SUB-STACK in its DOM-STACK ERA (for how long?)

AND: "THE PIE CRUST METHOD" OF "RESEARCH"; PLUS: "FOR SCALE" list of stimulus

Snoops,

1. “FOR SCALE” from next week will move to WEDNESDAYs (from MONDAYs).

2. On to regular programming:

For us, what does “SUBSTACK” represent? It represents the world, and it also represents Nothing. (It is our platform, not our Essence.)

But, it’s absolutely interesting (to the brink of ‘concerning’) to see that Everyone On Planet Earth is leaping into it. All are welcome-!!!ISH!!!, but frankly not all should be here.

The course of SUBSTACK does effect DÉCOR DISCOURSE. (How long, we ask, will this be a home of a NEW GENERATION CRITIQUE?; Or, should you soon renew your W.o.I. sub?)

It stresses us out because décorstack is really JUST getting its MOJO, and already there are…

RED FLAGS…

1. … OF SUBSTACK WRITERS:

Much like the world of p*dcastery 10+ years ago (in which we were intimately involved, as an aside), there’s a blood thirst to participate: newcomers see folks cutting through the sh*t and they want to cut through too. Less and less a desire to EXPRESS CRITICAL OPINION and more and more because it’s PERSONA EXTENSION. I.G. is too busy; Pinterest isn’t cool; etc.

YET, they and/or:

(a) don’t really have anything (or enough) to say,
(b) instead of cutting through sh*t, they become simply adders-to the sh*t

And, again similarly to the p*dsphere. And, similarly: the P*dcast and the Substack both appear easy — but in fact are an immense amount of work.

2. … OF SUBSTACK ITSELF:

There are two things that f*ck with us (derogatory).

(a) the reference by Substack itself to those on the platform as “Creators”… kill us now. Put us out of our misery. A USELESS term to begin with (because W.T.F.), but the soul of Substack is THE WRITTEN WORD. This is something it is trying to dismantle as quickly as possible, because:

(b) Substack’s new features lean *ICK*: (i) live video (we believed Substack to be a sanctuary from this), (ii) and in-app purchases (which is cute if you’re “writing” about lipstick, but not if you’re writing about cultural theory, or politics)

So, who is Substack for? *shrug* Who do they WANT Substack to be for? “Influencer.”

R.I.P.?

---

THAT SAID… SUB-STACK
= SUB-JECTIVITY (COMPLIMENTARY)

Death to the impossible notion of OBJECTIVITY. It doesn’t exist at the New York T*mes, it certainly doesn’t f*cking exist in any writing that is about AESTHETIC.

Turning to VIVIAN GORNICK, radical-feminisit-critic-American, who wrote:

“Man is free only when he is doing what the deepest self likes, and knowing what the deepest self likes, ah! that takes some diving.”

(Man? Anyway.)

SUBJECTIVITY is not only what writers of aesthetics all espouse, it is also WHAT THEY SHOULD DEMAND OF YOU. Décor should/could satisfy THE DEEPEST SELF, as a very crucial form of self-expression: it is your nest.

This is sadly not found in the topsoil that is “AMAZON DUPES FOR DESIGN WITHIN REACH” tutorial reno personal video bloggery. WE’RE SORRY — WE WISH IT DID!!!!!!! It would be a simpler world if it did!

And also, less and less is this tectonic depth found in the décor magazines of the mainstream — because as the image reaches its zenith (surely?), writing has become Generic. In A.D. WORD feels as if it is there TO FILL A MAGAZINE, and not the reverse: that a magazine must be made because a certain amount of excellent ideas about décor exist.

Know what we mean?

SUBSTACK has been a refuge for the writer.

And it has been through the mostly unpaid labor of those who want a Better Décor, a more subjective, dimensional, diverse décor that Substack has found such glowing review in the Financ*al Times, etc. (in other words: most Substack writers kind of do this work, the work of reviving décor critique, for free-ish and for fun.)

POP CULTURAL ASIDE:

Notice how CH*RLI XCX has made her best music when finally not trying to be COMMERCIAL?

---

DOMSTACK ERA, and how it could lead to a BETTER DÉCOR

Reading is demanding, THANK GOD. You dive into a Substack, you are paying attention-ish. You are CARING.

And you, the reader, are the VALUE.

… to “FOR SCALE”, to Substack, sure. But also to décor. Because a new wave of critical décor writing is useless as absolute F*CK if those ideas it captures (and occasionally, yes, CREATES) sit in the backs of minds. SHARING is CARING.

BY THE WAY…

But, truly. The death of critic in (most) magazines has meant anyone can get away with anything. Like, we are supposed to “agree” that DEBBY RYAN & JOSH DUN have a home worth critiqueless representation? (IT’S TERRIBLE.) Or that Serena Williams’s art collection doesn’t really just belong in a safety deposit box? (IT’S TERRIBLE.)

Architectural Digest, ET AL., ultimately, FEARS celebrity reprisal or refusals – just as they fear advertisers, who will pull $ if they don’t get favorable review (F*CKED!). And, we’re all the victim; décor is the victim.

Okay but what we’re trying to say is…

The increasing cachet of SUBSTACK, as it enters a DOMSTACK ERA, should not be used to expand the platform into well-worn, worn-out, threadbare territory of “INFLUENCER”.

It should plant it’s f*cking flag in the sand and figure out the tougher question of how to really get better writing to happen and make a difference.

And what we hope is…

We don’t give a sh*t about “SUBSTACK”. Would we very happily see a REJUVENATION of trad print magazines – YES, SURE!!! ARCHITECTURAL DIGEST IS DEAD, LONG LIVE ARCHITECTURAL DIGEST!!!! Long live WORLD OF INTERIORS, LONG MAY SHE REIGN OVER US. ETC.

If you are a magazine: you should note that people are getting excited about V-O-I-C-E and C-R-I-T-I-Q-U-E, and you mostly lack both.

---

BACK TO THIS, THOUGH:

IN SHORT:

IF YOU WANT TO START A SUBSTACK:

Probably don’t?

You must be oozing with opinion; you must really have a lot of spare time on your hands.

---

IF YOU MUST: "THE PIE CRUST METHOD" OF "RESEARCH"

Sharing our approach to “RESEARCH” which is the PIE CRUST METHOD (TM), i.e. it’s a shaggy mess and then all of sudden it comes together and u roll it out (LITERALLY or FIGURATIVELY).

People speak of a writing “PROCESS” — and for us writing is actually “A PROCESSOR”, i.e. a way of processing thoughts. As in, we start with a jumble of random cr*p we think we’re into and in the process of trying to make it sorta-understandable-structured (to others) in fact we figure out what the f*ck we are trying to say.

Should we expand?

WE SHALL END WITH SOME STIMULUS:

INCOMPLETE “FOR SCALE” STIMULUS list, in no particular order

K-HOLE reports; NEST Magazine;

Blackbird Spyplane

; Julia Child; Salone del Mobile (SO F*CKING SUE US!!!!!); George Nelson books; Denise Scott Brown essays; how these two use words — Angela Davis, James Baldwin; conversations with our various Correspondents; L.A. Door (R.I.P., but also it kind of lives on); Eameses, but mostly their movies (SO SUE USE!!!!!); Achille Castiglioni; gay culture and the homosexual agenda; cult leaders; Carl Jung; Karl Marx; Bordieu (the HABITUS!); Baudrillard (SIMULACRUM!); THIS BOOK ABOUT CELINE DION!!!! really crucial, actually; omg Suzanne Slesin books!!!!; Paige Rense; old décor ads; this documentary about how Los Angeles has been represented in/by Hollywood (SO GOOD!!!); Julia Fox

---

Thank you for attending.

Until next week, love and good luck,