More people should read books. It's the most concentrated experience you can have.
Vivienne Westwood
Opinions, opinions, I've got some opinions...
I've got this tendency to always have an opinion about everything. Living with me can be a nightmare: I gleefully talk through the news, or anything basically that's on TV, saying how obnoxious and wrong they are. But who is really obnoxious and wrong? Me- who thinks she's right (I am right). Or the newsreporter- who's just (badly) doing what they get paid for to do?
This endless commenting doesn't restrict itself to just the TV. Also books are being bullied by my opinion. Or rather: notebooks and emails (which I send to myself... which is totally normal and fine). Almost every notebook I own has been bullied by my words and careless writings about how something is totally wrong or totally cool and inspiring and the best thing ever (but, suffice to say, it's mostly 'totally wrong'). Today I'd like to share one of these excerpts: an email to myself.
What u on 'bout?
As I already mentioned in a post or two ago, last year began with a Vivienne Westwood book and ended with a Vivienne Westwood book. The book in question, Get A Life!, mainly discusses Westwood's work for Climate Revolution mixed with her daily life (she goes out a lot and has a lot of friends (the one might be related to the other)). In between you'll get a glimpse into her life as a fashion designer/brand hostess. But I definitely wouldn't describe this book as a fashion book or recommend it to anyone who only cares about the dresses and has no eye for the politics. Although, if you are considering buying this book, I take it that you're familiar with dear ol' Viv and her stance in life/politics/fashion and how it's all intertwined.
Pop pop pop u lar
Our journey begins at page 187. Vivienne describes her visit to the V&A museum. She went there to see the David Bowie exhibition. She writes: "I enjoyed myself but great as Bowie is, I'm not so interested in popular culture."
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their own taste. I'm
not one to tell you what you should or should not like. Except naturally
when it's got something to do with morals and stuff. But I found it
very surprising that someone who's an active
advocate for culture and the (re)establishment of said culture as a
driving force behind our society and economy (as a way to instigate a
climate revolution), she -throughout the book- doesn't regard popular
culture as an important part or outing of this.
When Vivienne talks culture she talks about museums and the classics, but she doesn't talk about the mainstream. Although it can be said that the 'classics' are very much part of the mainstream imagery these days (Rembrandt, anyone?) AND it's the repetition of those big names that are being distributed for economic growth because of established (mainstream) appreciation which generates a big wave of attention that doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with that what she's trying to say/accomplish. BUT ANYWAY... Viv doesn't like pop culture. Which is fine. However, arguably she herself, the brand 'Vivienne Westwood', is part of popular culture. She can't escape it or ignore it by being it, right?
When Vivienne talks culture she talks about museums and the classics, but she doesn't talk about the mainstream. Although it can be said that the 'classics' are very much part of the mainstream imagery these days (Rembrandt, anyone?) AND it's the repetition of those big names that are being distributed for economic growth because of established (mainstream) appreciation which generates a big wave of attention that doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with that what she's trying to say/accomplish. BUT ANYWAY... Viv doesn't like pop culture. Which is fine. However, arguably she herself, the brand 'Vivienne Westwood', is part of popular culture. She can't escape it or ignore it by being it, right?
I think the biggest part of her disliking is the main attention in popular culture to
mindless consumption instead of reflective consumption. That's also to say: a great attention to 'you're an unique snowflake that can make unique artwork' opposed to 'history/culture is the basis of everything, nothing is unique and you're not that special'. The last one being sort of the opening line of the book. So a
differentiation between art as 'product' and art as 'service'. What I
mean or think how Vivienne sees it: within popular culture
art is simply being produced/consumed without any deep connections
behind it (except for economic value). And within Culture art is a
well-thought-through time consuming product which represents a
reflection/mirroring of the past. See her opinion about the work
of Tracey Emin (her work, not her as a person) or on page 185: "Adrian's
into modern art. He himself paints - quickly: 23 minutes is his record.
(Anyone can be an artist). He wants to help art students. I wish he
would give his money to the rainforest."
'Anyone can be an artist' in this instance is seen as a bad thing. Only 23 minutes. Is that art? Is that the work of an artist? I find it quite a contradicting statement for someone who uses culture as their leading companion within everything they do. Culture in this instance is confined to the old and established (however, in many ways, she wants to overthrow the old and established). As she states in the book, through the past we can create a connection to the now (and save the earth). YES, I AGREE. However disregarding popular culture in this mixture is, I think, a mistake. Yes, on the one hand popular culture is defined by mindless consumption, but not everything is mindless. As she said herself about David Bowie (page 187): "Bowie was a phenomenon: studying mime with Lindsay Kemp, terrific style, androgyny, each song a concept." Does that sound mindless or useless to you? (and I'm not even a big Bowie fan). Does time consuming work create better art or become better art than something that's put together within 10 minutes?
