As famously sung by Freddie Mercury: "Is this the real life? Or is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality." But what is he on about? What is 'reality'? Well, reality comes from the Latin realitas, meaning 'relating to things'. Today reality is mostly defined as "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them." Fantasy thereby naturally being this idealistic or notional idea, "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable." However is there more to reality than it just being the opposite of fantasy? Well, yes. In this short post I'd like to discuss the reality, with help from Donna Haraway's A Cyborg Manifesto, using the novel Mrs Dalloway and the brand Dolce & Gabbana as examples.

Mrs Dalloway is the third novel written by Virginia Woolf (1882-1941). It was published in 1925 and uses 'stream of consciousness', which is a particular narrative mode -better known as interior monologue. In the novel you hop on and off the characters and thereby you hop on and off their perspectives, background and general 'being'. At every turn you see the world through the eyes of a particular character. Therewith not only the exterior features of 'a sunny day in June', but their thoughts, feelings and -thus- inner consciousness are being displayed on paper. A reality of their own is being created, but together these realities make the story and give you a roundabout impression of perhaps the reality. Together these streams of consciousness gives you -as an outside party, someone who can hold these thoughts, these realities, together and compare them- a grand overlook in how they are tied together, differ or overlap (and therewith -again- creating perhaps the reality).


This same notion is being raised by Donna Haraway, who's among many other things a Distinguished Professor Emerita in the History of Consciousness Department at the University of California. She's best known for her essay A Cyborg Manifesto, first published in 1985. In this essay Haraway uses the example of the cyborg to get her point on Socialist-Feminism across. The main idea behind this essay is how information technologies produce real and material effects. This is partly based on the Postmodern idea (most notably put forward by French Philosopher and Cultural Theorist Jean Baudrillard) that at the end of the twentieth century a socalled 'hyperreality' has been manufactured. Hyperreality is the "inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from a simulation of reality, especially in technological advanced Postmodern societies. Hyperreality is seen as a condition in which what is real with the world and what is fiction seamlessly blend together so that there is no clear distinction between where one ends and the other begins." Within this hyperreality reproduction and representation are being replaced by simulation. The difference being that repreduction/representation are referencing to something real, a 'truthful' account, while simulation is an endless chain of 'representation of representaion', something that 'stands on its own', it doesn't need real objects or a real world (thanks to -according to Baudrillard- digital technologies). So within this Postmodern view, there's no such thing any more as the reality.


However, as Haraway argues, this way of thinking undermines for instance the fight for equal rights. Because if it's just a 'representation of representation', there's nothing you can do about it, there's no core, no reality to 'go against' or to work with. So, as demonstrated by Virginia Woolf 60 years before, Haraway states that by being aware of our limitations within our use of language, allowing ourselves to see things 'through different eyes' (quite literally within the narration of Mrs Dalloway), show how our perceptions and views are bound to us, and by then to compare all these different accounts, you create mutual recognition -and therewith you create reality. These differences in perspective is very meaningful and thereby -when looking at the paradoxes- can be the truth, the reality.

This is best demonstrated when, within Mrs Dalloway, the characters Septimus Warren Smith and his wife Lucrezia are sitting on a bench in the park. Both experience a different reality through their perspectives. Spetimus is haunted by hallucinations of his dead friend Evans and is talking to himself, while Lucrezia is drowning in her sorrows -because of the mental state of her husband ("But for herself she had done nothing wrong; she had loved Septimus; she had been happy; she had a beautiful home, and there her sisters lived still, making hats. Why should she suffer?"). An extra dimension is being added when another character looks upon the couple from a distance and therewith we as a reader are taken away into his stream of consciousness ("And that is being young, Peter Walsh thought as he passed them. To be having an awful scene - the poor girl looked absolutely desperate - in the middle of the morning. But what was it about, he wondered; (...) The amusing thing about coming back to England, after five years, was the way it made, anyhow the first days, things stand out as if one had never seen them before; lovers squabbling under a tree; the domestic life of the parks."). Peter Walsh creates a different reality around 'this couple' according to his interpretation, you might say view, on the events played before his eyes. His stream of consciousness differs immensely from that of either Septimus or Lucrezia. However compared to one another they create a reality, perhaps the reality within this threesome.


