independent brand.

i took some time this morning to read the piles of newspapers we have accumulated next to the sofa. i have not had a chance to read the paper for almost a fortnight and i looked forward to spreading the large sheets on the coffee table. a beautiful snowfall, a steaming cup of coffee and, finally, a less congested head capable of understanding written material – it started as the perfect morning.

profoundly fitting for the day of finnish independence were the already old news of the finished work of the country brand committee. i had browsed through the book mission for finland! – how finland will solve the world's most wicked problems and clicked their flash filled website. i found the work thoroughly finnish and optimistic – a paradox, as i was to find out this morning.

i had read some reactions to the publication from online journals, but while they were carefully positive or only slightly snickering, i was not prepared for the loathing that hit me in the face from the newspapers' opinions and editorials.

my problem with the entire project was that i do not recognize the sort of nationalistic sentiments in myself that seem prerequisite for partaking in something like this. for me, feeling proud about being a finn seems alien. it is my cultural heritage, heterogeneous as such, but my process of an identity is too multifaceted to support such statements as national pride in all honesty. still i can grasp the objective at hand. or so i thought.

the thing is, it seems many finns found the project with the objective of defining features of finnish society that could be our strengths lacking because the end result wasn't a state of the nation report. the most common source of whining was that the problems we face – longtime unemployment, terrible mental health care, youth marginalization – were not discussed. that the perspective was not that of an average or disadvantaged member of society.

i am sorry but at what point did a listing of strengths need to include the problems? the country branding report was not meant to tell the world (or ourselves) what was wrong with finland, but what was great and unique about it and its people.

moreover, anyone with culturally sensitive reading glasses can infer from many of the tasks where our problems lay: lack of communication, lack of personal social support (in lieu of institutional support) and lack of intergenerational connections. there are suggestions for improvement and change but their focus is on the positive, not the negative.

and that's where the report fails to reach (some) finns.

i guess they got that much right.

happy independence day!

pop gone gaga.

so, i went to see lady gaga last night. her tour, monster ball, is described as a pop opera freakshow which was underlined throughout the night.

we're all freaks and we can be anything we want to be.

ok.

the show was a prime example how a great production team and director are worth their weight in gold. there was a theme (monster ball), there were clever little references to rocky horror and other well-known popular culture phenomena, there were ott outfits, there was video and there was the insignificant pop that gaga performs.

i would really like to like lady gaga. she's talented and has great charisma. she promotes various valid causes that i have to applaud her for. without a doubt, she sings well – and told us repeatedly that she doesn't lip synch (if loud backup tapes are not considered lip synchin').

her show was, unfortunately, boring and uneven. the girl cannot dance. at all. it became clear fairly close to the beginning that she can pull off an amazing performance of one song, but collapses between changes and transitions. the theme felt like a great idea to begin playing with but was sporadically forgotten. especially the videos, of which there were many (too many) seemed regular photoshoot material and had nothing to do with the theme.

gaga gaggled between every song which pointed out a tad too obviously that she didn't have enough material for the length of the show she wanted to pull off. it would have been ok to just shorten the thing...

her aspiration towards creating a spectacle like madonna's was obvious, but her team didn't quite deliver. with careful planning and production it could have been entertaining – given that i have enjoyed other shows by artists i do not particularly like, such as the above mentioned madonna and pink.

lotsa gaga about nada.

biting deep.

well, i have a brief contribution to a discussion of late about it-bags/ it-shoes, bags vs. shoes, etc.

disclaimer: this is not directed at or inspired by the above linked blog posts alone, but more of a follow-up on what i have gathered from reading a lot of fashion/style blogs late this summer and their comments sections and other discussions.

what i love about fashion talk is to share the passion. it helps to have like-minded individuals to talk with. sometimes it's great to disagree or just debate for debate's sake. but sharing the joy and analysis – telling people about the great things i found, wondering about the inner workings of the industry, explaining how i interpret my own style in reference to others – is what keeps me going.

as you might have noted, my love for fashion is not about fretting whether i've got the look of the season, whether i seem to have ignored to update myself for the current demands of the trend police or whether i can wear something i think is hideous just because it is fashion. i know that for some it seems to be and i find the sort of trend anxiety exhausting. following lists that editors comprise is not original and not an interesting topic of conversation to me.

nevertheless, i also realize that my knowledge about the history of fashion that is the result of years of keen interest does not mean that i am somehow above those who follow trends, have better reasons for wearing certain designers or have the right to claim ownership of certain looks.

naturally, i recognize also in myself the conceited thought that just because i know (or care?) more, i am somehow more entitled to what i know about, but also think it's extremely important to understand that the reasoning comes down to our neverending vanity. and not the sensible kind of vain.

i find it a tragic simplification about personal style to hear that a single recognizable item could make or break a look. style is more than a sum of its parts; a great bag or a pair of shoes does not a dazzling lady make, nor does it bring her down. that is, an it-bag (or it-shoes or cousin it) does not lift one's look above blase, but is not a sign of a dimwit either.

i cannot help but recognize fashion talk that is about credibility and credibility only. it's a form of competitiveness and because there isn't a combative cell in my body, i have to admit to finding it troubling because ultimately it is a discourse of fake exclusivity, shutting others outside. in fact, shoving beneath oneself.

no, i have no interest in talking to people who have nothing remotely informative to say to me, and sure, i love to rant about stuff i find worthy of judgment (q.e.d.). but to deem those who choose to spend 1500€ on a chanel bag less worthy than those who choose to spend the same amount on an owens jacket seems, to me, snotty and stupid if the only argument given is an insinuation that the former trend is less intellectual or whatnot.

to take it further, i just think it's ridiculous and pompous to frown upon people who like a designer or an item for "the wrong reasons" or for less than some prerequisite time. could someone just send me a list of the right reasons and the time one needs to like a designer or an item to be credible enough to like it?

nah, didn't think so.

i find people who judge others based on how trendy they succeed to look very tedious – whether they appreciate trendiness or think trendy looking people are mindless buffoons. but equally tedious are those who think that because they are so into fashion that they are above mundane trends they have the right to look down on those who are not in head'n'shoulders deep or have a different take on what they choose to adopt from the multitude of fashion choices offered around us.

sound too saintly for my own good? well, bite me. criticism is hard, but it is quite a different story to say that you don't think an alexa would compliment your look because it seems too obvious or you just do not like it than to say that women who carry them around sport a sign of below-average intelligence and slavery to some fad that took over all womankind by storm (except those who were above it all... or broke).

biting my own itch to keep on being critical, i'll just keep on chewing on my it-bag from 2005(?), the mulberry elgin. i bought it because i loved the color (olive), the very un-mulberry-like (i.e. few) details and simple shape. i love it still because of the same reasons, but also for the heavy leather that has aged gracefully despite, for example, acting as the ball of a very drunken soccer game at tavastia.

bag by mulberry, coat by vero moda, shirt by zara, jeans by nudie, booties by prada, accessories by tag heuer, bless, efva attling, chanel and h&m.

we don't need to share the same objects of fancy, we don't need to understand the choices others make and we can even talk critically about choices we believe are reasonably unhealthy. but i just don't see why we should have the need to hoist our own egos up by insinuating that our subjective preferences are somehow truer, better or more real than those of others in cases where we really only want to say: i like this, i do not like that.

oh, the irony of living a life so cool one must fear it goes unrecognized. do you, like i do, listen to bands that do not even exist yet?

princess sabrina.

i stumbled into reading a – whatchammacallit – critically conscious blog, and a certain post about ideals that promote artificial means of beautifying oneself. while i agree that many beauty standards are ludicrous and that they put both aesthetic and financial pressure on young women (and men), i find very little newsworthy about it.

nonetheless, it were the reactions to the blog post that really aggravated me – women competing with each other telling how awful it was that natural beauty was no longer appreciated and that the poor children had to deal with unrealistic expectations. one mother felt pressured to get rid of her fashion magazines in order to prevent their effect on her little girl...

well, guess what: read a little history and the current selection of methods seems humane and accessible. beauty ideals are by definition supposed to be unattainable for the majority. that's just how human society works.

moreover, natural beauty has never enjoyed the status of a standard – no matter what women's magazines try to tell us. altering what we have naturally is what socially constructed beauty (which is all there is, btw) is all about. the illusion of naturalness is only a current and rather novel trend that coexists with other standards, such as the barbie look built around peroxide fauxness.

yup, and some fortunate individuals are better endowed than others. some have better means to alter themselves, others come better equipped naturally, and sometimes, infuriatingly, the same people are naturally beautiful and rich, too. if there weren't individuals who represent the ideal, we'd have nothing to aspire towards... it's tough, i know.

