Charli xcx announces her new album ‘Music, Fashion, Film'

[Ziggy 13,740]

1 hour ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

Get tf out of here with this weird a** chud response. You don't belong here if a DEI department is the first place your mind goes to when race is brought up. 

@Earthling @Ziggy y'all are weird for cosigning this mess too. Do better. The bar was in hell and y'all still couldn't clear it. 

I responded bc why would you look at art and your first thought be “why is there not a certain demographic?” and not look more deeply into maybe there’s an intentionality to the art of it. Like she didn’t choose “white guys”. Charli is a lot of things but she’s not careless in her visual output. Shes famously very very intentional and meticulous. So it is dismissive to the art of it to simply say “why’d she choose these white guys?” Though you’re right that in hindsight the specific tone of the post I disagree with being a bit flippant. My thoughts are more about let’s not just dismiss something bc of representation without at all considering the art itself, too.

[Chesescake 4,102]

13 minutes ago, mamo said:

The point is that there is no shortage of living figures whose influence on music, fashion, and film is undeniable. That's why the choice stands out to me when there are so many possible alternatives across generations, genders, and disciplines.

I mean maybe she just like them the most

u know inspire her ot sth

Edited June 1 by Chesescake

[Mars 2,604]

34 minutes ago, mamo said:

 

I totally understand that but there are countless iconic, influential, and pioneering figures across music, fashion, and film who are still alive and working today. Choosing three white men who happen to represent those three fields feels like a very specific and deliberate choice. I'm not arguing that they aren't significant figures within their respective industries, but Charli could just as easily have drawn from a much broader pool of contemporary cultural icons.

Music: Cher, Madonna, Björk, Grace Jones, Kate Bush, Janet Jackson, Dolly Parton, Lauryn Hill, Erykah Badu, Fiona Apple, PJ Harvey, Sade, Siouxsie Sioux etc 

Fashion: Rei Kawakubo, Miuccia Prada, Donatella Versace, Yohji Yamamoto Phoebe Philo, Stella McCartney, Grace Wales Bonner, Edward Enninful, Anna Wintour, Carine Roitfeld, or Pat McGrath.

Film (directors): Sofia Coppola, Spike Lee, Jane Campion, Chloé Zhao, Greta Gerwig, Claire Denis, Kathryn Bigelow etc 

Film (actors): Meryl Streep,  Sophia Loren, Viola Davis, Cate Blanchett, Isabelle Huppert, Michelle Yeoh, Nicole Kidman, Frances McDormand, Angela Bassett, Charlotte Rampling, Penélope Cruz etc

The point is that there is no shortage of living figures whose influence on music, fashion, and film is undeniable. That's why the choice stands out to me when there are so many possible alternatives across generations, genders, and disciplines. 

I understand your point but I genuinely feel that these are her personal pioneers in those fields. 

Its going a bit far to judge anothers choices just because theyre not demographically diverse enough, especially someone who is themselves a biracial woman.

Edited June 1 by Mars

[dynamite 66,303]

3 hours ago, mamo said:

I like the aesthetic and vision of the cover but why did she have to choose three white men? 

Omg SHE IS DISCUSTING 

Edited June 1 by dynamite

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,346]

16 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I responded bc why would you look at art and your first thought be “why is there not a certain demographic?” and not look more deeply into maybe there’s an intentionality to the art of it. Like she didn’t choose “white guys”. Charli is a lot of things but she’s not careless in her visual output. Shes famously very very intentional and meticulous. So it is dismissive to the art of it to simply say “why’d she choose these white guys?” Though you’re right that in hindsight the specific tone of the post I disagree with being a bit flippant. My thoughts are more about let’s not just dismiss something bc of representation without at all considering the art itself, too.

I agree with your overall thoughts and @gagzus's/ @Mars's response to the comment asking why they're all white; the "thx" react to the racist post didn't convey your attitude toward the question about the inclusion of the 3 men accurately at all so I appreciate the explanation. 

