Let's talk about Vice Magazine

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1177 of them)
so, do people still hate VICE? (lol thread) Me, i think it can be amusing and offensive in about equal measures, paradox that. not something i seek out.

timmy tannin (pompous), Saturday, 3 June 2006 07:01 (twenty years ago)

Wait, so if I mock someone making racist jokes, I should be pro-racist jokes because the humor I like is based on their idiocy? Momus, you're reaching.

Racist jokes are not satire, Mike. It seems clear to me that Vice and Nathan Barley inhabit the same world, a world of irony and meta-commentary. Very few people think that Vice is actually racist; they simply feel greater or lesser degrees of discomfort with its racially-themed language. Vice plays on all the same ambiguities as Nathan Barley did, in terms of whether it celebrates or condemns the culture it portrays. Sure, Nathan Barley is one step more meta than Vice -- it contains a portrait of Vice (in the Sugarape Vice issue episode-- but Vice is already meta. (And this thread is more meta than both. Any racists here, or just people using the word "nigga" protected by layers and layers of meta-quotation?)

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:05 (twenty years ago)

i was at a friend's birthday bbq last weekend and there was a big mess left where the people from vice had been hanging out. everywhere else was surprisingly tidy considering it was a party and all.

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:12 (twenty years ago)

Well now, at last we have a valid criticism of those people!

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:13 (twenty years ago)

I was at someone's house and they had a copy of a special photography issue of Vice (the only copy I have ever seen, I think), and, man, I really thought it was seedy and pretty gross. I must be getting old. In the 80's, It would have been sitting right next to my stack of Answer Me and Film Threat mags and whatever mag was featuring Joel-Peter Witkin that day. Cuz I was all about "transgression", don't you know. (oh, and fakir whatsisface's extreme corset mag. LOL! who was i kidding back then? at least i never actually got a subscription to Yellow Silk or On Our Backs. I'm sure I wanted to.)

scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:16 (twenty years ago)

you think those three-fingered nerds from Survival Research Labs watch Robot Wars on t.v. and weep?

scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:20 (twenty years ago)

I AM BRINGING REAL LIFE EXAMPLES TO THE PAGES OF ILX!

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:20 (twenty years ago)

For the record, I don't write for Vice any more. But I consider editor Jesse Pearson a friend. I enjoy hanging out with him. He's just a smart, cat-loving, art-damaged media-head nerd... like me.

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:23 (twenty years ago)

It's very interesting to go back and reread this thread!

Dan (If I Could Turn Back Time) Perry (Dan Perry), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:26 (twenty years ago)

"One thing we noticed is that people don’t want to read about music, really. Nor should they."

this is kinda true, actually. reading about music is like reading about architecture. boring for the most part unless there are nice pictures to look at.

scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:32 (twenty years ago)

Scott, do you know how narrowly you avoided a logistical beatdown just now?

Dan (Yay Cliche Subversion) Perry (Dan Perry), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:38 (twenty years ago)

Hahahah.

I'm with Dan on the archival value of this thread. The Cher quote maybe not so much.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:42 (twenty years ago)

One thing that's interesting to note is that Vice has become very closely tied, financially, with American Apparel, whose advertising appears in every edition, usually on the back page, and who are expanding into the same overseas markets Vice has opened editions in. You can also see a strong influence in AA's advertising look from Vice, especially the photography of Ryan McGinley (though it's a heterosexualised version of Ryan's work).

Now, I suspect that the same people who have problems with Vice's post-PC version of racial politics will be having problems with American Apparel's post-PC version of sexual politics, and will think of AA's adverts as "sexist". Am I right? Do we need a separate thread for condemnation of AA's "sexism"? Or do people not get as worked up about sexism as they do about racism?

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:53 (twenty years ago)

Judge for yourself:

american apparel-C/d?

I want to bone American Apparel.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:54 (twenty years ago)

i hear they're putting out the boredoms now. all is forgiven.

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 12:56 (twenty years ago)

They're poppin' up everywhere like a horrible case of acne. I just don't get it, though. That weird, grotty, retro almost-porn aesthetic. The weird Jim Jones like mascot/founder dude on the monitors (they've since dropped that gimmick, I believe). The clothes don't look especially exciting.
I give them a year.

-- Alex in NYC (vassife...), January 8th, 2005.

I've never heard of this company!
-- jaymc (jmcunnin...), January 8th, 2005.

Ha ha ha, you guys are so funny! How does it go?

Oblivious
Annoyed
Still annoyed, but less so
Finally accepting

Why not just give in now? Save yourself all the angst? Because your initial resistance is a crucial part of your later acceptance? You don't want all that emotional investment to have been wasted...