nonetheless, when i read pseudo-intellectual outrage over beauty ideals or when a mother feels forced to protect her daughter from exposure to fashion or when bloggers start accusing other bloggers of promoting unreasonable or unattainable beauty treatments, i cannot help but shiver. seriously, now?

i don't know about you, but i was lucky enough to be raised by a mother who told me i was great as i am (no, she didn't call me pretty, but i don't blame her for refusing to lie) and who also told me that no matter how much i used the line every single kid knows – "all my friends have it, too" – i wasn't about to have anything she thought wasn't worthwhile.

for example, i had my ears pierced at 15 because my mom decided that was the proper age. everyone else had them before me. really.

and no, i do not recall my youth as a struggle around deprivation nor was a damaged emotionally. as a parent, you have the right and the responsibility to decide for your child. i'm sure i tormented my mother for her decisions, but hey, that's life with children. (sorry mom.)

as adults we should know better and prepare our kids for facing the world with its ideals. sure, most of us are not immune or capable of dealing with the pressures of the beauty industry ourselves, and i guess many actually suffer if they cannot afford bleaching their teeth or liposuction. the fact that not everyone can do it does not imply that there's something essentially wrong with trying to attain beauty – however one perceives it.

ultimately, s**t is hard. i just hope those who have enough willpower and mental endowments to approach these aspects of our culture analytically (or attempt to do so), would go a little further than complaining about how media (and bloggers) are setting an impossible example. why not start with providing support for fellow moms to have the strength to raise their girls (and boys) as they best see fit acknowledging the media pressure we all need to deal with?

as a kid, i wanted to be a princess who looked like sabrina (the boobylicious italian singer) and live on a farm. i wanted a perm, a nose job and breast implants (since mine didn't grow until i was 18) and, unsurprisingly, i survived without any of those and lived happily ever after. point being, have some faith in your kids and take responsibility for yourselves and the example you give.

now, let's hear your princess stories – wanna share?

snap crackle pop.

the habit of shooting photos everywhere that many bloggers partake in has historical results. never before have we had such a mass of recordings of ordinary people's daily outfits, meals, everyday life and partying.

since the early days of weblogs, photos played an important part. as blogging became more commonplace, great photos were one of the ways to stand out in the crowd. as far as style blogs go, good quality pictures are a requirement, not a voluntary option.

because the recent evolution of the blogosphere encourages paying attention to pictures, it seems to have become many a blogger's main ambition. readers expect and ask directly for good shots (not mine, presumably because you've given up on me already...). thus, most bloggers have acquired excellent cameras, treasure their friends who are willing and know how to shoot decent photos and take time in choosing locations. needless to say, they know their best angles and choose flattering lighting.

thankfully amateur photography has become easier and many bloggers, quite deservingly, take pride in their carefully selected pictorial material for the enjoyment of us all. unfortunately, having quality material usually comes down to having quantity to choose from. for every great shot there are at least a few that did not make the cut.

unsurprisingly, an aggravating phenomenon created by blogs and many other social media applications, such as twiddish, is the constant camera presence everywhere you go. it seems practically impossible to go to a bar or a club without seeing young women (and some young men) twitch and turn in front of a camera. there are some notable pits of flash flaring torture: in helsinki especially jenny woo seems to attract young blogger types.

it would not matter as much if it wasn't accompanied by horrible manners: the posing project often starts innocent but the more intoxicated people get, the brighter the flash, the more outrageous the poses and the more clickety clack of the camera you hear. after a while they start asking people to move out of their way in order to get better shots or take over the entire dancefloor shoving outsiders with snarky commentary about people not being fabulous enough for their pics. not once or twice have i heard about a blogger loudly pointing out something along the lines of "don't shoot yet, let the ugly people pass first..."

witnessing this development stopped me from carrying a camera around because i loathe the mere idea of being associated with the brats who forget about everyone else – including their friends – when their camera frantic takes over. it seems they are increasingly keen on creating a bubble of a paparazzi universe around them which is both pretentious and arrogant.

curiously the culprits are not necessarily big name bloggers or known for their extraordinary photographs; irritating camera bullies come in all blogger sizes and styles, but all share the absence of consideration for their fellow beings. the world is their red carpet and they're going to keep on shooting...

i have, unfortunately, spent a night in such company and felt both embarrassed and bored out of my mind. the pics turned out great, but not worth spending a night yawning... at least to me.

aforementioned nightlife flashes are only surpassed in aggravation by restaurant photography. i am often guilty of taking a picture of my meal before digging in (you've seen some results here), and caught a glimpse of disapproval from my fellow diners – none of whom are bloggers, as might be self-explanatory. despite never using flash and having the courtesy of not posting my pic instantly anywhere with comments (as those using twiddish do), it is undoubtedly true that the few seconds of disavowal from accompanying people in order to shoot instead of marvel and share together can ruin the atmosphere for some of my friends. i have started to cut down the pics, and when taking one, try to do it as subtly as possible.

not everyone aims for subtlety and some restaurants have gone as far as banning photography at their tables. although pictures of actual dishes can provide significant marketing draw, the disturbance created by enthusiastic bloggers harms business more than ever. the reason is similar to what i described before: some bloggers just do not seem to know when to stop. with the rise of video blogging the future impositions are troubling.

it is not that taking photos in public places was annoying in itself: people have always recorded their friends at parties and having a set of photos is great as a token of memory. personally, i have several years worth of footage shot on lomo that reflect the segment of my life perfectly, i.e. blurry fuss with mindblowing moments of curiously bended light. moreover, i truly regret passing long periods of my life without taking as much as a single shot.

additionally, taking photos is both fun and strengthens bonds between people. i still recall a time when noting a group of laughing people at a restaurant or bar corner asking the waitress to take their picture was something that made me smile, if only internally. they were sharing and capturing a special moment. now i assume they are bloggers – see, i've given into cynicism... despite my foul attitude, shared memories in pictorial form are still treasured from generation to generation.

luckily, most bloggers – or at least the ones i have the pleasure to hang out with – also know when to put the camera away: social gatherings are much more enjoyable when the point is not solely content creation for a blog (which is important to us who blog, mind you), but actual socializing. nonetheless, having friends with quality gear and a stable hand around is more than a blessing: great photos of me and my friends can make a special day last forever.

it is clear that cameras are here to stay and bloggers have every right to use them to create material for their sites. hence, recording life around you is more urgently than ever a matter of sensitivity and sensibility. the opportunity to record moments easily can become a preoccupation with capturing and staging your entire life to fit in front of the lens – even if the life we're talking about is only the public party blogger life.

although it may sound i am claiming it is only bloggers who lack manners, it obviously isn't so. there is always a certain quota of people who ignore the needs of others – and it applies to the group of us who write online, as well. camera disturbance is just something that has creeped in as part of the lives of normal people because of blogging.

some people have natural sensibilities, anyone can learn if willing to do so. when getting a great shot becomes an obsession, a cause that justifies bothering strangers around you (more than asking them to take your photo in order to get everyone in the same shot), when you stop having discussions because you're constantly scouting accessories and other photo opportunities, and when carrying a camera and having a website makes you feel like you make the rules, it's gone too far.

as a fellow blogger i am at the forefront experiencing this, but the murmur is spreading. my plea is: people first, photos second, please.

choices.

as a pesco-vegetarian i am aware that my choice of diet rubs many people the wrong way. i am not going to elaborate the multitude of reasons i prefer vegetarianism, but will talk about how my choice has been met during the years. as background, i'll tell you i was vegan for some years and went through a strenuous internal battle of several years before i was able to begin eating fish again. i was well aware that my choice to go towards a carnivorous lifestyle was justified mostly by convenience.

during my vegan years in the mid to late 90's my lifestyle was obvious to anyone who sat down at a table with me. at home i baked my own bread and there were beans soaking in the kitchen. ordering at a restaurant was not easy and, thus, there was no way of hiding that i lived a life of decided deprivation. such a marginal lifestyle choice raised questions and i was more than willing to answer them. i gave people facts and figures when asked, and i was asked quite often.

at that point already i figured out how people respond to difficult ethical dilemmas: my sin at that point was taking photos (betcha many of you had no idea that film photography is not vegan) and after i, myself, brought it up as something to ease the pain of my fellow diners for acting too saintly in front of them, it was used against me ruthlessly. "hah, you're not perfect after all! you cannot judge us!"

when i gave up the vegan lifestyle and added eggs and milk to my diet, i became less of a threat to my carnivorous friends. it did not mean an end to the need to hear my justification for doing something "different" and discussions around my choice were still instigated by others than myself – i hardly had the need to point out the obvious to anyone. my presence created a discomfort especially among the most devout carnivores who claimed they had solid bases for their diets. they were most aggressively after my other flaws as if finding that i had imperfections was a justification for their own ignorance and negligence.

