the more they dress for sex the less sex they will have
prada has her own style, and she doesn't understand women who don't. "what all these actresses wear to the academy awards now—it's just dresses," she told me one evening. "they have no personality. you rarely see them think about it. it's as if women were afraid to explore who they are anymore. now, how can that be sexy? watch them. look at nicole kidman. she is beautiful, and she is nice. but sexy?" prada shook her head sadly. "a zero."
"sometimes i think that the obsession with fashion is just about the desperation of being sexy," she said. "my young assistants come to work and they wear these amazing things. very provocative. and they are so obsessed about being beautiful and sexy, and they are always alone. and i tell them that the more they dress for sex the less sex they will have. it's so basic, but they don't seem to understand me."
- michael specter, "the designer," new yorker march 15, 2004
posted April 05, 2004 in printde-unionizing
same-sex divorce is already keeping legal minds busy. herma hill kay, the former dean of the law school at the university of california at berkeley, argues in a forthcoming article in the king's college law journal that american states are not prohibited by federal law from recognising same-sex marriages performed in other states. therefore, she says, they should be able to grant same-sex divorces—and even states that oppose gay marriage may have an interest in doing so, because they would be ending something they view as a problem in the first place. if conservative states refuse to do so, they will make the marriages even more binding than those between heterosexuals.
- "lawyers' delight," economist april 3, 2004
posted April 05, 2004 in politics, seximplying that it is remediable
Every serious British newspaper carries two, three or more pages of arts commentary and criticism which report, reflect and review a razzle of activity in a style which may be ponderous, or provocative, or purely piss-taking.
No American newspaper dares venture past the first of these p's ... When the head of the Met decides (or is obliged) to step down, as Joseph Volpe did some weeks ago, he does so in a friendly interview with the New York Times which does not once inquire whether Volpe quit because he's pushing 65 or because his box-office has gone dead since 9/11 ... What I describe as the death of classical recording, US newspapers refer to as a 'crisis' , implying that it is remediable.
America suffered the incorporation of many arts institutions. London has five international orchestras, three year-round opera companies, two ballet troupes, three international art galleries, two great engines of modern art at Tate and Saatchi, a National Theatre and too many smaller companies to count. New York has one monolith in each art form, two at most. A British paper can, if so minded, call for the closure of English National Opera, secure in the knowledge that another paper might take a very different view if only for the hell of it. The New York Times dare not challenge any arts institution because there is no outlet for any alternative view. If City Opera or the Met were to shut down as the results of an impetuous editorial, the Times would never be forgiven.
- Norman Lebrecht, "A critical gap," la scena musicale online March 31, 2004
posted April 05, 2004 in art