Peter has been ordered to begin paying Seymour, his supermodel wife of 16 years, $270,000 a month in alimony and support for their three children. In the global context, $270,000 — every month — is a lot. That sum could buy 900 operations to repair obstetric fistulas in the third world, or pay for 60 new, clean water wells in Kenya. But in the context of Peter Brant and Stephanie Seymour, it's not very much at all.

According to court filings, Brant, who owns a paper company as well as magazines like Interview and Art in America, has assets of $490 million. His net monthly income this year — a pretty bad year for the media — has averaged just over $1.5 million. What does he spend it on? And might it just be possible to economize a little?

Well, for starters, Brant owns a farm in Connecticut. It's 200 acres, and the main house on it resembles George Washington's mansion at Mount Vernon. He owns "40 some odd" polo ponies, and maintains a fully sponsored professional polo team on the property. (He's disbanding the team and giving away the less valuable horses — that is, the $10,000-$15,000 ones.) The cost of all this? $500,000 a month.

Suggestion: It's a farm. Get rid of the horses and raise some soy beans. Or apples. Or organic heritage grains. Or whatever. Pronto.

Photo of Mount Vernon via Encyclopedia Britannica.

Maintaining his Jeff Koons topiary sculpture, Puppy — pictured here is the Puppy outside the Guggenheim in Bilbao; Brant's is an exact replica — costs up to $100,000 a year.

Suggestion: Invest instead in one of Koons' stainless steel sculptures, or perhaps a nice Anish Kapoor; we're thinking durable, shiny, and most importantly, low-maintenance. Realize extra savings by polishing it yourself.

Image of Puppy via Wikipedia

What's Stephanie supposed to do if she wants to go on vacation? $270,000 wouldn't even cover one week of kicking back, Brant-style: the 150-ft yacht Brant chartered for his and Seymour's kids this summer cost the mogul $300,000.

Suggestion: This paddleboat only costs $3,499.95.


Peter Brant gives $216,000 a month to his foundation, which funds his art museum, which is conveniently located across the street from his house. It features a rotating selection of the many works by Warhol, Koons, John Currin, Elizabeth Peyton, Larry Clark, and Cindy Sherman, that Brant owns.

Solution: Why not hang your pictures on the walls of your 20,000 square foot house? Also, 50 cents will get you into the Met.

Cindy Sherman's Untitled Film Still #7 via official website

Brant spends $30,000 a month on "household supplies." You know, everything from "toothpaste to towels."

Suggestion: CVS sells the jumbo size tube of Colgate Total Whitening for $3.99.

Brant has some suggestions of his own about how Seymour should spend her money. Last month, he alleged she had a $50,000-a-month shopping habit. The divorce court judge says Brant "said he did not understand why she was paying retail at Bergdorf's when she could get clothes, at a discounted price, from the atelier in Paris of their friend, the designer Azzedine Alaïa, who Mr. Brant considers to be the best couture designer of the 20th century."

Do you hear that, Stephanie? Most of us would be so lucky to save money by wearing only Alaïa.

Stephanie Seymour, Peter Brant Divorce Case Reveals Lavish Lifestyle [Stamford Advocate]

Cindy Sherman's made her reputation playing other people. Far from self-portraiture, the photographic series Sherman has starred in over the years, which has seen her inhabit everything from "Clowns" to her famous "Complete Untitled Film Stills" are a means of disappearing. As the artist once memorably told the New York Times, "I feel I'm anonymous in my work. When I look at the pictures, I never see myself; they aren't self-portraits. Sometimes I disappear." Showing now in London is a series that sees her in the guise of six middle-aged women. As Adrian Searle, art critic for the Guardian puts it, "These new works deal with age, with women clinging on to a misguided idea of beauty and sophistication. They have chosen to spend their way out of ageing, or to stare it down and scare it away."

