""parody""

burlesque -- suspect. dita von teese performed at the opening of "a curious chocolate shoppe" in the west village tonight, an event that just *happened* to coincide with the launch of Altoids' newest product (chocolate covered mints), which just *happened* to coincide with valentine's day. the result: a fabulous cross-marketing PR opportunity for many factions, which means free drinks, appetizers and entertainment for "press professionals" willing to indulge publicists with their presence.

so dita stripped out of a fabulous glittery outfit and poured dom perignon all over herself and got into a bathtub full of bubbles. there are ways of getting people to give you the benefit of the doubt if you're doing something as shallow as striptease. for example, claiming to be a purist about the "historical" grounding of the "art of striptease," or, for example, claiming to be making a "parody" of something as shallow as striptease. i don't really buy either (and also, her boobs are fake). what follows takes dita von teese way too seriously -- she may not be trying to elevate herself at all. but whatever.

firstly, the fetishization and elevation of "retro" styles as "historical" is cheap. cheap cheap cheap. it's an attempt to give meaning and substance to style/fashion, which are, by their very nature, about surface. it's disingenuous. also, i think that always hearkening back to older styles in such a pointed way stifles creativity and original thinking. i'm not saying that having influences is wrong -- everyone does -- but simply reviving something old just isn't that interesting. it doesn't get her the benefit of the doubt as a stripteaseress (because there really is no way of getting the benefit of the doubt as a stripteaseress).

and secondly, onto the whole parody thing. you really can't take the art of striptease seriously as a historical phenomenon and then purport to be making a parody of it. but let's just say she is purporting to be making a parody. if she is, then this is a truly unsuccessful parody. the guys get turned on, the girls can't take their eyes off of her, she is hot, etc etc. she isn't making people think twice. so she uses cliche props, like champagne, a bathtub, feathers and a martini glass in what is, at its core, a cliche undertaking. it can still be taken seriously, and i would argue that it is.

i don't actually think she's making a parody of herself, but the capacity for so many artists to use parody as a way of elevating what they're doing, garnering for themselves the benefit of the doubt and critical respect, should be stripped the f---away. when brainy critic types perceive something as a parody, then they feel in the know and, in a partnership of sorts with the artist ("yeah, i get you"), become incapable of criticizing. it's a symbiotic little cycle between the full-of-shit artist and the full-of-shit critic, with the artist's motivation critical acclaim, and the critic's motivation a desire to be perceived as, and to feel, perceptive. it's an old game -- academics play it with their jargon-filled writing, and critics have played it, and will continue to play it in the art world, forever. but it's worth getting annoyed about every now and then.

on a final note, i kind of think that the only person who was able to make a parody of his entire life was andy warhol. and, well, maybe andy kaufman too...but that's the subject of another essay. goodnight.