Posted by: Sk | February 19, 2009

6 Situation of perspective: zoom on Inés de la Fressange

Luckily some time has passed, and most serious considerations have gathered around another interesting story, the one of Athina Onassis. It leaves time to consider even why you get involved in things without anyone’s permission, as if some sacred medieval knight’s spirit had invaded your contemporary mind blinding it to any other understanding.Of course I may blame Inés de la Fressange herself for her seducing name, which at the end, is at the origin of the whole disaster, but I suspect it is too simple as an excuse. Although I have already given long explanations to myself in concerning the justification of such an invasion of other people’s private life, which is rather not of my custom, I’ll have to draw the lines again in order to get to some general conclusion concerning such devoted defense of princesses kept by dragons in obscure towers.Of course I was as usual amusing myself with some extraordinary characters, as principle derived of logical systems (Mr Dashtag for Google and Ms Wingsurf for WordPress) in when my usual search for general balances obliged me to introduce a third factor, some character whose more aleatory and spontaneous nature should build bridges between and around the before mentioned. I thought a French fashion character would do it and my forlorn memories brought back the name of Inés de la Fressange to my mind, who, I thought, would never but never get aware of such an unproper usurpation. There are many reasons of the need even of a real, copied and usurpated name, but these are long and exhausting explanations which would be given only under specific request.My Inés de la Fressange was thus happily irritating my American characters with her usual non chalance when time passed, and the very mention of the name did attract some information through the Dashboard (searches for pictures referring to pages and events), which woke up my curiosity. Who may this person be at the end? I asked myself, quite puzzled about the possible link between my ironical contemplations and reality. And immediately the first pictures give birth to whole tons of hilarious stories, where reality as inspiration generates the most extravagant inventions. ( )Perhaps there was a moment when I asked myself whether my imaginations would not have some effect on reality and whether a real Inés de la Fressange would not finish by claiming millions for my abusive use of her name, so that I start very carefully making some researches on the more social aspect of the person, see how to face some anger, if ever of need. It’s then that I discover through wikipedia that some obscure judicial affair was related to my aery princess, which fills me of surprise. Ça alors … I think. I knew that things were not specially well in France but to that point …My curiosity is thus woken up concerning what seems to me to be  at first glance  an obvious judicial mistake (anticonstitutional and if depending on contract, abuse of clause of contract*), because it was my job in Greece to deal with such horrible events and make great wars against arbitrary angers resulting from frustrated pretensions stopped by law as given.Intuitively I make up a story. I feel fashion people hate courts for obvious reasons and that this distance may be a prejudice for whoever damaged, if it were the case. What, I think, if some deeper misbehaviours are not cut short by some excuse, which may even explain a judicial mistake? You always have to be very careful with these things as circumstances do often give light on things whose first appearance may be a shouting error.As I go on with my investigations moved by a real interest for the extreme complication of the story, I do neither presume an innocence nor a guilt, the construction as it will follow has as goal only to move things enough so as to get the proper information. Thus, two enthousiastical defenders of Inés de la Fressange are built up: the hooligan, a young devoted admiror of the same, whose finality is to get as much information as possible in an environment where rights reserved are so heavy that only an innocent and unaware hooligan may cross all barriers, and a Russian Prince, whose steady and serious exploitation of the material in question allows more serious positionings and attacks, whose feedback may allow to get a proper image of the whole situation.Of course, my fantasy can’t avoid developping the characters far beyond their limited functionality and thus, another series of incongruous stories is born from their very presence. Strangely, the results obtained through their very limited perspective are quite satisfactory. Comments on the court’s decision in 2002 are found on a Spanish site in Alicante where some French lawyers publish different texts … in pdf.After a while, the ‘I’ who takes critical and almost frozen distances from the admirors, whose presence allow covering a damaging to image judicial affair with some romance and Maurice Leblanc inspired novel characters, collapses under one horrible evidence: this woman is a disaster. Thus, in my thoughts, making fun on the epithéte “le manequin qui parle” (the model who talks) I start refering myself to her