Leon Wieseltier actually gets to the heart of what bugs me about the New York Times magazine and its artsy sections, writing off the mag's editor answering questions over at the Times. (An example of his answers: "More generally, we reflect a place where change is not a threat, where doubt and complexity are more TRUE than certainty, and where most everything non-criminal is tolerated – except a bad haircut." Um, wow-I mean, I like to go uptown too? But Christ.)
Wiseltier actually goes pretty accurately postal on all this.
The conferring of importance upon the unimportant, and of unimportance upon the important: this is a mark of decadence, the cognitive inversion of people who live "mostly in aesthetic terms" because they have secured themselves materially–or so they would like to believe-against philosophy and pain. They live for lightness and distraction. Their laughter is the sound of luck. They acquit themselves of their intellectual obligations with opinions. The anxiety that arguing may be bad manners is plausibly held by someone whose primary arena of political action may be the dinner party. (Darling, were we wrong about Obama?) And fashion, a sign of superficiality? Never! I saw how Malvin poured his soul into his hen-like maternity design. It was WRENCHING. Perhaps I am mistaking Manhattan for its media, which is of course a common Manhattan mistake; but neither the reality nor the representation seems able to acknowledge, for example, that Anna Wintour is the most boring person on earth.You know what? She kind of is! She never actually says or does anything, which is sort of like the long-running game I think everyone is playing-that someday she'll actually say or do anything but you know what? It's been like a decade. Not gonna happen. She's just putting out a magazine.
"Fur."
"Go to the gym."
"Is it black?"
These are the things Anna Wintour says, ad infinitum.
"Flat."
"While I was golfing."
"Just around the edges."
These are things Thomas Friedman says, ad infinitum.
I think you forgot to include "the next 6 months ..."
Goodness, he absolutely nailed it. I was skeptical at first -- like it was just more of the always satisfying but nevertheless probably gratuitous Times-bashing it's so fun to traffic in -- but by the end of it, I was thrilled that someone had put into words genuine reasons for the long-standing irritation that I could never articulate.
"but by the end of it, I was thrilled that someone had put into words genuine reasons for the long-standing irritation that I could never articulate.
You've also just described how I feel pretty much every day: an uneasy balance of gratitude, relief and shame.
It sounds like we're looking at the same pornography sites.
mmmmmmmmmm delicious.
Well, except Weistler is misreading -- and misquoting-- the Times magazine statement. The Times magazine editor says that he lives in a world in which people TALK about "everyday things" which include food, drink and bathroom fixtures "mostly in aesthetic terms." And Weistler then twists that to claim that the statement is the proud self-proclamation of a lifestyle in which people LIVE "in mostly aesthetic terms."
But it isn't. The Times Magazine statement is aware that it describes a world whose inhabitants -- lucky for them -- aren't worried about the potability of their water, getting enough to eat, or having a working toilet. They are therefore free to amuse themselves with other concerns. This is not a celebration of frivolity, it's a white-liberal-guilt disclaimer.
Beyond that -- if Weistler really wants to construct a compelling indictment of first world "unseriousness" he should volunteer for some organization like Doctors Without Borders. You know? Because a man who argues that people should concern themselves with "serious" things by writing a media meta-analysis is not arguing from a very strong position.
[God only knows why I took the time to respond at this kind of length. The NY Times disappoints me constantly. But apparently I have the leisure to be really annoyed by straw-man arguments].
As the guy who actually asked the question of the NYTimes mag editor I wish to God after reading Wieseltier I could retract the damn thing. Reading that gave me cognitive vertigo.
How much time would I have to devote to Anna Wintour if I wanted to verify the claim that Anna Wintour is even the most boring person in New York?
I prefer to be too bored to care.
It's like making a list of the most overrated people in history and putting Adorno on it. If you do that, then you have to go read a thousand pages of Adorno very attentively. THE HORROR!
... New York is a place "where fashion is not a sign of superficiality" ... <3 !!!