Showing posts with label articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label articles. Show all posts

12.30.2009

New Year's Eve

One of the many great things about New York City is that we get the biggest and most watched New Year's Eve celebration. In preparation (2010 is only mere days away!) I figured I'd take you through the history of our famous event.


History of the Times Square New Year's Eve and the Infamous Ball


New York in 1904 was a city on the verge of tremendous changes - and, not surprisingly, many of those changes had their genesis in the bustling energy and thronged streets of Times Square. Two innovations that would completely transform the Crossroads of the World debuted in 1904: the opening of the city's first subway line, and the first-ever celebration of New Year's Eve in Times Square. This inaugural bash commemorated the official opening of the new headquarters of The New York Times. The impressive Times Tower, marooned on a tiny triangle of land at the intersection of 7th Avenue, Broadway and 42nd Street, was at the time Manhattan's second-tallest building -- the tallest if measured from the bottom of its three massive sub-basements, built to handle the heavy weight demands of The Times' up-to-date printing equipment.

The building was the focus of an unprecedented New Year's Eve celebration. Ochs spared no expense to ensure a party for the ages. An all-day street festival culminated in a fireworks display set off from the base of the tower, and at midnight the joyful sound of cheering, rattles and noisemakers from the over 200,000 attendees could be heard, it was said, from as far away as Croton-on-Hudson, thirty miles north along the Hudson River.



Two years later, the city banned the fireworks display - but Ochs was undaunted. He arranged to have a large, illuminated seven-hundred-pound iron and wood ball lowered from the tower flagpole precisely at midnight to signal the end of 1907 and the beginning of 1908.

In 1914, The New York Times outgrew Times Tower and relocated to 229 West 43rd Street. By then, New Year's Eve in Times Square was already a permanent part of our cultural fabric.


New Year's Eve Ball, 1978. Photo credit - The New York Times

The first balls:


The first New Year's Eve Ball, made of iron and wood and adorned with one hundred 25-watt light bulbs, was 5 feet in diameter and weighed 700 pounds. It was built by a young immigrant metalworker named Jacob Starr, and for most of the twentieth century the company he founded, sign maker Artkraft Strauss, was responsible for lowering the ball.

As part of the 1907-1908 festivities, waiters in the fabled "lobster palaces" and other deluxe eateries in hotels surrounding Times Square were supplied with battery-powered top hats emblazoned with the numbers "1908" fashioned of tiny light bulbs. At the stroke of midnight, they all "flipped their lids" and the year on their foreheads lit up in conjunction with the numbers "1908" on the parapet of the Times Tower lighting up to signal the arrival of the new year.

The Ball has been lowered every year since 1907, with the exceptions of 1942 and 1943, when the ceremony was suspended due to the wartime "dimout" of lights in New York City. Nevertheless, the crowds still gathered in Times Square in those years and greeted the New Year with a minute of silence followed by the ringing of chimes from sound trucks parked at the base of the tower - a harkening-back to the earlier celebrations at Trinity Church, where crowds would gather to "ring out the old, ring in the new."

In 1920, a 400 pound ball made entirely of wrought iron replaced the original. In 1955, the iron ball was replaced with an aluminum ball weighing a mere 200 pounds. This aluminum Ball remained unchanged until the 1980s, when red light bulbs and the addition of a green stem converted the Ball into an apple for the "I Love New York" marketing campaign from 1981 until 1988. After seven years, the traditional glowing white Ball with white light bulbs and without the green stem returned to brightly light the sky above Times Square. In 1995, the Ball was upgraded with aluminum skin, rhinestones, strobes, and computer controls, but the aluminum ball was lowered for the last time in 1998.



The 2000-2007 Waterford Crystal ball


The Times Square New Year's Eve Ball 2000-2007


For Times Square 2000, the millennium celebration at the Crossroads of the World, the New Year's Eve Ball was completely redesigned by Waterford Crystal. The new crystal Ball combined the latest in technology with the most traditional of materials, reminding us of our past as we gazed into the future and the beginning of a new millennium.
The Ball was a geodesic sphere, six feet in diameter, and weighed approximately 1,070 pounds. It was covered with a total of 504 Waterford crystal triangles that varied in size and ranged in length from 4.75 inches to 5.75 inches per side.



