She acted like she is the creator of language, and FYI, you did not create language. She also showed painting from the Archer school mural, a picture with a giant creepy eye and painting with the big OTO letter which I found inappropriate for a Christian school.
She talked about her love logo and jewelry, claiming it paid for the watts house renovation when there was an article in the LA Times that questioned the outcome of the project as many residents complained that after months of promises, there was little to show for. Also, Watts Love house was taken over by Fulcrum and it is still a work in progress as they are soliciting donations for it so I did not think her jewelry sale paid for an incomplete project. The article also stated that they collected donations and received funding from LACMA and other grants, not just from her jewelry sale.
Instead of taking responsibility for trying to copy Cartier's love bracelet, she tried to debunk the lawsuit by skimming over it and making it seems like she was fighting a big evil corporation and she lost, but clearly, she lost because she copied them and she has to redo her design.
She also mentioned Keanu Reeves names 4 times by bringing up their collaborative book, Shadow. I feel like this is all about name dropping for validation. As I suspected, she is being invited to various places, not because she has something to say but because she is connected to a celebrity as she has been dubbed by the tabloids as his "girlfriend". I also did not understand why she talked about her books, jewelry, hoodies, charity event, love project, and angel food when this is supposed to be about language and image. It feels like a talk to promote herself, her projects and merchandises.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.