How you see it and how I see it

Yesterday I met up with a long time friend and Brooklyn business owner and a commercial  real estate developer pal. My friend is looking into expanding his business in Philly so I tagged along with them to scope out neighborhoods talk to other business owners and get a general  feel of  Philadelphia. We had some pretty interesting conversations regarding gentrification, the inevitable boring cloud that will roll over nyc due to pricing out creatives, and we also talked about our various  view on what the future holds as far as urban development.

If you ever want to really get the lowdown on what's to come in your neighborhood, make friends  with a real estate developer and members of city council. So much of the conversations about what will be allowed to go where are are determined  by those two entities...with supposed input from the community residents. The part that was so startling to me about many of the views of the developer was how much money and aquisition of it seemed to be a primarily concern. For examples, the proposed plan to build a gated high rise luxury apartment building in an area of row houses. The community  was completely  against it. The developer  was for it stating that by bring in higher earning residents the city could have more tax revenue. My concern is that property taxes are done based on average  area incomes so that would inevitably push out old tenants by the tax increase. He argued  that the schools and public  facilities, such as parks would get more funding from that and get better...but better for whom? My concern was primarily  for the residents  that currently live in the neighborhood not the rich ones he hoped to invite.  I understand that change is inevitable and cities are constantly in a state of flux. One thing that became very apparent in that conversation is that there is a huge gap in  perspective in how residents  view where they live and developers view that same region. I truely feel that most folks just want a decent roof over their head in a safe and neighborhoor. There are so many people in the business of shaping what that means to potential buyers, often done in a way that doesn't support diversity in age, backgrounds and socioeconomic position. Doing that isn't generally as profitable. So that gap in perspective of what the future of the neighborhood could be is so large that folks are often not even speaking the same language.

I don't think that all developers are bad folks and there are some beautiful examples of valuable developments such as Crane art and the teachers lofts on philadelphia. It's just that so much of the positive development is rarely enjoyed by people of color and old neighborhood residents. I'm sure alot of this has to do with the limited participation and involment if those parties with city planning, funding and development.

That limited involvement sounds like the same problem with every other sector (with the exclusion of activism) of business, from art, fashion, music, finance, tech, entertainment etc. At the end of our conversation I had a series of mixed emotions and thoughts.

Continue Reading


Yo! The Fine folks at Junkprints are hosting the blackest black friday open studio ever. This event is going to be so black that your gonna need a flashlight & affirmative actions to balance it out. Just kidding! I’ve been prepping for the holiday season & am thrilled to be open 11/25-11/27 for all your Junk shopping desires. Free goodies w/ the 1st 10 black friday purchases. Fri Nov. 25th and Sun. Nov. 27th // Noon til 7PM
Continue Reading

The Art of Reproduction

In 1972, BBC released a four-part television series of thirty minute films hosted by writer and art critic John Berger. The series entitled Ways of Seeing sought to explore the effects of reproduction in art. Berger stressed that the invention of the camera changed the world of art because it allowed more people to view a work of art by reproducing it. He noted that the difference between an original painting and a picture is that an original painting can only be in one place at one time, but pictures of the painting can be reproduced in any size and used for any purpose.

For example, take a look at the two pictures below. The first is a reproduction of an "original" Mona Lisa while the second is a picture inspired by the original Mona Lisa.

Caption(pic1): Leonardo da Vinci (Italian, 1452-1519). Mona Lisa (La Gioconda), ca. 1503-05. Oil on poplar wood. 77 x 53 cm (30 3/8 x 20 7/8 in.).

Caption (pic 2): A reproduction of Mona Lisa created for an online Photoshop contest.

According to Berger, most people see the image of a painting rather than the painting itself. Instead of going to a museum to look at a piece of work, art has become too readily available to the public through photographs, television, and since the production of the series, the internet. Due to this increase of viewers the meaning of the painting has become as transmittable because as more people view the work, more opinions of its meaning are created that differ from the artist's original intent. I'm sure that Leonardo da Vinci did not intend for his work to be transformed into the picture from above, but that is a result of reproduction.

In the series, Berger asserts that reproductions have replaced original art and have therefore cheapened art as we know it. He explains that the reason that the originals are so awe-inspiring when viewed is because of their market value. An original art of work is in limited supply (there is only one) therefore that one piece of work has a high market value whereas a reproduction of the piece can be sold for a significantly lower price. In the business world, this is similar to the relationship between supply and price in which a higher supply of a product results in a lower price.

The series basically claims that reproductions have destroyed art because it has opened it up to more opinions and manipulation. What do you think? Is reproduction good because it provides more people access to view art or bad because it "cheapens" it?