after the addition of fish to my diet i almost blend in. in many situations it is a relief: i can order at most restaurants and not cause any questions amongst my fellow diners. i've felt heart palpitations seeing the lunch menu fish option being crossed out and the only choices remaining consisting of beef and chicken – the knowledge that a need for possibly lengthy explanations will follow can sometimes feel devastating. despite vegetarians' relatively common existence these days, it's still not a natural choice among others but needs clarification.

the current debate over vegetarian school meals has stirred the views on vegetarianism the masses hold to the surface, and it isn't pretty. what bothers me most is that people seem to find the argument that no-one has the right to tell them what to do plausible – no matter what the facts are. some even go as far as saying that they'd be willing to eat vegetarian meals if they were offered, but because they are forced, they will object strenuously out of principle. because the people who suggested that a vegetarian day would be beneficial at schools irritate these individuals, they will oppose their ideas – an ad hominem, if i ever heard one.

the point is that carnivores know they are at fault. there are ethically better – even close to acceptable – ways to consume meat, but most finns do not belong to the elite niche who can choose free-range and organic. most buy whatever is cheapest even when they do not have to, and that is what bothers me. reminding them of their ethical shortcomings in any way – in my case by just acting differently – creates a turmoil that hardly counts as rational.

despite of my ability to keep my mouth shut and even going as far as concealing my diet in certain company, i cannot help but feel superior. after following the discussions of late, my pomposity has justifiably multiplied. as a former vegetarian who makes terrible consumer choices all the time i still know that predominantly my choices are better than those of people in general. tough, but it is the truth, and the truth seems to hurt. as much as some people will find me intolerably obnoxious for saying this, the lowest creature i can imagine is the person who chooses industry grown and produced chicken at the supermarket. there isn't a single justification for it. even poverty cannot justify eating those poor creatures that suffer their entire modest lives – there is always another option.

the ultimate test of your own diet is very, very simple. instead of going defensive and pointing the finger at the flaws of the many people who choose to be vegan, vegetarian or ethically aware carnivores (those snobs!), i suggest that every single person takes a critical look at the contents of their own plate. if knowing (and i mean really knowing) the production history of any part of your meal makes you uneasy, i suggest you do something about it. i already have, can you say the same about yourself?

shelf it.

one of my constant sources of wonderment is the products arts and design students or graduates decide to sell at school fairs and xmas markets. it seems little recycled cosmetics bags, quirky jewelry made of old toys or beads and felted wool are something that reoccur without leaving an imprint and not arousing a desire to buy. i am not alone – at least anu has lamented on the matter before. i mean how many cutesy little pouches does one need? (many, but let's not dwell on that, now shall we...) sometimes, if you're lucky, you might find a strangely shaped clump of glass or a tilted/distorted photo.

we've seen it all already and keep on seeing the same. it's not that artisanal fairs should not sell whatever comes out of the hands of people who are skilled at crafts. my curiosity is directed towards students of our colleges and university of design. the same trinkets are presented on their sales tables every xmas and these are supposed to be the foremost creative minds of our country. what gives?

i have entertained the idea that design students fear that their original ideas will be stolen by others – some sort of mass production espionage – if they present them at public fairs before they have the opportunity to produce and sell them. it would make sense, really. somehow. maybe.

i have been told that the students often have very little time to prepare for the fairs and shows and, therefore, they just quickly put together something to sell. sure, makes sense. kinda.

additionally i have heard the claim that people are not willing to spend money at these seasonal markets, but are rather on the lookout for something inexpensive. they consider buying student work "charity", and are willing to invest just enough to show that they are into new design. therefore, the students do not offer work they'd have to ask a decent price for. this also makes sense. sorta.

a vicious circle really, it seems these events provide nothing interesting to anyone involved – assuming you're not on the lookout of yet another toy brooch or recycled cotton pouch. if i've understood correctly there aren't many opportunities for self-promotion for design students. at least cheap ones and ones that reach the general (buying) public.

needless to say, there are competitions for which entering demands quite a bit and publicity is, even for the winner, modest. sending out portfolios to manufacturers is probably important later in studies and after graduation, but hardly grows the knowledgeability of the consumers. one is lucky if they make it on the pages of a respectable magazine; many careers are made by just the simple preference of a magazine editor.

therefore, ignoring opportunities like school fairs and sales baffles me. the short term benefits of selling a dozen clumps of glass or a few cosmetics bags seem irrelevant when there is a free opportunity to make an impact on random people you might never reach otherwise. what is a hundred euro for thirty pairs of button earrings, if someone sees and remembers the amazing piece of dress jewelry you designed and orders it for the red carpet somewhere and makes it to a magazine?

my modest example is here.

i visited sprouts young designers 2009 last spring at stockmann's. this particular fair was a collaboration of better known and already established young designers and newcomers. nonetheless, nothing there really struck me as entirely impossible to realize with just graduate students.

i remember screening the room and my eye focusing on a piece of metal on the wall. a clean-looking yet funky shoe rack called me and i recall thinking "one day i'll need one of those..." i grabbed the business card.

when we moved, i realized that we had the perfect spot and the need for a shoe solution just like the one i saw. i had lost the card in the process of moving and could not remember the name of the designer. after some serious googling, i found it. the item in question was designer martina carpelan's "shoe shelf." i contacted the vasa born, central saint martin's educated designer and a fortnight later fetched the shelves from a few blocks away.

i needed two to be placed on top of each other and here they are: the perfect hallway accessory. promptly filled, they are a streamlined way to present the best of the sneaker freak's collection.



i am not saying my personal purchase was much value to the designer, but feel brave enough to suggest that i am probably not alone in spotting items that leave an imprint strong enough to create a desire later when a need emerges. at a later time i might be willing to spend more on something i need rather than dishing it out right there at the fair. the benefit of showing something worthwhile may not be instant, but if you're planning on making a living in your chosen field, what's the rush really?

i, among many others, visit design fairs regularly, and if even half of the times i left with at least one designer or design worth remembering, there'd be a possibility of future transactions taking place. unfortunately, in the past years i cannot recall a single designer from the graduate sales or fairs of the university of art and design, and i truly consider it a shame.

if you are a student in the abovementioned fields, can you explain why it seems sales have very little original design on offer? if you're just an avid follower, have you bumped into anything memorable lately? any young designers who have made an impact on you?

irregular choice.

the sound of heavy thump followed by a clickety clack promises a great night ahead. your favorite magazine has just been delivered to yer mailbox and there's an inexplicable itch preventing you from keeping your hands off the pages. a great feeling, right? you are a member of the subscriber team.

i believe in yearly subscriptions and still prefer a printed version of my favorite readings. knowing that i'll be among the first to get their hands on a certain piece of journalism is exhilarating. winnowing your own selection from the myriad of available magazines tells something about you as a person: i'm voting for this team here. i also like the hassle-free method of receiving my monthly dose of information: sometimes i enjoy browsing magazines and journals at bookstores, but mostly i cannot be bothered.

at this moment i only have one subscription, though. the reason comes down to feeling repeatedly unappreciated. for me, part of sending a subscription out is the message that "i do not care if not every issue is perfect – i believe in you." point being, when i decide to take the chance that not every issue of the chosen magazine is interesting or well-made, i promise to contribute whether there is a failure and not abandon my magazine for lapses in concentration. my financial bestowal is my handshake: "i have deemed you worthy and promise to stand by you, no questions asked."

the feeling of being unvalued is derived from the trend of rewarding us continuous subscribers with ever-increasing yearly fees. increases in prices are not newsworthy by themselves, but when they occur together with significant decreases elsewhere one cannot help but feel troubled. not only are several issues of almost every imaginable magazine on sale every year, the offers for new subscribers feel like a smack in the face every time i flip through a magazine.

for the fear of sounding like a whiney bitch, i must assure you that i am not entirely clueless and do understand the importance of hauling new subscribers. nevertheless, it has become significantly more lucrative on my part to end my subscriptions and settle for a few sale issues and short term subscriptions – i actually end up saving money that way.

the paradoxical part is that treating continuous subscribers well ought to be important to magazines and journals. while i'm ready to remain a steady source of income for a significant number of magazines, i actually have to prefer being harassed by their sales people (who aren't exactly cheap to employ) on a regular basis because i end up losing money for being daft and loyal. what is the point, really? it's a lose-lose situation if there ever was one.

