AboutEverythingElse

Mira Schendel :: sem título :: 1964

Being is not having.

A purse is no trophy.

Shoes are not a pedestal.

A movie theater is not an amusement park, and the restaurant table is not a tribune.

Aesthetic intervention is not a matter of public interest.

A company badge is not a medal for merit.

The concepts of ‘exhibition’ and ‘elegance’ are mutually exclusive when applied to people.

You can convert identity into image. The opposite, however, is not possible.

Every personal consultant you hire represents a confessed incompetence.

Neckline and skirt (or dress) length increases in direct proportion. Alcohol level and adequacy, however, in reverse proportion.

Swear words mean lack of vocabulary.

You have to be beautiful to be a model, but you don’t have to be a model to be beautiful.

The use of kindness and courtesy is not proportionality related to the socioeconomic status of the listener.

leia mais

Photo :: Gabrielle Chanel

Almost 100 years after her first creations, Chanel is still revered in the fashion world – and outside as well. In an era when products, thoughts and relationships are increasingly ephemeral, one should wonder why such a long stay.

Freeing the woman from rigid attires at the end of the nineteenth century (which favored ostentation at the expense of comfort), Chanel reproduced, on an industrial scale, her own image – a distinctive image in absolute harmony with her personality and the historical moment in which she lived. And here lies the secret of her stay in the collective imagination for so long: we are not fascinated by her clothes, necklaces or perfumes – we are fascinated by her identity both strong and unique, which is revealed to us through the objects she used and (re)produced.

Some say that the intensity of Chanel’s presence annulled those of her rivals. It doesn’t seem to me, however, that this fascination came from the objects she chose to wear… On the contrary, such objects were personal and conscious choices, result of the intensity of her thinking – and of the understanding that, also by dressing, she expressed her own identity.

Ironically, the industrial production of a unique personal style has become a paradox – to the point when Chanel herself stated: “I am no longer what I once was: I must be what I have become.” The desire for a socially recognized and valued image combined with the lack of knowledge and reflection on oneself make thousands of people seek in bags, shoes and clothes the ability to grant them personality and identity, in a total reversal of roles.

As I once wrote in the text ‘About dressing’ (Jan, 2011), beauty lies in being and perceiving ourselves as unique. Beautiful, therefore, is not to own Chanel – beautiful is to be Chanel.

Piet Mondrian :: Composition C :: 1935

I watched the final minutes of the interview with Roberto DaMatta in the show Roda Viva, on TV Cultura channel, last January 10th. Since then, I have been thinking about something he stated firmly: “Human beings need to learn the meaning of the word ‘enough’. What is enough for me? What satisfies me? This question is fundamental, terrible, critical.”

We live in a time when there is almost no room for reflection, and certain ways of being and having are spread as universal truths: the clothes you ‘must’ wear, the car you ‘must’ own, the music you ‘must’ listen to, the place you ‘must’ go to… So many people repeat such “truths” without any reflection or questioning! And worse, many others suffer and blame themselves for failing to pull off a particular ‘being’ or a certain ‘must-have’!

Seeking something without being aware of how much of it is enough only intensifies dissatisfaction and anxiety in each one of us – because the conquest of that which we do not want does not bring any pleasure to the soul.

Being aware of what is enough for us is like being free. Looking within ourselves and understanding the measure of what we want to have, be, use, feel or hear is the only way to extend the pleasures that we can offer to our soul every day.