Edited June 1 by Roughhouse Dandy

[dynamite 66,303]

1 hour ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

Get tf out of here with this weird a** chud response. You don't belong here if a DEI department is the first place your mind goes to when race is brought up. 

@Earthling @Ziggy @Jill @dynamite y'all are weird for cosigning this mess too. Do better. The bar was in hell and y'all still couldn't clear it. 

She's reaching for the stars and frothing at the mouth your honour 

[gagzus 21,424]

20 minutes ago, mamo said:

 

I totally understand that but there are countless iconic, influential, and pioneering figures across music, fashion, and film who are still alive and working today. Choosing three white men who happen to represent those three fields feels like a very specific and deliberate choice. I'm not arguing that they aren't significant figures within their respective industries, but Charli could just as easily have drawn from a much broader pool of contemporary cultural icons.

Music: Cher, Madonna, Björk, Grace Jones, Kate Bush, Janet Jackson, Dolly Parton, Lauryn Hill, Erykah Badu, Fiona Apple, PJ Harvey, Sade, Siouxsie Sioux etc 

Fashion: Rei Kawakubo, Miuccia Prada, Donatella Versace, Yohji Yamamoto Phoebe Philo, Stella McCartney, Grace Wales Bonner, Edward Enninful, Anna Wintour, Carine Roitfeld, or Pat McGrath.

Film (directors): Sofia Coppola, Spike Lee, Jane Campion, Chloé Zhao, Greta Gerwig, Claire Denis, Kathryn Bigelow etc 

Film (actors): Meryl Streep,  Sophia Loren, Viola Davis, Cate Blanchett, Isabelle Huppert, Michelle Yeoh, Nicole Kidman, Frances McDormand, Angela Bassett, Charlotte Rampling, Penélope Cruz etc

The point is that there is no shortage of living figures whose influence on music, fashion, and film is undeniable. That's why the choice stands out to me when there are so many possible alternatives across generations, genders, and disciplines. 

I think the point is more she picked 3 people who influence her specifically. She wouldn’t choose random people just for the sake of choice, they’re there to represent what the album is gonna sound like and visually represent.

Shes an indie sleeze kid so she probably doesn’t care about Gaga, Madonna, Janet Jackson or anything along those lines. Plus, like I said, TVU have been her biggest inspiration her whole career for experimentation.

i think it would feel inauthentic if she just randomly put in a woman when she predominantly looks upto men (like Gaga does) and specifically her idols all happen to be white (like Gaga’s) and it’d be more box ticking. Obviously representation of course matters but she’s being very specific about her references this era.

Although I heavily disagree with some people on this sites negative and quite weirdly racist opinion towards why she didn’t choose them (the DEI comment for instance). 
 

TLDR; these are people she looks upto and have inspired her this era. 

[princedeeblebleble 3,311]

Didn't care for Rock music. But Ss26 is pretty fantastic, intrigued to what she'll bring since the WH soundtrack was FANTASTIC!

not sure what to think about the cover thou 

[dynamite 66,303]

23 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I responded bc why would you look at art and your first thought be “why is there not a certain demographic?” and not look more deeply into maybe there’s an intentionality to the art of it

That was my thought, I didn't understand why it even registered what the demographic of the people on her cover were, when it's just three people. Three!

Now if she published a list of the top 100 whatevers in whatever category and it was the same... Well yeah

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,346]

Just now, dynamite said:

She's reaching for the stars and frothing at the mouth your honour 

Nah, some of y'all are just ignorant. Willfully or not doesn't matter at this point. It's trashy and very weird to see on a site like this. But I'm sure it's fun deploying snarky gay stock responses instead of doing some reflection for 5 seconds. Really brings the community together.

Happy pride month or whatever

[dynamite 66,303]

1 minute ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

Nah, some of y'all are just ignorant. Willfully or not doesn't matter at this point. It's trashy and very weird to see on a site like this. But I'm sure it's fun deploying snarky gay stock responses instead of doing some reflection for 5 seconds. Really brings the community together.

