Photo by Samantha Casolari
This week’s list is short because I posted a MASSIVE list last Monday, after the holiday.
Jeffrey Deitch’s new role at LAMoCA appears to be as strange, contrived, and controversial as predicted. This NYTimes article indicates that General Hospital also filmed James Franco in his role as artist “Franco” at the museum. Deitch will also make an appearance. Jeffrey Deitch: not giving a fuck.
Pseudo-feminist blogs perpetual outrage (though, I might add, not over broader or more complicated issues of women and race. Those usually get swept under the rug, or ignored all together!)
The making of Oak Park artist Tony Tasset’s Eye sculpture, now on view at State and Jackson! I have yet to see it, but I thoroughly enjoy when Chicago supports interesting public art.
On capital punishment: “Most of the condemned, one discovers, humbly comply with the proceedings and are eager to thank and forgive their guards and even their executioners. A few rage and spew obscenities. The manner in which they are put to death matters a lot.”
The Chicago News Cooperative published a short article on the transformative power of football for recent immigrants to the United States. The article focused on local author Aleksandar Hemon. It reminded me of Hemon’s essay/short story published in the Chicago-focused issue of Granta magazine, where Hemon wrote about the importance of football as a means of feeling comfortable in a new environment as well as overcoming obstacles that previously divided ethnic populations abroad.
What I enjoyed most about Naomi Wolf’s article on the inherent problems with “Fast Fashion” (H&M, Zara, Forever 21, etc.) is that Wolf admitted to purchasing clothing from such stores. She acknowledges how difficult it is to deny the ease that “Fast Fashion” allows, how we’ve moved beyond the traditional means of purchasing clothing. For someone who promotes such ethical ideals, it was refreshing to read that she is not innocent of purchasing from such stores, despite her beliefs and her knowledge of the horrible work and living conditions that the women creating these items of clothing must endure. The article also focused on the fact that it is largely women creating these items of clothing and largely women purchasing the clothing. What does this represent? A few weeks ago, I read an article about the changing face of the class and race structure. With more women employed than men, and with more men facing unemployment in the down economy than women, the economic structure will subsequently change our roles and belief in the feminist cause. What happens to feminism when women are largely the ones in power, with economic clout, and their actions create horrific environments for other women?
There is something called sweet potato butter and I desperately need it in my life.