<![CDATA[Jezebel: commodity fetishism]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/jezebel.com.png <![CDATA[Jezebel: commodity fetishism]]> http://jezebel.com/tag/commodityfetishism http://jezebel.com/tag/commodityfetishism <![CDATA[Yup, My Nasty Chuck Taylors Can Pretty Much Sum Up The Human Condition]]> What is it about Converse shoes everyone always has to fetishize? America is asking itself on the hundredth anniversary of the company, which is not actually a company but a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nike Inc., not that you care, because you understand; these things happen. As Hank Stuever says: "It is not an angry shoe. It was never that kind of rebellion. It's the shoe of slacker ambivalence, indecision." It is a matter of public record; sometime in the nineties the nation's footwear industry relocated itself in southern China and Jakarta, and around that time I happened to be a kid in southern China; it was hard — shit, maybe even wrong — to begrudge the undernourished Chinese those smelly jobs making the shoes all the cool kids wore; and even in the teensy expatriate youth community of Guangzhou circa 1991 there were cool kids, whose parents worked for Nike and outfitted them with all manner of different colored Jordans and Huaraches and even — my parents found this to be the most unnecessary phenomenon — Aqua Sox.

Whose rooms were bedecked in Bo Jackson and Andre Agassi posters, posters that sated a little satisfied void of American pop culture during some three years of my life. Shall I continue? This is getting indulgent, even for me, which I guess explains my reluctance to discuss Chuck Taylors, a three-year-old pair of which I happened to be wearing a minute ago before I realized I was wearing shoes while blogging.

And that I would be more comfortable without them on. This thought does not occur to me nearly enough; the night before last I passed out still wearing them. Not that they are particularly comfortable. They are just not uncomfortable. It's funny to think my Chucks are three years old, because they still seem relatively new. As Chucks go, you understand. The "All Star" seal hasn't so much as begun to fade. I accept mediocrity in my Chucks as I accept it in myself and in this blog post, which almost failed to point out the serendipitous fact that Converse is now an advertiser on this blog, which might not exist had companies like Converse yielded to market forces and shuttered their factories so as to save more cash for marketing. Thank you, Nike! You acquired a decent little product here. Would I rather be working in one of your factories? No I would not.

I came to be a Chuck Taylor person through the gateway of Kurt Cobain and one-stars and "angst," and at some point it of course occurred to me that commodified angst is still a commodity, and that Chuck Taylors would be offering some migrant girl in Shenzhen a job soon enough, this time making shoes for Shanghai hipsters, imitating to the Hong Kong hipsters imitating the Japanese hipsters paying homage to the Ramones...that we are social creatures, driven to imitate and impress one another, to broadcast our psychographics tacitly through our choice in footwear.

And yes, all that happened, very very quickly, and in the meantime I wore Chuck Taylors, which wore out very very slowly. You might say it all happened in the lifetime of three and a half pairs of Chucks, and you might call that "discusting" but any southern Chinese factory worker could tell you that was all anyone really needed.

From Hoops To Hipsters [Wash Post]
A Tribute To Converse Chuck Taylors [Angelfire]
Chicks In Chucks [Chucks Connection]
Nike To Buy Converse For About $305 Million [WSJ]
Converse Files Chapter 11; Will Move Manufacturing To Asia [NYT]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=373488&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Why Don't I Love Shoes? An Exploration, In Photos]]> I first spotted these $2,975 Balenciaga gladiator boots in the March issue of Teen Vogue. Little did I know I would be seeing them again and again and again and again and again! Because, you see, they are so practical. A real wardrobe staple! No seriously, I immediately thought, "I do not get it." And by "it," I mean "shoes." I do not get why anyone would want, or even aspire to want, to attempt to affix all these fragile, elaborate, intricately constructed and dare I say totally ugly and oh yeah also multi-thousand dollar sculptures onto the body parts responsible for their very mobility. Am I not a woman? Sometimes I wonder this. Dodai and Maria both claimed to like these Balenciaga things. Am I alone in my bafflement? A column in the Times of London this week claimed that "A woman who really is tired of fashion is a woman who is tired of life." Oh, is that it? After the jump, a photo essay culled from some recent magazines pondering my ennui re the season's most coveted footwear.

