Let's talk about Vice Magazine

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1177 of them)
Hm. Just watched a few moments of Ghost World, and realized that the "Coon Chicken" scenes therein perfectly encapsulate Nabisco's (spot-on) criticism of Momus upthread, namely that per some of his posts here, Momus "sees inherent value in people's doing things society disapproves of." Thora Birch would represent Vice Magazine and Momus would represent the approving art teacher.

Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:14 (twenty-one years ago) link

actually isn't Vice Magazine sort of like the zine put out by the guy who brought the pedophile to meet Enid?

James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:22 (twenty-one years ago) link

dude it's a metaphor.

Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:32 (twenty-one years ago) link

mine's a simile

James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:41 (twenty-one years ago) link

actually mine's closer to analogy.

Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:46 (twenty-one years ago) link

two years pass...
But Vice is actually racist wheras T Birch's character is a mere cultural commentator!

Fushigina Blobby: Blobania no Kiki (ex machina), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:46 (eighteen years ago) link

vice either has the clumsiest grasp of irony since me as a 14yr old, or is actually rascist.or it's neither of these, and i just dont get it. vice tries to assume an unassailable position, and perhaps succeeds. ultimately i dont really like it cos there's no earnestness.

lack of earnestness might not be much of a problem in itself, but as i see it has no other redeeming features...it's badly written. what happens when they run out of adolescent taboo subjects to cover.they should do a 'msuic' special, or a 'film' special.joke's worn thin

daavis sztaayenszz, Monday, 12 September 2005 21:47 (eighteen years ago) link

It took OVER TWO YEARS for someone to say this!

donut Get Behind Me Carbon Dioxide (donut), Monday, 12 September 2005 21:53 (eighteen years ago) link

I notice both the Nathan Barley and the Vice threads have been revived, and one observation I'd like to make is that it doesn't make much sense to be pro-Nathan Barley and anti-Vice, because one is parasitical on the other, and they're both satire. One's a set of post-PC injokes, and the other's an in-joke about a set of post-PC injokes. One's meta, and the other's meta-to-the-meta.

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 08:29 (eighteen years ago) link

(And this thread, of course, is meta-to-the-meta-to-the-meta.)

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 08:30 (eighteen years ago) link

vice isn't satire, though.

N_RQ, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 08:31 (eighteen years ago) link

no but it likes to hide behind the trope when it can

Banana Nutrament (ghostface), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:08 (eighteen years ago) link

puny tropes.

N_RQ, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:09 (eighteen years ago) link

I skimmed a Vice for the first time a few weeks ago, and didn't really like it. Their in-your-face attitude is too obvious. It seems like it's geared towards nihilistic south park republicans or something.

There was a funny thing on one of their DVDs where they showed a video for a Queens of the Stone Age that was some naked Japanese guy jumping around with a picture of the editor's (or someone's) face over his naughty bits. It was brilliant.

I don't think it's up to white people to decide when the word "nigger" is okay to use, btw.

recovering optimist (Royal Bed Bouncer), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 23:35 (eighteen years ago) link

peta to the meta

latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 00:03 (eighteen years ago) link

nihilistic south park republicans or something

see

This sounds like the worst thing

for more

kingfish superman ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 04:33 (eighteen years ago) link

Vice is for children, nigga.

Cool Raoul (Cool Raoul), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 13:56 (eighteen years ago) link

..it doesn't make much sense to be pro-Nathan Barley and anti-Vice, because one is parasitical on the other, and they're both satire.

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.

mike h. (mike h.), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 14:03 (eighteen years ago) link

The greatest crime in media and marketing is that of trying too hard.

TOMBOT, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 14:22 (eighteen years ago) link

eight months pass...
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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

"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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

Judge for yourself:

american apparel-C/d?

I want to bone American Apparel.

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

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

Whatever, HITLER.

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

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

('interesting', eh)

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

bold indeed!

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


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