Anyone see these pictures?! Or perhaps watch the destruction of this Hermès Birkin bag...? Gotta' love angst celebrity kids...
So these photos are the product of Francesca Eastwood (yes, daughter of the prolific Clint) and her photographer boyfriend Tyler Sheilds' pent-up, stereotypical, rich kid rebellion. Verbatim: "Destruction is a beautiful version of freedom…".
For those of you who aren't aware of the magnitude of the Birkin bag, let me put it in perspective for you... THESE ARE THE MOST COVETED BAGS IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. THERE IS A WAITING LIST TO GET ONE. Also, some of them can run upwards of $100,000, although, this one in particular was a mere $60,000.
Sheilds is an established celebrity photographer "based out of L.A." according to his website (not really clear where he IS based, so don't ask). Having photographed a lot of young Hollywood— including Lindsay Lohan, Mischa Barton, Emma Roberts, Aaron Paul, Demi Lovato, Juno Temple, and Shiloh Fernandez, in an interview with Elle magazine, Sheilds stated: “I’m an artist. I’m not a politician. I’ll tell you exactly what I think, and I’ll do exactly what I want to do. And I’m the most honest f-cking person you’ll ever meet, because I put it out there for the whole world to see,”.
OH! Perhaps an attitude I should adopt for my blogging...!?
Naturally the above picures sparked a lot of controversy, mainly manifesting itself through everyone's favourite social media site! (Twitter, of course!) Here's a little look at the back lash:
"Some of us actually have to work and live check 2 check, spoiled rotten b***h to burn 100k bag."
"Wow.... The $100k wasted on this pointless shoot could of been used to benefit a number of charities or ppl in real need. Just crazy."
Err... It was $60,00, actually. But who's nitpicking?!
(Now, I don't know about you, but I get rather infuriated when people seem unable to articulate their arguments with factual, or grammatical grace. There's a certain decline in credibility after the first spelling mistake, or comma misuse for me.. but I understand the limitations of the 140 Twitter character limit, and under these circumstances, I won't worry too much.)
These are the tamer tweets, I must say. Even I don't feel comfortable with showing examples of the death threats, which were pretty nasty, if I'm honest (as they do tend to be, obviously).
There's more though... on Sheilds' website, he links to a previous shoot where the high-end fashion house object victim this time was a pair of Louboutins...
This is what Sheilds' had to say about this shoot (if I'm honest, it made me like the guy- grammar appauling, but the message is feasible):
"Christian Louboutin make the toughest shoes in the world it took 7 saws to get through this shoe, 4 blades were destroyed and after 20 minutes of drilling we were through. You want to know why someone would pay this much for a pair of shoes because they are like minni tanks women wear that get them safely from one spot to the next!"
And...
"Never let an object own you.
Would you buy these shoes?"
Now, Eastwood's reaction to all of this controversy, was basically an unfazed "people-don't-understand-art" typical pretentious "I-think-I'm-a-misunderstood-artist" response. I have no time for this.
I DO however, think the photos are pretty rad.
So, sue me.
I know, I know, it is exceptionally unreasonable to burn such extortionately expensive items, and it totally confirms the pair's detachment from the "real world". But then, I guess, it wouldn't be "art" to them if it wasn't controversial.
I think there are clearly two possible explanations here, please let me know which camp you sit on...
1) They're ignorant. They partook in such controversially excessive behaviour without even blinking at the monetary value of their actions. They knew what the objects represented in terms of materialistic consumerism, but did not consider the economic destruction- purely the superficial. Because, no doubt, they are surrounded by such indulgent material goods within their social sector- their perception of the value of money is skewed. They did it to show their (excessively wealthy) mates that they were cooler than them, because they don't give a s**t dude, yeah! Screw 'the man'!
OR
2) They're pretty smart. They had no real use for the goods, but knew the uproar their actions would cause. Eastwood has her own reality TV show where this was all played out, which coincidentally, was suffering from low ratings (why on earth?! I hear you cry! No, I hadn't heard of it either)- would this not, presumably, bring in the viewers? Also, Sheilds' "controversial" reputation would surely be affirmed by such an ostentatious act? It was purely a career-enhancing PR stunt.
I really don't know, I keep flicking between the two...
All I do know is that I think the pictures are cool, and although, yes, it's a joke that they viewed that amount of money as disposable in the name of art; disgusting, perhaps... I just can't keep that rebellious angst part of me from saying "Haha! Screw you money!".
As I post this, there is yet to be a response from Hermès, and to be honest, I don't really expect there to be one. But I would have LOVED to have been a fly on the wall in their offices when they learned of this. Brilliant.
I'll let you decide what to make of the whole thing. But I will say one thing to the "haters", and that is this: don't worry about it. Rich kids will always try and be "rock and roll", they'll grow out of it, or die young. Morbid, but true. It's an ego problem (we've all been there... albeit, on a smaller scale!).
If I'm being honest, I reckon he's the smart one and she just went along with it. She did seem pretty shocked about the death threats...
And I'm shocked about that!
I'll leave you with a couple of video images to end the post...
L.
