Friday, May 7, 2010


I like to catch up on the arts section in the NY Times on line in the morning, skimming for good critical pieces. Yesterday, Holland Cotter. Today, Robert Smith. I mentioned I did not think she was a good speaker in class. Today I am beginning to have the same opinion of her writing. Today she reviews two fashion shows, one at the Met and the other at the Brooklyn Museum. I excerpted one paragraph and want you to read it and see what you think.
Which brings us to the often delirious yet discomforting unreality of most museum exhibitions devoted to high fashion. These shows almost invariably chronicle the lifestyles and shifting, usually unattainable ideals of femininity of the leisure class. But they also reflect larger, historical trends in taste, mores and wealth, while encapsulating the technical innovations, artistic sensibilities and fantasies that perpetually trickle down to the less expensive, more utilitarian designs most women wear.


  1. Well I've never heard of a sentence starting with 'which.' Secondly, 'unreality' sounds like a George W. word. And lastly, she uses too many descriptive words to get across an idea. She's actually talking about several things at once: museum exhibitions, the fashions themselves, and what becomes of high fashion. This makes it somewhat difficult to stay focused on what she's trying to get across. But it's still an interesting topic after you wrestle through it.

  2. I don't know much about fashion, or these shows, but the writing seems watered down. What does "delirious yet discomforting unreality" mean? Delirium is discomforting--for me at least. I'm not sure if fashion shows even belong in a museum setting. It seems to perpetuate things like sensationalism and celebrity. Yba anyone?