But, since fashion advice is what you asked for, it's what you get.
I think when many people say 'fashion' they mean 'how to wear clothes that look good / make me look good.' If this is what Mister Pibbbs meant, most of this doesn't apply. If he meant the more specific meaning of fashion, then this does apply, but wether or not that 'fashion' is important, or even healthy, is often debated.
Quote from Ain Soph Aur »
I make a point of not selecting clothing according to brand name but by materials and cut. I would never wear clothing that displayed a logo visibly (and overtly) on it.
I also only wear clothing that is black, white or grey.
To the first 'graph, here here (and add in price considerations). To the second 'graph, I tend toward the opposite. I think those colours look classy.
Where was I... oh yeah, my originally intended point:
I only recently came to terms with my sexuality, so I don't really know anything about being gay. I don't know what colors clash, or anything like that. So any fashion tips would be much appreciated.
I just have to hope my joke-detectors aren't misfiring or this following bit will make me look silly, but I don't think this is a joke. Possibly a complex trolling. Fashion is not a 'thing about being gay.' If gay guys are better on the whole at looking good than straight guys, hey, I can live with that (they are more cultured after all); but it's sad to think young gay men will force themselves to become interested in fashion in order to fit in with their perception of homosexuality.
Because Magic was/is created by middle class liberal white men, it sort of tries to be feminist. I mean, they do make an effort to have important female characters, but of course, they still like to see hotties. Don't forget: in Dominaria, god is a woman, and named Gaea!
Using artistic talent to do your job is different from having the intent of producing art. Does wanting something to look good quantify as wanting to make art? Does wanting to do your job well (by way of making something look good) quantify as making art?
you hit upon an important semantic distinction: the word 'art' has of course multiple meanings. Artists and artisans both practice or create art. Singing or playing an instrument is an art, but wether or not the creation of music is art in the artist sense is a more complicated question. I would argue that most pop is not. Creating a successful pop song is probably very difficult, on the other hand, and is in that sense an art.
On the other hand, you can't really have an artist without an artisan. The paintings of Jackson Pollock illustrate this. Pollock throwed all of his talent in his brush strokes out the window when he took to splattering paint onto his canvases randomly. Is it still art? Well it's not very nice to look at; and if you're finding much interest in a particular one of Pollock's splatter-paintings then you're tricking yourself into thinking the artist put more thought or effort into the piece than he actually did.
I suppose the Disney musicals are kind of trite as well, but they didn't aspire to be taken as Real Broadway-Style Musical Theatre until recently, a development of which I disapprove.
I wasn't planning on voicing my opinion on this subject, but if we're unholstering our guns on Disney then I will.
Let me put it this way: there's art and then there's entertainment. Broadway-style musical theatre is not art.
On the other hand, Disney makes movies for children, which means art and entertainment must intersect (you can't have non-entertaining art and expect children to participate).
I wouldn't expect to enjoy a Disney movie that I watched today as much as a good musical theatre show, but I feel that (the modern) Disney does a lot of good for society at large while Broadway does basically nothing. It just entertains a relatively small group of people.
I must've started to read the Silmarillion when I was twelve, meaning that I don't remember it too clearly. But I remember that, at the time, we perceived clear lines where John left off and Christopher took over, and that the parts written by the younger Tolkien were terrible and boring; so we stopped.
We, you ask? Well, my mother and I had an unusual bed-time story relationship. As I grew up (probably until about my twelfth or thirteenth year) instead of my mother ceasing to read aloud to me at bedtime, the texts merely became more 'adult.' I fondly recall reading several Earthsea books together, and C.S. Lewis' space-travel trilogy, as well as the Dao de Ying and several of those intellectual bestsellers that are talked about on the radio and get the front cover of the Globe's Saturday book-section.
I revisited the space-travel trilogy a couple years back. Especially the second book, and the third even more so, I found quite bad. I have to agree with Christopher Hitchens' recently-expressed opinions of Lewis.
LoTR (and Magic) has done more bad than good as far as the reinforcing of negative stereotypes is concerned, but I have to disagree with the criticisms of Tolkien's writing style. I view his lush prose as being a rich dessert.
But it's not for everyone so I guess it's like marzipan or double-salted licorice.
Canadian money is prettier, and displays heroes of social progress rather than dead boring people and nationalistic architecture. Also, Canadian bills are easier to differentiate and harder to counterfeit, and don't include the silly one-dollar bill. Those differences are well worth the four per cent difference in value. As a proud homosexual, you are beholden to appreciate Canada's pretty monetary rainbow.
Part of the Wizard of Oz's status as a part of gay culture is I think due to youthful subcultures' needs for flamboyant outlets. As cultures age this need decreases. Fashion-knowledge, love of show tunes, and all-round flamboyance has been decreasing in the gay community.
