you guys come off as fake - you have noticed that anticapitalst sentiment is gaining traction and have started using using revolutionary thought, signs and language to seem different, creating a business for this new demographic… people will see through it eventually
SHOTS FIRED……Heyyyy…buddyyyyy…… so “misc.”…(im assuming that’s short for fucking coward) ….you have no profile photo... no work…no ideas….And somehow verrrrrrrrrrrry confident critiquing our sincerity. …how convenient ..
careful enough to comment…. but obviously too careful to be held accountable for what you say …. when someone is this careful about being seen..lets be real…. it’s difficult to believe they actually stand for much at all…cmon dawg…say it with your name attached..let me seee you lol
Let me make sure I understand you brotha…
So your argument is..noticing cultural shifts and speaking their language is “fake.”…so you clearly don’t understand how culture works….is your issue that we pay attention to how people are thinking right now, the language they use, the symbols they respond to, and then building something in that reality, is somehow dishonest.
that’s just observing reality and responding to it…like there’s not much of a trick there.
If your standard is that anyone who understands symbols must be “fake” ….well…then congratulations…you’ve just disqualified every artist, philosopher, designer, and movement….ever…
I don't take issue with cultural responsiveness, but rather the ends to which you're seeking by using this language - genuine change or creating a new facet of marketing which re-integrates revolutionary sentiment into advertising? What you are creating right now comes off as the latter.
I found your blog via https://www.counterstatement.com/p/nothing-is-cool-anymore-because-cool - which turned out to just be one long, obviously AI generated post, then I check your feed and you're trumpeting up Balenciaga's new fragrances for their sense of "heritage" (owned by multi-national luxury goods corp Kering S.A.).
So yes, you are fake, in the sense that your critiques and reactions of/to culture come from a base of thought that is directly oppositional to the very things you support and aim to advertise/market.
With regards to being "careful", I don't use Substack, and yes, created this account to just reply you (and that AI post about fashion). I do post my thoughts online, but on a privately hosted website (I prefer to own my own content rather than Substack servers) and intentionally do not connect my personal identity with it.
Holding anti-capitalist opinions and attempting to further discussion about it tends not to fly well with employers, and I need money to pay rent and food. That's not a thing you need to consider because you're not actually saying or doing anything which critiques power structures in a way that creates personal risk.
Alright well.. let me just start by saying…You’re arguing with a version of us that exists only in your head ….:You misread this article…..then judged it for not living up to a position it never claimed.You’re reading politics into something that isn’t political. The article is clearly not anti-capitalist, revolutionary, or calling for systemic change. What it is clearly saying ..is it’s pointing out that institutions which claim to be provocative have become predictable and risk-averse… AND THAT PRETTY CLEAR. That’s a critique of cultural behavior, not an economic position. Saying fashion media reinforces the status quo while pretending to be subversive doesn’t require opposing capitalism. It is simply noticing incentives…You’re arguing with a version of this piece that exists only because you want it to be a purity test.It isn’t.All this shows is just how you misread the work and projected that onto us …you’re projecting an anti-capitalist argument onto a cultural critique….
Thanks for putting the coke down (somewhat) for that reply.
When you write about institutions that claim to be provocative becoming predictable and risk-averse, now the implicit question bcomes: risk-averse toward what? Predictable in service of...? Your supposedly neutral observations actually carry a critique about what these institutions should be doing differently.
If your position is purely descriptive, like noticing how incentive structures shape behaviour then fine. But that makes your work conservative in the original sense; observing the system, understanding its logic then operating within it. A legitimate choice, but it sits uncomfortably next to language which critiques the system itself and offers alternatives, hence the aura of fakeness
I'm not asking you to be anti-capitalist. I'm asking what your critiques are actually for. Cultural criticism that doesn't advocate for anything is just marketing analysis. If it's just that then ok cool, fuck it, I don't care.
I apologize for my earlier tone. Being called fake right away, without questions or curiosity, was frustrating because honesty has always been the core intention behind this work....
I understand what you are asking, so I want to ...and ill try to answer it fully and honestly...
I am not claiming my work is neutral. And I am not pretending my observations are free of values. What I am pushing back on is the idea that cultural criticism only has value if it openly advocates for a clean political position or proposes a fix.
What I am doing sits in a different place....
I am trying to describe reality as it actually behaves, not as people say it behaves.When I talk about institutions becoming predictable or risk averse, I mean something very specific. These publications avoid saying anything that might place them outside the emotional comfort zone of their audience. Even when those avoided ideas are widely felt. The risk they avoid is social backlash, loss of approval, and being labeled wrong rather than being incorrect.
So instead, they repeat ideas that already circulate safely through corporate culture. Inclusivity is a good example.
On the surface, inclusivity sounds radical and ethical. But when it is reduced to a slogan and applied without depth, it becomes shallow. Very different designers from very different cultures get flattened into one beige moral category. Italians, French, Belgian, Georgian, American designers all get discussed as if they share the same history, values, and motivations. This does not actually respect difference. It erases it.