moreover, knowing full well that publishing a fashion or a lifestyle magazine in finnish is not exactly a remunerative business, i'd love to promote those who are willing to take the risk and do their best. nonetheless, i find it useless with the kind of special offers i see fluttering down from between the pages and landing next to my subscription bill.

saddened, i stopped subscribing to image after an uninterrupted period of fifteen years just because of the incompatibility between what i was paying and what i saw others being offered. it sucks, and it seriously pisses me off knowing that there's an institute of finnish journalism suffering, but that i'd be buffoon accepting their inexplicable tokens of gratitude. if i wanted to donate to charity, i'd still choose worthier causes – despite being aware that many people involved in creating these magazines are not exactly well-off.

thus, the only magazine i subscribe to is new york magazine. it pops through my mailbox almost every week, filled with well-written stories and news from the big apple. it is my humble way of keeping track of my favorite city in the world. the subscription is 75$, delivered – less than 2$ per issue. i am well aware that they're not making profit from my contribution and i wouldn't dare suggesting that a magazine should come that cheap. but it does feel like a reward for my commitment.

soon i will renew my subscription for another year. moreover, i am considering subscribing to intelligent life which has not failed me once during its existence, but four yearly issues are not too troublesome to fetch from the newsagent. i am continuously on the lookout for something else, hopefully finnish worthy of subscribing, but feel like my hands are tied.

am i the only one frustrated? any suggestions?

p.s. since i am aware that people from several publishing houses visit my blog regularly, i feel brave enough to suggest a small improvement: could you please add a little tick-box to your subscription cards where one can refuse to receive any additional crap with the subscription? no, i do not want your large logo towel. no, i do not want your trashy jewelry. no, i do not want that plastic pouch you for some incomprehensible reason call a "purse". no thank you, i just want the magazine.

science talk.

today i want to talk about a peculiar discourse. i have only encountered it in finland, and the strangest thing is that even people equipped with some pretty astute minds fall prey to this particular stupidity.

let me start from an analogy. you walk into a bar and join a table of random people talking vividly. you ask what they're going on about:

-what you all talking about?
-well, about the plausibility of m-theory.
-uh, what's that about?
-we're just debating whether it really is necessary to add the 11th dimension or not.
-um, i'm not following... what's the m-theory?
-oh, do you know quantum mechanics?
-i've heard of it.
-have you studied physics?
-in high school.
-oh, well, our topic is a little complicated, really...
-no, no, explain.
-it's about relativity, not really all that easy to put in simple terms... let's just leave it at that.
-bummer.

the point being, hardly any lay(wo)man would feel insulted if they did not understand a group of physicists discussing a theory. nor would they think it was rude if they were reluctant in explaining it to them because the process, quite honestly, takes a significant amount of time and effort.

moreover, the same applies to any field of science: if you barely know the basics, it is considered natural that you may not understand the highly theoretical questions and discussions. the same applies to scientific papers and books: take a scientific journal of a foreign field and i bet you have a hard time understanding what the abstracts are about, let alone the articles.

there's a particular field of research that is an exception to the rule in finland, namely gender studies. for some reason it is incredibly common to dismiss the entire field because theoretical discussions seem incomprehensible for lay(wo)men. moreover, nowhere else will you find students and researchers claiming that another field is "useless babble" because they find the theory complicated.

it is often claimed that gender studies should be graspable because it deals with topics that are part of our everyday lives. well, as far as i can tell existing is pretty everyday, but i dare you to show me a person not trained in philosophy who understands theoretical discussions on ontology. my material body follows me every day, but i, again, dare you to read theoretical postulations on cell biology and understand them without prior training in the field. and yes, gravity affects me all the time, but immersion into the fundamentals behind planck's constant does require some basic knowledge. i read several works of fiction a year, but still i do not expect to understand a complicated literary analysis of any given novel without expertise. to me, that's the beauty of theoretical work: i goes deeper into the realms of our world than ordinary speech.

for some reason the finnish discourse on gender studies seems to ignore some fundamentals of scientific research. for example, a popular claim is that there's plenty of shoddy research in gender studies. well show me a field of research where there isn't, please. yet another is that there are extremely bad theories just begging to be destroyed. well, i'm glad we did not toss psychology with freud's notoriously circular theory because somehow i think we can use a field of analysis that deals with human behavior. not to mention that this particular theory actually hurt numerous individuals when applied.

the most typical attack directs towards the jargon used, and, yes, i dare you to show me a field of research where jargon is not quintessential once the discussion is elevated from the most basic level.

what i mean is that science is an ongoing communicative process where ideas are presented, evaluated, accepted or rejected and novel ideas are developed further. some fields use empirical tests, but most do not. theory guides everything and they are presented and rejected as they come along. most ideas and topics within a field are hardly self-explanatory or common-sensical, because they are raised from the internal discourse.

the bashing gender studies is subjected to repeatedly would not bother me if it wasn't so intellectually cheap. i am well aware of the many problematic aspects of gender theories and theorists. it may come down to the official finnish name: 'women's studies' does rub many egalitarian finns the wrong way – especially in this age of conservative backlash. i dunno.

generally speaking, nowhere else does it seem to come as a presupposition that theoretical works should come simply translatable to lay(wo)men terms but with theories of gender. you don't hear people demanding that departments of psychology should be shut down because they just cannot understand the latest contributions in psychological review. moreover, nowhere else do you hear people who have not spent one moment inside the walls of a university claim that they actually know whether something is theoretically solid or not.

i find it all quite sad, really. what do you think?

mythbusting.

today i shall talk about the mythical gilded ox we have come to know as "finnish quality of days past". it comes in many forms in conversation: cheers such as "let's bring back the finnish clothing industry!", complaints such as "domestically produced used to be quality compared to this..." and factual statements such as "the loss of jobs to asia has diminished quality." i am referring to the often cited idea that finnish industry used to provide us with high-caliber products which is often uttered in combination with 1) the lament that after work was exported quality has diminished and 2) the desire to perk up the industry in order to regain quality.

after less than careful thought i suggest that there never existed such a phenomenon as "finnish quality", so entertain me: fact or myth?

let me start by stating some obvious points: first, i am writing this wearing a dress from samu-jussi koski's early line for marimekko produced in china. the weave came undone at the shoulder during the first wear, but otherwise the dress has been alright. you've got to take my word for it – there isn't a place for shooting pics in our pre-move apartment hell of boxes. second, i own a comparable vintage marimekko dress from my mother's collection from the late 60's, still in immaculate condition and obviously made in finland. thus, i could state that finnish manufacturing quality is better than chinese. but that would make me a simpleton with a preference for bubbles and i choose not to be one.

another point is the question of unemployment which i will not deal with here. on a personal level, i, as much as anyone, want my friends to have work they enjoy. on a larger scale, i cannot find a solid ethical reason why we should prefer a finnish laborer over a chinese one: call me an unpatriotic nomad (and i'll take it as a compliment), but if it was either marja-terttu or xiu ling facing unemployment, i could not decide between them. (if you can, i'd be incredibly interested in your chain of reasoning. feel free to elaborate in the comments section below.)

i would not feel this aggravated if the discussion revolved around claims such as the overall disappearance of quality products. the addition of nationalism that echoes at the level of "negros [sic!!] are great dancers because of their natural sense of rhythm" is what irks me – especially because i find the area of fashion a place of sanctuary from such irresponsible prejudice. at the most basic level the idea is that "made in finland" equals "good quality" as if domestic production by finns was essentially inherent in the latter.

so let's get on with it, now shall we. myths? right.

artisans vs factory labor? first of all, we must differentiate between artisans and skilled factory labor. artisan manual workers are a steadily diminishing breed since industrialization: there are a rare few who nowadays can create by hand. on the other side are skilled factory laborers who are responsible for industrial production. they are a very different and varied kind of a bunch whose efforts are directed towards providing standardized results. the first group has been overtaken by the latter and the phenomenon itself is not domestic, but global.

together with the decrease in artisan labor we have witnessed the emergence of romanticized appreciation of handmade products. the trend has accumulated to an extent where all sorts of crap is sold to finns who – in addition to some tourists – are hoofs enough to buy into the "handmade in finland" sales pitch. i sometimes wonder whether it is because we're sadists who take pleasure knowing that someone wasted precious time in producing something meticulous by hand and will never be compensated accordingly... and then we glee under the halo of supporting yet another "young designer". my point being that handmade does not equal artisanship. my point is not that all (young) finnish designers produce substandard handmade creations.

which brings us to the next point...

quality vs trash? the quality of items comes down to a set of limited basic requirements: design, material, skilled work and, most importantly, selective control according to accepted standards. product inspection takes time, time costs money, and spending money diminishes profit unless the price is increased. simple.