For a woman in her fifties, working in the art world, this is no small matter. While Sherman has resisted the label of "feminist" as assiduously as she has all others, her work has always tacitly taken on ideas of stereotype and objectification with stunning results. In these images, Sherman seems to reflect the futility of fighting the aging process, the valor of the fight, and sheer variety of people who come under the blanket heading of "middle-aged,' all without judging. What's different this time around, of course, is That Film. As everyone knows, Sherman's former partner has released a documentary, Guest of Cindy Sherman, which the artist has since disowned. For someone who's made the conscious choice to lose herself in her work, to control her image or lack thereof, what's generally regarded as a petty meditation on sour grapes can't be easy to swallow. Ironically. though, it serves only to add an interesting dimension to this latest set of portraits. Both works are, in a way, dealing with the role of women - specifically, aging women. As Sherman explores the tacit invisibility of her subject, she is the star of a film in which she still manages to play second fiddle to the man who resents her success. The documentary claims Sherman's part of a leading kabal of female artists, while the boys' club reality the movie portrays tells quite a different tale. In a sense, this provides the perfect seventh image to Sherman's series: the middle-aged woman, successful, at the top of her field, and still subject to an inevitable and unkind scrutiny.

Photographer Cindy Sherman's changing faces [Guardian]
A Portraitist's Romp Through Art History [NY Times]
Related: Breakup Film Makes Author Look Bad, Art World Look Sexist
Cindy Sherman's Un-Famous Ex-Boyfriend Finds That Being A "Wife" Is The Pits

Paul Hasegawa-Overacker's Guest of Cindy Sherman is something of a cause celebre in the art world, given the bitchy shenanigans surrounding its making and the pair's subsequent falling-out. While H-O (his preferred nom de guerre) apparently wanted to make some kind of sweeping statement about the fickle world of art and fame, the result is what the Prospect describes as "a creepy, cringe-inducing rehash of a relationship's failure, told through intimate home-movie footage and the annotations of friends."

In addition to making the auteur look petty, which everyone expected, the film serves to showcase - unintentionally - the entrenched sexism of the art world. H-O ascribes Sherman's success in part to timing: a backlash against the machismo of the 80's art scene that resulted in a female art bubble. The Prospect's Kriston Capps disagrees, saying,

When the Broad Contemporary Art Museum opened last year at the Los Angeles Contemporary Museum of Art, the demographic breakdown of the first exhibition was 97 percent white and 87 percent male. The Broad collection as a whole, which is considered to be a significant bellwether of contemporary art, is not much different; 96 percent of its artists are white and 86 percent are male. In 2007, the feminist-activist group The Guerrilla Girls ran a full-page ad in The Washington Post examining the gender ratio of exhibits on display in four public modern and contemporary art museums in the nation's capital. The Smithsonian American Art Museum fared the best — with 88 percent of the artists on display being male.

It's certainly true that, watching the film, there;s a definte boys' club air to the whole scene. Sure enough, as of December, the NEA revealed that female artists make $.75 to the male greenback. Tracy Emin - some would say not the best mouthpiece - made waves a few years ago when she denounced the art world's pervasive inequalities at the Venice Biennale, saying, "The work of female artists sells for phenomenally less than male artists. Male artists started wearing power suits and smoking cigars in the 1980s, but women are only taken seriously if they are wearing dungarees." Her film dealing with the issues, What Price Art? doesn't seem to have affected the change she'd hoped for -yet.

Sherman-as-subject is, in a way, encouraging. But like this? Capps calls the treatment "voyeuristic discrimination" - a level of undignified inspection her male peers wouldn't generate. And you do have to wonder: why does her partner's frustration merit its own story? Women have traditionally been the muses of more successful male artists, but when it's a guy, he feels he's noteworthy. At the end of the day, it seems like the film's larger lessons about sexism may be overwhelmed by H-O's shenanigans. Says the New York Post, "If he intended the movie as a tell-all exposé of a reclusive artist, he failed. If he intended it as a vehicle to make himself look like an egotistical wannabe, he succeeded."