Happy pride month or whatever

Or some of us just have less free time than others and don't see the need to invent issues for the sake of it lol I barely know what's going on with this thread but I saw that comment in passing and happened to find something I agreed in it

It's not that deep

Edited June 1 by dynamite

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,346]

Just now, dynamite said:

That was my thought, I didn't understand why it even registered what the demographic of the people on her cover were, when it's just three people. Three!

Now if she published a list of the top 100 whatevers in whatever category and it was the same... Well yeah

So you're capable of giving thoughtful takes without giving positive feedback to racist posts but you chose to do both!

[Jill 31,683]

1 hour ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

Get tf out of here with this weird a** chud response. You don't belong here if a DEI department is the first place your mind goes to when race is brought up. 

@Earthling @Ziggy @Jill @dynamite y'all are weird for cosigning this mess too. Do better. The bar was in hell and y'all still couldn't clear it. 

36 minutes ago, mamo said:

 

I totally understand that but there are countless iconic, influential, and pioneering figures across music, fashion, and film who are still alive and working today. Choosing three white men who happen to represent those three fields feels like a very specific and deliberate choice. I'm not arguing that they aren't significant figures within their respective industries, but Charli could just as easily have drawn from a much broader pool of contemporary cultural icons.

Music: Cher, Madonna, Björk, Grace Jones, Kate Bush, Janet Jackson, Dolly Parton, Lauryn Hill, Erykah Badu, Fiona Apple, PJ Harvey, Sade, Siouxsie Sioux etc 

Fashion: Rei Kawakubo, Miuccia Prada, Donatella Versace, Yohji Yamamoto Phoebe Philo, Stella McCartney, Grace Wales Bonner, Edward Enninful, Anna Wintour, Carine Roitfeld, or Pat McGrath.

Film (directors): Sofia Coppola, Spike Lee, Jane Campion, Chloé Zhao, Greta Gerwig, Claire Denis, Kathryn Bigelow etc 

Film (actors): Meryl Streep,  Sophia Loren, Viola Davis, Cate Blanchett, Isabelle Huppert, Michelle Yeoh, Nicole Kidman, Frances McDormand, Angela Bassett, Charlotte Rampling, Penélope Cruz etc

The point is that there is no shortage of living figures whose influence on music, fashion, and film is undeniable. That's why the choice stands out to me when there are so many possible alternatives across generations, genders, and disciplines. 

This is the problem I have with identity politics, the idea that something is inherently better because it's "diverse" in a very abstract and non-inclusive way. Charli could be very well be inspired by these figures in particular, be it man or woman, so why would she replace them with other people just because they happen to be white men? And to include someone that perhaps doesn't inspire her as much just so people won't complain online. Identity politics is surface level politics. It's all appereance, no substance. And people get mad when this superficiality doesn't happen!

Edited June 1 by Jill

[dynamite 66,303]

Just now, Roughhouse Dandy said:

So you're capable of giving thoughtful takes without giving positive feedback to racist posts but you chose to do both!

What can I say I'm great at multitasking 

Or not

Depending on what you meant I'm not sure i understood it 

[onTheBrink 669]

7 minutes ago, Jill said:

This is the problem I have with identity politics, the idea that something is inherently better because it's "diverse" in a very abstract and non-inclusive way. Charli could be very well be inspired by these figures in particular, be it man or woman, so why would she replace them with other people just because they happen to be white men? And to include someone that perhaps doesn't inspire her as much just so people won't complain online. Identity politics is surface level politics. It's all appereance, no sustance. And people get mad when this superficiality isn't so!

I think the hostility came from the fact the original commenter in a sweeping judgement seemed to equate the concept of race representation with the stereotypical inauthenticity of a white collar HR department. If I was POC, I'd be concerned too if people treated both as the same. Think we're reducing to the argument to something it was not intended to be.

Edited June 1 by onTheBrink