one of the popular arguments against pricing differences between brands is the observation that the same factories produce brand-name and no-name products, and therefore, the claim goes, brand-name items differ only by profit margin. well, it ain't quite that simple, really. if we ignore material selection, there is another important issue. before a pair of sneakers makes it into a nike box, it is inspected several times. compared to the nondescript pair the time consumed in quality control makes a huge difference. obviously it does not explain the entire price difference (or even the majority), but it is naive to say we're sold the same products and are just paying for the swoosh; the selection process does differentiate between products in regards to quality stability.

nevertheless, standards of quality have lowered overall, and we're each to blame, both consumers and producers. at the most fundamental level, we're not willing to pay for the time it takes to produce a high caliber garment. nevertheless, there is still careful production in addition to haphazard production but the latter seems to be taking over. again, this is a global phenomenon.

which brings me to the next point...

national vs global? was finnish industrial production before better than production abroad is nowadays? sure it was, but it hardly comes down to locale, but the fact that industrial production in general was better globally. actually, to put it more accurately, the slice of superior industrial products from the whole was larger than presently.

the diminishing quality has created distorted beliefs in people's minds: we associate chinese merchandise with low caliber. are we really trying to claim that the company that orders the product does not provide standards for the products they agree to receive? the reason we receive crap from china is solely due to the fact that we order and accept crap from china. if we were to order the items from finland, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the outcome was any better unless we adjust the standards.

my argument being, when factory labor is considered there aren't differences between nationalities: marja-terttu in lahti near helsinki and xiu ling in a small town of 18 million near beijing can produce garments of the same grade. the fact that nowadays xiu ling seems to get the job of marja-terttu comes down to such socialist fantasies (oh, the irony!) as strong union laws that prevent marja-terttu from being exploited to the extent of her colleague in the communist workers' paradise of china.

i may be going towards blasphemy here, but despite the fact that finns love to cherish the memory of good olden finnish factories producing amazing domestic quality, the reality is that our primary business partner was notoriously uninterested in quality and after the fall of the soviet, the crap we created could not be sold anywhere else. naturally, this does not mean that there wasn't quality production in addition to the spew.

which leads me to my final point...

re-establishing finnish clothing industry? would the effort to rebuild our factories improve the products we receive? hardly, unless we're changing the standards of impressiveness we demand and are willing to pay for. finnish production by itself does not equal quality work, materials, design or control – they are universals of quality and can only be achieved if strenuously demanded. the time of a finnish seamstress is more expensive than the time of her chinese colleague from which we can deduce that for the same input we are bound to get less – the uneasy result of global exploitation.

i am not denying that having factories available would not be beneficial for many people in addition to those who find work there. i understand that the endeavor of creating a line of clothing comes down to finding people for the execution, and because our domestic industry is nonexistent, only those with lots of funding or artisanal skills can succeed. a talented designer, like my friend jaakko and the nationally famous antti asplund, whose personal manufacturing skills are not up to the standards they wish their final products were, suffer from the fact that it is difficult to find laborers. moreover, a desire to expand and grow is hindered by the lack of makers. but would the reopening of local factories improve anything else except the availability of work force, i.e. would it mean better quality than they'd receive from china (provided there was funding)? i hardly believe so because whatever financial potential they had for investing into the production, the turnout would be relative and quality comes down to investing into time and control.

my points in short are that quality comes down to universal standards and inspection, the downfall of quality is a global phenomenon, the history of finnish industry is not as evidently superior as one might be lead to believe, and the general rules of industrial production apply here as they do everywhere else. if we do not demand quality and show intent to pay for it, it makes no difference qualitywise where the production takes place. therefore, the idea that domestic production could save us from inferior products seems to be a romanticized idea derived from a myth, rather than a fact.

the myth of finnish quality of days past – busted?

private.

the story i talked about before is out (in finnish only, unfortunately) and some of my new readers are here because of it.

first of all: welcome! i hope you enjoy and return.

as much as i'd love to say i was happy with the article, i must confess disappointment. what bothers me most is that i was promised a chance to edit the text if necessary, but the final print version turned out to be significantly different from the one that i accepted. infuriating. what's the point of asking if you're not going to respect the answers?

to begin with corrections, my bald head is not a trademark of any sort. as my readers know, i am very interested in trends – as phenomena, that is. moreover, there were photos of me and my clothes here before the bald head – just not of my face.

my main concern comes down to especially the issue of privacy that was accentuated repeatedly. the alterations made after the version i saw enhance the merging of two separate ideas: my reason for talking behind a pseudonym and the topics i choose to discuss became a weird, almost paranoid sort of symbiotic "privacy" although they are two very different things.

first, i discuss my blog from the cover of an alias because it is the project of that alias. i want to keep my real life persona and the blogger separate. the main motivation for the practical separation is modest, though, and comes down to google hits: in this clever world of interweb, names and sites become associated rather quick. in addition to my real self and my blogger identity, i have a professional (ex-)academic self. people usually look me up because of professional reasons and i do not wish them to end up in my blog. it's not because i was ashamed of the content – i list the blog on my cv –, but because my academic work was politically sensitive and i still receive threatening letters to my old university department. additionally, my old university email address's powerful spam filter wasn't there for no reason. needless to say, i do not want those people here – my blog is a harassment free zone. therefore, i do my best to keep this site and my real name separated online. nothing dramatic or secretive there, then.

second, and something that i did want to point out in the interview: i do not discuss certain areas about my life here because i don't think they're anybody's business but my own and whoever are associated. i believe that once something is exposed here it becomes the property of readers to comment on. hence, my relationship and my friends are not something i share, simple as that. being associated in the print version of the story to readers who wish to stalk fashion bloggers and their personal lives made me extremely uncomfortable. there's nothing worth stalking here...

therefore, "careful and strict about her privacy" comes down to two very different and separate issues.

funny that my biggest concern after the interview was how the photo would turn out because the photographer felt slightly unreliable – and it turned out great. my worries should have been directed somewhere else entirely... little did i know.

***
edit: i got some clarification on the issue and i feel for the journalist. her own side and interesting info in the comments. see yerselves.

real-estate hell.

i've been slightly more quiet for a reason recently: in the past months i have gone down to the lowest levels of real-estate hell and come back up, only to find myself circulating in pre-move purgatory.

my sweetie and i were looking for a home to buy for several months. we meticulously peeped through listings and signed up for every single alert system on offer. we did our homework and knew the price evolution of the areas we were looking into moving. the reasoning for the project was simple: the rent of our attic loft could easily cover a significant mortgage, and whether i am willing to admit it or not, creating a home on square meters that you own instead of rent, feels more like a project i want to invest time and money in.

the same morning we left for paris we decided to check out one more apartment. falling in love with the line of six windows (all with wide window panes!) immersing the apartment with light, we scribbled down an offer, and merely ten minutes before boarding the plane we received a call congratulating us. we had a new home, and paris was all the more worthy of champagne.

our new home is one aerial block from where we're now and despite the date looming far in the future at the end of the month, i am already in the middle of inventory and moving panic. the reason might be clear from an old posting of mine: there's no elevator and we're six flights up. hence, we're rationalizing our material belongings, i.e. sorting out clothing, shoes, and all sorts of crap we've accumulated. we're selling furniture we will neither need nor want, and the apartment is suddenly devoid of closets and drawer units. which means this is my present view:


after the usual day of work we've visited both offline and online furniture stores and planned trips to countryside second-hand markets in the weekends. all in all, it's a little hectic project that takes up some time from blogging momentarily, but which will without a doubt provide material for the blog.

here's the first.

the story until now requires some explicit ranting. admittedly, i have high expectations when it comes to service and expect courteous treatment everywhere. buying a home is a huge deal and setting the mood starts with dealing with real-estate agents. no matter how you'll try to distance yourself from the social part of the process, it makes all the difference how the process of negotiation goes. my first round owning a place started hideously, and after selling the apartment a couple of years ago i decided never to buy anything that's still under construction. the nerve-wrecking months of insomnia were not worth the result.

as a general observation, it is fairly obvious that real-estate agents come from various backgrounds. there are definitely professionals in the field – and we had the pleasure of starting our current deal with one of them – but the number of incompetent, socially dyslexic and plainly stupid people trying to earn their living by selling apartments is mind-boggling. the total lack of pride and professionalism is baffling. here's some types i encountered.

the eluder. although i understand that the time used to get information about the apartment on sale must be deducted from efficient selling time, i kinda feel there is a connection between the two. it is not uncommon to have an agent present who has no idea of the place for sale, cannot answer questions, lies about not having the info, and, ultimately, ignores the questions.