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:06 (twenty years ago)

Whatever, HITLER.

Courtney Gidts (ex machina), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:11 (twenty years ago)

http://www.rotovibe.com/images/atf.jpg
MOMUS, 2006

Courtney Gidts (ex machina), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:18 (twenty years ago)

It's a bit late to off a thread that's been running since 2002 with a Godwin's! Why don't you admit that I was right: that Vice has been instrumental in setting the tone of this decade, and when we all look back at the style of the 00s, we'll remember something Vicelike? Even if it's just, as Kelly Wright wrote on the "bone AA" thread, "a girl with a pit stain or two. it'll get so much better when they start involving tampon strings hanging out all over the place."

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:21 (twenty years ago)

Momus, could you post some "representative" Ryan McGinley images? I can't quite work out what his style is, exactly, I'd like to.

Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:27 (twenty years ago)

Why don't you admit that I was right: that Vice has been instrumental in setting the tone of this decade, and when we all look back at the style of the 00s, we'll remember something Vicelike?

Other than this being completely fucking wrong; I bet 90% of kids I went to college with don't even know what Vice is.

Courtney Gidts (ex machina), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:35 (twenty years ago)

Momus in clinging like a barnacle to the rich dudes' ship non-shocker

Scott OTM about whether all this was already done, better, in the early nineties - people who think Vice is on the cutting edge are like people who show up to the burned-out room where the party happened last week and announce that they're ready to get funky now

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:36 (twenty years ago)

momus you must be really bored to try and drum up a played-out fake american apparel controversy

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:38 (twenty years ago)

in summer 2006 no less! get with it old-timer

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:41 (twenty years ago)

they must have asked for usage rights on one of his tunes or something, Momus always finds a company ideologically interested once he's got business with 'em

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:42 (twenty years ago)

('interesting', eh)

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:43 (twenty years ago)

haha i totally remember this dream:

i had a dream the other night that i was watching mtv with someone and there was this old hole video on (it was "miss world" i think, but that doesnt't really matter since the song was completely different.) so c. love was gyrating around and she had these huge breasts and kept flashing her vagina (it was shaved), to which i exclaimed "my god!" repeatedly, more shocked/horrified than excited. i said to my viewing companion: "it's hard to wonder now how anyone ever fell for this as some sort of feminist statement."

i don't know how this fits with maura's statement but i don't want the dream lost forever. (her coochie is still burned into my memory.)

-- jess

jewess harvell (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:43 (twenty years ago)

and/or when people got tired of arguing about them two years prior (xxp)

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:43 (twenty years ago)

even though it kinda reads like i'm talking about maura's coochie

jewess harvell (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:44 (twenty years ago)

Momus, could you post some "representative" Ryan McGinley images? I can't quite work out what his style is, exactly, I'd like to.

Jake on the floor is a pretty typical one. Naked or semi-naked hot young boy, informally snapped in a situation which might be spontaneous, photographer's friend or lover rather than standard issue model. It combines Araki's intimate relationship with his models with Nan Goldin's scummy settings. Both these influences, by the way, were not accessible to Americans in the early 90s. And they're very evident in the American Apparel look which, I say again, will be a big part of how we look back at the 00s, whether we know it comes via McGinley and Vice or not.

What's very interesting to me is that Dov Charney is now championing Mexico City (there's even a free paper in his stores called Mexico City) as a style leader, and Mexican kids as cooler than American ones. This extends down to things like how sexy it is not to tweezer your eyebrows or shave your armpit hair. I'll make a bold prediction and say that in ten years young American women won't do either.

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:46 (twenty years ago)

bold indeed!

jewess harvell (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:47 (twenty years ago)

they must have asked for usage rights on one of his tunes or something, Momus always finds a company ideologically interesting once he's got business with 'em

AA actually asked me to write something about the company, but I declined.

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:48 (twenty years ago)

"it'll get so much better when they start involving tampon strings hanging out all over the place."

Hustler in the 80's to thread! er, or so i've heard.

scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:48 (twenty years ago)

i'm going to guess momus isn't quite up on the differences between the american eagle/aeropostale/abercrombie/delias aesthetic and american apparels.

jewess harvell (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:48 (twenty years ago)

i.e. shaved legs, pits, and coochies ain't goin anywhere any time soon

jewess harvell (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:51 (twenty years ago)

The main difference in your case, Jess, is that American Apparel, a big sponsor of Pitchfork, is (indirectly) paying your wages for the journalism you write! I'm sure the others aren't.