A similar notion can be applied to the (seasonal) collections of brands, where multiple designs and sometimes literally multiple faces (think about the many models walking the catwalk or are used as image within promotion material), can -together- present one thought/message/idea. Together they are the creation of the reality of a brand/designer. You could even say that through simulation they create representation. From multiple points of views based on each other, they (try) to create one vision, one reality set within the world (or reality) of the brand.

A brand, one could say, has an overall reality. The collections are part of this, they are the storyline. The storyline further creates or demonstrates this reality. Like in Mrs Dalloway: The brand is the narration, the novel seen as a whole, and the interior monologues are the collections. All the collections together create the narration, create the story. However a novel is something that gets to be read and therewith -according to Roland Barthes- is no longer under the control of the author (and in this sense, no longer under control of the brand/designer). "The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the Author." However, as Barthes also suggests, meaning can be 'disentangled'. And so, by disentangling the different meanings, perspectives of the many ways one can 'read' a collection (and therewith the brand), comparing them to one another, we can find the reality of that brand.


Take for instance Dolce & Gabbana. On their website they state that the brand represents: "A style that expresses new forms of elegance, presenting itself as a modern classicism, based on superior sartorial content and creativity." Most notably they put emphasis on the importance of 'the roots' of the brand: "(...) Strong innovation with the Mediterranean flavour of its origins. A brand whose essence lies in its contrasting features." This can clearly be seen in the topics (or inspirations) the brand uses when creating their collections. The Winter 2016 Women's Fashion Show evolved around The Mother, "the heart of the family", based upon the designers' own childhood memories, but from an aesthetic point of view. This further elaborates itself with the campaign #DGFamily, with the tagline "The family is our point of reference." Online family portraits are being shared using the hashtag and adding the Dolce & Gabbana emblem.

Naturally it could be said that this is just a marketing tool. However by creating this collection with this campaign (which I believe is still ongoing), they create a storyline, an internal monologue, that's being read by a lot of people. Interpreted by a lot of people. Creating an active participation within their reality (they took the time to make a family portrait, log in on the website and share this portrait with the Dolce & Gabbana emblem). This reflects back on the brand and their reality (or the reality they want the be associated with). Similar images have been reproduces within the promotion material for the brand. Indeed therewith most probably making a 'representation of representation' -the average notion of 'family'-, but therewith also reflecting a 'truth' or 'reality' not only based on the #DGFamily project, but on the actual meaning of family seen from multiple perspectives (and maybe even defining what family does or does not mean within this reality).


So it could be said that reality vs representation is rather a collaboration than a battle. A way to get to the reality is to be aware of the many perspectives one something can be seen or experienced. Again: Septimus Warren Smith's reality of sitting on a bench in a park in London, Lucrezia's reality of sitting on a bench in a park in Londen, Peter Walsh's of seeing two people sitting on a bench in a park in London and the actual reality that's been created through these different points of views. Or: the average notion of family, the average notion of family within the context of #DGFamily and the reality of family created through these -different- notions of family (and therewith defining family in the first place).  
There's no escape from reality.

Love,
Dominique


What I'm wearing: Salopette - Made by me / Blouse - Made by me / Hat - Primark (old) / Shoes - H&M (old) / Doll - Made by me /
Sources: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / And: Mrs Dalloway by V. Woolf, A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century by D. Haraway, Postmodernism, Indie Media, and Popular Culture by L. Cartwright & M. Sturken

I've been obsessed with Mr Robot from the moment I first set my eyes on it during an intensive midnight 'zapping' session; religiously holding on to the remote control without a specific goal in mind or with any intention on settling on something. However the moment Mr Robot appeared on the screen, I was fixed. Hooked. I didn't really understood it at first (I entered in the middle of -what later appeared to be- episode 8), but from what I saw -and interpreted- I could tell that this was something special. Something different than all of the other programmes I'd zapped passed that midnight. It was rich. In story. In cinematogrophy. In acting. As said, I was immediately hooked. Obsessed.

There are a million and one things I could discuss in this post. However I've tried to restrain myself on three topics: internal voices, reality and desire. These three topics, I believe, play a very important role in the Mr Robot world.


Mr Robot is about Elliot Alderson (played by the wonderful Rami Malek), "just a tech" by day and hacker by night. Although it must be said that the distinction between these two (so "just a tech" vs hacker and day vs night) gradually overlap one another. Elliot basically hacks everyone. It's perhaps his way of 'connecting', but more about that later. First let us concentrate on the main way of communication between Elliot and us as an audience. Because oh yeah, he's very much aware of our presence -to some extend. The first words uttered on screen sets up a very particular premise. We don't know what happened before our arrival or how we've come into this situation in the first place (which will be a running theme throughout the season). All we know is that we're imaginary. Not real. We have to remember that.


So what does this mean? Well, as we all suspect: Elliot is an unreliable narrator. By seeing everything from his point of view we're already 'compromised' with a singular angle. We're part of a certain construction we can't elope from. We are not part of him, as he clearly demonstrates by specifically naming us, or referring to us, as his imaginary friend. By doing this he creates involvement and detachment at the same time. Intimacy and distance. It also gives his stream of consciousness a particular outlet. And it could be questioned whether this interior monologue is all the monologue he exposes or expresses, or that 'we' are only kept in the loop when specifically addressed to -as shown in multiple cases where he happily skips a moment, a day, a month etc. without keeping in touch with us. Therewith not only keeping us detached from his character for a certain amount of time, but also actually 'hiding' information from us. See for instance episode 8 when he's trying to remove the Honey pot from the system, and quite literally hides information from us -briefly- where he leaves us hanging in suspense whether or not he succeeded. The same goes actually for the season finale where we only pick up the story 3 days after the big hack had taken place, missing the whole thing. Of course he couldn't remember it either, but it goes to show once more that he's an unreliable narrator. This playing with time, skipping -what seems to be- important moments or something that's been build up to over the entire season (yes big hack, I'm talking to you), is what makes the story interesting in the first place. You don't know what to expect even though you're inside the head of the main character. Intimacy and distance.



The game we're constantly playing is 'who's in control'? Well, we are certainly not in control. Or are we? We're just observers. Very limited observers. Again, the show -arguably Elliot- plays with our perception. By being dishonest to his friends, his colleagues, us and to himself, can lead to such plottwists as Mr Robot (played by the fantastic Christian Slater) actually being Elliot himself. The 'unknowingness' or 'unawareness' (or 'denial') serve greatly to the overall storyline, especially because he dragged us down with him. This not only sets you up for plot twists, but also keeps you in a way 'grounded'. You don't outgrow Elliot by 'leaving' him (or him leaving you), because it either drives the story further within our perception or we're actually still on the same level due to the multiple layers this show consists out of. And most interestingly our role or status doesn't change that much because of this. Even after the big reveal that Mr Robot is actually Elliot and vice versa, you still maintain within the stream of consciousness of Elliot. Still differentiating Elliot from Mr Robot, Mr Robot from you and you from Elliot.



