Saturday, 5 November 2011
Friday, 4 November 2011
SAVE GABY'S, SAVE LONDON
off.
Once again City Hall, whoever they are, is willing the destruction of London's cultural heritage. (whats new, I know). Apparently its "Redevelopment", whatever that is.
Gaby's has stood in the same spot at 30 Charing Cross Road since 1965; now soon to be replaced by some ghastly, sterile chain restaurant development. I'm not naive or oblivious to the unfortunate fact that the gentrification of London is purely part of its evolution. But when the powers at be, sitting comfortably on their 6 figure salaries, approve the destruction of the city's heritage I can't help but think; why are we standing for this?
I'm not going to camp outside Paternoster Square or launch copies of Das Kapital at the city hall. This is not me waving a red flag. I simply want to save somewhere that I and thousands of others love.
I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is about Gaby's. It sits almost anonymous amongst the remaining bookshops on the edge of Soho and theaterland, quietly sandwiched between the two. One can sit, almost anonymous, in the corner with some salt beef or falafel and pitta and simply blend into the crowd. Every class, colour and creed. No one more important or notable than another.
Menus are wipe-clean laminated, walls tobacco stained. The staff predate customer service. Soft drinks are served in the can. Its honest. As is the food. Nowhere, does what Gaby's do.
Gaby's is London. A London which is disappearing. Its loosing its heart, and Gaby's is as much part of that heart as Nelsons Column, if not more so. Its alive. Its the people and culture which make the city. I don't wish to see the West End turned unto some monolithic shopping precinct. And sincerely hope I'm not a minority in that opinion.
I really couldn't give a fuck if i never saw another pizza express again in my life.
There is a facebook campaign and petition to save it. Please read the details and sign the petition.
http://www.facebook.com/save.gabys.deli
http://www.thejc.com/community/community-life/56654/gabys-deli-customers-spice-fight-against-closure
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
L'Amour Fou
 |
| Yves Saint Lauren and Pierre Bergé |
"L'Amour Fou isn't just a documentary of an artist but the story of how a shy man fell in love with art and found a unique way to communicate this to the world."
Documenting one of the largest private art collections ever sold, L'Amour Fou is at its most beautiful a love story. The 50 years of Laurent and Bergé; the man who built an empire.
A man who achieved l'art de vivre, and the empire which fell at his death; disbanded at the hands of auctioneers at the Grand Palais. A collection of objects and works of art, inanimate and in vain without their custodian.
L'Amour Fou will be Showing at the Institute of contemporary art, London from 4 November 2011 - 17 November 2011.
"If he triumphs, he may be tomorrows Dior" - As if there could have ever been any doubt.
Saturday, 15 October 2011
Etiam progredieris
Ah, the post war, modest suburban semi.
Okay, they're painfully unremarkable. But at the same time are somewhat of a comfort zone; well built, large rooms, family garden. What else could the nuclear family possibly want? Its a model reflected in planned housing right across Europe.
I have a soft spot for them. They are for me, the definition of nostalgia. My affection aside however...
Britain has changed enormously since the conception and construction of this suburban staple. Economically, socially and culturally. Yet in any town or city up and down the country the same model for dormitory living remains as an inner-city staple. Just without the adornment of a tryptic of ascending geese or that puzzling concept of a serving hatch.
I don't think this is a negative ideal by any means. If anything its quite humble. But its simply not the archetype of what modern housing/ architecture should be. Its not sustainable, universally accessible or indeed visually stimulating. Perhaps what is even more fascinating is the obsession with television which illustrates what modern architecture and dwelling can be. Yet we British, on the whole, reject any forward thinking when it comes to architecture. At least when it comes to the Englishman's castle.
This attitude to architecture is dangerous. By refusing to move forward we are settling for the mediocre. We need to architecture to shape to the demands of modern living; A whole new attitude towards housing, should it be private or social. Perhaps we've been scared off by the concrete revolution of the 60's which casts its shadow over the victorian terraces of the industrial cities.
But for now, a 2 up 2 down and a cuppa will do me lovely.
This attitude to architecture is dangerous. By refusing to move forward we are settling for the mediocre. We need to architecture to shape to the demands of modern living; A whole new attitude towards housing, should it be private or social. Perhaps we've been scared off by the concrete revolution of the 60's which casts its shadow over the victorian terraces of the industrial cities.
But for now, a 2 up 2 down and a cuppa will do me lovely.
Friday, 16 September 2011
Saturday, 3 September 2011
You cant raise the dead
We all understand that fashion is largely driven by a handful of powerful conglomerates. LVMH, PPR Gucci group and Richemont to name a few. We also understand what drives these companies. Billions of dollars. The luxury goods market is one of the strongest and fasting growing in the world, with expansion into asia reflecting the thriving economic powerhouses of the Eastern world.
Bernard Arnault,CEO of LVMH, is the 7th Richest man in the world. And the wealthiest businessman in France. The couture houses and ateliers which once dressed the European social elite and now household names; with "luxury' perfumes being sold alongside groceries.
Big business has in many respects ensured the survival of these houses, whilst simultaneously tearing them of their values, heritage and identity. Its a catch 22.
Hermes, which has perhaps faired better than many houses; surviving two world wars as well licensing and outsourcing at the hands of "the men in suits", once had stores in just Paris and Cannes. Interestingly Hermes' signature orange is owed to the war. As Orange card was the only colour available. It now has over 400 Boutiques in every corner of the earth. Whilst still embodying the definition of luxury, now with a global retail and brand presence equal to the likes of Coke-cola.
The past few years has seen the resurrection of some of the most legendary of couture houses. To me, the idea of reanimating long shuttered houses seems completely redundant from the perspective of design. And of course it is, but as private equity investors mangle as much money out of fashion as possible; dead brands provide the perfect foundation as the once legendary names still linger and exude their prestige. And in many respects the greatest prestige of all, heritage.
Charles Worth puzzles me. No necessarily a household name and somewhat of a textbook name to fashion students/ enthusiasts. The House closed in 1958 long after the death of its creator. Reestablished last year, The Current collection is at the helm of Chambre Syndicale alumnus Giovanni Bedli, designing both Couture and ready to wear. I don't wish to and nor am I at a position to question or criticise the work of Bedli but the whole idea of working under a name which dressed the imperial courts of the late 19th century seems baffling.
These conglomerates should be creating the Lanvin's and Vionette's of tomorrow. Not attempting to breath life into once great houses.
Bernard Arnault,CEO of LVMH, is the 7th Richest man in the world. And the wealthiest businessman in France. The couture houses and ateliers which once dressed the European social elite and now household names; with "luxury' perfumes being sold alongside groceries.
Big business has in many respects ensured the survival of these houses, whilst simultaneously tearing them of their values, heritage and identity. Its a catch 22.
Hermes, which has perhaps faired better than many houses; surviving two world wars as well licensing and outsourcing at the hands of "the men in suits", once had stores in just Paris and Cannes. Interestingly Hermes' signature orange is owed to the war. As Orange card was the only colour available. It now has over 400 Boutiques in every corner of the earth. Whilst still embodying the definition of luxury, now with a global retail and brand presence equal to the likes of Coke-cola.
The past few years has seen the resurrection of some of the most legendary of couture houses. To me, the idea of reanimating long shuttered houses seems completely redundant from the perspective of design. And of course it is, but as private equity investors mangle as much money out of fashion as possible; dead brands provide the perfect foundation as the once legendary names still linger and exude their prestige. And in many respects the greatest prestige of all, heritage.
Charles Worth puzzles me. No necessarily a household name and somewhat of a textbook name to fashion students/ enthusiasts. The House closed in 1958 long after the death of its creator. Reestablished last year, The Current collection is at the helm of Chambre Syndicale alumnus Giovanni Bedli, designing both Couture and ready to wear. I don't wish to and nor am I at a position to question or criticise the work of Bedli but the whole idea of working under a name which dressed the imperial courts of the late 19th century seems baffling.
These conglomerates should be creating the Lanvin's and Vionette's of tomorrow. Not attempting to breath life into once great houses.
Some of the worlds greatest young talent will be showcased at Somerset House in just a few weeks time and the world will flock to fashion week once again. This incredible concentration of talent needs to be nurtured. They are the Vionettes and Lanvin's of the future... if the right financial support is there.
After all, you can't raise the dead.
After all, you can't raise the dead.
The Buckle Dynasty
Some are born great, others have Butchers shops thrust upon them...
 |
| Papa and Grandpapa. Service with a, false, smile |
When Jackie Kennedy married Aristotle Onassis she received $3 million for the privileged. When he died she was entitled to $150,000 a year for the rest of her life. Better than that? She married into the Onassis empire.
As I member of the Buckle Dynasty, I receive the occasional pork pie and eventual crippling death duty.
I'm of the opinion she faired up slightly better.
Who said the age of empire was dead?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)