Genevieve Valentine Gives Great Red-Carpet
Monday, March 4th, 2019 02:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jesse_the_kThis shouldn’t surprise me, since her fun SF thriller novels Persona and Icon posit a world where the United Nations has morphed into a celebrity reality show. Every Persona is managed by a crew of fashion, romance, and (er, yes, well) political advisors. Valentine delves into this decision at Tor.com:
But that level of image fascinates me. One of the reasons I wrote Persona and Icon was to make the subtext of celebrity politics literal, and then use it to surround a character who recognizes exactly what the image machine asks of her. Everyone in the International Assembly is a product. It’s technically a diplomatic coalition, but there’s a reason so much of it overtly hinges on the internalized language of celebrity. Public image is a living thing. Hollywood current operates as a celebrity free market, largely without the control of the golden-age studio system (though actors in franchise movies might beg to differ). If every actress is her own studio, she has to plan accordingly. Technically the red carpet is a small part of the job, but it’s also an open audition—the right dress and a perfect sound byte will nudge her public image a crucial degree toward whatever part she’s aiming for next.
https://www.genevievevalentine.com/category/red-carpet-rundown
Valentine’s commentary begins in January 2009 and comes right up to last week’s Oscars. Each post is heavily illustrated, and yet this may be a case where image descriptions aren’t really necessary, as Valentine’s snark is actually the point.
For example, the last item in her first post, https://www.genevievevalentine.com/2009/01/golden-globes-totally-random-red-carpet-rundown
However, the outfit I was happiest with was Renee Zellweger’s, because I think she sucks mightily, and now when people ask, “What has she done that’s so bad?” and I don’t have a clip of her acting available, I can just show them this and say, “This is what her soul looks like.”
Description: Blond actress with pixie cut hair straightens her shoulders in two-part black dress. Above the waist is see-through-mesh, elbow sleeves, cut out "cold" shoulders, gathering to a low mock neck. "Nude" strapless bra is clearly visible through the top. Tight waist to very fitted satin pencil skirt which flares into unwalkably-long train all around. Renee has 2-in wide gold bracelets on both wrists and shiny gold clutch in right hand.
As ljwrites points out in her excellent synthesis re: alt text creation, "context is everything" and "know when not to use them."
Does my description add to the content?
Does Valentine's commentary obviate the need for this description?
(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-04 09:05 pm (UTC)In this particular case, lines like the above are useful to me, because it tells me what's wrong with the dress as opposed to assuming I can perceive from context, which with fashion I often can't.
Wonderful
Date: 2019-03-04 10:06 pm (UTC)My #1 fashion principle is: doesn't itch.
Re: Wonderful
Date: 2019-03-04 10:17 pm (UTC)You're welcome! Fashion is one of the fields where I can tell what I like the look of (certainly what I like to wear) but cannot necessarily tell what it is encoding, how it is intended to work, or what the moving parts are. I can read random subcultures decently and then things like red carpet dresses are opaque and somewhat existentially bewildering to me. (I wouldn't wear the dress Zellweger is wearing because it looks heinously impractical and uncomfortable, but most women's high fashion looks that way to me. I don't know what it was designed to show off. I don't know if it's failing or succeeding.)
Re: Wonderful
Date: 2019-03-05 02:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-04 09:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-04 10:07 pm (UTC)Also, way to diss on mermaids. They've got water! They don't need no stinking clothing!
(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-04 10:18 pm (UTC)Amen!
(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-04 10:20 pm (UTC)The theoretical draw is that you get poofy frilly princess shit at the bottom but you still get to show off your curves, but in practice they just look like a hateful experience to wear as well as not particularly visually appealing.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-05 02:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2020-02-17 10:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-04 09:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-04 10:08 pm (UTC)A++ for sardonic smirky smile
(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-04 09:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-04 10:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-04 11:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-05 02:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-05 02:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-13 03:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-05 02:29 am (UTC)I see that a lot in image descriptions on Tumblr: the purpose of the image within the post is to be very emotionally evocative and connotative, and the image description is very clinical and precise. If I was writing the description I would probably go for something more like "it's like Ursula the Sea Witch and a used Kleenex tissue had a bastard offspring whose pelt was turned into an Oscar dress for a basic skinny blonde actress", which I feel captures the necessary points quite concisely.
Like, aiming for more how the original caption writer might have continued the description if they were in a medium that didn't allow for photos, than aiming for a point-for-point description of what the image looks like.
But I'm saying that from the POV of a sighted person; I think I did pick it up, partly, from a old 'how to write alt text' post a long time ago, where a vision-impaired person was talking about how things like listing colors didn't mean all that much to them compared with just telling the story in the picture. But that was a long time ago and I may be letting my own biases color the memory of the advice, and leaning too far toward the function and too far away from the content.
(When I'm writing my own rare posts with images I tend to use very simple alt text that will work for navigation purposes, but not add a formal image description, because I try to put enough of a description naturally into the text around it to convey the gist of the image, so that ideally someone reading it without access to the image won't feel like they're missing anything, and someone reading with the image won't feel like they're getting the same information twice. But I dunno how well it works.)
Good points
Date: 2019-03-05 02:54 am (UTC)Your description is spot on, because it captures incongruity, wasted effort, and a willingness to pretend it looks good.
Thank you for reminding me to boost these great guides from an avid reader of posts-with-images
https://lightgetsin.dreamwidth.org/308442.html
https://lightgetsin.dreamwidth.org/308442.html
Re: Good points
Date: 2019-03-05 08:24 pm (UTC)Yes! That is almost definitely one of the posts I was vaguely remembering. I think the comment from![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lightgetsin "But the thing about concrete is that they can also be the keywords -- "fall" and "gold" don't just say what season and what color, they also say why the person picked this picture, the signifiers of it that are important." is probably the main thing I've brought forward from that.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-05 09:41 am (UTC)And oh my goodness that coy bosom in that widow veil.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-13 03:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-13 05:55 pm (UTC)There is no suggestion you are going to see anything.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-16 11:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-25 04:15 pm (UTC)Also, thank you for the link! I love snarky commentary that isn't offensive or derogatory, so I'm v jazzed to read the archives.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-25 05:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-03-31 09:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-04-01 03:19 pm (UTC)