Sunday, 27 June 2010

Sand, Sea and Sunburn


Before I go away for a real holiday where I can get really sunburnt, I went away for just the weekend to my friends beach house. Although just under an hours ride away it posed a welcome relief from; well, from home.
Arriving late Friday night, after a cramped and hot car ride we gave in to our instinct to cool down and jumped straight into the sea. However, this lasted about ten minutes before we ran shivering back up the beach, slipped and slid our way across the tiled floors and hastily unpacked our beach towels. At least we tried.
I personally am not a massive fan of the beach. I'd rather go somewhere in the countryside than to the seaside; but there is something about waking up to the sea every morning. Hearing the gulls and the waves and walking along the shore before coming back in for breakfast. Something so removed from everyday life. That is until you return and your flip flops which you placed so lovingly upon the beach are now floating away on high tide. You have no choice but to brave the freezing temperatures and look entirely ungraceful as you splash forward to retrieve your precious footwear. Yet we returned to find a cup of coffee and some toast waiting which we happily accepted.
Through all of the mosquito bites, and the sunburn and the salt and the sand; my favorite aspect of returning to the beach house each summer is for one reason. Midnight swims. Although I appear to be completely alone in this sentiment. Due to some untapped primal instinct (or the opening scene of Jaws), not one of my fellow beach companions enjoys the thought of going into the water in the dark. So they more than willingly let me go it alone. I personally love swimming through the ink black water, with the exception of that silvery slice of moonlight. Always to my left and always avoiding me when I try to swim in it. It's like the reverse of trying to jump on your own shadow. After some time of my fruitless game I'll get out and join my friends on the beach.
After more minor details such as BBQ's, sunbathing, volleyball and of course Ring of Fire, I left. Walked out the door and down the drive as red and white as any England shirt you may see. I was very proud until Sunday's game; which I'll leave for some more sport inclined Journo to comment on. Until then, I'm going to go sunbathe some more. Wish me luck.

Monday, 7 June 2010

Confessions of a Belgian Waffle



Today proved to be very unsuccessful in terms of going to the beach (cue shivering under beach towels whilst trying to shake sand out of the Dorito's. Said sand consequently gets in our eyes. All the while my consistent worry remains the fact that my hair is quickly blowing into it's stubbornly un-brushable state). Yet in terms of fashion, it's a quick reminder that the A/W collections will soon be upon us.
So far the sneak preview has included woolens; for example the all in one woolen shorts by Jil Sander and Prada's knee high woolen socks. The colors remain muted in homage to the minimalist look of the S/S collection. And the camel coat by the likes of Chanel keeps cropping up in various photo's and magazines. Through this mish mash of ideas will no doubt come a definitive look when the collections hit the high street around September. By then hopefully the rain will have a legitimate excuse to be beating down my window.

In terms of more traditional art forms; Alison Read deserves a look up. Her blunt, black and white print style ranges from the soft smudged charcoal appeal of a baby elephant, to a harsh linear crow. Specializing in animals she is most definitely on my radar. And consequently a few of her prints can be brought from a shop on Parchment Street in Winchester.


Lastly if you're not already in the know-this blog needs a read.

http://www.belgianwaffling.com/

And a thank you for inspiring this blog title.

Tuesday, 1 June 2010

Celebri-Tots and Diddy Designers


With Suri Cruise the new Celebri-tot and push up bra's the latest thing for under ten-year-olds, the question on every mothers lips lately is "are our little ones growing up far to fast?". The answer to that is of course debatable.

First and foremost, the clothes on offer to the children such as padded bikinis for the under five's, and heels for their barely developed feet are undeniably bad. Taken from experience after five years of wearing heels about five times a week-they're damaging! Or, if you're going to wear heels, slap on a pair of five year old Jimmy Choos, don't waste time on Primark! (In other words, only shove your child into heels if you can afford the surgery in years to come).
As for the push-ups and the padding; if the parents who buy these for their children want this to look normal, well then pad out the hips and the thighs while you're at it; chuck in some teenage kind of mood swing and watch how quickly their little girl disappears in front of their eyes. Which is essentially what their choice of clothing is doing to their child.

Because any normal little girl would gravitate towards the pink princess dress, the Sleeping Beauty outfit or the teddy bear. If the child herself is demanding the sexy underwear, any normal parent would be concerned. Children don't read the papers or watch the news. They don't read gossip magazines or follow Perez Hilton. The people responsible for wanting to look like Suri Cruise are the adults.

On the other end of the spectrum, in the same way a little girl would zone in on a pink dress, in modern day terms, that pink dress is a J'adore Dior t-shirt. The Minnie Mouse outfit is sparkly Hannah Montana get up and the teddy bear will be the new Princess and the Frog Wii game. None of these items exemplify sex in the same way kitten heels and make up do, they're just a reflection on the times we live in. Maybe parents shouldn't be fretting about what the children want to wear, but how much the bill will add up before they leave home.

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

The Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx was born on May 5th 1818 and was a German philosopher and political economist amongst other things. One of his observations, which begins his writings on the Communist Manifesto is that the world has always struggled with class systems. Though only recently has it been clearly split into just two opposing groups; Bourgeoise and Proletariat.

Bourgeoise
Bourgeois was created with the expansion of industry.
Industry started off with just the Guild Masters, which then became the Manufacturing Middle Class. Where class distinctions used to be between different guilds, opposition could now be found in just one workhouse. Division was becoming more concentrated. As industry and trade became more demanding, the Manufacturing Middle Class soon became Modern Industry. Manufacturing was taken over by Industrial Millionaires or, as they are more commonly called here, the Modern Bourgeoise. This new industry established the world market. It increased capitalism, travel and communications. Anyone not involved in this modern Bourgeoise movement, was pushed to the background. Creating the two distinct classes Marx talks about.

Since Bourgeois was a social class powered by its ownership of capitalism, it was a strong force. Karl Marx believed it could convert lawyers, priests and physicians in to it's paid wage laborers. Like Communism, Bourgeois was it's own being. It can spread across the globe "nestle everywhere, settle everywhere". Like the description for Communism as a spirit/spectre, Bourgeois seems to be a being that could get everywhere at once and make itself at home. Bourgeois takes over countries with the ultimatum that if they don't come under it's reign they will face, what Karl Marx calls "extinction". It creates a world after it's own image and calls it "civilization". As a class it takes the "sentimental veil" from families and reduced relations to just money relations. It sees facts and figures as opposed to people.
According to Bourgeois, Capitalism was independent and had individuality whereas the living person was dependent, with no individuality.

Loosely translated, Bourgeoise in French means "City-Dweller". With this in mind, Bourgeois took small villages and a scattered population and conglomerated it. Different areas were lumped together to form one nation with one government; centralizing the means of production. It increased the urban population as opposed to the rural. An oppression which would later be a factor Communism highly wished to abolish.

However, the industry and commerce that Bourgeoise created soon became to powerful for even it to control. The industry it so proudly created was to be its downfall.

Proletariat
Laborers whose life consists of solely working. They are described as mere appendages of the industrial machine as opposed to individual people. They are slaves of the Bourgeois class.

With the Bourgeois idea of uniting small and scattered populations into one large concentrated group, they unwittingly unite other bitter laborers. Strengthened by numbers the laborers hold trade unions against the Bourgeois. These were only sometimes successful. The irony lies in the fact that without the expansion of Bourgeoise and modern industry, laborers would not have the communications they needed for their riots.

Proletariats are free, they are without property and are not tied down. This is what makes them so potentially powerful. They have nothing to lose but their chains.
As a group they cannot unite and take a stand without causing a major disruption, as Marx says "the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.". Although classed as the "lowest stratum" of society, they make up the majority and are the only ones really taking a stand against the Bourgeois.

The victory of Proletariats over the Bourgeois came in the form of them being underestimated. The success of the Bourgeois rested in part upon the co operation and hard work of the laboring proletariats. With modern industry uniting these laborers together into one angry and uncooperative mass, the fall of the Bourgeois was inevitable.

Communism
Communism was similar to that of the proletariats in that they wanted to overthrow the Bourgeois, although their main aim was the abolition of private property. Or at least private property in the Bourgeois form. Before modern industry, private property was duly worked hard for and was genuinely the fruits of ones labour. Yet the private property of the bourgeois is won by the exploitation of others, whilst destroying that of the peasants and farmers. Those involved in the Bourgeois society do not work. Communism aims to abolish the exploitation of laborers for other peoples gain. There is a wish to abolish laborers existing solely to serve the Bourgeoise. Wage labour is a factor which keeps them existing for this purpose. Without capital, there will be no wage labor.

Communists wish to abolish nations and nationality. Although this was a Bourgeois ideology, it benefited the proletariats as well as decreasing national divides and opposition. The coming together of nations unites a stronger defense against the Bourgeois and gets rid of the chance for nations to exploit each other.

Communists mainly aim to gain 10 things;
-Abolition of private property
-A graduated income tax
-Abolition of rights of inheritance
-Confiscation of property belonging to immigrants and rebels
-A national bank with an exclusive monopoly
-Centralization of communication in the hands of the state
-Extension of factories and cultivation of soil in accordance with a common plan
-Equal obligation for all to work
-Combining industry with agriculture/gradual distinction between urban and rural
-Free education

When class distinction is gone, political power will no longer be necessary; there will be no more oppressing of classes.

Saturday, 3 April 2010

Curse of the Oscars


As Sandra Bullock and Jesse James go through their public break up and scandal-I suspect this is the last thing on their minds; yet some of us can't help but notice the connection between winning Best Actress; and then losing your husband.
A random connection but a connection nonetheless; one that has so far been held by
Julia Roberts, Hilary Swank, Halle Berry, Reese Witherspoon, Kate Winslet, and now Sandra Bullock.

Clearly the new golden man in their wives lives was to much for these guys to bear as this list would appear to prove;
Julia Roberts lost her husband Benjamin Bratt in 2001 after winning Best Actress, Reese Witherspoon also suffered after winning for Walk the Line, her and Ryan Phillipe, with whom she has two children, announced their divorce. Hilary Swank lost her man Chad Lowe in 2006, Halle Berry split from David Justice and in 2009-Kate Winslet split from Sam Mendes.

Although all actresses have different and varying reasons for leaving their lovers (Jesse James in particular pulled a bit of a Tiger Woods on Sandra Bullock with mistresses pouring in with claims), they all seem to have the worst kind of comedown from their big night.
Lets hope the next winner whoever she may be; is single.