balenciaga1.jpg
Oh look, here they are again, in some issue of Vogue.

balenciaga3.jpg
Okay, yeah, at this point I am making a point. This is a whole other issue of Vogue. Still ugly. So what could possibly replace the Gladiator boots?

elleshoes.jpg
Hey, these look like the shoes that little Japanese schoolgirls used to wear, and then DIE. On the plus side, they're all under $735.

elle2.jpg
These five-inch Chloe numbers would be eminently practical if only I could figure out what season they were for.

elle3.jpg
Oh, here it is! Balenciaga again. Is there a person you know who could get their $3,495 worth from these tarantula-esque black...um, boots? Of course, for the less-cultured masses they have these python Miu Miu slingbacks. They are only $945. Hey, like my rent! Okay, you get it...Betch.

Kelly Likes Shoes [MySpace]
Why Fashion Matters [Times Of London]
Feminism Is No Match For A Giddy Pair Of Shoes [Independent]
The Shoes Maketh The Woman [The F Word]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=364388&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[The iPhone Line. Is Stupid.]]> Camping out for consumer goods is sort of a boy thing. Boys are always lining up for sneakers and XBox games, but you don't see women camp out at Target and H&M days before the next hotly-anticipated high-low JV. Do you? [Uh, yes. -Ed.] Well whatever. The iPhone is supposed to be insanely coveted among women — divorced women especially (and nonsensically) — who are apparently not put off by the fact that Steve Jobs has yet to use his gigantic bankroll to buy his way onto 1/20 of a Vanity Fair cover. We sent Intern Maria to find out what sort of women were about to become the envy of every boy we know. Answer: The sort of women who wear shirts that say: "Do I Make You Look Fat?" (To be fair, she's 16. Of course she makes you look fat.) After the jump, Intern Maria's experiences with middle-aged moms, stoners, reps for Heeb magazine and, of course, pasty white dudes.

I went to the Apple store on the corner of Prince and Greene Streets in New York City expecting the types of guys who wear T-shirts with slogans like "Oxymoron: Microsoft Works." This was naive. Most of the people in line were in their early twenties and trying to score a quick buck on eBay while basking in the media attention they were getting for being bored and broke-yet-well-capitalized enough to spend a few days buying into a fad.

Although the line (at the time I went to it) was already starting to circle around the corner of Houston and Mercer, I couldn't find that many women to interview. The few that I did approach were mostly young (between 16 and 20), pretty, and considering the circumstances, nicely put together. They were all, of course, looking to sell their iPhones on eBay.

In fact most people seemed to be selling their future iPhone on eBay either for personal profit or for charity (on one roughly-made cardboard fort: "Profits Go To The Wetlands"). These people will make more money sitting in line with their friends for twenty hours than I do working retail in a month. I was almost tempted to give up my story and grab a place in line with the stoned NYU student and his girlfriend I stopped to talk to. They were pleasant and open; so open, in fact, that the NYU student nonchalantly copped a feel on his girlfriend as she spoke to me.

sellinginline.jpgA shorter-term profit could be turned selling one's place in line, which is what these two men were doing, albeit with wildly different asking prices. The man at left was asking $100; the man at right — closer to the hallowed Apple Store — $500.

endofline.jpgLines, while inherently laid-back and democratic, bring out anxiety, competition and rage in some people, particularly those at the end.

momispissed.jpgThis woman was close to the end. Of the line, and her wits. She was, in fact, the first female I came upon who actually wanted an iPhone, and she was not happy to be waiting among the profiteers. She was apparently buying these phones for her sons and appeared a little bit shocked that she should wait in line for the most anticipated product of the year.

All in all, the line was more like the line for a Jack Johnson concert than any sort of nerd-a-polooza. A lot of people were reading complimentary issues of Heeb magazine. (The magazine's clever marketers were stingy, though; when I asked for one, a woman hissed that they were for line-waiters only. Touchy!) Some people sunbathed but (I know, I know, skin cancer!) seriously, some of these people needed sun badly. I met a group claiming to represent the company Rough Guides who said they were authoring a Rough Guide to the iPhone, as if it were not a mere gadget but some sort of sovereign nation with ruins and nature preserves and dirty public transportation systems to be roughed. I thought about this, and decided it made perfect sense.

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=273861&view=rss&microfeed=true