The making of Grimes’s “Dune-esque” 2021 #MetGala look—plus, the meaning behind her sword https://t.co/6FqqCqtTOw pic.twitter.com/VO138nSegS
— Vogue Runway (@VogueRunway) September 14, 2021
I had to look up what a Grimes is, apparently, it’s a weirdo that has sex with Elon Musk.
As per her sword.
“It’s not a prop sword, I tried to pick it up and this is not really a one-handed situation,” she laughs. I reach out and touch the blade, which isn’t necessarily sharp, and certainly less dangerous than the materials from which it was forged. “The sword is based on a western European sword from the end of the Middle Ages around 1400,” Grimes reads aloud from a note on her phone. “…is a permanent piece of the Met’s collection, and the sword is also cast from a Colt AR-15A3,” she looks up. “It’s from these people who are getting people’s [guns] who don’t want to have their automatic rifles anymore, and are melting them down and making them perfect replicas of medieval swords, which I think is just so cool—I think it’s a beautiful thing.”
This is the group that made the sword, Guns2swords.
This is their manifesto:
CHRIS BURDEN WISHES HE’D SHOT HIMSELF IN THE NUTS LIKE THOSE 2ND AMENDMENT CLOWNS ON FACEBOOK DID. GUN CULTURE IS THE REALM OF THE ABSURD–LET’S MAKE IT THE REALM OF THE FANTASTIC.
WE’RE GONNA TAKE YOUR GUNS!! THIS PHRASE IS HARDWIRED TO THE FIGHT-OR-FLIGHT RESPONSE. GUNS2SWORDS PULLS A DIFFERENT PSYCHOLOGICAL LEVER: IF AMERICANS DEMAND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, PERHAPS A COOLER-LOOKING AND LESS DESTRUCTIVE ARM IS OUR ANSWER.
BEATING GUNS INTO PLOWSHARES ISN’T SEXY–BUT BEATING THEM INTO SWORDS? NOW THAT’S SEXY. GUNS ARE ONLY QUASI-PHALLIC, BUT SWORDS GO ALL THE WAY. LET’S REMOVE SOME AMBIGUITY.
AND SEX SELLS! WE PROPOSE THAT GUNS ARE A SYMBOL THAT CAN BE REPLACED BY A DIFFERENT SYMBOL WITHOUT LOSS OF SATISFACTION AND AT REDUCED THREAT TO OTHERS. GUNS2SWORDS SUBSTITUTES THE SYMBOL FOR THE REAL AND NEUTERS REALITY WHILE SALVING THE PSYCHE.
THE “SWORD GUY” AND THE “GUN GUY” BOTH LIVE IN FANTASY WORLDS. RIGHT-WING MILITIAMEN IN ILL-FITTING COMBAT GEAR WAGE WAR AGAINST IMAGINED OPPRESSION, JUST AS THE LARPING SWORD GUY FIGHTS MYTHICAL BEASTS. BUT THE GUN-TOTING WACKOS HOLD IN THEIR SWEATY HANDS AIMLESS DEATH FOR DOZENS. FANTASY LIVES IN THE MIND–AND OUGHT TO STAY THERE.
NON-MANDATORY GUN BUYBACK EFFICACY IS MIXED AT BEST. STILL, REMOVING GUNS FROM CIRCULATION IS NEVER A BAD THING, MERELY MORE OR LESS EFFECTIVE. CHEKHOV’S GUN HOLDS AS TRUE IN FACT AS IN FICTION: A GUN, ONCE INTRODUCED, WILL BE FIRED.
I do not have the wherewithal to break all the stupid in this down. Suffice it to say that it combines every negative strawman stereotype about gun owners from the small penis to the LARPing militia into one idiotic rant.
There was a lot of dumb at the Met Gala but t his bullshit takes the cake.
Cast? Not only is the idea stupid, the “ swords” are junk.
Symbolic, I suppose, of their whole movement. Cold Steel will sell you a real one, though.
Truth be told – cold steel swords are “real” in a sense that they are at least sharp and functional. Apart from that they are overweight…
I guess that makes them red blooded Americans – Just like their European brothers, only thicker 😀
*sarc*
That’s exactly what I thought Jack. Junk. do not cast your swords folks – they’re worthless.
Cast suggests that it is made out of aluminum as does the talk about melting down guns. Regardless, cast swords are just for costume work.
Sooo… a cast aluminium sword is a “perfect replica”?
And it’s not a prop because it’s to heavy to be picked up with one hand?
Nope. Not worth my time.
‘Too heavy to be picked up with one hand’? I’m sorry, what?
The arming sword, or estoc, typically massed at 2.4 lbs. To quote Sleepy Joe, ‘C’mon man!’. That’s not THAT heavy.
An estoc is not an arming sword. That being said: even the two-handed estocs did not weigh more than 6 pounds, most were lighter and nearer to 4 pounds.
I may have misread the Wiki article when I went looking for sword weights. Mea culpa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZLeyhRxhT4
Grow stronger.
I’d be happy to carry both. I’ve got a 200 yo Russian cavalry saber. I don’t think they would really find it “less destructive.”
So, xir cannot pick up this “sword” one handed?
When my kids were little- like 1st-2nd grade- I-d take them shooting, including my AR.
How much weight is gained “casting” “a single “ar15e3” into a “sword”?
And where does that additional weight come from?
Idiots. Cannot even construct a passable lie.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will work for those who don’t
Swords are ok, I suppose. But I like a morning star.
Either way, you’d need good upper body strength. A big part of anti-gun politics is rendering women defenseless, since they have a much harder time wielding alternative weapons effectively (on average). So you can add misogeny to racism in the list of motivations of the victim disarmament crowd.
Less destructive. Ha ha Ha ha ….
I shoulda booked marked it- just read some excerpts from a 16th century treatise on treating sword wounds, by a doc who had tended to hundreds. It would make a wonderful comeback to the stupid fuckers who think sword woulds were “less destructive”. It’s funny how the play actors have this fantasy about archery and swords and how they are somehow “cleaner” than a firearm. They are grim instruments of death and maiming, just like a gun.
Not to mention toys like battle axes, halberds, morning stars, battle flails, etc.
They mention “Chekhov’s Gun”. They do realize that that’s a minimalist guideline for writing and designing backdrops for theatrical stage performances, right?
In the literal sense: If Act I opens with a rifle hanging over the mantle, it had better be fired by Act III. If not, it didn’t need to be there.
More generally: If an object or feature doesn’t contribute to the story, it should be removed. Otherwise it’s just an unnecessary distraction.
(Of course there are exceptions. Scenes that take place in armories or weapon shops would look REALLY WEIRD if there were no weapons displayed. Then again, such displays do contribute by “setting the scene”. Ask me about the local performances of the “Greater Tuna” series. 😀 )
“Chekhov’s Gun” has nothing at all to do with actual weapons in the real world. A gun, once introduced, doesn’t automatically necessitate being fired, and except for extremely rare cases will not be used for “gun violence”.
But the entire “manifesto” is B.S., and not just because of the use of all-caps worthy of a 12-year-old on IRC. Among other things, it presupposes that there is no self- or home-defense utility of firearms (conservatively speaking, up to a million people per year would beg to differ), that anyone who owns guns does so because of “militia LARPing” or “anti-government fantasies” or “small pee-pees”, and if the guns were replaced with swords the militia fantasies would be replaced with medieval fantasies.
That presupposition — that guns have no defensive utility — is false. Ditto for the “LARPing” and “small genitalia” presuppositions. Therefore it follows that the rest is B.S. as well.