a showpiece but as a story. So is this a good enough reason to let it all just burn? I personally don't think so, but I can see it being a 'punk paradox' and appreciate the message. Again, what do you think?

Love,
Dominique


Sources: 1 / 2 / And: Subculture: The Meaning of Style by D. Hebdige, Fashion and Museums: Theory and Practice by M. Riegels Melchior and B. Svensson (ed.), The Anatomy of Fashion: Why We Dress The Way We Do by C. McDowell, Vitrines Vol Verhalen: Museumcollecties als bron voor cultuurgeschiedenis by A. de Jong