No, this was my first honest-to-dog nightmare, from when I was about 4 years old, though the monster looked more like a blend of Reddy Kilowatt and the glowing guy from classic Scooby-Doo title credits, and stood around 50 feet tall.
9 Likes
It must have been a major nightmare for you to remember it all these years later.
Itâs probably good that you arenât in NYC to have seen it first hand 
My earliest nightmare was not super specific, but if I ever experience anything even close to that, I will lose. my. shit.
7 Likes
1 Like
I remember a lot of dreams and experiences from an early age. I donât have a photographic memory, but I do have a Polaroid one.
6 Likes
an excerpt:
âŚOn the face of it, these two positions seem contradictory. Yet both essays were reprinted in A Susan Sontag Reader (1983). More importantly, in an interview (also in the Reader ) Sontag doesnât disavow the first essay. Rather, the critic argued the two essays show âa continuity, to be sure, in that both statements illustrate the richness of the form-content distinction, as long as one is careful always to use it against itself. My point in 1965 was about the formal implications of content, while the recent essay examines the content implicit in certain ideas of form.â
5 Likes
Itâs almost like youâre an artist or something. 
5 Likes
Really interesting article. Iâd like to send this article to some conservative people I know, as a sort of hint, but I donât think theyâd get it.
4 Likes
Iâve been doing some frame research, as you do, and I have a quiz for you:
What do Dizzy Gilespie, George Reevesâ Clark Kent and Andy Warhol have in common?
They all wore the same frames. See for yourself:
And you can still get them from Moscot. Slight changes over the years, I suppose, but still the same basic idea. No, this is not a sponsored post.
12 Likes
Wow and not actually crazy expensive for frames. Not cheap but cheaper than others I have had.
5 Likes
They say âintellectual.â Clark Kent wore them to anonymize himself, though. That they were clear is probably what attracted Warhol. I donât think that I could pull them off. Theyâre classic, but I donât think that theyâre in vogue, are they?
7 Likes
Be a trend-setter! Or a bellwether!
(or some horrific offspring of a dog and a sheep)
5 Likes
(or some horrific offspring of a dog and a sheep)
A German Shepard that herds itself?
5 Likes
Iâm afraid itâs self-herding cats and their identity crises all the way down.
8 Likes
Being all-plastic and roundish, theyâre not far off from the 70s/80s nerd glasses hipsters have been pairing with toques (and with or without lenses) for a while. I think they have a more flattering shape though. Theyâre kind of like all-plastic versions of the half-hornrim frames which enjoyed a comeback lately.
Besides, with classic eyeglass frames, youâre either on trend or quirkily individualistic. You really canât go wrong.
(Me, I wear decidedly off-trend rimless frames, mostly because I canât be arsed to change them and I like how lightweight they are.)
8 Likes
Damn I love those. I have freakishly large eyes so cannot wear this style unfortunately but I dig it so much.
7 Likes
Vogue, shmogue. The one reason Iâm not considering these, is because it seems like every frame-maker has a knock-off available.
Another sighting:
9 Likes
Dreamy.
8 Likes
I am gradually building a mental image of what you look like irl.
11 Likes
Is that the effect of too much cane sugar or Jiffy Pie Crust Mix?
8 Likes