I am disturbed that the identification and clothing of our public officials is so easily reproduced.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I don't think that it's up to government to dictate what people should wear.
Any item of clothing that covers the face and makes it impossible to identify individuals is open to abuse.
If the government did a good job of publicizing this information, my products wouldn't sell.
People will never know how hard it is to get information, especially if it's locked up behind official doors where, if politicians had their way, they'd stamp 'top secret' on the color of the walls.
Let me go to Clinton's new proposal: to have uniforms in public schools. And people are doing that. How come they're doing that? Dress codes! I find that abhorrent.
Government shouldn't try to dictate what art looks like or what it portrays. Last thing we want is government screwing it up, which is what they would do.
Mass media wants bright lights. Mass media wants crazy clothes.
What I'm very upset about is the attempt to dictate to museums what they show, and the statements made by politicians in Washington that have curtailed the freedom of the National Endowment for the Arts. The attention to those issues is deflected by the spin of my supposedly having trivialized the Holocaust.
When we had highly sensitive information, the DNA on the dress, that was held within our office and the FBI. There was no dissemination of that information.
Clothing is viral, impermanent in a way that public art cannot be. So I like thinking of how corporate-created clothing can be seen as a form of public art.