typically these days weekends are for crafting, and today i was a little bit at a loss, because i didn’t quite have any burning desire to do anything, but i did say i have that face mask redesign on my hands.
so today’s crafting is editing a video! here’s me yammering on as i sew and also talk about my other textile/fibre arts stuff, with surprise guest appearance of my legs. i’m contemplating changing mics for next time, but i’m really well-pleased by the auto-focusing of my new phone that managed to keep up with my erratic hands.
just as an update: did not in fact do any wool soaps or steamed breads today. but! i did google for recipes, and that’s where i discovered dombolo, which is from South Africa.
(i just want bread and i keep eating my mum’s stash. i’m ordering a bagel sandwich tmr)
i’ve fallen into a rabbit hole of fashion history & design yt, which i feel more at home with than the historybounding side of it, which had too much Comic Book Guy energy sometimes (and unfortunately now that i spot that specific mid-atlantic Modern accent a number of them adopt i can’t not pay attention to it. this is also my problem once i start noticing any performers’ frozen forehead).
one particular channel i’m particularly appreciating is Zoe Hong’s, who is apparently a teacher in one of those ny fashion schools. this is one that i recently watched, but honestly all’s good, if you’re interested to learn bits from the industrial side. She disables embeds (fair, i think she’s a treasure trove of info), so here’s a direct link: How to Design For Every Price Point.
obviously i’m never going to be in fashion as a business, but it’s all good information as a consumer.
in terms of historical reviews, i really enjoyed this next one. i enjoy anything that shows actual contextualisation rather than just simple pedantry, (maybe I’m too scarred by boy nerds thinking acting like CinemaSins meant they know how to critique movies) so i really like how she contextualised the costuming against the probable historical references and film language.
sksksksksksksk she’s changed the video title.
put it this way, the self-professed history experts would probably tear Eiko Ishioka’s work, especially her last work in Mirror Mirror, because they fell into the trap of thinking their expertise in one half of their subject matter meant that they’re able to perceive the complete product. like, i love those vfx guys react videos, but there’s a strong reason i skipped their reaction to Bollywood movies, but they don’t have the language for it, even if they’ve worked on movies because it’s 100% hollywood norms producing for american cultural tastes.
like, i love listening to contemporary pop music, but swan lake was a pop production of its time too, so does that mean i have the wherewithal to get it and comment? the last time my friends made me watch ballet, i was still stuck on, “i understand the practical genre reason why they have to dance, but why do they have to dance now, in the narrative? what’s the purpose? is this to highlight anything in particular? what am i supposed to look at?” you don’t want me to do a 25-min video where then i scoff at the inaccuracy of the dancers’ physical bodies which are generally much too tall, the existence of modern sequins etc etc etc, do you????
but you know what, just because you’re a nerd doesn’t mean you can’t contextualise what you like. in this regard, i’ve been low-key noting cathy hay’s long-term project to reproduce the Peacock Dress. i wasn’t really following it (because of my general sense to avoid actually committing my attention to any white people, even girls and women, actively pursuing nostalgia of their cultural history). But it’s her second vid that got my attention:
and i’m like, okay, maybe she would be somebody worth noting, if she comes up my algorithms again. maybe it won’t be lip service.
well, she just updated.
i genuinely teared up. this was really a good thing she did.