This big reveal -Mr Robot being Elliot- is naturally something that can be compared to the film Fight Club, where the narrator is also being confronted with this duality or layering of his persona or perception of selfhood. 'Who am I if I am you?', is a very good question at this point. As Elliot also does (multiple times actually, even before the reveal). First of all he blames us, as a second or maybe even third -considering Mr Robot was there before us- party of his 'existence' ("I should never have created you"). However, how do we actually know Mr Robot was there before us? He only meets him after he addressed us and our existence. Thereby, in Fight Club the narrator wishes to be like Tyler Durden (the alter ego of himself, the imagined persona), but Elliot doesn't want to be like Mr Robot (because he's crazy. Although he [Elliot] also condemns himself for being crazy). He actually tries to disconnect himself in the first place from Mr Robot and it's only after their relationship grows that he 'accepts' his existence. Or maybe even better: appreciates his existence (hotel room scene, anyone?). As Jason Jones states on his blog in regards to Elliot and 'inner' Elliot (us): "This isn't an inner monologue. This is Elliot talking to himself as if inner Elliot is going to respond. (...) There is a sense by the end of the second episode that inner Elliot is the take action part of Elliot's personality that the real him wishes he were. Inner Elliot is what decided that Ron of Ron's Coffee, Michael Hanson and Fernando Vega had to be taken down. So in this case, inner Elliot is the Tyler Durden of the analogy." Dramatic music is in place. However before the big reveal of Mr Robot's identity he says "they are going to try and get rid of me again", which implies he was here before 'us', only Elliot can't remember it like everything else... (therewith the big hack was already taken shape before Elliot's arrival -which coincides with the idea that Mr Robot is clearly being differentiated from Elliot. He's 'taken over' his body which results in Elliot not able to remember what happened in the first place, because it wasn't him).


A very interesting notion to this is Gilles Deleuze's (philosopher, 1925-1995) ideas on thinking as an 'event' that happens to us: "It is not something that is grounded on a decision; thinking is not the cataloguing of different external objects. Thinking invades us. Indeed there's no 'us', no subject or individual, that precedes and controls the act of thought. There is thinking, and it is from events of thought that we assume that there was some subject, or common sense, that was their author." Deleuze says that thought is not something fully owned or decided, "thinking resides in an unthought element", and hereby we could argue that the 'conversations' between us (or inner Elliot) and himself are chosen moments to communicate a certain feeling.


It's very hard to determine within the world of Mr Robot whether something is real or not. There are even theories online that say that nothing is real about the show, which is naturally true to some extend. We're talking about fictional characters in a fictional world shown on television (Ceci n'est pas une pipe, amiright?). However disregarding that or better: accepting the fact that the show creates its own reality, its own existence (aka 'the world of Mr Robot'), I don't -personally- think that every character and all aspects shown are a matter of illusions or delusions. As an article of Business Insider puts it in regards to the finale of the show: "If the hack was imagined by Elliot, then the whole show is imagined by Elliot. And while Elliot is surely an unreliable narrator, there's no suggestion that the entire reality of the show doesn't exist." Therewith, the reality of the show is based on the reality of this one guy, of Elliot. We're 'part' you could say, or are lead through this world from his perspective and perception of it. A constant -and almost literal- reminder of this fact (even when we're not directly talked at or Elliot isn't even in the scene) is the ongoing alteration of E Corps into Evil Corps.



As an unreliable narrator, Elliot is surely not only playing a game with us, but mostly with himself (due to definitely a psychological dysfunction and probably a severe dissociative disorder). But also with us. In a way. I think in episode 7 this gets to be explored more when Elliot 'confesses' he hadn't talked to us for about a month after Shayla's murder. Basically we've missed out on a lot of things. Which begs the question: how often do we miss out? How often are we kept in the dark (on purpose or because he simply hadn't talked or thought about us)?



Therewith, in the same episode it becomes quite clear what Elliot's view is on reality; most importantly on being your 'true self'. Because, I would argue, what's real or not can be based upon the idea whether you're pretending or not. Putting up a facade, perhaps, which can be unravelled and showcased as being the truth (or more truth than you've shown before). And Elliot sees this as the definition of 'true self' (and therewith a creation of the 'real' reality). When Gideon goes on about how Shayla's death shouldn't cut him off from his feelings and connection with other people where he could be his 'true self' around, we 'inner Elliot' are being addressed and see the workpalce and his colleagues wearing signs around their neck with -according to Elliot- their 'true self' on show (in comparison or even contrast to the 'self' they portray in everyday life). This self is being redundant to a few words ("I am Bulimic", "I'm scared of sex", "I pretend to love my husband"). The self or 'true self' in this case is seen as the secret you don't particularly want to share with the rest of the world. Or at least not your co-workers (as we all naturally can guess where Elliot is basing this information on). Hereby his reality is constructed not only through differentiating himself from others, but more specifically by the idea -his idea- of the concept of 'true self'. And in his mind this being perhaps the (single) 'obscurity' that actually narrows, or better: alienates his 'reality' from that of someone else. This is also very important to think about when confronted with a reality that does or does not exist. As Christian Slater said in an interview: "I'm as real as Elliot makes me out to be."


