I've really been on this site for too long, do you drink water? So do nazis, wow says a lot AsdfghjklRarely do you see someone agree with ISIS that it's OK to destroy history that you don't particularly care about. Bold stance.
I've really been on this site for too long, do you drink water? So do nazis, wow says a lot AsdfghjklRarely do you see someone agree with ISIS that it's OK to destroy history that you don't particularly care about. Bold stance.
It gave the president and a lot of old men really good boners. Probably strong enough to have altered some pants back in the day.Don't let someone wear something that people think have historical value maybe? Are people going to lend out an ancient Egyptian robe, or a crown of some English king?
Rush Limbaugh back from the dead everyone.If she was going for a famous dress with ties to a president, maybe Monica Lewinsky's famous Clinton dress would have fit Kim Kardashian better than Marilyn Monroe's famous Kennedy dress?
I wonder if people see them differently because a dress is created with a utility value of being worn while a painting is just for people to look at. Does a dress count as art? they are both beautiful things created with intention in mind, does that the intentions are maybe different make a difference? Is a dress is historical, and a painting is historical, does that make them more similar than not? There is kind of an interesting conversation there.
My gut says that if people value it, it should not be being lent out and there would be an outcry if people had known it was in the care of someone who would lend it out. Like imagine if the Mona Lisa was able to be rented out to some rich person's dinner party, people would be furious and demand it went to a museum that wouldn't do that.
It's a cultural artifact.To people saying "it's just a dress" it's also historical.
If I went to a museum and asked to try on an outfit from World War 2 or something I wouldn't be allowed and something like this should be in a museum too.
Lol I was being facetious.I've really been on this site for too long, do you drink water? So do nazis, you must be a nazi Asdfghjkl
This is a dumb argument to make. You're saying private art collectors don't exist? That anything NOT in a museum is by definition not art and has no value?
come on.
Yeah! That has been what I have been thinking of how to express, to some people I'm sure they hold this dress in super high regard, fashion designers or Marilyn historians for example, to them this is an important piece of history, but to the general pubic, probably not so much. And it does feel like there is some difference between this and a Van Gogh but I don't know how to articulate the difference.But I think that's where the status gets blurred - is it iconic American history or iconic American "junk food" history? I mean there's a reason why the dress was lent to Kim Kardashian of all people. Clearly there's some tabloid culture association here.
To be fair, Shock G is on record with advocating for people to do what they like.Imagine if someone had the Humpty hat from The Humpty Dance video and broke it with their watermelon skull?
He also once got busy in a burger king bathroomTo be fair, Shock G is on record with advocating for people to do what they like.
A private art collector would own the piece and can do whatever they want with it. Renting out 'art' to any celebrity with an ego and cash cheapens it completely.
Cultural artifact...Come on.It's a cultural artifact.
Like I saw someone saying and king tuts tomb was just a box, the delereon from BTTF is just a car etc.
Like I don't personally care about the dress but I can see why some people do. It'd be great if we didnt just take a giant shit on something cause you don't care about it.
Not a big deal. These boomer "culture" artifacts won't stand the test of time anyway. People acting like this was Wellington's coat or something.
Fine, I didn't know about the special hand techniques. But is it the only dress made like that? Is the technique lost? That might change things.A one-of-a-kind dress, crafted by hand using techniques passed down literal generations, for arguably one of the most famous people of all time.
Nope, not a cultural artifact at all.
eyeroll
And you'd been making puppy dog eyes at it in the window for years?Im pretty pissed as it was guven to her by the ripleys right down the street from me
Not arguing with you here, it's just an interesting conversation, but it's never really the work itself right? I don't think things are usually made inherently having historic value in a vacuum, people collectively confer value onto it. If the people responsible for the item are pretty cavalier with it, doesn't that denote to some degree how valuable it is? Using the previous example, the Mona Lisa isn't going to be lent out to any dinner parties. There are probably entire committees or preservation groups for some historical artifactsSo now you're saying the validity of art is dependent on the person who owns it/ how they manage it and not the work itself? You're grasping at straws here.
Fine, I didn't know about the special hand techniques. But is it the only dress made like that? Is the technique lost? That might change things.
And Marilyn Monroe is absolutely not one of the most famous people of all time. Come on, zoom out on your cultural lens for even a second.
Wut.And Marilyn Monroe is absolutely not one of the most famous people of all time. Come on, zoom out on your cultural lens for even a second.
😂
But yeah, I hope the people insisting this is just a dress don't own a single collectable that they refuse to take out of its original packaging.
people have such a hate boner for anything the kardashians do(not saying some isnt deserved) that they'll just use this as an excuse to rail against kim, when its really the owners' fault and most people who are bitching about this wouldnt give a fuck normally
Pretty sure they're being sarcastic.