Why is it that people are willing to spend $20 on a bowl of pasta with sauce that they might actually be able to replicate pretty faithfully at home, yet they balk at the notion of a white-table cloth Thai restaurant, or a tacos that cost more than $3 each? Even in a city as “cosmopolitan” as New York, restaurant openings like Tamarind Tribeca (Indian) and Lotus of Siam (Thai) always seem to elicit this knee-jerk reaction from some diners who have decided that certain countries produce food that belongs in the “cheap eats” category—and it’s not allowed out. (Side note: How often do magazine lists of “cheap eats” double as rundowns of outer-borough ethnic foods?)
Yelp, Chowhound, and other restaurant sites are littered with comments like, “$5 for dumplings?? I’ll go to Flushing, thanks!” or “When I was backpacking in India this dish cost like five cents, only an idiot would pay that much!” Yet you never see complaints about the prices at Western restaurants framed in these terms, because it’s ingrained in people’s heads that these foods are somehow “worth” more. If we’re talking foie gras or chateaubriand, fair enough. But be real: You know damn well that rigatoni sorrentino is no more expensive to produce than a plate of duck laab, so to decry a pricey version as a ripoff is disingenuous. This question of perceived value is becoming increasingly troublesome as more non-native (read: white) chefs take on “ethnic” cuisines, and suddenly it’s okay to charge $14 for shu mai because hey, the chef is ELEVATING the cuisine."
— One of the entries from the list ‘20 Things Everyone Thinks About the Food World (But Nobody Will Say)’ (via featherframe)
Anonymous said: I feel really pretty, but I don't feel like it comes across in pictures very well. I would love to post a picture of myself that looks as beautiful as I feel (e.g. your pictures are always stunning). Do you have advice for capturing my beauty or overcoming my online shyness?
beauty is so subjective
a face is so subjective
what you “really” look like is what a friend sees when they spot you from across the room as you’re talking to someone else
a mirror paints you in light on a flat surface
a digital picture is a collection of flat squares, painting your face with tangrams
what you have to do is disassociate yourself from the picture, or at least, that’s what i have to do,
it’s just a collection of squares, shapes, colors
knowing that you can make any kind of portrait you would like
there are always new angles to discover; there is makeup that looks great in real life but not so much on camera, and vice versa of course. a lot of contouring for instance looks fantastic using the front-facing camera, but can be too much for real life
you can download some cool phone apps like cymera or line camera and mess with the fliters and adjustments
and while you mess with it know that you are creating a character, or a certain presentation, an exhibit, for an audience,
while there is the ‘real you’
which will be something like that, though of course that is painted in squares as well
the you who is not aware of being observed
with no “active” performance
and i think that has a stunning beauty in itself
A black (male) protestor/resident of Ferguson, as quoted in Newsweek.
Here is where the “talking-head”/op-ed bent of our media and culture has failed us. While they all want to bemoan the “12% voter turnout at the last election,” no one has the sense to ask about the structural forces that contribute to that low figure. Instead they (and I’m including Al Sharpton in this category) yell at black voters to do their part, or, when they’re being nice about it, try to get protestors to register to vote. But listen to those protestors who cannot vote. They’re telling us they never stood a chance.
See also: It’s a privilege to throw out “Just go vote! Get your voice heard!” because everybody doesn’t get that.