That kind of inclusivity feels safe because it follows the expected script. It does not ask harder questions about desire, taste, hierarchy, or aspiration. It avoids discomfort. So it feels progressive while staying emotionally easy.
That is what I mean by surface subversion.
Another example is masculinity....
Right now, saying masculinity is embarrassing or outdated is culturally safe. Many publications frame it as something to apologize for or dissolve. But when you look at behavior instead of language, you see something else happening. You see a strong return to classic menswear, uniforms, cowboy imagery, tailoring, and archetypal male silhouettes. People are responding to it emotionally. They are buying it. They are wearing it.
That tells you there is a latent desire there. Saying people want masculinity right now is actually more risky than mocking it. Not because it is untrue, but because it goes against the approved tone of the moment.
This is where the gap shows up most clearly. What people say they want and what they respond to are often not the same.
The example of Hedi Slimane makes this obvious.
People publicly talk about body positivity, inclusivity, and rejecting narrow beauty standards. At the same time, Slimane’s work sells at an enormous scale. His vision is aspirational, strict, and exclusionary. People criticize it loudly, yet respond to it deeply. The numbers do not lie.
This does not mean people are lying on purpose. It means desire is complicated. People want things they feel uncomfortable admitting. Culture often punishes honesty about those desires, so they stay unspoken.
My work is about pointing to that contradiction without pretending it does not exist.
Counterstatement and Gutterstatement are separated for this reason.
Counterstatement is largely descriptive. It looks at brands, psychology, and systems. It explains why certain things work and why others fail. It is meant to help people understand mechanisms.
Gutterstatement exists to speak more freely. It is where I allow myself to say things that might feel uncomfortable, unfashionable, or unpopular. Not to shock, but to be honest. It is paid because it takes more time, production, and because I only want people there who actually want that level of directness.
This is not fake rebellion. I am fullllllllly aware these opinions can lead to being labeled misogynistic, regressive, or worse. I say them anyway because I believe they describe reality more accurately than the safer language being repeated elsewhere.
So what is the critique actually for?
It is for creators and designers who feel that something is off. Who notice that culture talks one way but behaves another. Who want permission to trust what they see instead of copying what sounds morally correct.
When someone finally hears a truth they have quietly felt but never heard spoken, they feel relief. They feel seen. That is where real loyalty comes from.
I am not trying to reform institutions or offer a political program. I am trying to help people notice what actually moves others and why. Andddd to just remind them that following honest perception, even when it gets you in trouble, is how meaningful work has always been made.
you guys come off as fake - you have noticed that anticapitalst sentiment is gaining traction and have started using using revolutionary thought, signs and language to seem different, creating a business for this new demographic… people will see through it eventually
SHOTS FIRED……Heyyyy…buddyyyyy…… so “misc.”…(im assuming that’s short for fucking coward) ….you have no profile photo... no work…no ideas….And somehow verrrrrrrrrrrry confident critiquing our sincerity. …how convenient ..
Username checks out..hahhaha….fucking moron… @Careful please…
careful enough to comment…. but obviously too careful to be held accountable for what you say …. when someone is this careful about being seen..lets be real…. it’s difficult to believe they actually stand for much at all…cmon dawg…say it with your name attached..let me seee you lol
Let me make sure I understand you brotha…
So your argument is..noticing cultural shifts and speaking their language is “fake.”…so you clearly don’t understand how culture works….is your issue that we pay attention to how people are thinking right now, the language they use, the symbols they respond to, and then building something in that reality, is somehow dishonest.
that’s just observing reality and responding to it…like there’s not much of a trick there.
If your standard is that anyone who understands symbols must be “fake” ….well…then congratulations…you’ve just disqualified every artist, philosopher, designer, and movement….ever…
I don't take issue with cultural responsiveness, but rather the ends to which you're seeking by using this language - genuine change or creating a new facet of marketing which re-integrates revolutionary sentiment into advertising? What you are creating right now comes off as the latter.
I found your blog via https://www.counterstatement.com/p/nothing-is-cool-anymore-because-cool - which turned out to just be one long, obviously AI generated post, then I check your feed and you're trumpeting up Balenciaga's new fragrances for their sense of "heritage" (owned by multi-national luxury goods corp Kering S.A.).
So yes, you are fake, in the sense that your critiques and reactions of/to culture come from a base of thought that is directly oppositional to the very things you support and aim to advertise/market.
With regards to being "careful", I don't use Substack, and yes, created this account to just reply you (and that AI post about fashion). I do post my thoughts online, but on a privately hosted website (I prefer to own my own content rather than Substack servers) and intentionally do not connect my personal identity with it.
Holding anti-capitalist opinions and attempting to further discussion about it tends not to fly well with employers, and I need money to pay rent and food. That's not a thing you need to consider because you're not actually saying or doing anything which critiques power structures in a way that creates personal risk.