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:52 (twenty years ago)

SO SHOW SOME RESPECT.

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:55 (twenty years ago)

what the fuck does that have to do with teenage girls plucking their monobrows?

jewess harvell (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:55 (twenty years ago)

i own an american apparel shirt. it's a lovely light aqua color, but the collar is disturbingly wide. i wear is only sometimes.

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:57 (twenty years ago)

yeah American Apparel could stand to bone up on lines & perspectives a little, their materials are good but the designs are pretty useless

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Saturday, 3 June 2006 13:58 (twenty years ago)

http://www.bustedtees.com/images/collarup.23.gallery_normal.jpg

Q('.'Q) (eman), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:01 (twenty years ago)

Well, Jess, the model is this (bear with me):

Styles that will later dominate the mainstream and contribute to how we perceive a particular decade begin in media enclaves like Pitchfork and Vice. Actually, that's not even true; they begin in the art world. No, that's not true either, they begin in widespread social trends which artists are often the first to pick up on (the mainstream is usually slow to change its representations of the world, even when the world changes and moves on). Once they get into art shows, these new images and styles are legitimated: they begin to be seen as acceptable for wider use. People in advertising, music, publishing etc pick up on them, and soon (if they resonate with wider trends, ie the whole post-PC thing, or the fact that demographic growth in the US is coming from Asians and Hispanics rather than either the black or white populations) they reach the mainstream.

A case in point would be how Corinne Day's photos in the 90s (influenced by Nan Goldin) led to a moral panic over "heroin chic" which spilled out of the fashion world and left a mark on the 90s via "Trainspotting" etc. Heroin use in itself doesn't make "heroin chic" a legitimate style; it needs to be picked up by artists, then percolate through to wider cultural resonance via films, records, magazines, photographs... One consequence of this is that we wake up one morning and find that a particular sensibility is literally paying our bills.

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:05 (twenty years ago)

Momus this'd all be so much easier if you'd just say "I happen to like Vice," but, as with all your interests, you want to argue for its "importance" or "vitality," for prescience really: but do you honestly think (you can't) that trends didn't cycle prior to Vice? make any reasonable fashion claim today, in ten years or so it'll have cycled in & out and then you can call yrself a prophet if that's the sort of thing that's important to you.

I am rather glad though that Vice was not ahead of the game in making it OK for white people to call blacks "nigger" and "chink," and that the attempted resurrection of the "reclaiming the word!" ("reclaiming" by people who don't have the moral right to say what gets reclaimed when) trope seems to have died a richly-deserved death in the racial sphere anyhow (I wish it were still considered more bogus to call women "bitches" but you can't win 'em all)

Momus OTM however about how sexism doesn't get nearly the rise of of ilx that racism does, but this is my ol' hobby-horse

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:06 (twenty years ago)

Momus arguing that the social class to which you happen to belong is, in fact, the driving social class: is it any wonder everybody hates artists, who in fact pirate their ideas from the social sphere, not the other way 'round as you'd like to claim?

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:08 (twenty years ago)

http://images.dmusic.com/v7/emoticons/poo.gifStyles that will later dominate the mainstream and contribute to how we perceive a particular decade begin in media enclaves like Pitchfork and Vice.http://images.dmusic.com/v7/emoticons/poo.gif

Q('.'Q) (eman), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:13 (twenty years ago)

do you honestly think (you can't) that trends didn't cycle prior to Vice? make any reasonable fashion claim today, in ten years or so it'll have cycled in & out and then you can call yrself a prophet if that's the sort of thing that's important to you.

I don't say it all starts with Vice, but Vice is an important node on the network. Out of thousands of dud magazines, magazines that went nowhere, Vice is one that "knew what time it was" and positioned itself ahead of the curve. We're now seeing that sensibility go mainstream, which of course is the beginning of the end for Vice. But it has its place in the history of this decade now... and its thread on ILE. Which other magazines do we have threads on? Pitchfork? Also an important node on the network.

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:14 (twenty years ago)

american apparel and vice's photo aesthetic is not dissimilar to those controversial calvin klein ads from 95.

ihttp://itchylot.com/ck/jeans_details_march_95_4.jpg

http://itchylot.com/ck/jeans_details_march_95_3.jpg

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:17 (twenty years ago)

http://itchylot.com/ck/jeans_details_march_95_4.jpg

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:18 (twenty years ago)

aka shitty

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:20 (twenty years ago)

haha, when i revived this at 1am i figured i'd get a couple "who gives a shit what you think" responses, but obviously this still has the power to annoy (or perhaps Momus just brings out the "best" in people)

timmy tannin (pompous), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:23 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.