His perception of 'the other' and therewith 'the self' is almost solidly constructed through technology. When he tries to hack himself, to find out who he is, he finds nothing. Which makes him conclude that he has no identity (and therewith a serious crisis of 'self'), "I'm a ghost." When he wants to find out something or wants to (or better: tries to) connect with someone, he does this via a screen and not a face. Which is also a message that for instance Rami Malek has stated throughout multiple interviews. This show is as much about the intrigue and techy stuff as it is about social connection (and how the techy stuff actually has reduced the social part of it).


As already touched upon above, I think the desire for change and the desire for human connection are the two main 'themes' in this series. Besides naturally the question whether a connection is real or not (say Mr Robot and Elliot or -more cynical- anyone and Elliot), the actual connection is being put into question. The connection is being searched for through technology and in many ways distantiates one persone more from another. First of all you -Elliot- becomes an onlooker of society, of human behaviour, while 'safely' tucked away in the dark while his face is being lit by the computer screen(s). And this idea of connection, or perhaps desire for connection -as Deleuze would say- is in this sense a negative; a lack. A lack of (real) human connection -and perhaps the lack of change- is what brought 'us' to this world. To the creation of Elliot.

The disconnection of the characters within the world of Mr Robot is made very clear through cinematography (and arguably use of colour). I've read somewhere (but don't know where anymore, sorry), that they on porpuse chose for very wide lenses and a lot of space -room- for the person on screen. As you can see, and pick onto (although perhaps not immediately consciously), is that first of all it's very rare to see two characters at the same time in the same shot; it constantly focuses on one person at the time (disconnected literally through the framing of the camera). Secondly as I already mentioned, when someone is in shot they've got a lot of play room around them and therewith: they are mostly standing in a corner of the screen. Again: no connection, almost literally through imagery. Within a conversation you can get the feeling that they both move within other spaces. May this therefore be the literal space we see on our screen, but also again the underlying idea of disconnection: no one connects with eachother on a physical level as well as on a mental level. As Christian Slater said in an interview: "And as much as it is a show about technical issues and things happening in our world, it's definitely about human beings and interaction and how we relate to each other and how we're kind of isolated and cut off as a result of technology."



In her book Understanding Deleuze, Claire Colebrook writes about his -Gilles Deleuze's- main ideas that are to be found within his work. The following, I think, is quite similar to the goal of Mr Robot (and basically why the big hack is made operational in the first place):

"The orthodox Marxist position maintained that if there were an economic revolution -if the people rather than the market controlled production- then all our ideological illusions would be swept away. We would no longer be subject to the capitalist illusion that the market is free and fair and that we are all equal in the marketplace; our ideas would be liberated once we were freed from the ruthlessness of the market and exploitation. Phenomenology and existentialism put human meaning before material or economic forces; if we want to change our world we need to change the way we think. We need to transform the very structure of our ideas."*

The idea or need for change, the desire, is something that resonates very strongly especially within the character of Mr Robot (and naturally not to forget Darlene, the sister of Elliot, played by the marvelous Carly Chaikin). While Elliot takes a more nuanced look; trying to make himself belief he could live a 'normal life' watching superhero movies and drinking Starbucks. Spoiler alert: he can't. And soon enough decides he wants (or: wanted) to safe the world. To make a (real) change.


I'm very curious where season two will bring us. From what I've seen so far it will take us places. Dark places. OOoooOOOoooOOoooh.....