The new LED crystal ball


The New New Year's Eve Ball

The new Times Square New Year’s Eve Ball is a 12 foot geodesic sphere, double the size of previous Balls, and weighs 11,875 pounds. Covered in 2,668 Waterford Crystals and powered by 32,256 Philips Luxeon Rebel LEDS, the new Ball is capable of creating a palette of more than 16 million vibrant colors and billions of patterns producing a spectacular kaleidoscope effect atop One Times Square.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of people still gather around the Tower, now known as One Times Square, and wait for hours in the cold of a New York winter for the famous Ball-lowering ceremony. Thanks to satellite technology, a worldwide audience estimated at over one billion people watches the ceremony each year. The lowering of the Ball has become the world's symbolic welcome to the New Year.



All info from Times Square Alliance

12.14.2009

Eyewear for the ages

I love any man who spends time to refine his look. I enjoy dandys, fops, cads, any of the types who really care about their appearance. This however, almost seems a bit ridiculous, even for me...


From the Telegraph UK:

Monocles to be sold on High Street

Vision Express, a chain of opticians, is to start selling the lenses after an unexpected spate of requests for monocles.

It believes most of the requests have come from young men wanting to ape the fashion of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers.

The eyepieces cost £50 and come with a metal frame, a pouch, and a string so the wearer ensures it stays around his or her neck if it slips.

Read more of the article here

8.16.2009

The Vampire phenomenom

Bela Lugosi as the best Dracula ever (he was even buried in his cape)


Everywhere I turn these days people are talking about vampires. True Blood, Twilight, it's everywhere. I think I never got into the whole "vampire" thing when I was young and impressionable partially because I have natural fangs (which my dentist always begs to let file down) and I get enough comments as it is about whether my teeth are real or if I made them that way. It's just genetics and I like them, but if I was a crazy goth girl though I'm sure I'd never hear the end of it.

Stephen Moyer as the vampire Bill Compton in HBO's True Blood


It's funny because lately I had fought the new wave of vampire frenzy until I couldn't take it anymore. I watched two episodes of True Blood before Season 2 began and was hooked. I had to find all the old episodes online so I'd be caught up for the new season. Now I can't wait for Sunday nights.


Robert Pattinson as Twilight's Edward Cullen


I never read the Twilight books until recently. I devoured two of them in a week (they are over 500 pages each) and now I just started the third. They are seriously so good it's embarrasing.


Nosferatu



There is a great article from the NY Times about the vampire in TV and movies here

Vlad the Impaler


and you can brush up on your vampire knowledge easily on wikipedia

Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt in the movie "Interview with the Vampire"



Also, you can see how it's affecting fashion and what to expect for Fall (hint, it's a bit darker than usual...) here

5.27.2009

Tattoos





Feel how you may about tattoos, they are widely becoming more popular and accetable in our culture. Even my 56 year old mother just got her first one last year. Sometimes they can be god awful, but sometimes they can be very very good, and though some people preach for fully authentic vintage looks, I appreciate the girls who can be traditional, and yet still slightly of the times. Plus, as much as anyone would like you to think only sailors had tattoos back in the day, it's just not true. They just happened to have the most of them ;)

I've had a picture of this girl saved on my computer for I don't even know how long. I love her look with the tattoos peaking out, and to me it doesn't take away from her look, but add to it:

Sammi Sadler from UK


I've always studied this girl's make up and hair styling's via livejournal. I love how it's retro with an edge
You can see more on her livejournal page here



There is also the famous pin-up Sabina Kelley. A mom, animal activist and devoted wife, she represents the pin-up spirit with her modern edge.
photo by Shannon Brooke Imagery



There is also a great article in the NY Times right now titled "Seafarers' Memoirs, Written on Skin" about the origins of tattooing as a review for an exhibit opening at The Independence Seaport Museum in Philadelphia, PA.



More information about the exhibit and related programs can be found on the museum's website here

1.06.2009

Daughter Dearest: Joan Crawford in Vanity Fair



It seems I'm rehashing all the oldies but goodies lately, and frankly I just don't care. While cleaning my desk I found an old Vogue (which I must have clearly kept for the Hitchcock spread with classic imagery reenacted) and I found/remembered the great article contained within about Joan Crawford.

I always loved Joan Crawford, and never knew who to believe - the two children who spoke harshly of her, or the two that claim they could have never had a better mother. It's a very interesting read, covering both sides of story. Make your own decisions.


Daughter Dearest
One of Hollywood’s greatest stars, Joan Crawford, was redefined as a sadistic control freak by Mommie Dearest, her daughter’s 1978 tell-all. In an excerpt from the author’s new Crawford biography, based in part on interviews with another Crawford daughter, a very different story emerges.
by Charlotte Chandler March 2008, Vanity Fair

1.02.2009

Where Have All the Girdles Gone?

