Just one of those 'cameo' observations that has come back to me after a few days. Sitting waiting for the train at Union Station Washington DC, I noticed a young lady wearing what appeared to be a fur coat. She had her back to me and so I could see that in the middle of the part of the coat that covered her shoulders there was a label on the outside. I couldn't see what it was but it made me think. Once upon a time the mere fact of wearing afur coat was a statement. Now even fur has to have a label? Of course there are number of other possible factors involved here. Was ther fur real [looked it]? Did even that doubt mean that a label is necessary? Is it that labels [worn outside for the status-giving function of conspicuous consumption] are the new fur? It just seems interesting that a fur coat needs [apparently -on my preferred interpretation] the legitimaising of an outside designer [?] label.
Other factors that may impinge on the semiotics of this display: the woman was young [early twenties?], she was black [in Washington DC] and she was travelling by public transport. Perhaps there are other factors I haven't picked up, but these add up to an interesting picture and the word "bling" comes to mind as a cognate.....
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
05 February 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christian England? Maybe not...
I've just read an interesting blog article from Paul Kingsnorth . I've responded to it elsewhere with regard to its consideration of...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
No comments:
Post a Comment