Love,
Dominique


*To cite the famous Michel Foucault (French Philosopher and teacher of Gilles Deleuze): 'the 21st century is going to be Deleuzian'. This in relation to the popularity of the show and its 'proven' ability to sort of predict the future (we all should watch out for Sam Esmail), this sentiment -that of the quote mentioned above- really resonates with me together with the recent developments within world wide politics. And more interestingly: the reactions of the 'common man' towards those (political) developments and choices laid in 'their' (and perhaps 'our') hands. 'Are you a one or a zero?', is perhaps a way too easy question to ask if there's no presumption made beforehand what the consequences of those actions will be. Naturally we can't predict the future (and Sam -I may say Sam- is just freakishly in sync with the (to be) played out developments and is therefore not, in fact, a fortune teller), but we can try to inform ourselves as best as we can. Beforehand. Therewith: this doesn't just mean to open Google and type in any question you might have, as stated above, this calls for a change in our way of thinking. The bits and bobs I've seen from the second season so far, I sense, goes sort of further into this. Especially the preview of Darlene for season 2 gives off such vibes, not necessarily of failure, but of a struggle ("We didn't finish them off").


What I'm wearing: Top - H&M (old) / Shorts - Made by me / Fur collar - Made by me / Beret - Thrift Store / Shoes - H&M (old) /
Sources: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / And: Understanding Deleuze by C. Colebrook

I think a lot -if not everyone- would agree with me that this world, at this moment, is a tragedy. It's a tragedy! One terrible thing after another plays before our eyes. Over and over again, thanks to social media. Also thanks to social media: we get confronted with the scariest 'I never thought I'd ever see that (voluntarily)' footage of -mainly- people killing other people.


The plus side of social media was/is the social part of it. 'We' can endlessly connect with other social media users if we like. The world is just one button away! However, as it turns out to be, the world is a tragedy. Which begs the question: do we want to be one button away from it? Ignorance is so not-done, we need to inform ourselves and try to stay in contact with one another (emphasize and connect). However do we need to do that 24/7? Do we need to do that through watching a video of a guy shooting another guy over and over and over again?

What has connection in this sense become? A way to constantly put fear into our minds while simultaneously trying to distract us from this (cat videos anyone?). It's a way to connect -to stay in touch and to fight ignorance (also: a way to express yourself (or rather: a version of 'you'))- but also a big way to disconnect. To forget, regret and wave away. Wave away the shooting, bombing, sexism, racism and wars with funny cats, adorable dogs and lovely clothing. Out of reach, but within your wifi signal.


[This] video -exploring if Donald Trump is a fascist by defining the word fascism- concludes that the word 'fascism' is overused and therefore has lost its meaning. Therewith: it's lost its ability to 'work', "its linguistic oomph" as the narrator puts it, has thus been lost. By calling out 'fascists' over and over again, the shock or 'actual' meaning is gone: "When we don't respect the words that we use, the power they hold and the history they contain, people stop caring." In a similar way I think this can be applied to social media, especially in regards to the current state of the world (this including Donald Trump, as the video ends on a rather dark tone: "Have we robbed ourselves from the ability to stop the next fascist dictator?"). People have stopped caring. Yes, they do still care, but it's become just another tweet or another hashtag on another day.* The actual caring has mostly been put on hold (and let out during specific focus points following that 'another day' -which begs the question: what's actually being done?).


There's just so much to care about on so many levels from the 'trivial' question of what to eat or not to eat. Not only the decision of the actual meal and the actual contents of that meal, but therewith bigger questions of going vegetarian, vegan, choosing biological or trying to deep fry yourself out of the misery -is this a meal I need to eat or am I eating away my feelings? Or rather: how many calories does this contain? Am I getting bigger/thinner/fatter/skinnier if I do or do not eat this? Does it look Instagram worthy? Am I on trend when eating this? Should I go out or stay in? Cook or order? Fork or knife? Cutlery or hands? Plate or bowl? Plastic cups or... *shit haven't thought about what to drink yet!* Alcohol, lemonade, water? Tea?! Coffee?!! What's hot, what's cool, what will take my mind off all the things that upset me, how can I finally eat all of my feelings away??? All of my pain, all of the world's pain, nom nom, and gone are the choco chip cookies. Do they count as lunch or should I make a salad? Should I capture the salad with the water for insta? Is this good enough? Am I good enough? What is good?? What is this??? .... We're almost literally being smothered by doubt, self-doubt and doubt of others. We keep ourselves in check and others do the same while we at the same time look over each other's shoulders and mark their efforts, that is for the good as well as for the bad... Well done, you've chosen to take a picture of the salad instead of the choco chip cookies... however you should've said they were gluten free, would've given you a double A score, now it stays with a heart and no comment (I knew it! I said it to myself but then I accidently pushed 'send' and all hell broke loose). What are we doing? What are we actually doing? What am I doing?


