Let's talk about Vice Magazine

Vice is...okay. The thing with calling people art-fags in print which bugs me is that some readers will be clued in (and they might well be scenesters and/or 'friends of the mag') but people outside the loop/demographic might not be, so the meaning changes. So maybe it's not such a good idea. A good/entertaining writer doesn't need those words to fall back upon, so that's why I find the whole shtick kind of tiring.

There's an editorial argument that goes, 'make it conversational, like you're talking to your friends' and Vice does this. This is a risky strategy because half of the time, we talk utter bollocks to our friends and might not necessarily want to see that highlighted in print. Also, the supposedly 'inclusive' style which I feel included by is probably going to give off exclusion vibes to someone else, for whatever reason (I've never understood people who pick up magazines and wail about being hated by the stuck-up people who run them).

Also - and this is specific to something Nick wrote about the ex-Index lesbian contributor - magazines like to show editorial melting-pot but it would be more illuminating to see who's running the advertising department. Chances are it's mostly guys/ladette women with a more reactionary bent, who go to meetings with closet-conservative yuppie agency types who spend the whole time talking about art-fags etc in a non-inclusive, non-matey way.

Arthur: you should know this, but small cities' punk and gay scenes are often really tight and bear on each other - I think there's actually more separation in the larger cities. In smaller places, all the people who are 'different' wind up meeting each other eventually, and need each other. I think the words 'Husker Du' might be appropriate in this context!

Oh, and Ryan McGinley is a good enough photographer, but as opposed to Nan G or Wolfgang, he's perceived by fashion/magazine folk as being a bit of a wannabe and a bit too available. That's what happens when you land features in all the British mags at once, people think, shit, he must be about to be o.v.e.r. True, he's made good career moves, but is way too obviously inspired by what he could get in exchange for the pics of his friends/the portrayal of a scene based on how it's been for more original photographers.

And a few weeks ago Wolfgang told me he's not taking photos, or letting photos be taken of him, for a whole year. Not a careerist at all.

Just wanted to say 'Yay Suzy!' and...

How come nobody in this thread used the word Gonzo? Is that libertarian journo tradition forgotten in the US, or only amongst Gen ILXers?

Nobody uses gonzo because gonzo includes risk, ie. the distinct possibility of getting shot or surprised by one's surroundings. Edgy style magazines are not really edgy - any fule knos they're too attuned to what's going on not to recognise the need to succeed commercially. Such recognition includes making others take all the risk. You can then write about the addict/suicide/Other with gusto and go home to your six cats and meals for one, while planning what to do with that big paycheque and feeling cool because you're on a guestlist.

so Vice /= gonzo, capische? I'm just wondering if/how much they pay their writers. Give me that info and I'll be able to infer loads.

Let's say I find the name 'Sterling' offensive. (Maybe I'm rabidly pro-Euro and anti-sterling. Whatever twisted reason.) I find utterance of the name 'Sterling' offensive in nearly all contexts. And those where I'm not offended (i.e. where some guy chooses to call himself Sterling) I still think using that name is hideously misguided and counterproductive.

I don't care what you think, even if you happen to be called Sterling and to use that name every day. To me it's offensive, and I think you're wrong to use it. You're letting us all down, and you're hurting yourself.

temporarily ignoring any concerns regarding vice's own latent bigotry, try this on instead. if you can acknowledge that meanings of words shift from user to user on a per-play basis, then surely you can acknowledge the possibility that vice's 're-definition' of certain words may not READ that way to a large segment of its readership. who (and, i know, it's rather dull and ho-hum) have the gall to hear "faggot" (hatred) as "faggot" (hateful) and not "faggot" ("as in 'art fag' - that's what i call my bf too!").

you're coming from a privileged perspective that is NOT in keeping with regular/vice-reading north america. for fuck's sake, spend some time on their message board. what do you think these people would say about a momus record?

really, it's all so arrogant to assume that your forward-thinking 'art fag' friends see the way out, because hey, they've been calling each other fags at dinner parties and sushi stops for years, and no problem there.

simple question: would you walk into a room full of black people and call them niggers?

The obverse question is, would Sterling or anyone else walk into a room and tell them to *stop* using the word 'nigger'? That's what he seems to be saying. And many people on this thread want to gatecrash the Vice party and tell them they can't use certain words in certain ways to their friends, amongst themselves.

a) To use, yourself, the (formerly pejorative) word they're using to each other.

b) To tell them to stop using the (formerly pejorative) word they're using to each other.

Which is the better option? I answered your question, now please answer mine.

It's a MAGAZINE. Although it's a ploy of advertising-sales types at magazines to sell titles as an 'exclusive' party 'everyone' (in its demographic) is invited to. Which contradicts, of course.

While I don't presume to tell people what descriptive slang terms to use, I'm generally not down with people who feel the need to use them. I'm also not down with the Inclusive Language Posse either as I hate being told what to say by some unimaginative local-government type.
Also, the *second* certain terms start crossing over, you can bet the people who started it off will get bored and find a new term so as to make the people who've just picked up the slang LESS COOL.

No, no, no, Mark P set the terms of this conundrum and it was very simple: "Would you walk into a room full of black people and call them niggers?" And I'm saying that if you just have the option to

a) go along with their revaluation of the word or

b) question it

which would be the better thing to do?

(must dash...i'm in my living room and now i have to go to my kitchen.)

So who's going to walk into Art Fag Mondays and tell DJ Amy 'I'm not, um, 'gay' myself, but I really think you should change the name of this place. It's degrading!'

which words? and how? why? when? with who in mind? while keeping a cautious eye out for which elements? oh, fuck it, i'd rather lick matted menses out of dyke pubes while getting sucked off at the jewboy afro hair day at the fag salon than think about this gay shit, but that's okay, everyone knows the vice "scene" includes every gay/black/jewish/left-leaning person living at present.

how's this, Momus: "I'm gay myself, and I really think you should change the name of this place. It's degrading!" ?

Better not to use the word at all than throw one more coal onto the fires of pent up rage and pain of the Ivan Julians of the world (cf. aforementioned bangs piece where he describes hearing it like shrapnel lodging in his stomach).

This doesn't mean that I am going to write letters to Vice complaining. I find them and what they pander to repellent, but fine.

Momus you're a dope half the time because you automatically equate moral disapproval with censorship and shock value with merit.

Nabiso - are you saying adults should be judged by the same standards as 8 year olds then?

why oh why am I having the sudden urge to play (LOUD) You'll Dance To Anything by the Dead Milkmen?

This reminds me of Nitsuh's comments on the 'Is Bush An Idiot' thread. He wanted the people who voted Nader to outline their longterm vision for the positive outcome a Nader vote might bring. And he got frustrated because nobody seemed even to have thought in those terms.

Here I'm actually being somewhat Naderite, in a sense, and saying that I believe the word 'fag' can be totally revalued *for the whole community* within a few short years, and that this victory, which I believe is both important and inevitable, is worth the short-term risk (of Democrats losing votes, in the Nader case, or of a peceived -- but illusory -- temporary *increase* in homophobia, in this case).

I refuse to pick one of Momus's hypothetical scenarios because they're fucking stupid. I freely invite Momus to walk into a room filled with my relatives or my wife's relatives and start throwing the word "nigger" around because he desperately needs the beatdown.

Sterling's name has never been more appropriate