Ok, so we followed the headlines to Bamn!, a bright, new Automat on St. Marks in the East Village (btw. 2nd & 3rd). We, my co-worker and I, immediately liked the concept when we heard about it through the various NYC culture alerts (NY Mag, Daily candy, Time Out). We also liked the name once we thought about it a little...a combo of bam, as in instant, and damn, as in awesome!...at least that is our theory. We just hoped the experience lived up to the hype.


It did. We love it! It is the kind of place that puts a smile on your face. Kind of a retro gimmick, but also quite relevant- providing cheap, quick, do-it-yourself food that seems a step up from your typical fast food because it offers American classics with a more sophisticated twist and a multitude of fancy sauces (which cost 75 cents extra). Bamn! is like a squeaky clean, bright take on an American A&W drive through meets Spanish tapas bar meets quirky Asian pop shop.


We were first drawn in by the hot dogs, which were excellent and made especially so because of the generous Challah bread-like "bun" wrapped around them. So good. Just like those dogs you see in Chinese bakeries. And for $1, it is the best deal in the city.


From there we moved on to splitting a Macaroni & Cheese croquet. This was delicious. Imagine taking the crunchy baked topic you generally find on home-style mac & cheese and wrapping the roni in it and frying it to resemble a mozzerella stick. So good.


At that point my partner has reached her food intake limit. Not me, I had one more stop and that was ordering a vanilla ice-cream cone. This one didn't come from the Automat, you had actually had to interact with a server. But, worth the "hassle" as a vanilla cone was also only $1 and therefore a great deal in my eyes. Sorry- no pics. The portion size oc the cone was smallish and that was a good thing; after semi-gorging on fried fast food, it was small enough for you to convince yourself that you weren't overdoing it. The flavor was deliciously vanilla, but the texture wasn't exactly completely smooth. I figured Bamn! had either reached the bottom of their mix or, in a positive light, they made their ice-cream in a more natural, "hand-churned" manner. While improbable, the latter option is what I feel better sticking to. If not, it was still a small blip on an otherwise stellar experience. Next time I'll try the green tea cone ($2; exotic comes at a cost).


But first I'll start with a sample of the "Spam Musubi", which literally looked like a piece of sushi topped with Spam, prepared in the typical "unagi", or grilled eel, fashion. Quirky!

The one thing that didn't seem right at Bamn! was that you could order fries at the counter, along with drinks, and the fancy sauces and ice-cream, and they cost about $4. How can that be when all of the Automat food was under $3? Them must be some extra saucy spuds. Another one for next time.

For more info....
http://bamnfood.com/

Work

(AP) Shocked by the number of teens seeking breast implants, Botox injections and nose jobs, the leader of Australia's most populous state has said new laws are needed to make it harder for young people to go under the knife. -cbsnews.com
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/27/ap/health/mainD8JOL21G0.shtml

Plastic surgery is raging through female populations like a tempest. I am not so young that I can't imagine what it might be like to hit middle age and feel like you have no more control over your body's inevitable downward fall. I can see how that might be depressing and terrifying. I can see that if you had it in your power, you might make strides to stave off your body's throwing in of the towel at this point. But for a young girl with a face and a body that haven't even yet fully developed to turn to plastic surgery...and for her parents to give her the thumbs up sign on her way out the door...now that is beyond my comprehension, even if mom and dad have had some work done themselves.

Is attractiveness something that we feel we need to succeed in our world today, sort of like getting into a good college? According to a Newsweek article back in June 3, 1996, entitled The Biology of Beauty, "Studies have shown that people considered attractive fare better with parents and teachers, make more friends and more money, and have better sex with more (and more beautiful) partners." All this research does is to validate what we already know about the importance of beauty in our culture.

The purpose of this email is not to be cynical and judgemental and to announce that a rise in plastic surgery amongst teens is further evidence that the world is falling to pieces. I don't want to believe that. But I keep thinking about the values driving this knife-work--- this desire for aesthetic perfection. Is this a new thing? Or, have we always wanted to have complete control over our appearance and now we just have more accessible tools to achieve this goal? Has attractiveness become more important for survival or is our culture just more open to talking about it? Do our faces represent just another means to self-improvement, a totally American concept, along with better-organized closets? When did what we look like become a problem to be fixed?

In my mind, there has been a shift in that there is a growing sense of consumer entitlement ("I deserve it!") paired with a growing comfortability with cosmetic procedures (probably enhancd by Hollywood glamour and the TV shows/media coverage).

Sure we hear in the Dove campaign that natural beauty comes from within, and Olay is telling us to love the skin we are in, but apparently not everyone is buying into these messages. Objectively, why should we buy into them if being more beautiful, by natural means or not, means having a better job, more sex and more friends? But what about self-confidence? Is the girl or guy with the big honker going to gain a newfound sense of self-esteem along with a brand new nose on their 16th birthday? Will they have nipped their insecurity issues in the bud at an early enough stage?

This rise in plastic surgery reflects a shifting notion of where beauty can come from and who gets to have access to it. In the old days, it was a genetic feat when someone came out looking beautiful; it was a chance left to nature and, I think, beauty was associated with superior genes. Nowadays, we are seeing the democratization of beauty. Access seems to take precedent over biology. If you can afford to buy it, you can have it. But, I ask, what are you going to do when your children come out looking like the old you? The proof is in the pudding.

Maybe plastic surgery is doing to the face what braces did to the teeth. I bet when braces were first introduced in the U.S., they represented both a horrific and an extravagant concept: semi-permanently affixing metal braces to teeth in order to slowly, painfully set them straight. Straight=symmetry=beauty (more on this below). Now braces are an American standard, and they have helped to "up" the beauty ante as well as to make Americans readily-identifiable within a larger global culture.

But braces do not fundamentally change people's appearance outside of their oral cavities. Your appearance is inherently linked to your identity- to your ethnic background, to your family's gene pool, to the things you have done in the time you have been on this earth. I know I am a Pulver because I have my dad's calves. I might not have picked these calves for myself if I had had a choice, but there they are, they are mine, and they have helped me through multiple marathons. My nose looks like it was hit dead-on with a lacrosse ball, because it was. My stomach is bloated because of my love for red wine (but my heart is healthy!). These aspects of my person make up my life story; the story of where I came from and what I have done with myself since. Hey- your physical self as evidence of your own personal life story. I like that! Much more interesting, and believable, than seeing "healthy"-looking, air-brushed women awkwardly parading around in white underwear (but feeling beautiful!) as part of the Dove campaign.

Last Spring I enrolled in a Graphic Design class at SVA. The teacher was a character and an excellent teacher. At one point he talked about imperfections and how they can make things more graphic and visuals more interesting (especially so in our hyper-polished, airbrushed media world). He told a story about a beautiful girl who was enrolled in one of his glasses. She usually wore her hair down, but one day she came in with her hair held back. The teacher saw that she has an enormous scar down the side of her face, which had previously been hidden by hair. He explained that at that moment she became even more beautiful to him and more interesting; there was a story behind that scar.

Rhodes and Tremewan (1996) conducted a study investigating averageness on attractiveness using a computerized generator to vary averageness. Their results indicate that averageness is attractive. Increasing the averageness of faces (anticaricaturing) and decreasing averageness (caricature) reduced attractiveness. Attractiveness and distinctiveness were negatively correlated. The less distinctive a face was, the more attractive it was. (http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/425.asp)

If plastic surgery truly hits the mainstream, will everyone start to look very symmetrical and similar? Is this what we are really looking for? What about our scars? Are scars and imperfections threatening and scary to people? What will happen to all of our visual life stories and how will their disappearance have an impact on what we find to be atractive, as well as the way that people relate to eachother? Everyone needs a way in...

And, according to the above-mentioned Newsweek article, "Studies have established that people everywhere--regardless of race, class or age--share a sense of what's attractive." The article goes on to state that "One key to physical attractiveness is symmetry; humans, like other species, show a strong preference for individuals whose right and left sides are well matched."

Will distinctive, physical traits become a thing of the genetic past? Is plastic surgery just fast-forwarding in the present what genetics is already taking on in the long term: weeding out imperfections and creating a human species with symmetrically-perfect bodies and faces? Or, is plastic surgery messing with the evolutionary process? It can create aesthetically-pleasing appearances, but in the process it erases any cues of genetic superiority and fertility. Essentially, it creates a mask.

Maybe plastic surgery is just another form of a peacock feather, helping humans to get together, feel sexy and mate. But, I am curious to see how it will all evolve....I don't have a study to back me up on this, I know from experience and observation that people gravitate towards what is different and seemingly exotic and rare. But this runs in contrast to the above-research that states people go for less distinctive when it comes to beauty. Could non-worked on people, people with faces that look natural but perhaps caricatured in contrast to worked-on faces, eventually become the new standard of beautiful? Maybe one day we'll get to see a girl with a scar down the side of her face on the cover of a magazine. Or will we continue to gravitate towards the air-brushed and familiar and essentially, to the non-threatening? Why would imperfections be threatening? Just a hunch, but I think that people are inherently made uncomfortable by people who aren't willing to apologize and don't worry about what other people think. And to me, changing your face and or body- through surgery or airbrushing- is the equivalent of making a permanent personal apology.

Lastly, if most people start "naturally" turning to plastic surgery, will overall attractiveness levels rise (as defined by symmetry and perfectly-aligned, non-distinctive features) and the value of beauty decline? Supply and demand theory in full effect? It seems to me that the beauty of beauty is that it was always a rarity. Something to be cherished, something special. If everyone seems to be beautiful and attractive, there will be no one worth looking at.

communal living

My current residence is in Brooklyn and it is a little bit like a half-way house for females in their 20s and early 30s who are about to take big step forward in life, whether that means moving out of the country, moving in with boyfriends, or going back to school. Maybe we are displaying latent Gen X/Y/Grup tendencies by perpetuating the semblance of a youthful, unfettered, college-style lifestyle. Or perhaps we are just poor. In any event, in New York, you do what you can to get by.

It is a 3-bedroom apt that is lovely but has had an incredibly high RTR, or Roomie Turnover Rate, as well as a perpetual stream of visitors, lending it a communal kind of feel over the past year or so. At this point, 2 of us are at the "big step" moving out point, including myself. That means that we need to find 2 new roomies who can replace us and also live peacefully with my pretty peaceful sister, who has just moved in.

Craig's List is a wonderful thing. The power of it is also a bit terrifying. We posted a listing for our 2 soon-to-be available bedrooms at approximately 10:54pm this past Wednesday. By 9:05am the next morning, we already had 30 responses and the list just kept growing as the day passed.

In weeding through all of the email responses, I felt a little bit like an online speed dater trying to find the perfect match in the minimal amount of time based on a very superficial body of personal information. In selecting candidates to invite to the (semi-)open house that we held at the apt this weekend, I felt that I had graduated to the role of producer in my very own reality TV show. What kind of dynamic was I looking for...hmmmmm...should they be male or female? Gay or straight? No need for drama queens, but a bit of personality would be great....likes to have a glass of wine at home and relax, check. Architect? Nahhh...too many designers in one house can't be a good thing. Make up artist for Helen Hunt? Cut, too unreliable. Gay guy who managages an excellent west village coffee shop? Sign him up!

So we had the open house this past Sunday; it was a bit surreal. To use another hackneyed analogy, it was a little like a Survivor-style group job interview. Everyone who liked the apt was trying to out-charm, out-talk and out-last everyone else. In the end, the mental checklist for picking a roomate isn't too much different from one a potential employer might use: are they nice? Pleasant to be around? Reliable and trustworthy? Can I imagine seeing their faces every day for at least a year? Communal living does require working relationships afterall.

selling sex

I was recently reading in the not so prestigious but always generally entertaining daily paper, Metro New York, that a new sort of eco-consciousness has developed amongst American consumers. The paper stated that fashion-aware people are buying and wearing more eco-friendly and organic clothing. The Metro, always relentlously searching for the "whys" behind issues, that is sarcasm, linked this phenomenom to 911 and a heightened desire for more meaningful experiences. I say "horse-phooey". In the category of clothing and accessories, I think this so-called eco-consciousness has less to do with consumers feeling more responsible and more about there being many more high-quality, high-style options from which to choose. We aren't talking about shrinking cars and rising gas prices here, we are talking about personal aesthetics. If it doesn't make consumers look good, they just aren't going to buy it. It is about supply and demand; and trickle down. It is about clothing makers making eco-consciousness more accesible and appealing for consumers, out of their own good consciences or because they sense a market opportunity.

The afore-mentioned article cites American Apparel as being an example of a clothing manufacturer that sells sweat-shop free clothing, qualifying it as an eco-friendly shop. But, as the owner himself has attested, AA is more about selling hot, sweaty sex than sweat-shop free labor. Accusations of misogynistic behavior aside, Dov Charney is one smart, strategic dude with an impeccible sense of timing. One might argue that AA has started to reach saturation points in NYC and surrounding burroughs, but you have to give Dov credit for honing in on "hip", up-and-coming areas like a religion and also, for finding creative outlets that fit well to leverage his devil-may-care brand.

Case in point: last spring, a new American Apparel opened in Brooklyn on Flatbush Avenue & 7th, in an old, closed-down movie-theater. While Park Slope is not the hippest of Brooklyn neighborhoods, the store chose a prime crossroads location with a bit of a story behind it. For many months, the only relic of the theater's living, breathing past was its billboard sign out front, which perpetually advertised for the movie "Van Helling". After many months, a creative local began to regularly swap around the remaining billboard letters to create amusing albeit cryptic messages for passerbyers to ponder. It wasn't some crazy man who was doing this, it was just a guy who was looking to stir up a little mischief, a bit like Dov himself. Eventually the Times caught on.


Continuing the clever momentum, an American Apparel opened in this very same theater space not too long afterwards. The new store is huge and flashy with colorful neon lights; it looks like a party. And, it utilizes the same type of billboard letters that had been gaining the theater notoriety after its closing. The letters continued to get scrambled, whether by the original culprit or the store itself, I do not know. Either way, American Apparel was giving a seemingly-hip, mischievous local a pat on the back for a clever job well done


After having been in Paris for about 2 months this summer, where there was at least one new American Apparel store I might add, I was again passing the billboard sign on the way to the subway. It now featured a double entendre statement, coupled with the same visual of the seductive looking temptress as seen above. The sign said "come inside". Apparently the message was a bit too racy, and I noticed about a week later that the visual had been taken down but the words remain (perhaps it was overload with words AND visual?). Perhaps AA was getting a bit too hip for the stroller set.

the death of daily candy

Earlier in August, Daily Candy sent out its second dedicated, Wal*Mart-sponsored piece of candy. Most all of us know that Daily Candy has made a name for itself by alerting culture and style-sensitive consumers to cool, up and coming stuff that it had discovered in and around key cities via pithy, well-written daily email updates. As time passed, DC began to also issue "dedicated emails", paid for by advertisers and therefore inherently wiffing of not-coolness.

I understand that a website has to make $, and this writer thinks that Daily Candy handled the incorporation of dedicated emails into the mix very well (it alerted all of us users in its listserve via email). But, Wal*Mart? Doesn't Daily Candy have some sort of filter, by which they can weed out potential sponsors by degree of their ubiquity? I feel that both parties- DC and WM- lost in the deal. WM looks even more like a nouveau rich kid who tries to buy his more stylish and savvy friends who are shopping at target while DC appears to be selling out to "the man" versus supporting the underdog shops who need the support the most. With this said, I do realize that not a lot of moms can afford to do back to school shopping at precious little boutiques. But how many of them need a reminder about Wal*Mart existing? DC as an advertising aperture for this marketing giant just doesn't seem to fit.

Mixed Emotions

I have mixed emotions about about a couple of "innovations" that I just read about on a trendwatching site.


According to the trend site, Starbucks is trying to build upon the history of coffee shops, as centers of arts and entertainmant and then combining it with a pop-up retail concept. It is a good idea, and good for them for continuing to innovate when they are so popular they could run for president. And, it seems like a natural extension of the music-oriented efforts they have already made (e.g. Starbucks CDs). But for some reason, the initiative just reeks of inauthenticity to me...salons feel local and homegrown, and Starbucks is inherently the opposite of that. It just feels like a marketing ploy.


Unto This Last is a furniture shop in the UK that uses a 3D modelling software to design and produce "innovative" yet inexpensive furniture that can be made to order within a week. According to the related blurb on the Springwise trend site, "The company's name was taken from John Ruskin's 1860 book advocating a return to the local craftsman workshop."

While all of the furniture is made locally, and it does reflect design more innovative than your average cheapy furniture, it is not made by hand. So what I can't figure out is how the store could consider itself to be a craftsman's workshop. Isn't "craft" associates with hand-made, slow-made and attention to detail? And how innovative is this furniture going to seem when every week more and more of your friends have pretty much the same designs? Don't get me wrong, this kind of thing serves a certain kind of consumer at a certain point in their lives (e.g. post-graduates in their early 20s with a new apt, no $, and no furniture to call their own). But to call it craftsmanship is to demean the art, time and attention-to-detail put in by all the designers and craftsman who are still out there. I feel that this is yet another instance of "you can't have your cake and eat it too." I believe that Diet Coke falls into this camp as well, but I may be the only one. Just wait until people start growing 3 heads from eating too much artificial sweetener and then we'll see who is laughing last.

A THUMBS UP LOCAL BAKERY

This morning I stopped by a bakery called "Blue Sky" (more nature? yes!), in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn for coffee and a muffin. I had read about this little place in Time Out New York's recently released "Cheap Eats" issue.


The second I laid eyes on Blue Sky’s brightly colored, cheerful exterior, I was pleased. But the true test was the quality of the goods...it is shocking that in this great city, with its intense food competition and sophisticated consumer palates, that there could even be such a thing as a bad baked good, but they are definitely out there. The core problems seem to be associated with lack of freshness, over-baking, and/or low-quality ingredients.


Blue Sky lives up to my food quality standards, at least according to this first visit. Per the recommendation of Time Out, I asked for the Blue Sky Special, which consists of a small iced coffee and delicious fresh muffin for $3.95 (more pricey than at a coffee cart but quality has its price; plus it is Friday and everyone deserves a muffin on Friday).

The place is bright and clean on the interior as well, plus it seemed to be well run, keeping with the consumer’s needs and want in mind. I planned on walking in and taking out, but decided to enjoy my muffin and coffee at one of the little tables set up with array of daily newspapers, just like the other locals. Nothing like starting the day with a little reading on the latest twists of the 10-year old JonBenet murder case let me tell you.


The muffin tasted homemade, as in fresh and just baked, but it also had that perfectly crisp, sugar-coated muffin top that indicates it was baked in a professional kitchen. The top was so good I couldn't hold back before I got to a camera. I am sorry for that. The coffee was also refreshing and delicious, even more so because of my adding in liquid sugar, which has become an essential for sweet-toothed iced coffee drinkers everywhere. I appreciated that it was an option.


It was obvious that the neighborhood had embraced Blue Sky whole-heartedly. While I technically was also a local, I didn’t feel quite as legit since I had heard about the place in Time Out just last night. I felt as if I had “poser” tattooed on my forehead. Oh well- it is a good excuse to keep going back.

Animalistic Eyebrows

In the New York Times Style section this week, there is an article entitled "Throw Your Tweezers Away". It covers the trend toward au natural eyebrows that will emerge this Fall, thanks to super-stylists who have set the tone in advance via haut couture fashion shows. The article begins: "Whether fake or farm-raised, fur makes a fashionable fall accessory. But this season the trendiest fluff is not the trim on coats or handbags. Autumn’s most prized pelt is the hairy eyebrow."