Everything is just so sad. And it takes so much energy that we (I) try to focus on the little things (although calorie counting is not one of them, I'm terrible at maths). It's better to think about other tragedies than those directly facing you, say: the day of the attacks in Brussels, anxiously waiting in a classroom when a (Belgian) classmate is waiting for a phonecall of her brother who lives in Brussels to find out if he's alright (he was). And then going home and seeing the military stationed outside of the railway station with guns and all. To be followed with the day after where they are evacuating your regular railway station -the one you walk in and out of day in day out- because of a bomb threat (there was -thank goodness- no bomb, but still...).** WHERE ARE MY CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIES?? However it's still not something that's actively part of my life. It's stuff that I see and experience from a distance (a near distance, but still a distance). But it's all slowley eating away from me while I try to keep munching on those cookies and while trying out different Instagram filters for my salad picture. Reblog, repin and double tap.


It's become harder and harder to just always look on the bright side of life (let alone death). However -to end on a lighter note, and when you start to think about it- life's a laugh and death's a joke, it is true. It's all a show... Therewith: "Tragedy will be exlusively joked about, because my empathy is bumming me out. Goodbye sadness, hello jokes" (Bo Burnham). It's not (always) a matter of distraction or disconnection, but rather a new formation or realisation of the definition of relation (I'm a poet at heart). Comedy -when done right- can bring people together and discuss important issues that otherwise would be ignored in our otherwise already fully filled scheduled meal-planning lives. One hand for the knife, the other for the mobile phone, it's a (post)modern society!

Love,
Dominique


*Hereby not saying it's a 'wrong' thing to do, because how can a sign of sympathy -of togetherness- in this context be wrong? However, as I shortly discuss next, because of the frequency of the 'word' (or in this case thus sign) it's lost its meaning. Or better: its power. This isn't necessarily the fault of the tweeter/instagrammer/facebooker etc. but it is, I think, something to consider. And basically something to be scared of, as it is therewith a sign, perhaps, of overpowerment (or at least of regularity). We get used to the attacks whereby our frustration grows but the means to catch them slims (Have we robbed ourselves from the ability to stop the next fascist dictator?). However I do think that we need to keep posting about these tragedies and show our sympathies (and again: togetherness). Because although the actual meaning or power has gradually been downgraded (just another tweet or another hashtag on another day), it still works. Ot works in the sense of asking for attention, calling out the badness and stating how we are still here, that our voices do matter and the world won't be turned upside down in 1, 2, 3... (the same, you could say, is now going on with the reaction towards the Brexit. 'We' won't let this decision be made in 1, 2, 3...).
**Funny (funny not being the right word) little something: They do put men with guns 'to protect' in front of the railway station, but they don't put men with guns 'to protect' in front of the metro station (underground). Am I just doomed to (potentially) die because I ride the metro everyday? Therewith: two days later and they're all gone. Well, I guess we're safe now *turns on the news* *sees only horror and disaster* Yes, really safe. (is 'being safe' more a thought than actuality? When are you actually 100% safe? Even your own body can betray you when others aren't trying to murder you (a weak heart due to continous stress. A serious allergy will do fine too).... it's therefore the thought that counts, literally. The thought of being safe weighs heavier than the proven safety because eventually there's nothing to prove, nothing to fall back to... well... ain't that just great).

