Of Clowns and Catwomen

                                                                                                                

As everybody knows, there's an unwritten rule in the world of clowns that one must never copy the face make-up of another, thereby enabling each performer to retain their own unique identity.

In order to help ensure that this unwritten rule is followed and not accidentally infringed, some clowns voluntarily have their likeness painted onto a ceramic egg and registered with Clowns International. New clowns are able to consult the registry and avoid the potential embarrassment of looking like somebody else; one is tempted to say that face on egg thus prevents egg on face.

It's worth noting, however, that the registry is unofficial and Clowns International cannot enforce compliance; indeed, as far as I'm aware, you can't legally copyright a hairstyle, facial feature, or a way of applying make-up, no matter how individual or distinctive it may be. And neither - I believe - can you copyright a stage name, nickname, or any other type of alias.

I thought of this when reading recently about the punk icon, Soo Catwoman, who is desperately fighting a rearguard action to reclaim, protect and market her own extraordinary image - albeit forty years too late and after the young actress Judy Croll showed us all to brilliant effect in The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle just how easy it is to steal and to simulate a look, no matter how original the original may be. 
  
For Soo, like many punks naively committed to notions of authenticity and the Real, it's terribly important that we not mistake Croll for her and she carefully points out the differences in facial bone, hairline and breast size, as if we should care about such anatomical details - we who care only for masks and cosmetics and the free-floating aspect of a persona as something to be performed (not essentialised or trademarked).

Interestingly, Soo also expresses her moral and maternal outrage over the fact that Croll was only fourteen and raises the spectre of child abuse by the filmmakers, thereby demonstrating her poor understanding of the Swindle as a provocative work of cinema, a crucial aspect of which is its brutal exposure of the inherently exploitative nature of the music industry which blithely trades in young flesh and talent.

Despite what she seems to believe, there's nothing degraded or inappropriate about the nudity or sexuality of a minor, nor indeed its representation in art; obscenity begins when this is commodified and prostituted by men in positions of power for their own perverse pleasure or financial gain: Mummy! Mummy! They've killed Bambi!

And so, I'm sorry if Julien Temple's film and Croll's appearance in it have caused Soo and her family great distress over the years, as she claims, but she needs to understand that most viewers either don't know who the fuck she is, or, if they do, don't care that a small role she turned down was eventually given to an actress happy to play the part.  


Note: those interested in knowing more about Soo Catwoman might like to visit her official website: click here.

A Cinderella Moment

Sophia Mechetner in a dress by Raf Simons for Dior

Photo: Yannis Vlamos / Indigitalimages.com

According to Natasha Bird, Senior Editor of Yahoo Lifestyle and a woman who prides herself not only on her knowledge of fashion and beauty, but her ability to be sarcastic about those involved in an industry off of which she makes her living, calling the catwalk debut of 14-year-old Israeli model Sophia Mechetner a "Cinderella moment" is a bit creepy.

This time, according to Ms. Bird, those monsters at Dior have gone too far! 

For whilst accepting and delighting in the fact that the fashion industry has always pushed what she calls the moral boundaries (without telling us what these limits are and how designers might be thought to challenge such, although it seems to involve nipple baring, skeletal frames, and overtly sexual posturing), Ms. Bird insists that the appearance of  Miss Mechetner on the runway oversteps the threshold between what is interesting and discomforting. 

In other words, whilst she likes to be intellectually titillated and perhaps just a little scandalized, she doesn't actually want to engage in the dangerous - and yes, often troubling - business of thinking cultural values and social norms, particularly those which revolve around the body of the young girl. 

It's so much easier just to tell us that there was something a little untoward about Miss Mechetner closing (and stealing) the Dior show in what she ludicrously describes as essentially a nightdress - whilst at the same time happily reproducing images of the model in her beautiful sheer white gown that she finds so distasteful. Ms. Bird continues, in a passage full of false outrage and faux concern:

"Even more distasteful, one might argue, is the way some media outlets chose to ignore 14-year-old Mechetner's bare breasts, calling her debut "a Cinderella moment". We can probably all agree, this isn't a Cinderella moment, it's a Lolita moment and it's one that should probably be addressed going forwards"

Ms. Bird seems incapable of imagining that others might have genuinely found Miss Mechetner's debut enchanting. And that others might actually be interested in the clothes and not share her seeming obsession with young flesh and exposed nipples. 

To find something obscene or perverse in Miss Mechetner's debut is in itself a little obscene and perverse. And when the real horrors of child sexual abuse (be it within a pornographic or indeed a religious context) still remain largely unaddressed, one finds it depressing that an undoubtedly intelligent and well-educated woman such as Ms. Bird wastes her time writing such prudish and piss-poor articles.       

Note: For those who might be interested, Natasha Bird's online piece can be read in full by clicking here.