> jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> >Gucci shoes not beautiful shoes
>
> Gucci makes beautiful shoes. So does Marc Jacobs. What's the point in
> denying that?
>
> Doug
I'm not saying Gucci does not make attractive things and neither did Leigh. I am asking if there are social costs incurred when a pair of canvas deck shoes from Gucci cost $550 and they are cosmetically almost identical to a pair of $10 Keds? A $1700 handbag that looks to almost all the world like a $30 one? One is not buying beauty when one purchases $1700 handbags. Pointing this out does not make one an ascetic who thinks everything should be carried in a burlap sack.
Also:
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> I've certainly run into lots
> of leftists and countercultural types who proudly wear anti-chic
> clothing on principle.
There he goes again! I've run into lots of people who chew gum. Gee Whiz. Those lots of leftist sure are screwing up the works.
Carrol
What point are you trying to make every time you post this Carrol? In examining Leighs post and trying to figure out what he meant that he did not explicitly state knowing whether he was proudly anti-chic or not might be relevant. I was operating under the assumption he was not (which may have been incorrect) and Doug was saying he did not make that assumption (or any I think) for the above reason.
John Thornton