There is a great article in the NY Times T Magazine that I just stumbled upon today:







Belt Tightening
SPANX, SCHMANX. DAPHNE MERKIN DOES IT THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY.

Where are the girdles of yesteryear? The ones women of all ages once wore as a matter of course, huffing and puffing as they tugged at the reinforced elastic and lace, the better to encase their bodies to trimmest effect. The ones that were so pivotal that the 19th-century sexologist Havelock Ellis felt compelled to weigh in, insisting that girdles were ‘‘morphologically essential’’ because the evolution from ‘‘horizontality to verticality’’ was more difficult for women than for men. (Without them, Ellis grandly theorized, ‘‘woman might be men. (Without them, Ellis grandly theorized, ‘‘woman might be physiologically truer to herself if she went always on all fours’’ rather than try to imitate men by ‘‘standing erect.’’) How is it, then, as I discovered when I went in quest of a girdle, that this once culturally mandated undie has disappeared from the sartorial landscape like so much melted snow?
I remember the fascination girdles used to hold for me as a child growing up in the ’60s, the unvarying feminine ritual of them, taken on — or so it seemed to me — as a burdensome birthright. It might have been catching a glimpse of the pinkish rubbery garment with hooks and eyes up the front, custom-made by a European corsetiere, that my grandmother used to wear under her button-down shirtdresses when she came for her annual visit from Tel Aviv. Or watching as my mother prepared to go out for an evening, stuffing herself into a less sweat-inducing but still body-transforming version before she bent down to fasten her stockings to the garters, and then, looking like an apparition out of ‘‘The Blue Angel,’’ walked into her bathroom to apply makeup. Where had my mother’s mercurial ungirdled self gone to, I wondered. Did her inner dimensions change along with the outer, becoming more streamlined and compact? In my mind there was something immutably glamorous and grown-up about the very confinement of a girdle, demonstrating that you were no longer an indecorous girl but a woman, willing to suffer extreme discomfort in aid of — let’s strip to the bare truth of it — capturing and keeping the male gaze.

Read the rest of the great article here


And if you're interested in trying out a girdle on your own(you'll thank yourself), here are some of the best websites:

whatkatiedid
girdlebound
magnolia hosiery

12.31.2008

National Academy's death knell

So it seems the National Academy Museum in New York has been blacklisted by the American Association of Museums and Association of Art Museum Directors for selling off two pieces of art to cover operating costs rather than to acquire new work, as is the only permitted reason for deaccessioning.

In an e-mail message on Dec. 5 to its 190 members, it denounced the academy, founded in 1825, for “breaching one of the most basic and important of A.A.M.D.’s principles” and called on members “to suspend any loans of works of art to and any collaborations on exhibitions with the National Academy.”


I'm on the National Academy's side, and agree that it should be fair for them to claim "We’re going to go broke or we’re going to sell off two paintings, what do you think?’"

Read the full article on the NY Times here

10.14.2008

Banksy's pet store in New York



Banksy is elusive, iconic, and now possibly off his rocker. Known mainly for his political grafitti wall murals (people in England have placed bullet proof glass over the works and sold their homes as "Banksy mural with attached home") in various cities across the world has landed in New York City creating his first official art installation. No, you wont see any of the girls pining over floating away red balloons or rats with army hats (at least not inside), but you will find a menagerie of other works that may seem on the surface to be humorous, but deep down send the same strength political message.



You can read the entire article about the show on the New York Times website, or visit the "The Village Pet Store and Charcoal Grill" yourself before October 31st at 89 Seventh Avenue South (near Bleeker Street).

10.03.2008

Gilbert and George at the Brooklyn Museum



So because I have been sick this week I missed the Gilbert and George opening I was really looking forward to at the Brooklyn Museum. However this will not stop me from seeing it at some point before it closes in January 2009.

If you don't know who Gilbert and George are, you're living in a hole. I will accept that maybe some people don't know about their important early perfomance ("sculpture") works, or why they still wear the matching, slightly too small, tweed suits, but at some point in time, anyone who has ever stepped foot into a museum has probably seen an image by these two men.

The show at the Brooklyn Museum is the final venue in a large travelling retrospective of their work.

To read the NY Times review of the show go here

You can also see a few images, and get directions on how to get to this amazing show at the Brooklyn Museum website