with “le manequin qui racontait n’importe quoi” (the model who says whatever), gloomingly drawing the consequences of a wider spread similar behaviour.At a certain moment, I even think of closing my investigations with a sudden distance, not wanting to disturb her happy wanderings (which though look quite depressed, I think) around the fashion world with the quite negative conclusions as arising at that moment. But that’s it, I consider, as if giving in to the pressure of the pretended admirors, this woman looks so horribly sad, even, yes, even I really can’t agree with what appears under my eyes.How strange. Is there a possibility of considering things differently? Are there things that escape my attention and are distorting my view on the whole? What has really happened?At that moment I don’t consider a judicial affair as such. The question arising is how I would have judged a person, from a moral point of view, not from a social perspective. As if the fact of determining whether there was or not moral innocence, may allow to consider things from another angle. This time I’m really curious, as challenged by the very appearance of the question to solve an almost logical impossibility: were it possible to establish the moral guilt or innocence from someone?I wander down and along information as appearing: sentences, answers, happenings. I even visit shools and streets in my virtual cyber world, as if it were possible to get a concrete answer through the mass of information as arriving through different chanels. I reconstruct historical events, social classes, syntaxical structures, try one impossible thing: to see things from her virtual point of view. In the meantime the Russian Prince is left carte blanche to continue proving his most devoted admiration as if in spite of the evident awareness of the possibility I may discover even darker aspects of a ravaging logic, there was something wanting necessarily to cover with some veil even the most disastruous consequences.More than anything it is an analysis on language that finishes by building up the fine lines of an answer, while I continue observing my own reactions developed through the characters, as if they could be the clue to some more hidden mechanisms revealing themselves in the intuitive answer to what is left by empirical impressions. One day I may have been woken up keeping in the depth of my unconscious the evidence of some innocence, which I was maintaining almost against all proof as of need for a constructed character, becoming image for others.That day I decided that such an innocence was worth the while fighting for and dedicated a whole amount of headers (, , , among others) to the claim of such a belief, whose last ressources laid in the understanding of general structures difficult to grasp. That day the Russian Prince died in Siberia and was substituted by a more convinced ‘I’ who didn’t need of devotions but just of proofs in order to maintain an evidence.The conclusion was finally driven the following way: it seemed obvious that this quite peculiar person, I must say, had inherited patterns of structuring reality that were ‘refracted’. In short you may say, that the said word was pointing through the undertone to another meaning than the one resulting from the very identity of the word itself. And this inside of a general logical mechanism that tended to associate more intuitive realities (feelings, desires, of the general realm of pleasure or disliking) to abstract quailities of immediate perception (colours, volumes, etc.) Extremely effective in a world where the immediate association of senses to a given liking may warrant success, fashion, it creates a disastruous financial or legal environment and most of all, the complete incapability of defense in realms governed by other principles than fashion itself.Not only it could be presumed that these structures were resulting in a complete effective isolation, in spite of all success (perhaps similar to the one of Marilyn Monroe and other on different scales), it was an evidence that the apparent weakness in the organization of reality could be the source for less successfull entities and beings to want exploiting it in order to get the most benefit out of a success that was though warranted only by her sole presence.That this was so, became most obvious through the recurrent observation of the video for Roger Vivier in . What strikes the mind? She is trying to give back an ordered commercial speech, which as such is neither surprising nor strange. Strange though is that at a certain moment she closes the hand to a fist. This person is very nervous, you conclude. Why? Someone who has been walking down model shows all her life. I may. Why should she? It becomes obvious that the type of speech is not natural to her, that she may have probably learned it by heart. The tension arising from the effort gives back the measure of difference to what would be her natural speech and thus, her natural ordering of reality. The evidence becomes apalling: she’d never understand a structured word as such in fields as law, economy or other.You may say, so what. I don’t understand the specific language of computer people or fashion or cinema. So what, I think at the end, if