As an avid eye-brow spotter as well as dedicated eye-brow groomer, this notification resonates with me on several levels. We all over do it sometimes, but the overly-plucked, thin as a pencil-line eyebrow look is just no good. Maybe it works for glamorous film noir babes, but not for everyday women. I always thought that "natural yet cared for" was a good look to shoot for. We all have goals.

So this new fluffy eyebrow thing is very interesting. Encouraging natural beauty in this day and age of body betterment via nips, ticks, and full on facial identity overhauls (Ashlee Simpson anyone?) is a refreshing shift. But to me, it seems that the stylists are taking their models' eyebrows past the point of " au natural" and into the land of animalistic and abstraction. The article talks about the impact that stylist Pat McGrath has had on this new eyebrow trend:
"Ms. McGrath is one of the trend-setting stylists responsible for unleashing the feral eyebrow as this season’s beauty signature. At the Prada fall fashion show in Milan in February, she combed models’ eyebrows up with clear mascara so that they fanned out like plumage, lending their faces a wild expression which Ms. McGrath described as “sauvage.” The article goes on to describe this new brow look as being "fringed" and "feathered", and "furry but tamed".

I realize that the article is referencing a more stylized, artistic take on nature that has been happening in the world of high fashion. And I know that a watered-down version of this furry, feathered, feral eyebrow look will be what hits the public eyebrow, just as whiffs of runway design hit more mainstream clothing options. At the same time, I can't help but see a connection to what I think is a larger overall trend towards bringing the naturalistic into our everyday consciousness. (see below entry)

WILD KINGDOM
Central Park has always been the closest thing to the great outdoors for those of us living in or around NYC. But suddenly, the city and its surrounds feels like a wild kingdom in that nature has become ever more accessible by way of restaurants, fashion and design.


Restaurants have opened with a unique spin on nature, ranging from cute to campy to kitsch. Freeman's Alley on the LES found a niche a couple of years ago with its manly game food and dining room that could double as a taxidermy studio. Aspen is a bar/restaurant that opened in the Flatiron district this past year with a rustic meets modern decor, featuring mounted lucite deer antlers and birch tree flair. Little Owl is a cute little corner restaurant that just opened in the West Village (with a too-expensive wine list, in this humble writer's opinion).


You can't get on a subway without seeing a female sporting a bird-patterned skirt, shirt, or bag. The esteemed women's clothing boutique, "Bird", just expanded from Park Slope and opened a branch on Smith St. in Boerum Hill. Coincidence? I think not.


Additionally, Daily candy just this morning sent out a blurb about the "Hunter and The Hunted" collection of unisex jewelry from Digby & Iona, composed of "leaping stags, deer, and men poised with raised guns".


At the DUMBO Furniture Fair and the International Contemporary Furniture Fair at the Javitz Center, both this past spring, a kind of naturalistic, knobby, "I was just in the forest but now I am not" wood style predominated.


In the September '06 issue of Martha Stewart Living, there is a segment about "Faux Bois". It goes: Discover Faux Bois: Martha loves faux bois, which is French for "false wood"—a fitting name for items that appear plucked from the forest but are actually made of cast stone, cast iron, or cement, or are painted to have a woodsy look. Although earthy and rustic, faux bois makes a splendid match for polished pieces. This pail, made of concrete, is dainty enough to hold a lady's slipper orchid.

So what is this mean? Where is it coming from? I don't know. Ironic reaction to the avian flu epidemic? Latent empathy for the semi-famed Pale Male and Lola? A kitschy extension of the white trash, truck-driver fad? Or, just a simple, growing desire to connect to that, nature, which seems ever more remote?

This trend (if I dare call it that), or growing incorporation of elemental aspects of nature within our largely non-natural culture, has most likely been gaining steam for years. Of course, maybe it has always been there, manifesting in new and different ways, and it has only now come into my own personal consciousness. Perhaps the whole thing is a fad most notable for fueling the creation of silkscreened bird tees. Or maybe it is part of a much larger shift in aesthetic. Only time will tell. It is TBD.