the aggressor. rude agents are more the rule than the exception. i have witnessed and received so many rude comments from agents that i don't care to count. there is also a significant number of the eluding kind who respond to questions with aggression – imagine the faces of potential buyers when the agents snaps at them after posing a perfectly innocent question.

the snob. sneering and condescending agents are a league of their own. they only talk to people who look "right" at open houses and if called for a private showing, let their face show that you're wasting their time. unfortunately, i got used to handling them when i purchased my first home which i was almost not shown into because the agent deemed the apartment too expensive for me. however ridiculous their behavior is, the encounters leave a sour taste in one's mouth.

the flake. some agents are a curious bunch: how many home-owners are aware that their agents are unwilling to show the apartment because they have better things to do? let's say, in the mornings... like dealing with hangovers. some just never show up and do not answer their phones. ever wonder why your apartment is not receiving bids?

nevertheless, the worst type are people trying to sell their own place: the sentimental value one places in one's home is something agents are capable of deducting. i, for one, would not want a stranger standing in my living room, evaluating my home decor or lighting choices. when estimating a place i must consider the changes required and if my first thought is "the kitchen must go", it's preferable an agent hears it rather than the owner who lovingly selected the (hideous) ensemble the year before. also the additional value of "ambiance" is something self-sellers fail to evaluate accurately more often than not...

thus, in addition to looking for months, writing down bids and counterbids, looking yet more, feeling disappointed because interesting places are sold before you've even seen them and have time to bid, etc., apartment hunting comes with a serving of extraordinarily unpleasant people. i have a list of agents i'd never hire based on seeing them in action communicating with potential buyers.

seriously, here's one profession in dire need to clean up their act. wanna share your experiences?

a framed life.

since you've seen my pics it probably does not come as a surprise that i wear glasses. because i believe you, my dear readers, to be extremely observant and keen for detail, you must have noted that my personal style, that i'd like to consider thoughtfully complete and playful at best, is complimented by a rather boring and unsuitable choice of spectacles. let me assure you that i am well aware of it, as well.

i have worn glasses since i was 8 years old. at entering the third grade, my teacher noted me squinting and i was quickly forwarded to my mother's ophthalmologist. my first pair of glasses were bright red and completely round, and i looked like a perky little professor. quite fitting, really, since i was a walking encyclopedia at that point in my life.

since then my sight has deteriorated at a pace that vexed my parents. around my 25th bday, my eyes found peace within and the degeneration stopped at -7.5 diopters, give or take a quarter. for those with perfect eye-sight i will elaborate: the figure translates to an ability to see 15cm sharply and things turning into a blur afterwards. the limit of severe myopia is -6 and official blindness starts around -10 diopters and, thus, i am pretty much as blind as a bat.

living with poor sight means that i completely lose functionality without my glasses: i have hurt myself numerous times at public saunas and at summer cottages because i have had to take them off for some reason or another. i keep an extra pair in my nightstand drawer in case i misplace my glasses accidentally: i cannot find the lost pair without another one on. the few times i have woken up and seen the ceiling means i fell asleep with my contacts – a rather painful experience. needless to say, the option of forgetting to wear them (something i hear happens to many people...) is unimaginable.

additionally, myopia comes with other little quirks: people who work with text often develop a slight strabismus, i.e. my eye wanders when it's attempting to focus on small details. this particular foible shows in photos and adds a touch of lunacy to my otherwise immaculate [sic!] look. moreover, i also suffer from nocturnal myopia, i.e. my night vision is worse than average. another source of creative stumbling at cottages and natural environments – no wonder i love cities with bright lights so much. contacts work fine when i'm off work, but concentrating on the screen of my laptop dries my eyes and causes pain.

i am one of the fifth of young adults in finland who need to wear corrective lenses, but the severity of my condition makes me a part of a very small minority. after over two decades of myopic life i have obviously lived through all imaginative phases of self-doubt: as a child i was never teased for my four-eyes, but when i reached puberty there wasn't such a creature as the cool indie nerd with ironic glasses. hipsters came a decade too late for me. for a girl spectacles meant you were an outcast, simple as that, and my first pair of contacts created such a memorable turning point in my social life that i still remember the two weeks between ordering and receiving them as anxiety filled and revolutionary: my personal paradigm shift of turning dateable.

the newly found freedom came at a price: after overexposing my eyes to contacts in high-school, i had to stop wearing them regularly for some years. fortunately, i was going to a place where nerds were accepted: during my time at the university the glasses grew on me and became a part of my personality – so much so, that i sometimes feel naked without them.

the cultural belief that glasses make you appear more intelligent lives on strong and i have been "accused" of wearing glasses to appear smart(er). there is research suggesting pleiotropical connection between high iq and myopia, but i find explanations pointing towards other correlations more convincing. that is, children suffering from myopia tend to be clumsier and, therefore, devote their time to activities that will not injure them – nearsighted kids read rather than play ball. myopic kids don't recognize their friends from the other side of the playground and can appear socially awkward – some more time for reading, then. moreover, kids with poor eyesight tend to be seated in the front of classes. needless to say, all these correlating factors work as an explanation only if other conditions are favorable: i learned to read at four when i was still very agile and fearless, and there are theories that lengthy visual concentration early in life can also induce myopia, not the other way around.

i have definitely used the stereotypes to my advantage when i started teaching. when half of my students were older than myself, they added credibility. even presently their effect is increased respect. therefore, i understand the desire to wear status glasses at times. the reason i haven't got rid of mine has nothing to do with credibility, however, but my hesitation to let a sufficiently healthy organ be tampered with needlessly. i already know what it means to be blind, and i have no intention of taking any risks that could leave me permanently so – there aren't odds low enough to mean i could not end up the unfortunate one with damage.

glasses it is, then. as an essential everyday accessory, glasses are a signifier of personal and peer style. for someone like myself who considers fashion a play of personality and belonging, wearing (or not wearing) glasses and the choice of spectacles is no small deal. not being able to wear glasses that fit one's image of oneself is dissatisfying to say the least and absolutely horrific at worst. when larger frames appeared five years ago i keenly went to the optician and returned with similar glasses you've seen me wear here. a couple years later large frames were everywhere, but i got the ones you've seen. i didn't want to, but i had to.

why? because myopia as severe as mine limits the choices in frames – especially if you're interested in retaining a normal shaped head and eyes that do not resemble pin heads at the bottom of a glass jar. strong correction warps the entire area covered by a lens‚ and myopia is corrected with lenses that minimize everything visible behind them. therefore, the sides of the face become contracted and with a high enough frame your face ends up looking like a pear. with a jawline like mine, i haven't felt up for the challenge. minuscule eyes become more apparent the larger the lens area and ultimately disappear into the abyss of the face. nah, not up for that either...

so you can imagine how excited i was to see round frames making a comeback! round could work, look artsy and fresh on me, right? kinda like vuokko nurmesniemi whose style closes in on iconic...

right? wrong. comeback, yes; availability, nonexistent.

so i relied on my steady supplier, chanel. their frames come in sizes that are small enough for my face – yup, guess what, my face is so narrow that most frames do not fit at all, and the ones that do, i need a special order for. let's just say that specsavers is not my destination nor my price range because severe myopia does not come cheap. ever. a pair of glasses ends up costing around 750€ which means i don't purchase them on a whim.

i ended up ordering a pair of slightly larger frames from chanel's new denim line. they arrived a week ago and i have already noted another reason why larger lenses are not a great choice: my glasses weigh enough to hurt the bridge of my nose. nevertheless, i am content with them although they feel "old" already. happy or excited, nope, but alright and fine.

at times like these i just wish i could afford playing dame edna... sigh.



i'm sure i'm not alone... if you wear glasses, did you have trouble finding the right pair? how many do you have and do feel the need to change them with outfits? if you don't need glasses, have you ever considered (or do you) wear image glasses for any (tell me!) reason?

additional chapter.

attitudes towards etiquette divide people, but i fall into the category of individuals who appreciate and enjoy codes of social conduct. i love browsing books on etiquette, from emily post's early editions to current finnish ones. dress codes do not cause anxiety on my part, but offer relief. parties that follow a strict etiquette are a charming play of subtle elevation from everyday tumble and jumble.

i know a few people who find etiquette a nuisance: their view is based roughly on the idea that rules of conduct are pretension and an unfortunate trace of class society that is used to separate between rich snobs and honest, down-to-earth people. dress codes create insecurity, uncertainty and an unnecessary pressure to dress up or against one's personality. behavior guided by etiquette feels like a theater play, all pretense and charade. i can see where they're coming from, although i do not agree.

the codes of etiquette differ very little from common courtesy most of us take for granted. the reason many are unfamiliar with party etiquette is because celebration is such a minor part of life, as are other formal events where the people gathered are loosely tied to each other. thus, etiquette is something that requires learning. for example, dress codes demand some thought, but help in comfort because once realized properly one does not have to pay attention to fitting in although there is plenty of room for personality expression. moreover, courteous speech is one of the easiest way to display admiration and respect. internalized codes create stability in situations where uncertainty would easily rule. the constancy and predictability appeal to me.

nevertheless, there is another side to etiquette, namely breaking it. as with all kinds of rebellion, it seems futile if there is no comprehensible background. breaking rules because one deems rules unfounded or unjust is very different from opposing rules just because learning them would take time and effort. it is the same with scientific critique: i've lost count of the times i've asked a student who writes about opposing a Grand Narrative or wants to renounce the use of the term 'individual' whether they know what is wrong with Grand Narratives or why 'individual' is such a problematic concept.

without an understanding of the history and background of concepts and codes, critique echoes emptiness. for example, supporting a postmodern stance without understanding how it differs from a modern one is all too common among social scientists today and it shows as haphazard theorizing full of inexplicable gaps. in another context, behaving badly because of ignorance is not an efficient way to show elderly societé ladies that sometimes their stiff rules need some freshening up or upgrading.

through work i have realized that even among people who believe to know etiquette, novel situations sometimes provide behavioral dilemmas. while dj'ing at museum openings i have been exposed to incomprehensible verbal abuse, always from middle-aged ladies and older gentlemen who, presumably, believe to know their way around social situations. nevertheless, they are not the only ones who are uncomfortable or clueless in the presence of the dj.

therefore, based on my experiences, here's an addition i propose emily post publishes in her next edition: a short list of rules on "how to treat the disc jockey".

1. remember that the dj is working, i.e. performing a task they are paid for. do not unnecessarily intrude or disturb their ability to do their duty.

2. the dj has been asked to play because the organizer of the event in question has wanted them there. the situation is comparable to an event where a wagner soprano or a jazz quartet is performing. act with appropriate respect. the dj wants you to enjoy your event.

3. the dj is not a jukebox. their selection of music is not unlimited. nevertheless, they may accept requests for songs. there are some considerations:
a) stick to the genre the dj is playing in your requests. if you cannot differentiate between genres, pose your questions delicately. a dj playing electro will probably not have red hot chili peppers or flamenco.
b) have your request ready when you approach the dj. if the song is not available for any reason, do not start to think of another one. there is very little time between song changes.
c) if asking for certain genres (like trance, punk, rock), remember that the dj probably understands niches of music differently depending on their own interests. therefore, it is preferable to stick to individual bands or songs in your requests.
d) if you rather listened only or predominantly to your favorite music, stay at home or start dj'ing yourself. the point of a dj is to have someone choose the music for you. allow them to do that.

4. if you do not like the music, your options are as follows:
a) ask for a song you like (as above)
b) leave the dancefloor
c) tell the organizer of the event that you do not like the performer s/he booked
d) leave the event
e) all of the above.

5. do not ever complain, protest, sign offensively or make faces at the dj if you do not like what they're playing – as you would not the jazz quartet or the wagner soprano, now would you?

6. if the volume seems off, tell the staff or the organizer. the dj usually has strict guidelines for volume levels and cannot alter them to your personal preferences.

7. as a general rule, if the music at the event is not suitable, the problem is not the dj, but the booking; that is, someone has asked the dj to perform. dj's have a repertoire just like any other performer and they are selected according to it.

8. a few remarks that should never pass your lips (and their snarky responses):
-"could you play something good?" (yeah, please be a little more subjective...)
-after asking for several songs "well, what do you have?" (around a thousand songs that i have no time to list for you...)
-"i hate this song!" (bummer, i love it, i'm playing, i win!)
-"you ruined my night!" (nah, you did it all by yourself by staying and complaining...)

9. finally, remember that there isn't a dj that does not wish you love the music they play. if you do, let them know. it will make you both happy!

anything else you may want to add from the point of view of the audience or dj? i'm listening.

spotted and spoiled.

perhaps as a mindboggling coincidence and destiny laughing at my face for real, i have loved acne jeans since the very beginning. around the same time i finished high-school and entered university, they emerged in the market with their cheekily named unisex denim line with signature red stitching in the back. i felt there was a soulmate somewhere in sweden – someone who shared my aesthetic eye and distorted humor. the clothes were clean-cut and understated, but had clever little details. they offered box-like tees for girls when everyone else was baring midriffs; they had a straight-cut leg when everywhere else the bootcut ruled.

inspired by the mud tones of anna and sugar kane i dug deep into my storage and rediscovered this divine leather skirt. if my memory serves me right, it's from acne f/w 2002/03 collection. it has the sleek lines of a recognizable acne garment, interesting details like the side-slits, elongated back and three rectangular pockets and, naturally, is impeccable quality as is the sheer tee from 2005.


tee and leather skirt by acne jeans, tights by wolford, booties by prada, brooch by gilles & dada.

then a few years ago something happened. all of a sudden the prices went inexplicably up. this was no small increase, but two- to three-fold. as a result, acne all but disappeared from stores in finland for a couple of seasons. in the meanwhile the brand got more coherent and less playful, and gradually started to reappear in small boutiques. the line was as interesting as ever, but already the prices seemed mismatched with the quality. generally it could be reasoned that the price increase fit with the superfluous it-bag era and that despite the pressure of label flaunting, acne continued on their path and produced interesting, streamlined clothes. somehow they felt worthy.

nevertheless, this fall crushed me completely. the economic crisis must have affected everyone in the industry and although i thank acne for not sacrificing great design, the did something worse. their current collection is primarily made of acrylic, polyester, triacetate and polyamide. there are some cashmere knits, but on the whole natural fibers seem awol. why oh why? there are beautiful dresses that i dread to touch. 300€ for a polyester garment is too much. too much no matter how great the design.

as my relationship with the more infuriating kind of acne continues against my will, my affair with the other is on a willful hold until i see some serious improvement. i am officially pissed off. period.

sign your name.

i read in the news today that according to a survey 90% of finns would be willing to donate their organs postmortem. as someone as secular as possible but who simultaneously has firm faith in the sanctity of cognizant and emotive life, the news feel reassuring to me. no matter how difficult it is to let go of a loved one after they pass on – including their physical remains–, there are lives that can continue because of a simple act of kindness that neither harms nor burdens absolutely anyone. news like these make me proud of my fellow citizens who generally try my patience more often than not when it comes to solidarity.

unfortunately, the survey revealed an additional fact: only 20% have signed a donation card officially declaring their willingness to relinquish their corporeal components for the benefit of others. there is absolutely nothing incredible in the incommensurability of the figures: people's moral declarations or even the most fundamental and innermost beliefs do not necessarily motivate action. when it comes down to doing good, we love to think about it. after thinking long enough we tend to believe we've done our part. sound familiar? to me it definitely does.

the saddest part of essential moral deeds and nondoings is that we're often prompted to act instead of imagining after we're personally touched by a tragedy. that is, when it is already too late.

let's prove statistics and motivational theories wrong. if you haven't already, do it now. the cards are available in the next weeks nationally. sign your name. time is of essence, life is unpredictable.

own a piece of history.

ever been to the design museum in london? seen this portrait of john galliano?


well you got a spare 25 000 pounds lying around? wanna give it to me? because i want this union jack *slash* pirate flag used in the photo shoot. the exact one. i know i sound retarded, but I WANT I WANT I WANT! *sigh*

i wish no-one ever told me about showstudio who sell props from fashion shoots and catwalk shows. and yes, they have the goods. their main site also holds competitions, video, reviews and all sorts of interesting menagerie for your keen fashion addicted eyes.

gummy dog.

this is a face i'll never see again in its entirety. my dog weeped during teeth cleaning last night and i called the vet, booked an appointment and took her there today. now four hours later she was diagnosed with periodontal disease and is 35 teeth short, with seven remaining.


i was surprised to hear her mouth was such a terrible mess. i am not an inattentive pet owner although i do blame myself for not knowing better. moreover, i blame myself for not taking her subtle hints seriously enough. sure, her breath was foul, but it always was. she still ate her dry kibble with pleasure, but a couple of months ago had stopped chewing dental care bones. i noted the change, but was not alarmed because just the month before she visited a vet because of a tail infection and i asked him to see if her teeth needed cleaning. he assured me her mouth was fine although it was over a year from her last full cleanup.

after ten years of owning a dog i was told today that only checkups under anaesthesia are suitable for diagnosis: although i had subjected my little critter to regular cleanings – not annually – i had not known that x-rays and a tranquilizer were required to certify oral health. after going to vets regularly no-one had told me that.

i don't blame them, though, because they work in an industry where before performing extensive procedures they ask for financial consent. i've never as much as twitched at the bills my dog produces, but have noted the hesitant manner vets usually suggest treatment and diagnoses. i just cannot fathom how this piece of information had escaped me.

most importantly, she'll be fine. she started funny looking and will continue just a tiny bit more so. according to the vet she'll enjoy eating better with healthy gums than with her infected teeth. the operation will also make sure her lower jaw won't break off (seriously!).

if you've got a dog of your own, make sure you've got their dental health in check. and do not trust vets who claim that merely looking at the teeth while the dog is awake is enough. mine will never visit the place she got a clean bill of dental health at just months ago but will from now on stick to haumau in töölö where her care has always been exceptional.

ray in the midst of rain.

it's been pouring rain all day and i've had zilch to do. being forced inside turns me into a wriggler of the worst caliber and i've walked anxiously around the flat. what could be better than to think about clothes, then, right?

like so many of my fellow bloggers, i've secondhand hunted a pair of levi 501's, and finally found the time to cut them into shorts. i preferred a longish inseam to maximize wearability, just like anna. i also think the length is the most flattering to my legs, which aren't exactly on the shapely side.

during my hunt i witnessed vanity sizing in action. my normal jeans size is 26"-28" depending on brand, but i barely squeezed myself into a 29" 501. these ones i bought slightly baggy and come with a 31" waist – and are not exactly huge. sizing has definitely changed lately...

shape matters are also behind my love for shoes with ankle straps. while they supposedly shorten the legs i prefer the illusion of an ankle they create. since i was born with cankles instead of slim and shapely ankles my attempt to fool the eye overrides the desire to retain the semblance of a long pair of limbs.

the rain and my corporeal proportions gave incentive to dig out these beauties: canary yellow versace sandals with studs. i love studs in all forms and these softies are a perennial favorite. they perk up a casual outfit instantly and on days like these, they bring in the sun.


meta-issue: the sandals are in need of help, though. the heel broke off a while ago and i took them to the cobbler only to realize that stockmann does not offer helpful or skilled work when it comes to quality shoes. steer clear of them. i also lost a stud while dancing away some night and need a new one. where to go, where to go... recommendations? the place in viiskulma is really not all that although it's the only spot i'd use in helsinki. i need somewhere they'd rip the heel off and position it again and i'm sure you can relate to my hesitation in asking for that. damnit, i miss cobblers with skill and pride that london and nyc are full of.

thinking outside the box.

[i edited the text below ever so slightly because of logical gaps i ignored in my turmoil of emotion. hopefully it makes more sense now.]

i have been meaning to write about some of the reasons i found academic life implausible. brought to tears today not only because i recently lost my mother to brain cancer but also because a friend of mine lost her husband and became a widower before turning 30 years old next week, i will write about one of the reasons i left my job and nowadays consider an academic career a non-option.

working in academia is all but financially secure. most research is funded with grants that individuals and research groups compete for with applications they take significant time writing. application and evaluation processes vary, but the most common standard is that each academic discipline is evaluated separately by experts in each field. i believe it healthy to assume that most applicants would deserve a grant; the reason some are left out is more often the lack of money rather than an undeserving application. my point being that many who definitely had the potential for brilliant research are left without funding. therefore, applications are written with funding in mind, often compromising intellectual desires.

the makings of a great scientist and researcher are few, but essential: the ability to grasp and handle vast amounts of knowledge and the ability to argue a point. meticulousness is also essential. the single trait most often not associated with doing research, but which is the most important, is creativity. to be a brilliant scientist you need the ability to ask questions no-one thought about before, to question accepted realities and to combine acquired knowledge in unprecedented ways. if you're pushed to compromise your ability to question, the entire process of doing research loses its appeal.

sure lots of important research battles ancient questions, but also finding new interpretations of age-old theories is definitely a creative process. it is also a passionate process. all research innovations are made by those who think outside the box. (apologies for the blah terminology...)

the trend of doing interdisciplinary work receives much official support: the future of research is visioned in novel combinations and cross-sections of traditional disciplinary fields. the problem is that researchers are extremely possessive with their fields of expertise. asking questions that are untraditional is sometimes aggravation enough, but when posed by someone trained in an altogether different field, they are received with ridicule or considered almost blasphemous even when a basic knowledge of the field is more than explicit. researchers are very territorial, to put it mildly.

mastering two different fields is obviously demanding, but not at all unheard of. nevertheless, applying for a grant with an multidisciplinary topic is more often than not directed at only one of the fields it concerns leaving the applicant hanging on the graciousness of the evaluators' understanding. fairly often they receive a review saying the research proposal is too vague or not exactly in the target group. not asking the right questions, that is. our funding system is built to support rigid disciplinary boundaries and, thus, does not offer valuable space for the much lauded interdisciplinary work. the same applies to publishing forums and conferences where multidisciplinary ideas are often shunned upon. the politics of science protect the status quo despite claims otherwise.

i am not saying that every unorthodox question is worthy of exploring. i only mean that sometimes it takes someone marginal or a complete outsider to ask the questions that will enable a field of research to take the right direction. to demonstrate i will use an example of research in an area that touches most people including myself: cancer.

finding a cure for cancer must be the epitome of medical aspirations. cancer continues to confuse, confront and convulse us regardless of the vast amount of research time and funding used to understand why our cells all of a sudden start growing uncontrollably and, ultimately, suffocate our organs resulting in death.

finding a cure for cancer surely would diminish the amount of suffering amongst people. unfortunately we're nowhere near a breakthrough big enough to count as a cure. thanks to years of research we have many forms of treatment, but mortality rates have not diminished significantly.

it took an engineer with personal grief to question the balance of cancer research favoring finding a cure over the effort put into early detection methods. i found out about don listwin in an article in wired magazine. he witnessed his mother's fatal journey with cancer. his path was not unlike my own: both our mothers were misdiagnosed until there was fairly little that could be done. his mother was given antibiotics for bladder infections until her ovarian cancer was stage IV; mine visited her neurologist regularly due to a stroke some years ago, but her complaints were not interpreted correctly until she forgot my name and an aggressive tumor the size of a tennis ball was found in her temporal lobe. like all people dealing with cancer loss, i deal the best i can, but listwin, however, a wealthy cisco executive, left the company and a few years later started the canary foundation.

it is a well-established fact that most forms of cancer, if caught early, are treatable and survival rates are high. although many small breakthroughs offer more forms of treatment, the increases in survival rates are fairly insignificantly associated with better treatments. however pre-screenings, for example the pap smear screening women for early signs of cervical cancer, have diminished mortality by over a half.

the primary reason cancer is so fatal comes down to poor detection. when reaching stage III and IV (the scale used on most cancers is I-IV), mortality rates are crushingly high. nevertheless, over 90% of cancer research is targeted at finding late-stage treatments and drug development rather than diagnosis and early detection.

listwin asked the improbable and questioned the rationale of finding more treatments instead of creating methods of screening early signs of cancer in the body. if we were able to locate the proteins cancerous cells release in our bloodstream, the already existing treatments would save many lives. being an outsider in the business of medicine, he raised his voice with the aid of money: by recruiting the best oncologists, geneticists, biochemists and so on, he has created a non-profit research group in search of a pack of screening methods for the most common and deadliest malignancies. the improbable just got more so with the knowledge that listwin encourages results that are efficient and low-cost in order for them to be widely used.

imagine if melanomas, breast, pancreatic, lung and brain tumors could be screened at a relatively low cost from the entire population. what has become a reality with the pap smear and cervical cancer could happen with the most disastrous of cancers. mistaken diagnoses could become obsolete. receiving devastating prognoses talking about months to live could become a part of the sad history of human healthcare. imagine that.

nonetheless, finding a cure is still an important goal to reach. screenings will always fail to locate all people and all tumors. but locating cancer early is almost as good as finding a cure, and we need to ask ourselves: are we chasing the right chalice?

sometimes someone from the outside is needed to halt our quest for the grail and ask ourselves whether the quest is worth ignoring all else. examples like the canary foundation prove the worthiness of bringing novel viewpoints into an established field. although my own research was nowhere near as essential as cancer research, i had multidisciplinary ambitions similar to colleagues who were regularly left without funding.

the kinds of alterations in thinking that listwin is a prime example of hardly happen with the current style of research funding and promotion. i was lucky for the entire 7 years for having continuous grants and research positions, but i did not see potential for asking the questions i wanted to. i was by no means alone with my concerns but there wasn't a philanthropist like listwin in sight. hence, my choice to leave. the kinds of it is discouraging to note that the doors of academia are not exactly open to creativity.