Today I heard 90 minutes of how many ways my arguments for my thesis topic make no sense, basically because my interpretations are abstract and theoretical, rather than literal. My question is: why should only a text be used as evidence for its own meaning? I'll spare you my arguments, but consider this: these dresses by Aleksandra Lalić are absolutely gorgeous in their McQueen-esque shapes. That is obvious just by looking at them. But, when you do some research into the dress (i.e. when you look into their context), you'll discover that they're made not of felted wool, but of felted human hair. Things - and words - aren't always what they appear. Nor should we assume that things are a certain way because we expect them to be. Sometimes, felt can be human hair, and a female poetic persona can be a male poet.
(Photos via Aleksandra's blog)
