Let's talk about Vice Magazine

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1177 of them)
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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

"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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

SO SHOW SOME RESPECT.

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

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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

aka shitty

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

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 (seventeen years ago) link

and retro how-cool-we-were-when-we-were-adolescent stuff: one too many readings of Catcher in the Rye

xpost yeah THANKS LOADS TIMMY :)

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:24 (seventeen years ago) link

at least the CK ads were kinda...goin for it, in their lame porn-chic aesthetic. rather than this kind of...whatever the hell AA's aesthetic is. cinemax softcore meets urban hipsterdom?

jewess harvell (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:26 (seventeen years ago) link

I disagree. Those images are shot with studio models, under studio lights, with hi-res medium format cameras. They're marginally more "scummy" than standard avertising shots, but the difference from the McGinley / Vice / AA style (and I should add Terry Richardson, who's also worked a lot with Vice) is not just textural, it's political. Sure, these pictures are "sexy", but they lack the shock value of the Araki-Goldin style which influenced Richardson and McGinley so much (Araki freely admits to actually having had sex with many of his models while shooting them, and Goldin gives the viewer intimate insights into her relationship with her lovers).

One Vice cover had to be withdrawn because the subject actually was having sex with the photographer when the picture they ran on the cover was taken, and threatened to sue the magazine (she'd since split up with him acrimoniously). Terry R often sports naked with his models (in fact, he's published a book of pretty much just that). Look out for the Naked Conan O'Brien Show circa 2011! You read it here first!

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:28 (seventeen years ago) link

To clarify what I mean when I say this style is not just textural but political: the camera is a cheap one. The photographer has a real relationship with the subject; it isn't a professional one. (Of course, that walks a fine line re: rockism and sexism, but there you go.) And the models tend to be less Aryan, less fascistically perfect (ie AA's whole Mexico thing).

This gets back to a favourite theme of mine: there is a politics to texture.

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:33 (seventeen years ago) link

American Apparel seems to rip off Terry Richardson far more than McGinley. McGinley's boring, but he has a much tighter sense of color and light than either Richardson or the people AA hires.

milo z (mlp), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:33 (seventeen years ago) link

That was an xp before Momus brought up the big (awful) TR.

milo z (mlp), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:34 (seventeen years ago) link

i agree somewhat - but just because vice's photographers fuck their models doesn't mean they don't embrace artifice just as wholeheartedly ck.

and biting nan goldin's thing hardly seems like a defense.

(i should add that i do find the aa ads sexy - ck not so much.)

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:34 (seventeen years ago) link

as ck that is

jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Saturday, 3 June 2006 14:36 (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.