Update: Commenter Khrushchev has brought to our attention a comment that H-O himself left on our first post. Basically, he says don't judge without watching, he worked hard on the film, and it's done with love. Somewhat more defensively, though. But don't take our word for it.

Portrait of Misogyny [American Prospect]
Emin Blasts Art World Sexism From Biennale [Telegraph]
Sexism, Ageism Rule The Art World [BlackBook]
Guest Of Cindy Sherman [New York Post]

Earlier: Cindy Sherman's Un-Famous Ex-Boyfriend Finds That Being A "Wife" Is The Pits

I have no idea how Cindy Sherman treated H-O in the course of their relationship — maybe she was completely selfish and denigrated his needs. But the thing is, Sherman was scads more famous than Paul when the pair got together, it's not like her art stardom was something that should have come as surprise to him. Cindy had mixed feelings about Guest from the get-go. She told the Financial Times during filming, "I was and still am extremely ambivalent about the film, not that I don't think Paul will do a great job, but that I'm in it. I wish he could tell the story without mentioning me. I thought it could be fictionalised or something. But I told him I didn't want to participate actively; any past footage he had of me was OK to use."

Although — according to H-O — Cindy got final cut veto on the documentary, Cindy has since disassociated herself with the production, and Variety reports that Sherman said, "I apologize to all those who participated, thinking they were doing me a favor in giving interviews and otherwise assisting in the fabrication of this film. Against my better judgment, it was clearly unwise to cooperate with the project at it's inception."

In a video on Salon's website, they show H-O being interviewed on the radio by two women. Paul says again, "I know what it feels like to be the wife," and one of the women, poignantly, responds, "You see how sexist that is? How come women have to put up with this? Why shouldn't you put up with this? What's the problem?"

I Dated Cindy Sherman ...And All I Got Was This Documentary[Salon]
Cindy Sherman Rejects Doc[Variety]
Gallery Beatnik Turns The Tables [FT]

Related: Guest Of Cindy Sherman

The Good:
I can't really explain my love for Adam Duritz. Or for his insane suit.


Chris March gets points in my book anytime he's not wearing an outfit trimmed in human hair.


1) OMG it's David Byrne! 2) OMG it's Cindy Sherman...in Prada.


In the spirit of John Waters, I love Kathleen Turner's tacky suit.


The Bad:
I so badly want to get my hands on Debbie Harry and give her a head-to-toe makeover. Girlfriend needs to learn about Rodarte. Or Chris Benz, even! Why is she wearing such weirdly dated looks and not seeking out the best of intellectual fashion? End rant.


I want to grow up to be a crazy cat lady just Estelle Parsons.


This is not the right dress for Hairspray star Nikki Blonsky.


Dear Ricki Lake: It's not nice to steal clothes off of drag queen's backs.


Rocco DiSpirito: Looking more and more like Siegfried and Roy's lost brother every day.


The Ugly:
OK, I think John Waters looks awesome. But we all know he would be insulted if he weren't placed in this category.

[Images via Getty.]

Let's face it. If you are a normal person, you do not have close to $800 to spend on a pair of shoes. And even if you did, you would probably be spending it on something you could wear over and over again, or, hell, something you could wear at all. (Forget "if you have to ask you can't afford it", this is "if you have to be mobile you can't afford it.")

"I feel horrible when my girls come in here and say, 'I can't spend this much on sandals,' " says one boutique owner, who spoke with the Los Angeles Times regarding the rising price of ridiculous shoes. "They think it's my fault, but I am paying these high prices too." Another LA boutique owner agrees. "When Chloé came on the scene, I remember noticing it. All of a sudden, every line started designing a shoe collection that was more elaborate and more expensive."

Why do women do it? Bankrupting themselves, making their tootsies uglier and forcing pain upon themselves for some perverse pleasure gotten from owning something so impractical, so debilitating, and so (we repeat) fug? Let us not forget the sagacious words of our favorite paper, London's Daily Mail, which explains the allure of high heels thusly: "Men like an exaggerated female figure." Yeah, my boyfriend who insists men aren't looking at my feet? Apparently he's right.

Whatsa Matter With Choo? [NY Observer]
Manolo Lovers Feel Financial Pain At the Pump [LA Times]
Life's Little Mysteries [Daily Mail]

[Image via Style.com]

• The battle between Stella McCartney and Heather Mills rages on regarding Heather's divorce from Stella's dad Paul! And even though we declared ourselves Team Stella for this one, we're a little wary about her latest overture: A necklace baring a single leg. Perhaps in nasty homage to her prosthetic-using former-stepmum? Ouch. [NYP]
  
• You know how the Armani collections shown in September weren't, er, all that good? (Hello, I Dream of Jeannie pants!) Well, it seems like Mr. Armani gets that: "I want to fine-tune the organization behind the company. I offer too many choices, and variations of the same outfit. I must focus and edit, offering narrower guidelines." [Vogue UK]
  
• Ralph Lauren has poached the associate articles editor of Departures — OMG! the associate articles editor of an in-flight magazine! — to serve as editorial director for some new editorial venture that will no doubt be full of really hard-hitting, informative content. [WWD, 2nd item]

• Luxury brand conglomerate LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton has finally gotten its hands on the French newspaper Les Echoes, which was owned by the same parent company as the Financial Times.[Vogue UK]
• The Sundance Channel will air fashion-related programming during every night of next Spring' Fall 2008 New York Fashion Week they'll be airing fashion-related programming and documentaries. [Fashion Week Daily]
• Sorry, can't help it: We love Target! They've commissioned Jeff Koons, Cindy Sherman, Elizabeth Peyton, and Kehinde Wiley to design beach towels which will retail for $50, the proceeds benefiting charity. All because Target believes that art should be for the people blah blah we don't care we love Target! [Fashion Week Daily]
• Australian model Gemma Ward turned 20 on Saturday. And had a "Jungle Fever"-themed birthday party. [Fashion Week Daily]
• Do not put Swarovski crystals on your ass. [Fashion Week Daily]
• Dita von Teese for Frederick's of Hollywood just looks trashy. We know, we know... Shocking. But we had hoped Dita could transcend marabou trim. [FabSugar]
• We're doubtful of a panty that claims to be line-less. [FabSugar]

• Hilary Swank is the face, or rather the hair, of Pantene's 'Beautiful Lengths' campaign, which raises awareness for cancer and for which everyone's most winsome trailer-park veteran will grow and cut her hair to be made into a wig for a cancer patient. Which is highly courageous for someone who has already once endured the indignity of short hair for one Oscar-winning performance. Maybe someone will get Renee Zellweger to give up food on behalf of starvation victims next. [WWD, sub req'd]
  
• The upcoming issue of French Vogue features a fashion spread in which a model plays American Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour in all her bitchy, PETA-offending glory. Is this catty? Cross-promotional? Yes, and yes, and don't forget to add, "totally despicable!" We can't wait to see it. [WWD, 1st item]
  
• Poor Julia Restoin-Roitfeld (spawn of Anna Wintour frenemy-in-chief/French Vogue EIC Carine Roitfeld) - growing up in fashion was so hard! [Vogue UK, 1st item]

• With Kate Moss out as the body of lingerie line Agent Provocateur, Maggie Gyllenhaal is stepping in and will be appearing in some online advertisements. Um, because the internet generation has not already seen enough of Maggie Gyllenhaal's intimates? [WWD, 3rd item]
• Coach is debuting a $10,000 handbag. Will Dooney & Bourke be next? Seriously consumers: Save for an apartment, eradicate world hunger, whatevs, you know our deal. [The Budget Fashionista]
• Bitter that you never got a Bedazzler as a kid? Torture your parents by taking their vacuum cleaner to English department Selfridges to get covered in Swarovski crystals. No really! Someone thought of this! [Vogue UK]
• Lauren Goldstein Crowe gem of the day: "One of the things that makes me proud to work in fashion is that it is practically impossibly to parody us." HAH. [Portfolio.com]