I'm back with a bang, swing and sashay! Writing to you from a sunny back garden; I however am not sunbathing, I'm hidden away in the shadows and being lighted by the trusted beams of the computer screen.* Don't worry, we haven't grown apart. I've been lighted by the same lights -without the sunny weather, mind you- these past couple of... months. It has been months (four to be exact) since I have posted a proper post. But here I am again! Bang-bang, cha-cha!


'What I've been up to?', you ask. Well how very kind of you! A few months ago (four or less) I was standing on a crossroad. I looked to my right and I looked to my left, and neither option satisfied me. So I asked myself "Why is a raven like a writing desk?". "How am I supposed to know?", I answered somewhat agitated (hello, trying to make important life-choices here). Then it hit me. Why follow the road paved out before you if you can try to find one of your own. One that does satisfy -or at least: one whereby the answer is unknown. Why is a raven like a writing desk? I don't know, but does it hurt trying to find an answer? Trying to find not only an answer, but more importantly, a road that can lead you there? Basically I've been reading Alice in Wonderland too much, but less basically: I've taken a step outside of my comfort zone. And please do believe me when I say that this was quite an out-of-character move for me to do. I am the comfort zone, I define myself by all that is and feels good to me. This didn't include going to the Amsterdam Fashion Institute and following an honours programme in Fashion Theories. It absolutely -in a million years- didn't. And the funny thing now is, is that I'm scared to go back. Back to the crossroad. Because these past couple of months that has been my comfort zone. My road to an answer. And although I haven't found an answer (yet), I'm anything but keen to leave this road taken. However, to take it back to the beginning...



I was standing on a crossroad. The options given were clear. Easy and clear. And boring. Deadly-boring. Everything I did not want; which begs the question what I'm doing there in the first place, but that's for another day, another pace and another tread. So what is one supposed to do? Well, there was always that other option. That option that had never crossed my mind before. Ever. (I'm one to walk along to get the job done, not the wandering type). In a moment of despair I thought 'f*ck it'. Why not? WHY NOT? Well, I could tell you a lot of reasons why not, but I did it anyway (because 'f*ck it'). This choice -surprisingly easily- brought me to the entrance of the Amsterdam Fashion Institute. Although an outsider I -again: surprisingly easily- became an insider. I even made myself believe I was a fashion student. Not only because everyone else believed I was a fashion student (the amount of people that approached me to ask for help with their projects is almost laughable; in their defence though, I was surrounded by fabrics, mannequins and lots of actual fashion students. I only happen to be the rotten apple, the teacup with a hole in it). Apparently I blend in perfectly.


For an honours degree based around Fashion Theories, I've learned bugger all about fashion; but that was not the point. I've learned a bloody lot about theories, especially philosophy. Turns out I'm quite a philoso-enthusiast (who'd thought?). Oh, and I've learned also something about marketing theories. All I can say is that 'it's not my area of expertise' (who'd thought?).



So here I am, once again, with much more insights. But no answers. With much more time. But what is time anyway? And with the intention to start writing -actually writing- again. Or more. Because oh boy, I've been writing myself silly these past couple of months. I keep talking about standing on a crossroad and trying to find my way, but more accurately it would've been: I sat down and stared at my computer screen... a lot. 'The way' (or crossroad) has become equivalent to 'the web' and the road is the URL that you have to type in the bar above. Less romantic. More accurate. So hopefully this URL will find its way on the web. That sounds sad.

Love,
Dominique


P.s. I'm thinking about trying to post twice a week: on Tuesday and Thursday. T(ea)Days, if you like. So something to look forward to! (or not) (but please do!). Each post will go up around 20:00 (CET).

*That AND it's been pooring outside ever since I wrote that line... So far it's been a very wet summer. Sunshine, where'd you gone?

What I'm wearing: Top - Made by me / Trousers - Made by me / Bag - Vintage / Hat - Zeeman / Sunglasses - H&M (old) / Shoes - H&M (old) /

We're busy busy BUSY behind the scenes, but don't you worry: new and exciting content is coming your way. Soon(ish).

Love,
Dominique


EDIT 26 May 2016: Have you seen the video?? Click [here] to go and watch it!