only you have people you may trust taking care of the other aspects of reality. What happens though if you don’t and you just attract the type of people who is going to rob you out of everything? It’s there where law should decide and where, to my understanding, law failed. You will never make of a lawyer a genius of fashion, and should never expect that a genius of fashion may speak the same language than a lawyer. The fact though of not speaking a concrete language should not make of you the victim of those who pretend to deserve all just because they deal with concepts differently.Without wanting to intervene in court’s decisions, it seems to me an evidence that is the intellectual’s responsibility to point at these kind of facts. And if law and court do play the game of those who want to take away everything for nothing, it may become a burning image to do the same for those: I say, her name her surname her image are hers. It’s obvious that if the court does not want to see its attributions be taken away by the need of restoring justice otherwise, it should judge in justice.If the court doesn’t like its attributions be relegated to the public opinion, may you understand what it may mean to see your name, your signature, your image in the hands of those who just violate law in order to get some temporary benefit?Seen from that point of view, it’s to my understanding of moral obligation to question a certain number of decisions, which, if well founded, build the frame of the freedom of speech. Which is not the loud shouting around for pretended rights, but the well founded questioning of happenings which may as such, influence through jurisprudence broadest fields of human activity.* What strikes the mind while reading about the court’s decision, and most specifically in France, is that a name, surname, signature, image may be taken away from someone as it is (if I remember well) a constitutional right (if not only law): “le droit à l’image est inaliénable”, (the right to image is essential – can’t be taken away from someone) which is the same for the name, surname and last but not least, the signature.If you think about things a little deeper and you consider the usual extravagancy of the fashion world (contracts of exclusivity and many quite border line clauses: as if they were constantly playing with fire), you’re somehow obliged to put some legal barriers to all sorts of inspirations: first) you can’t sell a name, second) if you put it to the disposition of a company (césion de droits), this may only be valid as long as the contract lasts, as otherwise (and it seems to be exactly what happens) some may be tempted by just throwing you out under a vulgar excuse in order not only to keep everything for themselves but to leave a third almost without possibilities of survival by her/himself, as the main tools of her/his work are taken away from her/him. Of course punitive clauses in cases of broken contract of her/his side, are usually necessary: you can’t just stand up and leave a company without name or logo or whatever just because it pleases you, but as it happened there is obvious abuse and deliberate distruction of a career, perhaps just because it deemed to some that to become a Marianne meant to belong to the extreme right and had to be consequently punished.There is where I think that the specific logic of someone who signs a contract, is to be considered for evaluation: I see that immediately and don’t sign or cause restriction. Someone in a refracted logic does not see the possible trap arising from a determined clause and signs and may loose everything.Inside of different logics it is an evidence that there are some that you may consider ill (mental illness). And there are others that are not only not ill, but whose specificity allows the talented development of an activity in a given field. It is obvious though that these logics do usually produce incapability of understanding of more common logics, so that those people have very often problems in social environment (to take the example of Mozart). Logically justice is there in order to restore balances in view and consideration of higher laws that do forbid actually the execution of some or other deviated interpretation or clause as such.You may say the same for the reasons Inès de la Fressange is fired by Lagerfeld: he argues that she has signed a contract of exclusivity and that the fact of modelling for the French town hall’s counsel (mairies de France), who have chosen her as Marianne is cause of rupture of contract. Now, it is of evidence that an exclusivity can only apply to a company and in no case to a national entity, as the town hall is, and that Lagerfeld could have been sued at that time not only for that but for insulting behaviour towards a national symbol: “I don’t dress a statue”, he said, whereas he was not supposed, it would have been an honour he didn’t get, to dress the statue itself, but a model who may maintain her right against all private contract to submit to national obligations or honours. Or may the young actor be fired in a contract of exclusivity if he goes to the army, if of obligation in the country in question? It is absurd.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: