This is such a minor thing to get stuck on, but I had a little moment of (rolls eyes in Central Floridian) when Lauren Collins opened the Pilvi Takala piece by making much out of the artist's Paris Disney prank. At least at the American Disney parks, it's very well-known that adults can't dress up in full costume. The hardcore Disney adults even came up with a term for dressing in outfits inspired by specific movies or characters without bending the rules: disneybounding. I don't know, I just found that specific intervention by Takala to be a weak one to start with, given its obviousness and its predictable outcome. (Collins claims adults not being allowed to wear costumes is an "unwritten" rule; while it's an absurd one, it's also well-documented and available in writing on the Disney website: https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/faq/parks/dress/.)
I guess that above does kind of speak to my response to the piece as a whole. On the one hand, I think Takala's art practice is valuable & compelling (I loved the description of "The Trainee" -- I would have read so many more words on how her coworkers reacted*), and I think it's *awesome* that she gets a guaranteed minimum income from Finland.
On the other hand, the actual work doesn't come always across as *more* compelling and rich than, say, The Rehearsal / Nathan for You, Ziwe, or the Eric Andre Show, whose creators certainly all practice the art of awkwardness. It's interesting to me that Collins chose not to put Takala's work in conversation with these more familiar works that are also uneasy-making, social norm-violating, not-exactly-pranks in which "normal" people or celebrities are unwitting participants. Maybe Collins didn't do that exactly because drawing attention to those similarities would undermine the supposed uniqueness of Takala's art practice? (I'm not at all an art history expert, but even with my superficial knowledge, it does seem like Takala's work relates pretty obviously "traditional" performance art and isn't sui generis.)
IMO explaining why what Takala does is different than what, say, Nathan Fielder does (beyond his work being funded by HBO and filmed for television) would have made the article stronger for me. I don't *think* it's *just* the art world context that makes Takala's work high culture instead of the low or middlebrow culture of the televised examples I mentioned, but I'd like to hear what Collins thinks. Also, how is what Takala does / did, especially with Close Watch, more or less ethical than what Nathan does / did? It seems like she has to navigate quite similar ethical questions as were raised in the discourse about The Rehearsal.
* "Anyone who dared inquire what she was up to was met with unnerving diffidence: 'Brain work.'" That's very funny!
I agree it's a bit silly to call the rule "unwritten" - of course it's written somewhere, even if it's not exactly posted on signs. I'd assume it's something they encounter frequently at Disney (though probably not with the fakes signing things and continuing after being asked to stop.)
Also, for the record, I would have LOVED to be there for that particular intervention; it sounds very, very funny. And I'm not giving Collins enough credit for how funny her opening paragraph is too. The defamiliarization of the Snow White costume, the dawning realization of what she's describing, then the reveal... to me it was a very well-structured bit of comedy that also managed to reflect Takala's themes and approach but in magazine article format.
I thought the Talk of the Town on pronouncing De Santis's last name was a great example of the low-stakes, half-serious investigations that sometimes make it into that section.
Highlight for me this week was the baseball piece, although I usually like most of the sports content that ends up in the magazine.
I agree, that Talk was pretty good -- I liked that it wove in and out of a few different, related stories, instead of sticking tightly to one. Almost made it in.
I don’t want to nitpick here, but I think the This American Life comparison to Filkins’ piece is based on and perpetuates an error. The segment of that episode that focused on front-line government officials focused on _asylum officers,_ not Border Patrol. They have a fundamentally different role in the system and, as a result, a very different ideological bent -- indeed, the asylum officers’ union has become increasingly vocal on the dovish side of the immigration debate, as a counterbalance to the Border Patrol union’s increasing visibility on the hawkish side.
This is a very good clarification, and something I’d misunderstood (I’m far from an expert on the topic — though neither is Filkins, LOL.) I’ll clarify my wording, though I stand by my later point that that piece demonstrates an understanding this one lacks.
Asylum officers are not enforcement. They are employed by USCIS, the “benefits” (non-enforcement) immigration agency, and their role is the adjudication of humanitarian claims. In practice, they are the government employees who are charged with carrying out the US’ _humanitarian obligations._
This is such a minor thing to get stuck on, but I had a little moment of (rolls eyes in Central Floridian) when Lauren Collins opened the Pilvi Takala piece by making much out of the artist's Paris Disney prank. At least at the American Disney parks, it's very well-known that adults can't dress up in full costume. The hardcore Disney adults even came up with a term for dressing in outfits inspired by specific movies or characters without bending the rules: disneybounding. I don't know, I just found that specific intervention by Takala to be a weak one to start with, given its obviousness and its predictable outcome. (Collins claims adults not being allowed to wear costumes is an "unwritten" rule; while it's an absurd one, it's also well-documented and available in writing on the Disney website: https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/faq/parks/dress/.)
I guess that above does kind of speak to my response to the piece as a whole. On the one hand, I think Takala's art practice is valuable & compelling (I loved the description of "The Trainee" -- I would have read so many more words on how her coworkers reacted*), and I think it's *awesome* that she gets a guaranteed minimum income from Finland.
On the other hand, the actual work doesn't come always across as *more* compelling and rich than, say, The Rehearsal / Nathan for You, Ziwe, or the Eric Andre Show, whose creators certainly all practice the art of awkwardness. It's interesting to me that Collins chose not to put Takala's work in conversation with these more familiar works that are also uneasy-making, social norm-violating, not-exactly-pranks in which "normal" people or celebrities are unwitting participants. Maybe Collins didn't do that exactly because drawing attention to those similarities would undermine the supposed uniqueness of Takala's art practice? (I'm not at all an art history expert, but even with my superficial knowledge, it does seem like Takala's work relates pretty obviously "traditional" performance art and isn't sui generis.)
IMO explaining why what Takala does is different than what, say, Nathan Fielder does (beyond his work being funded by HBO and filmed for television) would have made the article stronger for me. I don't *think* it's *just* the art world context that makes Takala's work high culture instead of the low or middlebrow culture of the televised examples I mentioned, but I'd like to hear what Collins thinks. Also, how is what Takala does / did, especially with Close Watch, more or less ethical than what Nathan does / did? It seems like she has to navigate quite similar ethical questions as were raised in the discourse about The Rehearsal.
* "Anyone who dared inquire what she was up to was met with unnerving diffidence: 'Brain work.'" That's very funny!
I agree it's a bit silly to call the rule "unwritten" - of course it's written somewhere, even if it's not exactly posted on signs. I'd assume it's something they encounter frequently at Disney (though probably not with the fakes signing things and continuing after being asked to stop.)
Also, for the record, I would have LOVED to be there for that particular intervention; it sounds very, very funny. And I'm not giving Collins enough credit for how funny her opening paragraph is too. The defamiliarization of the Snow White costume, the dawning realization of what she's describing, then the reveal... to me it was a very well-structured bit of comedy that also managed to reflect Takala's themes and approach but in magazine article format.
I thought the Talk of the Town on pronouncing De Santis's last name was a great example of the low-stakes, half-serious investigations that sometimes make it into that section.
Highlight for me this week was the baseball piece, although I usually like most of the sports content that ends up in the magazine.
I agree, that Talk was pretty good -- I liked that it wove in and out of a few different, related stories, instead of sticking tightly to one. Almost made it in.
I don’t want to nitpick here, but I think the This American Life comparison to Filkins’ piece is based on and perpetuates an error. The segment of that episode that focused on front-line government officials focused on _asylum officers,_ not Border Patrol. They have a fundamentally different role in the system and, as a result, a very different ideological bent -- indeed, the asylum officers’ union has become increasingly vocal on the dovish side of the immigration debate, as a counterbalance to the Border Patrol union’s increasing visibility on the hawkish side.
This is a very good clarification, and something I’d misunderstood (I’m far from an expert on the topic — though neither is Filkins, LOL.) I’ll clarify my wording, though I stand by my later point that that piece demonstrates an understanding this one lacks.
And don’t be afraid to nitpick — nitpicking’s what we do here!!
Asylum officers are not enforcement. They are employed by USCIS, the “benefits” (non-enforcement) immigration agency, and their role is the adjudication of humanitarian claims. In practice, they are the government employees who are charged with carrying out the US’ _humanitarian obligations._
Ahhh I get it now. OK — recorrecting the correction.