Below is the first part of Ways of Seeing:

For more on reproduction check out the Junkprints shop where you can purchase prints from Chanel's "No Original" series which addresses the topic of reproduction. Yes, the prints are in fact reproductions, but they are seriously cool.

Below is a piece from the "No Original" series:

Caption: "No Original" series "Twigged Out" print. Each 13”x19” print is printed on archival matte paper, signed and numbered. Only 50 have been printed.

Continue Reading

Mini Elephants

If you keep up with the Dookyblog, or at least read the last post then you would know that Chanel has recently moved operations to a new location. Congrats to Junkprints! This means that we will have more room to raise our miniature elephants. Below is a picture of me and our elephant "Tiny".

So, it's obviously not real. Original picture w/o my gorgeous mug is from .
Continue Reading

Etsy HQ Wall of Records

Yesterday we (me and Mr. Tough Dumplin) completed the installation of the Etsy HQ wall of records! Rockin it it rockin it yes we are rockin it. Now I can truly say I have incorporated a Milli Vanilli image into a professional project I’ve worked on. Girl you know it’s true!

plan your work, work your plan.

'Stay Handmade' created from laser cut backs of album covers filled with 12" vinly. Etsy letters cut from 12" LPs over orange arcylic circles on square clear acrylic panels.

Desk features 12" and 45 vinyl.

Each record is linked with 1" binder rings through upcycled white grommets from the close down belt factory.

Continue Reading

High End Ink

Now this isn't necessarily a fashion blog. No runway reviews or daily outfit posts will be found on the Dookyblog anytime soon. However, there are times that we like to point out interesting things in the fashion community because we are a part of it even if we don't take it too seriously. In other words, just because someone tells me that clogs are in fashion doesn't mean I am going to run to the store to buy them. So just because Chanel is now selling pretty neat looking fake tattoos in their stores doesn't mean I am going to fly to Paris to buy them. Especially since they run at $75.00 for a box of 50. If you do the math that is about $1.50 per tattoo which really isn't too bad, but who buys fake tattoos in bulk? If given the chance would I wear the tattoos? No, but that's only because wearing fake tattoos or real ones isn't my style. Would I judge people who bought the Chanel tattoos? No, because I think they are cool if you can pull them off and who am I to tell you how to spend your $75.00? If someone gave you $75.00 dollars to buy something what would you buy? Would you buy the Chanel tattoos, or treat two of your friends to dinner at the Cheesecake Factory even if you don't particularly care for cheesecake? I call dibs on the Cheesecake Factory idea.
Continue Reading

Costco and Designer Handbags: A Match Made in Heaven?

Let’s talk about how Costco just started selling Chanel and Louis Vuitton bags. My sources say that the bags are indeed real, but isn’t it more fabulous buying a designer bag from its store. Who wants pick up their dog food, Thanksgiving turkey, and Louis Vuitton Speedy bag in the same place? Okay, maybe everyone. At Costco Chanel Classic Flap handbags are available for $1,999 while Louis Vuitton Speedy Bags go for $589 there. I’ll admit that it’s convenient, but it takes away the glamour of buying a Louis Vuitton bag and having it wrapped up for you buy a Louis Vuitton sales associate. At Costco maybe “Bill” will hand you your bag that you’ll have to throw into your cart because your five-year-old is pulling you towards the lady with free samples of meatballs.

Let’s keep it funky for a moment. I definitely can’t afford a Louis Vuitton bag from the Louis Vuitton store or Costco. I just think it’s interesting that something that seemed so unattainable to the masses is now more readily available to those who can (or, think they can) afford it.

Personally, I’m not really into wearing bags or clothing with logos. I figure that if I am promoting a company I should be getting paid to do so, instead of paying to do it. Now that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t wear a Louis Vuitton or Chanel bag, I just prefer the ones without logos on them. I am definitely not a “label whore” (I didn’t come up with that moniker). See picture below:

Lil Kim by David LaChapelle

If you are like me and have a more modest budget then check out the Junkprints store for some cool finds. And no, Chanel Kennebrew (no relation to Coco) didn’t pay me for this plug.

Continue Reading


Wow dudes this week has been a pretty crazy press week. My goodies were on The Good Morning America show this morning! We are such crack heads when I dusted off my TV and tuned in the first thing I thought was damn Martha Stewart has two shows now? Sorry Diane, it's been awhile. I must admit that it's super funny to have Diane Sawyer standing next to the Color Blind Glasses Tee.

Watch the show here. BTW, See that cute penguin, that's all Sweetest pea. Check out her nifty toys.
Continue Reading