Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 4:18 PM
Mon Nov 23
42 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/01/09
Oh, no. #projectrunway
10/30/09
[featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com] #projectrunway
10/30/09
The biggest problem is that this year's cast is boring and not very talented. The people they put on the show have a huge impact on how good a season is. Just a couple compelling personalities can make a huge difference. Christian Siriano, anyone? This season has not Christian, nor anyone close (neither in personality nor talent).
The production company changed (from Magical Elves to Bunim-Murray), but that didn't really make a huge difference I don't think. The new compnay is sticking to the standard formula for editing these episodes that was established back in season 1.
The challenges could be better designed, and the Nina and Kors need to show up for judging more often. But the big problem, like I said, is this group of designers - they are boring in their personalities, and boring in the work they produce. A deadly combo.
10/30/09
10/30/09
The judges haven't just kicked off several interesting personalities (such as Malvin and Ra'mon) -- they've also auf'd a few folks who look very promising talent-wise (such as Epperson and Shirin).
Maybe in the past, the producers have been rescuing the judging panel from their own bad judgment!
10/30/09
We should all take sewing lessons at FIT so we can compete on the show next season to shake things up! #projectrunway
10/30/09
10/30/09
(My theory is that her parents were deadheads - hence the name.) #projectrunway
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
I agree that the challenges are really badly designed. Last night's challenge really had me scratching my head. I really don't know how they thought that challenge could yield any innovative and interesting designs. The designers just took their old designs and tampered with them a little.
10/30/09
10/30/09
Also, it doesn't help that it's on Lifetime ... that here in New York is buried on Channel 62 which is nowhere near anything else I watch, so I never scroll by and see it coming up. If it wasn't for DVR show subscriptions I would never see it. I don't even notice that it's been recorded each week until I'm scrolling through my saved shows on Sunday mornings. #projectrunway
10/30/09
OH, if only Bravo could be on the 'lower end' of channel selections, what a HUGE fanbase they would have. #projectrunway
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
And what of D'Onofrio? #projectrunway
10/30/09
@Spirit Fingers: If Chris Hemsworth promises to be shirtless a lot, I will watch the SHIT out of this Thor movie, regardless of whether he lives in Chicago (as would be authentic,) or not. #projectrunway
10/30/09
10/30/09
And my Tivo is already full. #projectrunway
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
@joefuntime: As to "why not HD?" the answer is that HD isn't cheap. #projectrunway
10/30/09
10/30/09
I agree that HD wouldn't make the show any more dramatic, but joefuntime has a point: a show that's all about visual effect ought to be HD from end-to-end. #projectrunway
07/06/09
07/06/09
But how does one get into the position to be able to put someone sleeping in a museum and call themselves an artist? Do you have to be embedded in the art scene? Well-established? Anyway. Maybe this makes me a conservative yokel without any kind of appreciation for the more intelligent "pleasures" of life. Or maybe it just makes me someone who went to a museum and "didn't get it."
..in a most salient fashion. Why account for it when you can just write me off as a "frat boy"? [True story: I'm a college dropout! He's uneducated. No wonder he can't appreciate it!] Also, if you read through the rest of the comments, you'll note the stuff I did enjoy. But what's wrong with being cynical about art? I feel like if you're unendingly sincere about it, you're probably getting hosed by the artist.
Meanwhile, Ponomino: I'm not a journalist, and I'm not trying to be. Nor am I trying to be an art critic.
The best comment so far came from The Boulevard of Broken Queens, who asked the more interesting question..."is it satisfying your idea of an art experience? does it fufill your personal criteria for an art object" these, apparently, were not. therefore, they do not qualify as art for you, or rather only qualify as objects which were indicated to you as art.
That's accounting for art. And for the $12 I paid to support it, whether I enjoyed it or believed in it. I obviously believe in it enough to shell out money for it, though, so as far as sincerity goes: back the fuck up.
07/06/09
07/06/09
that was the only false note in the piece for me - IMHO, it's just never an interesting question anymore, not after postmodernism. because now it's always art if someone says it's art, so the more interesting question is, "is it satisfying your idea of an art experience? does it fufill your personal criteria for an art object" these, apparently, were not. therefore, they do not qualify as art for you, or rather only qualify as objects which were indicated to you as art.
I like the puppy idea, and can the giraffe be reworked to look like maurizio cattelan's "not afraid of love"? because I'd like to see that.
07/06/09
But I do think your version of this pseudo-dilemma is more up to date than the original poster's.
07/06/09