At the end of a weekday, many working Americans watch the clock: 3:45, 4:30, 4:50, 4:55, 4:57, freedom. At the end of a weekday, many working Americans sit in traffic: 5 more exits, 3 more exits, 1 more exit, home. Oh how it feels to be home and isolated from the troubles of the day - the phone calls, the files, the complaints. But for many Americans, that is precisely where the trouble begins. Oh how it feels to be homeless. Pushing papers and flipping burgers almost seems like an escape for many of Seattle’s individuals and families who cannot afford housing in this metropolitan city. While some seek solace in shelters, others are not as fortunate. As a naïve transplant from the suburbs, I found this out the hard way.
Riding on the number four bus headed downtown from Capitol Hill, I sat next to a woman and her two young children. “While I was pregnant with this one” she said nodding to the eldest of the two, “this was home.” Her “home” was under the I-5 James Street overpass. As one of the 2,685 individuals who live and sleep on the streets of Seattle nightly, this single mother-to-be was in desperate need of a true home with walls, running water, and heat. Fortunately, through a series of opportunities and city services, she was able to move from under the freeway to 1 of 10,000 affordable housing units created by the city’s 2002 Seattle Housing Levy.
True, my heart strings were pulled by her story, but I wanted more.
I wanted to know how many units in how many years, in which neighborhoods, and at what cost to the city and its taxpaying citizens. My curiosity had been sparked by her story, but its energy ran on wanting answers. In 2002, city policymakers were able to convince Seattle voters to pass a seven-year, $86 million property tax levy that would provide affordable housing opportunities to low-income residents. It then implemented incentive programs for developers to include moderate to low-income housing units in projects that met certain standards. Program after program, dollar after dollar the city was on a mission.
Compelling stories of hardship and success, I found out, only go so far until the citizens of Seattle want results, numbers, and profits in this day of recession and federal failings. Politicians were accused of bending over for interest groups. Developers were labeled the Big Bad Wolf of the Emerald City. Many people even threw their hands up at the thought of low-income individuals and families living in their neighborhoods, shopping at their stores, and attending their schools. It seems, even today as we approach the 2009 renewal of the levy, as though no one can be pleased.
If people can not be convinced by street to home sweet home stories, the question remained: What economic benefits does affordable housing lend to the public?
Before I argue that affordable housing presents the city with many economic opportunities and benefits, we must first recognize that there is an existing and growing problem of homelessness in Seattle. As companies begin to downsize and budget cut during times of economic stress, Washington State has seen unemployment rise from 6.3 to 7.1% from November to December of 2008. Additionally, many individuals and families are struggling to pay rents and mortgages. In Seattle’s annual One Night Count of homelessness, it was estimated that the number of individuals living on the street increased 2% since the 2008 count while South King County saw a 68% increase and numbers nearly tripled in Kent. Many blogs focused on traveling, like the Virtual Tourist, are host to extended online conversations about the adverse effects of homelessness on tourism in Seattle. While homelessness is preventable and has a direct effect on the city’s economy, many people remain opposed to the development of more low-income housing.
One of the most prominent arguments against the development of affordable housing is that it has the possibility of de-valuing neighborhoods. It is cautioned that with the introduction of moderate and especially low-income housing, property values will drop; newcomers with children will burden the school systems, cost the community more than they pay in taxes, while residential areas will become cramped with pillbox building structures. Many people even worry about the quality of life that affordable housing and its tenants will bring to their streets.
Many of these arguments are based on stereotypes and unreasonable fear. In contrary, the development of affordable housing complexes means a facelift for surrounding areas; it means money that is put into parks and remodeling. Funding that goes to moderate to low-income housing has helped to conceive and execute the philosophy of “smart growth,” which redevelops neglected neighborhoods into communities that are walkable, have ready access to mass transit, and are designed around architecture that is dense and compact but attractively built. Parts of New Jersey have realized the positive effects caused by creating affordable housing. Places like South Orange, Union Township, and Cranford have developments built adjacent to train stations as a modest cure to the region’s overwhelming addiction to the car and low-density sprawl.
Following in its footsteps, Washington State is creating a bill that ensures the close proximity of affordable housing and light-rail lines in South Seattle so that people are able to live and work within the same or nearby communities. Some opponents argue that high-density building would cramp communities and congest streets. This would not be the case with an increase and revitalization of mass transit. People must be able to live and work in the same neighborhood if the economy expects to grow. But why?
The answer is simple: SPRAWL IS NOT AN OPTION.
Low-density sprawl is not an option for a variety of reasons. First, we have already witnessed the housing market crash and mortgages skyrocket. It is not economically viable to families to sell or buy suburban homes, nor can developers create large scale, low-density neighborhoods. The bulldozing has stopped. Above all, investments in affordable and mixed-income residential housing in areas of high employment help keep cities and neighborhoods vibrant and economically strong. Big businesses must come to understand that they can only thrive if skilled workers can afford to live in either their immediate communities, or within easy commuting distance. Productivity is lost when workers have to commute long distances every day. In total, communities without affordable housing choices find themselves losing employers, workers, and a quality of life that comes from an economically diverse environment.
When families and individuals pay more than 30% of their income for housing, they are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. It is important for their sake and the surrounding community, that these households have extra money on necessities. Neighborhoods and businesses financially profit when individual workers such as retail clerks, receptionists, janitors, insurers, teachers, restaurant and construction workers return a part of their income back into the local economy.
Instead of “de-valuing” neighborhoods as some worry, a variety of income levels ensures economic diversity, returns to local businesses, and a generation of large tax surpluses. These communities are not only made up entirely of families but of elderly people, divorced singles, and young couples. With the additional funding acquired through taxes, developers’ incentive programs, and federal spending, many communities and large cities use the money for open space acquisition and additional school programs. In the fall of 2008, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City announced that the city has met its halfway point in its creation or preservation of 165,000 units of housing for low- and moderate-income New Yorkers by 2013. This success is due to “A number of strategies have helped the city reach the halfway point, including rezonings, new financing incentives for developers and the identification of land that city and state agencies own but no longer use.”
But while the successes of the New York City plan have been applauded, many housing activists have argued that it has not kept pace with the shrinking numbers of subsidized apartments in the city. This issue could be countered by employing more construction workers (who would be able to afford living in these neighborhoods) to build more housing complexes. Construction begins immediately, is continual because of contractual commitments, and is funded by all three sectors: the non-profit, the for-profit developers, and federal taxes. Additionally, profits could be made by revitalizing empty industrial sites, desolate shopping malls, and other underused properties. These spaces and the construction jobs that they create are opportunities for economic gains and social redevelopment.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
PETA
The name "PETA" evokes a variety of emotions from its supporters, the neutral-minded, and from those who vehemently oppose its messages. For some, PETA is a tireless machine working to enforce animals rights everywhere, while others feel as those the organization over steps its limits in an offensive and truth distorting manner. It is almost impossible however, to argue that its messages are not powerful and effective.
PETA's Internet homepage is organized and attention grabbing. Instantly, the first three images our eyes are drawn to are a picture of Madonna in fur, a small white rabbit, and a rat looking at us with pleading eyes. You wouldn't think that rats could do that, except that PETA has made it happen. While we may not know how these three images are connected, the importance is that we know that they are and that they appeal to us in one way or another.
Following the homepage to a wide selection of videos, we can pick our choice of topic: cruel companies, domestic animal issues, torture for research, and celebrity faces. As we watch the myriad of videos, our emotions are torn apart, our opinions run up and down, and our stomachs turn inside out. Is it "right" that they show rabbits having their fur torn right off their bodies? What about the kittens and dogs that are unable to open their eyes? They are our beloveds! Is it ethical that we are audience to the spectacle of cows getting their necks slashed once, twice, three times? That is our food!
I believe that PETA is justified in showing their videos. After all, we are not a captive audience to their website. We are able to choose where we click, what we read, and how often. Their message is so polarized because it has to be. They give animals human characteristics so that we grow attached to them and relate to their predicament. Not all people would be persuaded by plain facts, perhaps because we imagine the countless numbers of animals out in the world. Much like statistics about human beings, we are less persuaded by large numbers than by individual stories and suffering.
Something that I find interesting that PETA uses as a tool is the use of "celebrity." Stardom is utilized in order to bring attention to a problem, whether a particular celebrity is encouraging or discouraging certain acts. For instance, their website hosts a list of "Worst Dressed Celebrities of 2009" where we see images of "Hairy-Kate and Trashley" Olson wearing fur vests. In contrast, PETA also uses celebrity to fight against the use of fur for fashion - most notably in pictorial pieces of nude starlets. Alicia Silverstone is featured in PETA's "first-ever naked vegetarian testimonial" and Girl Next Door Playboy model, Holly poses naked while seductively saying that she'd "rather go naked than wear fur." Additionally, the organization's "banned" Super Bowl ad uses sexy women to suggest that studies have found that vegetarians have better sex.
This appeal to nudity and sex is the least effective of all of PETA's campaigns but it does what the organization does best - grab attention. It seems as though PETA strives to shock and awe us. To survive, it must continue to bring horror to its supporters, continually introduce those who may not know, and highlight what opponents might be missing. I think that if a group or individual is going to make an effort to persuade other human beings that animals are important on all levels, it naturally takes some drastic measures. Without these drastic measures, perhaps we wouldn't consider the effects of our actions.
PETA's Internet homepage is organized and attention grabbing. Instantly, the first three images our eyes are drawn to are a picture of Madonna in fur, a small white rabbit, and a rat looking at us with pleading eyes. You wouldn't think that rats could do that, except that PETA has made it happen. While we may not know how these three images are connected, the importance is that we know that they are and that they appeal to us in one way or another.
Following the homepage to a wide selection of videos, we can pick our choice of topic: cruel companies, domestic animal issues, torture for research, and celebrity faces. As we watch the myriad of videos, our emotions are torn apart, our opinions run up and down, and our stomachs turn inside out. Is it "right" that they show rabbits having their fur torn right off their bodies? What about the kittens and dogs that are unable to open their eyes? They are our beloveds! Is it ethical that we are audience to the spectacle of cows getting their necks slashed once, twice, three times? That is our food!
I believe that PETA is justified in showing their videos. After all, we are not a captive audience to their website. We are able to choose where we click, what we read, and how often. Their message is so polarized because it has to be. They give animals human characteristics so that we grow attached to them and relate to their predicament. Not all people would be persuaded by plain facts, perhaps because we imagine the countless numbers of animals out in the world. Much like statistics about human beings, we are less persuaded by large numbers than by individual stories and suffering.
Something that I find interesting that PETA uses as a tool is the use of "celebrity." Stardom is utilized in order to bring attention to a problem, whether a particular celebrity is encouraging or discouraging certain acts. For instance, their website hosts a list of "Worst Dressed Celebrities of 2009" where we see images of "Hairy-Kate and Trashley" Olson wearing fur vests. In contrast, PETA also uses celebrity to fight against the use of fur for fashion - most notably in pictorial pieces of nude starlets. Alicia Silverstone is featured in PETA's "first-ever naked vegetarian testimonial" and Girl Next Door Playboy model, Holly poses naked while seductively saying that she'd "rather go naked than wear fur." Additionally, the organization's "banned" Super Bowl ad uses sexy women to suggest that studies have found that vegetarians have better sex.
This appeal to nudity and sex is the least effective of all of PETA's campaigns but it does what the organization does best - grab attention. It seems as though PETA strives to shock and awe us. To survive, it must continue to bring horror to its supporters, continually introduce those who may not know, and highlight what opponents might be missing. I think that if a group or individual is going to make an effort to persuade other human beings that animals are important on all levels, it naturally takes some drastic measures. Without these drastic measures, perhaps we wouldn't consider the effects of our actions.
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
It is hardly a secret that homelessness is one of the most pressing issues in the city of Seattle today. If it were a secret however, to keep tourism afloat and the gleaming image of the Emerald City alive, then it would not be well kept. Homelessness in Seattle is not whispered nor is it concealed in the shadows of the high-end condo and apartment buildings that have begun to sprout in neighborhoods like Ballard and Capitol Hill. No, instead homelessness is shouted, it is pressed to your face, and tugs on your jacket sleeve. Not even tourists can escape its presence. Places like the Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square, often the face of our urban core, have become the front lines of the battle between those asking for spare change and those with the change to spare.
Since the 2008 One Night Count, there has been an estimated 2% increase in the number of homeless people on the streets. This number, though seemingly small, is preventable and affects individuals like you and I on a grand scale. It is the absolute duty of non-profit organizations, for-profit businesses, and the city government to create housing for those without homes that is affordable and available. Between rising rents and mortgages and a state unemployment rate that has reached 7.1%, the problem will only worsen in our city. We must abandon our stereotypes of those who sleep in doorways to realize that many of them struggled to keep homes that very much resemble our own. No longer should the former factory worker who built our cars sleep under the I-5. No longer should the veterans who sacrificed for our country suffer from bitter Seattle winters. No longer should single mothers have to explain to their children why they must sleep in their car again. Shelters are at capacity, especially when Seattle weather does not spare us from rain, or sleet, or snow. Public government housing wait lists only grow longer while availability shrinks smaller.
I call for stronger efforts on the part of non-profits, businesses, and the city government to create partnerships and initiatives that will help to develop more affordable housing throughout Seattle. Such developments should not be designated to specific neighborhoods only, but must be spread throughout the city in order to ensure that individuals and families from all walks of life interact with one another and share the same opportunities for quality food business, access to public transportation, and proximity to places of employment.
But why? Why should these three sectors come together and work through disputes to create more affordable housing? First, we must state the obvious – because all human beings are worthy and deserving of fundamental rights. Having a roof over your head is simply one of those rights, like water and food. Additionally, such projects are proven to create tens of thousands of jobs in the housing and construction industries. While individuals gain more money through employment and are able to save from affordable rents, their income would go back in the economy through spending on both necessities and luxuries. Existing neighborhoods that host successful developments like the Pantages, Stone Way, and the Village Square apartments have become more vibrant, diverse, healthy, and sustainable.
Above all, increased cooperation between non-profits, businesses, and the city of Seattle would help to prevent thousand of families from becoming homeless through rental assistance. Those who were once homeless would once again live safely and comfortably with dignity. As citizens, we must support housing levies, be open to affordable housing developments in our neighborhoods, and encourage for-profit developers and businesses to become involved in a process that could ultimately have a positive effect on their lives along with the 2% of homeless individuals and families living on the streets today. Homelessness is not a secret in Seattle and should not be treated like one.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Vance
It is hardly a secret that homelessness is one of the most pressing issues in the city of Seattle today. If it were a secret however, to keep tourism afloat and the gleaming image of the Emerald City alive, then it would not be well kept. Homelessness in Seattle is not whispered nor is it concealed in the shadows of the high-end condo and apartment buildings that have begun to sprout in neighborhoods like Ballard and Capitol Hill. No, instead homelessness is shouted, it is pressed to your face, and tugs on your jacket sleeve. Not even tourists can escape its presence. Places like the Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square, often the face of our urban core, have become the front lines of the battle between those asking for spare change and those with the change to spare.
Since the 2008 One Night Count, there has been an estimated 2% increase in the number of homeless people on the streets. This number, though seemingly small, is preventable and affects individuals like you and I on a grand scale. It is the absolute duty of non-profit organizations, for-profit businesses, and the city government to create housing for those without homes that is affordable and available. Between rising rents and mortgages and a state unemployment rate that has reached 7.1%, the problem will only worsen in our city. We must abandon our stereotypes of those who sleep in doorways to realize that many of them struggled to keep homes that very much resemble our own. No longer should the former factory worker who built our cars sleep under the I-5. No longer should the veterans who sacrificed for our country suffer from bitter Seattle winters. No longer should single mothers have to explain to their children why they must sleep in their car again. Shelters are at capacity, especially when Seattle weather does not spare us from rain, or sleet, or snow. Public government housing wait lists only grow longer while availability shrinks smaller.
I call for stronger efforts on the part of non-profits, businesses, and the city government to create partnerships and initiatives that will help to develop more affordable housing throughout Seattle. Such developments should not be designated to specific neighborhoods only, but must be spread throughout the city in order to ensure that individuals and families from all walks of life interact with one another and share the same opportunities for quality food business, access to public transportation, and proximity to places of employment.
But why? Why should these three sectors come together and work through disputes to create more affordable housing? First, we must state the obvious – because all human beings are worthy and deserving of fundamental rights. Having a roof over your head is simply one of those rights, like water and food. Additionally, such projects are proven to create tens of thousands of jobs in the housing and construction industries. While individuals gain more money through employment and are able to save from affordable rents, their income would go back in the economy through spending on both necessities and luxuries. Existing neighborhoods that host successful developments like the Pantages, Stone Way, and the Village Square apartments have become more vibrant, diverse, healthy, and sustainable.
Above all, increased cooperation between non-profits, businesses, and the city of Seattle would help to prevent thousand of families from becoming homeless through rental assistance. Those who were once homeless would once again live safely and comfortably with dignity. As citizens, we must support housing levies, be open to affordable housing developments in our neighborhoods, and encourage for-profit developers and businesses to become involved in a process that could ultimately have a positive effect on their lives along with the 2% of homeless individuals and families living on the streets today. Homelessness is not a secret in Seattle and should not be treated like one.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Vance
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
On Motherhood
Motherhood - a foreign and frightening idea for a twenty-two year old college student life myself. I can hardly take care of my own responsibilities and indulge in too many selfish weekend escapades to really, truly, sincerely care for any other human being! Just call me selfish. There are however, women who wait their whole lives to become a mother; to finally hold their own child in their arms. It can be a beautiful sight that renders images of the women who have made a difference in our lives. Its concept however, when placed into the dangerous public sphere of controversy and newswires is, in my own opinion, a psychological, social, and physical imprisonment of women everywhere.
We read about Nadya Suleman and call her selfish for being too motherly - the woman just wanted more and more babies! We hear about female soldiers becoming mothers or enlisting already as such and call them selfish as well. Why? They abandon their children to fight for their country. Or what about the argument that they abandon their duties and their country to focus on themselves and their children? Those selfish, selfish women...
On the other hand, motherhood as a concept can be extremely empowering. After all, it is the ultimate power to create a living human being and introduce them to the world. We look to our mothers for advice and learn how to be functioning individuals more often than not through the lessons given to us by them. But despite the wonders of watching your child walk for the first time or or go off to college, motherhood as a concept limits women. You can be a mother or you cannot. Or you can be both, but only within the restrictions created by workplace and societal standards. So while I look up to my own mother, I choose to remain that selfish, childless twenty-two year old woman in order to escape the imprisonment of motherhood.
We read about Nadya Suleman and call her selfish for being too motherly - the woman just wanted more and more babies! We hear about female soldiers becoming mothers or enlisting already as such and call them selfish as well. Why? They abandon their children to fight for their country. Or what about the argument that they abandon their duties and their country to focus on themselves and their children? Those selfish, selfish women...
On the other hand, motherhood as a concept can be extremely empowering. After all, it is the ultimate power to create a living human being and introduce them to the world. We look to our mothers for advice and learn how to be functioning individuals more often than not through the lessons given to us by them. But despite the wonders of watching your child walk for the first time or or go off to college, motherhood as a concept limits women. You can be a mother or you cannot. Or you can be both, but only within the restrictions created by workplace and societal standards. So while I look up to my own mother, I choose to remain that selfish, childless twenty-two year old woman in order to escape the imprisonment of motherhood.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Letter of Intent
Dear Weyerhauser Company Foundation,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Northwest Housing Oranization, a 501(C)(3) organization that works to increase low-income housing in the city of Seattle. Specifically, we build and support low-income housing programs in Seattle's Capitol Hill, South Lake Union, and Beacon Hill neighborhoods. Our organization intends to create safe and inclusive communities for individuals and families that are at risk of becoming or are currently homeless. For over twelve years we have successfully built and restored eleven high and low rise apartment buildings as well as six traditional houses in order to create what everyone fundamentally derserves - a home.
Currently, we are developing a plan that would create a fifty person apartment complex in the Capitol Hill neighborhood on the block of 13th Avenue and Jefferson Street. This housing project will provide a safe environment for single parent families to live and create supportive community. As studies show, single parent families are four times as likely to become homeless as those supported by two adults. Additionally, homelessness for single family households has climbed 2% every year since 2006 within Seattle. The requirements to live in the 13th and Jefferson apartment complex would include: a past history of homelessness within the family, no criminal drug records, and a total family income of less than $25,000 a year. We intend to being building on May 26th, 2009 and finish by September 15th 2009.
Attached is a detailed form that provides a budgetary breakdown of how we intend on carrying out a greatly needed project. Please consider the information we have provided and the Seattle families that depend on organizations like our own, Northwest Housing Organization. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I am writing to you on behalf of the Northwest Housing Oranization, a 501(C)(3) organization that works to increase low-income housing in the city of Seattle. Specifically, we build and support low-income housing programs in Seattle's Capitol Hill, South Lake Union, and Beacon Hill neighborhoods. Our organization intends to create safe and inclusive communities for individuals and families that are at risk of becoming or are currently homeless. For over twelve years we have successfully built and restored eleven high and low rise apartment buildings as well as six traditional houses in order to create what everyone fundamentally derserves - a home.
Currently, we are developing a plan that would create a fifty person apartment complex in the Capitol Hill neighborhood on the block of 13th Avenue and Jefferson Street. This housing project will provide a safe environment for single parent families to live and create supportive community. As studies show, single parent families are four times as likely to become homeless as those supported by two adults. Additionally, homelessness for single family households has climbed 2% every year since 2006 within Seattle. The requirements to live in the 13th and Jefferson apartment complex would include: a past history of homelessness within the family, no criminal drug records, and a total family income of less than $25,000 a year. We intend to being building on May 26th, 2009 and finish by September 15th 2009.
Attached is a detailed form that provides a budgetary breakdown of how we intend on carrying out a greatly needed project. Please consider the information we have provided and the Seattle families that depend on organizations like our own, Northwest Housing Organization. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Grant Writing
In every nation, city, and small town we as a people recognize that each person deserves some basic fundamental rights. Some of thoses would include food and water, but what I am most concerned about is shelter. Despite the apparent and immediate need for housing in city's like Seattle, many people and families go without sufficient housing. While homes provide the most simple aspect of a person's livelihood, like having a roof over your head, they are also the centers of our worlds, of our existence as a family. Without proper housing, many people lose this sense of connectedness and are at serious risk socially, physically,and psychologically.
What I propose is more funding to non-profits in order to increase the amount of housing that would respond to our city's serious need. With available funds, small pocket communities could be formed throughout Seattle in a way that integrates low-income individuals and families with moderate and high income tenents. By doing so we would create a sense of inclusion and immediate resources to provide happy, healthy, and safe lives.
What I propose is more funding to non-profits in order to increase the amount of housing that would respond to our city's serious need. With available funds, small pocket communities could be formed throughout Seattle in a way that integrates low-income individuals and families with moderate and high income tenents. By doing so we would create a sense of inclusion and immediate resources to provide happy, healthy, and safe lives.
Fashion Forward
I am Top Romine dinners. I am free ketchup packets at McDonald’s. I am “take what you can get from relatives that live nearby.” Above everything, I am a starving college student. Tooth brushes last too long and grocery store coupons litter the face of my refrigerator. Despite living in a house that rejects the heater to save on utility bills, I am high fashion. Marc Jacobs, Vivienne Westwood, Yves Saint Laurent, and Coco Chanel are all dear friends of mine – except for the fact that they do not know me. It is also a little problematic that two of my four “dear friends” no longer walk among us or the iconic celebrity models that they helped to create. What I am really trying to say, is that although I cannot afford high end threads nor fulfill my lifelong dream of spending Parisian nights in Indian silks, I live to learn, consume, and break down all things fashion. One may read this piece or know me personally and think, “She has no real experience in the fashion world” but I ask you, what is the fashion world? Is it defined by solid borders or is it a nebulous heaven-like place somewhere in Milan? And if you happen to find out, could you please take me there?
Jokes and late night wondering aside, I find myself believing that I am an expert on matters of fashion – whether they are critiques of London, New York, or Berlin’s recent fashion shows or analysis of everyday wear on the streets of Seattle. To be engulfed by the world of fashion and to have an authoritative opinion on it, one needn’t be in the epicenter of its madness. I study from afar, but I study well. My day starts and ends with a thorough scanning of fashion blogs; some are created in the cluttered rooms of college students like myself and others are professionally written and hosted by publications like The New York Times. Additionally, my bookshelves are lined and my bedroom floor is stacked high with books on Cold War German fashion, stage make-up by famed artist Kevin Aucoin, and Vogue magazines dating back for years. This love, this passion, this thirst for fashion began, I do not doubt, with my first home sewn dress made in the seventh grade with the help of my aunt Kathy.
Since then, I have been a strong believer that fashion inspires minds both young and old to think critically about design and artistic philosophy, as does it encourage creative everyday habits. When traveling I note and photograph different interpretations of fashion and the means by which people from around the world choose to express themselves. There is absolute beauty in cultural diversity. By being a devout follower of the fashion world, I am not only an outsider looking in, but an integral part of its creation, building process, and influence on others.
One place in the worldwide web that has helped to drive my love for fashion is on Scott Schumann’s blog “The Sartorialist.” Selected as one of Time Magazine’s top 100 design influencers, enlisted by Style.com for six running seasons, and as a permanent New York Times online contributor, Schumann has had an effect both on exclusive runway elites as well as on everyday folks like myself. His blog (http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com) is home to countless photographs of people from around the world that have an interesting and innate taste for fashion. There are plaids mixed with polka dots, five inch heels and trench coats, Parisians in Central Park, and dapper old men on bicycles. Some individual photos live under witty titles and others survive by Schumann’s acute attention to detail. We, as early morning and late night voyeurs, spy on everyday New Yorkers with lattes and social royalty with what else? Lattes. The Sartorialist is divided between the years and their months, but also by categories like “My favorites,” “Scenes of New York,” “Bicycles,” and “Men in Paris.”
Schumann’s blog however, is not focused on the written. In fact, the less words the better. How is this persuasive, then? Isn’t he missing the ticket by depriving his audience of his years of fashion industry know-how? I argue not. The Sartorialist leaves us with straight forward and catchy titles, few and brief pieces of explanations, but most importantly, photographic eye candies that have over time created an influential and persuasive narrative. This blog relies on “the power of the visual.” Its narrative is a series of fantasy themes for which Schumann’s audience aspires for. We see his models on Florence bridges and know that “with those 1930’s vintage shoes and that Lavin couture dress I could live their lives, too!” The scene is set - New York park benches, Parisian alleyways, and that famous Florence bridge. The characters are chosen – the beautiful, the intriguing, the fashion forward. The plotline to Schumann’s narrative screams, “People from around the world! Come forth and witness creative design! Together we can change the face of our day with opaque stockings and trimmed leather jackets!” With these aspects, we actively participate with the designer, photographer, and creator.
First, we look. We are fashion voyeurs looking in on a different world through our computer screens and a camera lens. We are distant and critical, but at the same time we share a common ground of interest. The interest lies in the lives of others and the fantasy world of fashion. We talk amongst our friends, “Did you see the third picture from Wednesday’s submission with the Italian man in the purple coat? Great structure.” We criticize and applaud within our own minds, “The Swedish girl in the simple black dress reflects the country’s dedication to minimalism and simple elegance.” We are inspired and we are persuaded. The effectiveness of his overall message is founded in close to mid-range photographs so that we have a visual on the full person as well as specific pieces of detail. The background is unimportant, yet we are intrigued by the bystanders watching as well as the setting of whichever city he happens to be in. We are given emotions through Schumann and his lens from his subjects. Some people smile, others laugh, while occasionally some do not know that we see them at all. The images connect us to different cultures and to worldly fantasies. How does one man travel from Brussels to London to Hong Kong so quickly? How does he find such beautiful people everywhere?
Questions remain and others are answered, but it does not matter in the persuasive narrative of Scott Schumann because we are always evolving with him as a part of his work, yet separately as we find our own creative ways. His persuasion lives within The Sartorialist’s photographs and as we have all heard said before, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” And this starving college student is glad that it doesn’t cost one thousand dollars.
Jokes and late night wondering aside, I find myself believing that I am an expert on matters of fashion – whether they are critiques of London, New York, or Berlin’s recent fashion shows or analysis of everyday wear on the streets of Seattle. To be engulfed by the world of fashion and to have an authoritative opinion on it, one needn’t be in the epicenter of its madness. I study from afar, but I study well. My day starts and ends with a thorough scanning of fashion blogs; some are created in the cluttered rooms of college students like myself and others are professionally written and hosted by publications like The New York Times. Additionally, my bookshelves are lined and my bedroom floor is stacked high with books on Cold War German fashion, stage make-up by famed artist Kevin Aucoin, and Vogue magazines dating back for years. This love, this passion, this thirst for fashion began, I do not doubt, with my first home sewn dress made in the seventh grade with the help of my aunt Kathy.
Since then, I have been a strong believer that fashion inspires minds both young and old to think critically about design and artistic philosophy, as does it encourage creative everyday habits. When traveling I note and photograph different interpretations of fashion and the means by which people from around the world choose to express themselves. There is absolute beauty in cultural diversity. By being a devout follower of the fashion world, I am not only an outsider looking in, but an integral part of its creation, building process, and influence on others.
One place in the worldwide web that has helped to drive my love for fashion is on Scott Schumann’s blog “The Sartorialist.” Selected as one of Time Magazine’s top 100 design influencers, enlisted by Style.com for six running seasons, and as a permanent New York Times online contributor, Schumann has had an effect both on exclusive runway elites as well as on everyday folks like myself. His blog (http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com) is home to countless photographs of people from around the world that have an interesting and innate taste for fashion. There are plaids mixed with polka dots, five inch heels and trench coats, Parisians in Central Park, and dapper old men on bicycles. Some individual photos live under witty titles and others survive by Schumann’s acute attention to detail. We, as early morning and late night voyeurs, spy on everyday New Yorkers with lattes and social royalty with what else? Lattes. The Sartorialist is divided between the years and their months, but also by categories like “My favorites,” “Scenes of New York,” “Bicycles,” and “Men in Paris.”
Schumann’s blog however, is not focused on the written. In fact, the less words the better. How is this persuasive, then? Isn’t he missing the ticket by depriving his audience of his years of fashion industry know-how? I argue not. The Sartorialist leaves us with straight forward and catchy titles, few and brief pieces of explanations, but most importantly, photographic eye candies that have over time created an influential and persuasive narrative. This blog relies on “the power of the visual.” Its narrative is a series of fantasy themes for which Schumann’s audience aspires for. We see his models on Florence bridges and know that “with those 1930’s vintage shoes and that Lavin couture dress I could live their lives, too!” The scene is set - New York park benches, Parisian alleyways, and that famous Florence bridge. The characters are chosen – the beautiful, the intriguing, the fashion forward. The plotline to Schumann’s narrative screams, “People from around the world! Come forth and witness creative design! Together we can change the face of our day with opaque stockings and trimmed leather jackets!” With these aspects, we actively participate with the designer, photographer, and creator.
First, we look. We are fashion voyeurs looking in on a different world through our computer screens and a camera lens. We are distant and critical, but at the same time we share a common ground of interest. The interest lies in the lives of others and the fantasy world of fashion. We talk amongst our friends, “Did you see the third picture from Wednesday’s submission with the Italian man in the purple coat? Great structure.” We criticize and applaud within our own minds, “The Swedish girl in the simple black dress reflects the country’s dedication to minimalism and simple elegance.” We are inspired and we are persuaded. The effectiveness of his overall message is founded in close to mid-range photographs so that we have a visual on the full person as well as specific pieces of detail. The background is unimportant, yet we are intrigued by the bystanders watching as well as the setting of whichever city he happens to be in. We are given emotions through Schumann and his lens from his subjects. Some people smile, others laugh, while occasionally some do not know that we see them at all. The images connect us to different cultures and to worldly fantasies. How does one man travel from Brussels to London to Hong Kong so quickly? How does he find such beautiful people everywhere?
Questions remain and others are answered, but it does not matter in the persuasive narrative of Scott Schumann because we are always evolving with him as a part of his work, yet separately as we find our own creative ways. His persuasion lives within The Sartorialist’s photographs and as we have all heard said before, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” And this starving college student is glad that it doesn’t cost one thousand dollars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)