Alright well.. let me just start by saying…You’re arguing with a version of us that exists only in your head ….:You misread this article…..then judged it for not living up to a position it never claimed.You’re reading politics into something that isn’t political. The article is clearly not anti-capitalist, revolutionary, or calling for systemic change. What it is clearly saying ..is it’s pointing out that institutions which claim to be provocative have become predictable and risk-averse… AND THAT PRETTY CLEAR. That’s a critique of cultural behavior, not an economic position. Saying fashion media reinforces the status quo while pretending to be subversive doesn’t require opposing capitalism. It is simply noticing incentives…You’re arguing with a version of this piece that exists only because you want it to be a purity test.It isn’t.All this shows is just how you misread the work and projected that onto us …you’re projecting an anti-capitalist argument onto a cultural critique….
Thanks for putting the coke down (somewhat) for that reply.
When you write about institutions that claim to be provocative becoming predictable and risk-averse, now the implicit question bcomes: risk-averse toward what? Predictable in service of...? Your supposedly neutral observations actually carry a critique about what these institutions should be doing differently.
If your position is purely descriptive, like noticing how incentive structures shape behaviour then fine. But that makes your work conservative in the original sense; observing the system, understanding its logic then operating within it. A legitimate choice, but it sits uncomfortably next to language which critiques the system itself and offers alternatives, hence the aura of fakeness
I'm not asking you to be anti-capitalist. I'm asking what your critiques are actually for. Cultural criticism that doesn't advocate for anything is just marketing analysis. If it's just that then ok cool, fuck it, I don't care.
I apologize for my earlier tone. Being called fake right away, without questions or curiosity, was frustrating because honesty has always been the core intention behind this work....
I understand what you are asking, so I want to ...and ill try to answer it fully and honestly...
I am not claiming my work is neutral. And I am not pretending my observations are free of values. What I am pushing back on is the idea that cultural criticism only has value if it openly advocates for a clean political position or proposes a fix.
What I am doing sits in a different place....
I am trying to describe reality as it actually behaves, not as people say it behaves.When I talk about institutions becoming predictable or risk averse, I mean something very specific. These publications avoid saying anything that might place them outside the emotional comfort zone of their audience. Even when those avoided ideas are widely felt. The risk they avoid is social backlash, loss of approval, and being labeled wrong rather than being incorrect.
So instead, they repeat ideas that already circulate safely through corporate culture. Inclusivity is a good example.
On the surface, inclusivity sounds radical and ethical. But when it is reduced to a slogan and applied without depth, it becomes shallow. Very different designers from very different cultures get flattened into one beige moral category. Italians, French, Belgian, Georgian, American designers all get discussed as if they share the same history, values, and motivations. This does not actually respect difference. It erases it.
That kind of inclusivity feels safe because it follows the expected script. It does not ask harder questions about desire, taste, hierarchy, or aspiration. It avoids discomfort. So it feels progressive while staying emotionally easy.
That is what I mean by surface subversion.
Another example is masculinity....
Right now, saying masculinity is embarrassing or outdated is culturally safe. Many publications frame it as something to apologize for or dissolve. But when you look at behavior instead of language, you see something else happening. You see a strong return to classic menswear, uniforms, cowboy imagery, tailoring, and archetypal male silhouettes. People are responding to it emotionally. They are buying it. They are wearing it.
That tells you there is a latent desire there. Saying people want masculinity right now is actually more risky than mocking it. Not because it is untrue, but because it goes against the approved tone of the moment.
This is where the gap shows up most clearly. What people say they want and what they respond to are often not the same.
The example of Hedi Slimane makes this obvious.
People publicly talk about body positivity, inclusivity, and rejecting narrow beauty standards. At the same time, Slimane’s work sells at an enormous scale. His vision is aspirational, strict, and exclusionary. People criticize it loudly, yet respond to it deeply. The numbers do not lie.
This does not mean people are lying on purpose. It means desire is complicated. People want things they feel uncomfortable admitting. Culture often punishes honesty about those desires, so they stay unspoken.
My work is about pointing to that contradiction without pretending it does not exist.
Counterstatement and Gutterstatement are separated for this reason.
Counterstatement is largely descriptive. It looks at brands, psychology, and systems. It explains why certain things work and why others fail. It is meant to help people understand mechanisms.
Gutterstatement exists to speak more freely. It is where I allow myself to say things that might feel uncomfortable, unfashionable, or unpopular. Not to shock, but to be honest. It is paid because it takes more time, production, and because I only want people there who actually want that level of directness.
This is not fake rebellion. I am fullllllllly aware these opinions can lead to being labeled misogynistic, regressive, or worse. I say them anyway because I believe they describe reality more accurately than the safer language being repeated elsewhere.
So what is the critique actually for?
It is for creators and designers who feel that something is off. Who notice that culture talks one way but behaves another. Who want permission to trust what they see instead of copying what sounds morally correct.
When someone finally hears a truth they have quietly felt but never heard spoken, they feel relief. They feel seen. That is where real loyalty comes from.
I am not trying to reform institutions or offer a political program. I am trying to help people notice what actually moves others and why. Andddd to just remind them that following honest perception, even when it gets you in trouble, is how meaningful work has always been made.
That is the purpose of the critique.