If you look at parts of the world where prominent gay culture is relatively new (because stigma has more recently been relaxing), such as Singapore, where sodomy is still illegal; you'll find more fashion and more show tunes.
I'd rather vote for Thelma and Louise. It has the same major advantages, Brad Pitt naked and having sex (though his muscles weren't as big then) but a more applicable message.
I was joking when I called your list shallow, though I did not make myself clear when I said "people should be open with their physical preferences." Sexuality is a part of human nature that shouldn't be considered shallower than any other part. That's the remnants of orthodox religions still trickling through society, and the cause of many many problems.
While I'd agree that Japan exerts much of its international influence through anime, I think there's something deeper than that behind my (and others') fascination with its culture. It might be, as Mamelon suggests, that it's so different.
This is most definitely down to the integration of manga/anime in Japanese culture, in that manga and anime are a more integrated part of Japanese culture than American comics are part of American culture. These art forms aren't seen as much "just for children" as American comics are, so it isn't seen as odd for adults to be reading them.
I don't think this answers the question. It's like you said manga is more widely popular/accepted because it's more widely acepted. If you word it that way, then I meant to ask: why is manga so integrated in Japanese culture.
To the first 'graph, here here (and add in price considerations). To the second 'graph, I tend toward the opposite. I think those colours look classy.
Where was I... oh yeah, my originally intended point:
I just have to hope my joke-detectors aren't misfiring or this following bit will make me look silly, but I don't think this is a joke. Possibly a complex trolling. Fashion is not a 'thing about being gay.' If gay guys are better on the whole at looking good than straight guys, hey, I can live with that (they are more cultured after all); but it's sad to think young gay men will force themselves to become interested in fashion in order to fit in with their perception of homosexuality.
you hit upon an important semantic distinction: the word 'art' has of course multiple meanings. Artists and artisans both practice or create art. Singing or playing an instrument is an art, but wether or not the creation of music is art in the artist sense is a more complicated question. I would argue that most pop is not. Creating a successful pop song is probably very difficult, on the other hand, and is in that sense an art.
On the other hand, you can't really have an artist without an artisan. The paintings of Jackson Pollock illustrate this. Pollock throwed all of his talent in his brush strokes out the window when he took to splattering paint onto his canvases randomly. Is it still art? Well it's not very nice to look at; and if you're finding much interest in a particular one of Pollock's splatter-paintings then you're tricking yourself into thinking the artist put more thought or effort into the piece than he actually did.
Let me put it this way: there's art and then there's entertainment. Broadway-style musical theatre is not art.
On the other hand, Disney makes movies for children, which means art and entertainment must intersect (you can't have non-entertaining art and expect children to participate).
I wouldn't expect to enjoy a Disney movie that I watched today as much as a good musical theatre show, but I feel that (the modern) Disney does a lot of good for society at large while Broadway does basically nothing. It just entertains a relatively small group of people.
(There used to be, back when Fiddler on the Roof was filmed, but they've died out. Harsh living conditions.)
But more importantly, out of all the people here, I, an animated director, scored the highest on masculinity.
Uh... hey there guys.
We, you ask? Well, my mother and I had an unusual bed-time story relationship. As I grew up (probably until about my twelfth or thirteenth year) instead of my mother ceasing to read aloud to me at bedtime, the texts merely became more 'adult.' I fondly recall reading several Earthsea books together, and C.S. Lewis' space-travel trilogy, as well as the Dao de Ying and several of those intellectual bestsellers that are talked about on the radio and get the front cover of the Globe's Saturday book-section.
I revisited the space-travel trilogy a couple years back. Especially the second book, and the third even more so, I found quite bad. I have to agree with Christopher Hitchens' recently-expressed opinions of Lewis.
But it's not for everyone so I guess it's like marzipan or double-salted licorice.
Part of the Wizard of Oz's status as a part of gay culture is I think due to youthful subcultures' needs for flamboyant outlets. As cultures age this need decreases. Fashion-knowledge, love of show tunes, and all-round flamboyance has been decreasing in the gay community.
If you look at parts of the world where prominent gay culture is relatively new (because stigma has more recently been relaxing), such as Singapore, where sodomy is still illegal; you'll find more fashion and more show tunes.
I'd rather vote for Thelma and Louise. It has the same major advantages, Brad Pitt naked and having sex (though his muscles weren't as big then) but a more applicable message.
While I'd agree that Japan exerts much of its international influence through anime, I think there's something deeper than that behind my (and others') fascination with its culture. It might be, as Mamelon suggests, that it's so different.
I don't think this answers the question. It's like you said manga is more widely popular/accepted because it's more widely acepted. If you word it that way, then I meant to ask: why is manga so integrated in Japanese culture.
It might be related to wood-block printing, or (more cynically) to certain censorship-laws.