But she is not a t-shirt, she is a person with a story much more colorful than the greens and whites and hues and shadows used in the depiction of her on the cotton canvas.
Leila Khaled is a revolutionary, made of blood, sweat, and tears, but not thread.
Revolutionary Me is a design company that silk-screened Leila's face on a t-shirt.
When asked who Leila Khaled was, Revolutionary Me said, "I don't know, but I designed it."
I celebrate revolutionaries, and work to share and spread their stories. I would be the first one to don a t-shirt with Leila's image on it so that I would get asked, and then would answer.
But THAT is the responsibility that should be borne by the designer and the wearer--know who you are "designing" and wearing.
Kitschy consumer mass produced imagery turned artistic under the guise of Andy Warhol. And, at least for some of us, because of him, Campbell's soup cans are not just containers for drinkable food, and tin is not just material that is melded into that container. And, at least for some of us, because of Warhol, Marilyn Monroe is not Norma Jeane Mortenson--she is a series of pouty lips, blonde waves, and a mole, commercialized and reproduced in your choice of colors. Yet, because Andy pointed out what Marilyn's celebrity stole from Norma Jeane, we were exposed to poor Norma Jeane's vulnerability, and how she shriveled and died under the spotlight--the same spotlight that ultimately murdered Marilyn. Andy's was a commentary on this very commoditization, whether via soup can or celebrity.
Che Guevara did not hold soup or sing breathy renditions of "Happy Birthday Mr. President," but his beret and brown/black waves are just as popular and reproduced as Marilyn's. Actually, his portrait has been deemed "the most famous photograph in the world." So, maybe his image is even more kitsch.
But is HE?
Is a revolutionary, like Leila or Che, created for public consumption, like a soup can or a celebrity? Well, in many capacities, I guess she and he and they are. After all, if a revolutionary is not popular and followed, the revolution he or she is advocating won't gain much traction. So, a t-shirt, promoting a revolutionary's position would serve to increase the following (posthumously in Che's case).
If we were to flip this, perhaps we could also argue that wearing a shirt with Marilyn on it requires just as much responsibility as one with Che would require. Wearing that shirt makes you Marilyn's promoter. You promote her "normal" life turned scandalous turned deadly and all that her decades held.
But Norma Jean designed herself into Marilyn Monroe into a commodity intentionally and for financial profit. Leila and Che did not.
Leila and Che did not "design" their commodification--they stood for something on the solid ground of it being what they believed in--period. They did not manufacture t-shirts to sell their revolutions--that was done sans their permission.
And, here we are, back to the original point of this post: know what or who you are promoting when you wear someone's face on your chest. And demand that fools who claim they've "designed" or "created" a revolutionary take their ignorant blinders off.
"Revolutionary Me" has proven itself to be kitsch sans the art of revolution. It's proven itself NOT to be the educational and fashionable and change-driving organization that it claims to be--that it could've been.
"Revolutionary Me" is a wasted opportunity that Andy would've shunned as unartistic and unfortunate and kinda kitsch-less--for it makes no comment on culture or society because it does not have the wit or smarts or the genuine sexiness to do so. "Revolutionary Me" has bastardized revolution and revolutionaries into a for-profit enterprise--something Leila and Che would revolt against.
"Revolutionary Me" is neither rebellious nor with cause.
And I hope its threads unravel and its colors bleed away, before the "designer" sees a photograph of Mohamed Bouazizi, and exploits him and the revolutions he sparked, claiming to have "designed" them too.
I hope "Revolutionary Me" is exposed it for what it is--a poser that hopes to be fashionable but is instead devoid of it.
But THAT is the responsibility that should be borne by the designer and the wearer--know who you are "designing" and wearing.
Kitschy consumer mass produced imagery turned artistic under the guise of Andy Warhol. And, at least for some of us, because of him, Campbell's soup cans are not just containers for drinkable food, and tin is not just material that is melded into that container. And, at least for some of us, because of Warhol, Marilyn Monroe is not Norma Jeane Mortenson--she is a series of pouty lips, blonde waves, and a mole, commercialized and reproduced in your choice of colors. Yet, because Andy pointed out what Marilyn's celebrity stole from Norma Jeane, we were exposed to poor Norma Jeane's vulnerability, and how she shriveled and died under the spotlight--the same spotlight that ultimately murdered Marilyn. Andy's was a commentary on this very commoditization, whether via soup can or celebrity.
Che Guevara did not hold soup or sing breathy renditions of "Happy Birthday Mr. President," but his beret and brown/black waves are just as popular and reproduced as Marilyn's. Actually, his portrait has been deemed "the most famous photograph in the world." So, maybe his image is even more kitsch.
But is HE?
Is a revolutionary, like Leila or Che, created for public consumption, like a soup can or a celebrity? Well, in many capacities, I guess she and he and they are. After all, if a revolutionary is not popular and followed, the revolution he or she is advocating won't gain much traction. So, a t-shirt, promoting a revolutionary's position would serve to increase the following (posthumously in Che's case).
If we were to flip this, perhaps we could also argue that wearing a shirt with Marilyn on it requires just as much responsibility as one with Che would require. Wearing that shirt makes you Marilyn's promoter. You promote her "normal" life turned scandalous turned deadly and all that her decades held.
But Norma Jean designed herself into Marilyn Monroe into a commodity intentionally and for financial profit. Leila and Che did not.
Leila and Che did not "design" their commodification--they stood for something on the solid ground of it being what they believed in--period. They did not manufacture t-shirts to sell their revolutions--that was done sans their permission.
And, here we are, back to the original point of this post: know what or who you are promoting when you wear someone's face on your chest. And demand that fools who claim they've "designed" or "created" a revolutionary take their ignorant blinders off.
"Revolutionary Me" has proven itself to be kitsch sans the art of revolution. It's proven itself NOT to be the educational and fashionable and change-driving organization that it claims to be--that it could've been.
"Revolutionary Me" is a wasted opportunity that Andy would've shunned as unartistic and unfortunate and kinda kitsch-less--for it makes no comment on culture or society because it does not have the wit or smarts or the genuine sexiness to do so. "Revolutionary Me" has bastardized revolution and revolutionaries into a for-profit enterprise--something Leila and Che would revolt against.
"Revolutionary Me" is neither rebellious nor with cause.
And I hope its threads unravel and its colors bleed away, before the "designer" sees a photograph of Mohamed Bouazizi, and exploits him and the revolutions he sparked, claiming to have "designed" them too.
I hope "Revolutionary Me" is exposed it for what it is--a poser that hopes to be fashionable but is instead devoid of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment