Random fashion thoughts

[bows1]



C'mon man, Mexican food is not junk food. At least it shouldn't be. Last week I had short rib tacos with bone marrow at Toloache. Holy ****. Those were good.

But to answer your question...check out Bonchon for fried chicken (I'm sure some of the Korean guys on here will have other suggestions), Baohaus for Taiwanese buns, maybe La Esquina for tacos, Vanessa's Dumplings, Doughnut Plant. People are all crazy about the cronut (croissant-donut) at Dominique Ansel (the owner has serious credentials, btw). But you have to get there at like 7:30 and wait in line to get one. If you want pancakes, check out Clinton St. Baking Company. Don't go on the weekend though or you'll never get in. Not junk food, but Mission Chinese is pretty awesome and fairly cheap. For dinner, get there early, at like 6:00 or 6:30. Southern-style fried chicken at Hill Country Chicken. For pizza I like Lombardi's (other people will undoubtedly have other suggestions there too), and I like the margherita at Spunto (edit: fixed name; I wrote Spuntino originally, which is a different place).

Some cool home good at ABC Carpet, and ABC Kitchen is one of my favorite restaurants in NYC. Stores: I could see you finding some stuff you like at Assembly New York. You can also check out Atelier (they're moving so may need to call to verify address), Hotoveli, and IF Boutique for good selections of stuff like Rick, Attachment, Yohji, Dries, etc. It's sales season too so you may find some deals. You might also like the Henrik Vibskov boutique in Soho. That's all I got for now. I'll let others fill out the suggestions.

Agree with everything except La Esquina. Way over priced and not even very good. Head a few blocks to the east and get my favorite mexican food in the city at Cafe El Portal. 3 Al Pastor tacos with amazing chips and salsa (green sauce) for 8$ ? Yes please.

 

[pickpackpockpuck]



so somebody accused me of being a Hipster for liking abstract art and stuff like Barnett Newman...

Hah. Doesn't liking Barnett Newman make you a hipster in like 1950? I think this person was confused.

Agree with everything except La Esquina. Way over priced and not even very good. Head a few blocks to the east and get my favorite mexican food in the city at Cafe El Portal. 3 Al Pastor tacos with amazing chips and salsa (green sauce) for 8$ ? Yes please.

I agree mostly (I even said "maybe La Esquina" for that reason), but La Esquina has above average fish tacos in my opinion. Most places fry their fish, but La Esquina grills theirs. That's surprisingly hard to find for some reason. And because they grill the fish, they can't really hide it, so they use mahi mahi instead of tilapia the way most places do. I actually think their fish tacos are a good deal, and they taste really good. But other than those, yeah, the tacos aren't outstanding. Not tacos, but I also really like their chilaquiles.

Haven't been to the other place you mentioned, but I will be heading their soon. Thanks for that.

 

[bows1]

Little secret, El Portal does to-go margaritas. So if you want to do a little SoHo shopping with a nice cool Cucumber margarita, I would check that place out for sure.

 

[indesertum]

Grammercy tavern is easily one of my most favorite restaurants in the city and the most expensive entree is $24. Excellent selection of beverages at reasonable markup. That neighborhood is awesome. Beechers handmade cheese is around the corner. Veritas wine bar is across the street (every Monday they open a baller wine to serve by the glass. Next Monday is supposed to be a magnum of an old vintage of vieux telegraphe). Raines law room, an excellent speakeasy, is three streets away. Eataly, an upscale Italian supermarket is a few streets away.

Id also recommend finding a date and having the foie and black truffle stuffed roasted chicken at the nomad at the ace hotel. It's like 70 some dollars but one of the most delicious dishes you can have in the city.

I'll be in town for a Saturday wedding on the 29th if anybody wants to hangout

 

[conceptual 4est]

I can't wait to see Man of Steel !

dude wearing vintage Marc Jacobs Superman cashmere sweater

how did everybody sleep on this post. it's awesome

 

[Tirailleur1]

Because a hipster isn't a real thing and hasn't been in like 6 years.

his words
Idiot: "you're a hipster if you saw the 3 shades of red painting and thought "omg what amazing art".... you are in love with the name and the idea of the art. the actual picture isn't ****..."

Me: What is your issue? Throwing tags around and not knowing what that **** is? If it was that easy why don't u go make a blue canvas and make millions? Lol at being intimidated by a blue canvas.

idiot: intimidated? that's the thing about you hipsters. if someone doesn't see the greatness in the bullshit you talk down to them like they are not capable of understand such greatness or they are scared/defensive against the greatness and that's why they don't like it




ALL
THIS
FOR
LIKING
MODERN ART...

 

[artishard116]

can't i just think it looks cool. ****.

 

[Parker]

Ab Ex, Barnett Newman... sounds like you might be a beatnik, not a hipster.

 

[thewho13]

I saw This Is The End with my brother the other night. He was dying pretty much the whole time, whereas I was really only kinda into it. (It was sort of funny every now and then, but I guess I just don't really find the Apatow or Apatow-related stuff very funny anymore.) Not liking derivative, gag-based humor (among other things) apparently makes me a hipster.

 

[pickpackpockpuck]

WARNING: THOUGHTS! i went to the MoMA like two weeks ago and while I was looking at a giant Jackson Pollock this guy was very condescendingly lecturing his wife on why it was amazing. he was talking about how it was a fractal and how you can break it down mathematically. that stuff is interesting and all (http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock#.UcB9efZVRgI) but he didn't once say anything about the way it looked, just how you could take it apart and why that's what made it good. he hardly looked at the painting and instead just kept talking down to his wife. I walked away until he was gone and then went back to it.

"None of us can ever retrieve that innocence before all theory when art knew no need to justify itself, when one did not ask of a work of art what it said because one knew (or thought one knew) what it did. From now to the end of consciousness, we are stuck with the task of defending art. We can only quarrel with one or another means of defense. Indeed, we have an obligation to overthrow any means of defending and justifying art which becomes particularly obtuse or onerous or insensitive to contemporary needs and practice."
http://www.uiowa.edu/~c08g001d/Sontag_AgainstInterp.pdf

THAT SAID, I do get annoyed when art is really just a shallow concept with little to offer in the way of execution. One of the real joys of any art form is that it shows the artist's talent. Picasso's work is conceptual, but it's also incredible in the way it's drawn and composed. But Rauschenberg's white paintings, and a lot of Barnett Newman and stuff like that, is more concept than anything else to me. With those paintings (the white paintings are probably better described as installation pieces or something) I feel like you lose the joy on the surface, and what you have left is the concept behind it that needs to be justified because otherwise it's too oblique or just too thin to deserve considering in any depth. They're for the brain more than the eye. Pollock is abstract, but there's so much for there for the eye. So I agree with the Sontag quote above, but I also don't like it used as an excuse for people to do lazy work that requires no mastery of their medium.

 

[noob in 89]

[art school confidential clip]

"...Triangles?"
"I was one of the first."

 

[noob in 89]

Damnit, phone!

Thumbs up for Against Interpretation....one of the best essays ever.

 

[LA Guy]

http://www.mrporter.com/product/334043

Jet, I feel that this is pretty accurate. fwiw, a Junya Watanabe L in shoes corresponds roughly to a 29 in regular Japanese sizing.

 

[Earnest Hemingway]

"In place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art."

 

[cyc wid it]



WARNING:

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

THOUGHTS! i went to the MoMA like two weeks ago and while I was looking at a giant Jackson Pollock this guy was very condescendingly lecturing his wife on why it was amazing. he was talking about how it was a fractal and how you can break it down mathematically. that stuff is interesting and all (http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock#.UcB9efZVRgI) but he didn't once say anything about the way it looked, just how you could take it apart and why that's what made it good. he hardly looked at the painting and instead just kept talking down to his wife. I walked away until he was gone and then went back to it.

"None of us can ever retrieve that innocence before all theory when art knew no need to justify itself, when one did not ask of a work of art what it said because one knew (or thought one knew) what it did. From now to the end of consciousness, we are stuck with the task of defending art. We can only quarrel with one or another means of defense. Indeed, we have an obligation to overthrow any means of defending and justifying art which becomes particularly obtuse or onerous or insensitive to contemporary needs and practice."
http://www.uiowa.edu/~c08g001d/Sontag_AgainstInterp.pdf

THAT SAID, I do get annoyed when art is really just a shallow concept with little to offer in the way of execution. One of the real joys of any art form is that it shows the artist's talent. Picasso's work is conceptual, but it's also incredible in the way it's drawn and composed. But Rauschenberg's white paintings, and a lot of Barnett Newman and stuff like that, is more concept than anything else to me. With those paintings (the white paintings are probably better described as installation pieces or something) I feel like you lose the joy on the surface, and what you have left is the concept behind it that needs to be justified because otherwise it's too oblique or just too thin to deserve considering in any depth. They're for the brain more than the eye. Pollock is abstract, but there's so much for there for the eye. So I agree with the Sontag quote above, but I also don't like it used as an excuse for people to do lazy work that requires no mastery of their medium.

Mostly agree. Also, I feel the same way about a lot of "artisanal" SW&D brands.