Not necessarily.
'Anyone can be an artist' in this instance is seen as a bad thing. Only 23 minutes. Is that art? Is that the work of an artist? I find it quite a contradicting statement for someone who uses culture as their leading companion within everything they do. Culture in this instance is confined to the old and established (however, in many ways, she wants to overthrow the old and established). As she states in the book, through the past we can create a connection to the now (and save the earth). YES, I AGREE. However disregarding popular culture in this mixture is, I think, a mistake. Yes, on the one hand popular culture is defined by mindless consumption, but not everything is mindless. As she said herself about David Bowie (page 187): "Bowie was a phenomenon: studying mime with Lindsay Kemp, terrific style, androgyny, each song a concept." Does that sound mindless or useless to you? (and I'm not even a big Bowie fan). Does time consuming work create better art or become better art than something that's put together within 10 minutes?
Not necessarily.
She's got an interesting view on abstract art which I think can also be related
to her ideas about popular culture (page 192-194): "Abstract art denies the need for
subject matter. By this you deny the value of the work in itself -
because there is no way to judge it - as representing
reality, as an Imitation. (...) We've all got a different idea. We can
only come together by taking part in the same experience. This is
culture. (...) Simply choosing things and presenting them in a gallery
or space (conceptual art) is not enough. It is certainly
not original." She goes on with the idea that art is timeless
and even this kind of art has become part of time. However she
disregards the idea that art is inadequate to express today's world, as
stated on the same page regarding (the work/philosophy of) Ai Weiwei: "how does he know that?".
Page 218: "Alexandra didn't agree with some of my ideas
but because she is intelligent and quite open maybe I can half convince
her that pop culture gets us nowhere and that if we had true culture we
would have different values and we would
not have climate change." First of all: What is or should true culture look like? A Rembrandt here? A Caravaggio there? Only art that is representing reality? No expressionism, cubism, Picasso or Van Gogh?
Second of all: I love Vivienne, I really do, and there are many points we agree on. But sometimes we don't. That's fine (I think, at least). The one thing I absolutely can't stand, however (which ironically is also her super power), is the way she sometimes describes people who are friends but don't necessarily agree with her. The same goes with Alexandra, her comment on her intelligence and not agreeing with her seems sort of slightly 'backstabbing'. I don't think that's necessarily the case and the Vivienne in my head is a sweet but strong(ly opinioned) woman. She won't stab you in the back, she just believes in her own ideas being the only ideas (which again is also her super power (and something I appreciate greatly), but it can be a little bit annoying and come across as simply being mean... PLEASE DON'T HATE ME VIV! I LOVE YOU VIV! I DIDN'T MEAN IT VIV! WE CAN STILL BE FRIENDS, RIGHT? VIV? VIV???!!).
What do you think? Is popular culture an important part of culture in general and with disregarding it as a way to safe the world from climate change (with some adjustments here and there) you make a big mistake (as it is a window to a larger group of people who are in this way being snubbed or ignored) OR do you think that popular culture is the problem behind climate change (i.e. mindless consumption driven by our ego only measured by profit) and therefore isn't going to provide a solution. THE WORLD WILL BE DIVIDED!! OUR FUTURE WILL BE CHANGED!! YOUR OPINION MATTERS!!!!! Or at least, that's what my email said... wise words, past-Dominique, wise words.
Love,
Dominique
Second of all: I love Vivienne, I really do, and there are many points we agree on. But sometimes we don't. That's fine (I think, at least). The one thing I absolutely can't stand, however (which ironically is also her super power), is the way she sometimes describes people who are friends but don't necessarily agree with her. The same goes with Alexandra, her comment on her intelligence and not agreeing with her seems sort of slightly 'backstabbing'. I don't think that's necessarily the case and the Vivienne in my head is a sweet but strong(ly opinioned) woman. She won't stab you in the back, she just believes in her own ideas being the only ideas (which again is also her super power (and something I appreciate greatly), but it can be a little bit annoying and come across as simply being mean... PLEASE DON'T HATE ME VIV! I LOVE YOU VIV! I DIDN'T MEAN IT VIV! WE CAN STILL BE FRIENDS, RIGHT? VIV? VIV???!!).
What do you think? Is popular culture an important part of culture in general and with disregarding it as a way to safe the world from climate change (with some adjustments here and there) you make a big mistake (as it is a window to a larger group of people who are in this way being snubbed or ignored) OR do you think that popular culture is the problem behind climate change (i.e. mindless consumption driven by our ego only measured by profit) and therefore isn't going to provide a solution. THE WORLD WILL BE DIVIDED!! OUR FUTURE WILL BE CHANGED!! YOUR OPINION MATTERS!!!!! Or at least, that's what my email said... wise words, past-Dominique, wise words.
Love,
Dominique