There's a Print Club, and I'm In It

 

As some of you know, my recent hobby-obsession is art collecting. And while I don't limit myself to one particular medium, to the extent I have a concentration, it's on prints.

Being the self-reflective sort, I wondered why editioned prints in particular appeal to me so much. The standard "pitch" for prints is that they are a cheaper and more accessible point of entry into the fine art world than other mediums. We've talked before about how the same A-tier artists whose paintings go for a million dollars-plus have editions available you can snag for a thousand dollars or less.

Being a cost-conscious sort (and certainly not a megamillionaire), that's definitely playing a role. But there are some other things I like about prints in particular.

One is that prints are limited editions, but not one-of-a-kind. People who are purists about paintings over prints often harp on the uniqueness of the former. But I actually kind of like the communal aspect of sharing in a particular work -- at least, to a limited extent. A club that anyone can join is pointless, but a club that only has one member is pretty boring. Print ownership is like being part of an exclusive but still interesting club.

For example, the image pictured above is an etching I recently acquired by Leonard Baskin, titled "Artemis". In addition to his "regular" artistic career, Baskin founded and owned the Gehenna Press, which published limited edition fine arts books. One such book was an edition of the Greek tragedy Hippolytus, of which only 200 copies were made, and included with the book were ten illustrations, "Artemis" being one of them. Outside those 200, Baskin created a supplemental edition of 90, which is where my copy comes from. So 290 total -- not too many, in the scheme of things. And even better is who else is in that small circle. For "Artemis", I now know that a piece on my wall also is in the collection of (among other locales) the Delaware Art Museum and the Cornell University Art Museum. That's pretty neat! I won't claim that all or even most of the works I own are represented in museums, but I do have pieces that also are found in the National Gallery of Art, the Walker, the National Gallery of Australia, and Cambridge's Fitzwilliam Museum. That's a pretty good club to be a member of!

And lest we find all this talk of museums and exclusive clubs a bit too posh, there's a related phenomenon that I am quite sure plays a large role in my love for prints: they're numbered. "Artemis", for instance, is numbered 68/90 (the 68th example from the edition of 90). And I love those numbers.

Why? Well, you see, long before I was an art collector, I was a baseball card collector. That was my big childhood hobby, and while I've long since gotten out of that game, I still have my old collection. Interestingly, even as a child one of my favorite things to collect were vintage cards from the 1950s and 60s. But in terms of contemporary cards, the coolest ones were the rare inserts. And the coolest of the inserts were the cards with an individual serial number.

We in the baseball card collecting biz were very naive when this started to become a thing. The 1998 SPx Finite set's common cards were individually numbered to 9000 -- huge, by art world standards, but I remember thinking it was the coolest thing in the world. And of course, some cards were rarer, and some were a lot rarer. I have a Greg Maddux numbered to 11 and a Scott Rolen numbered to 25 that I kept in a bank deposit box for decades, less because of their value than because I was freaked out at the prospect of losing them.

Anyway, the point is that seeing a limited edition print numbered X of Y pulls on a deep, deep well of childhood excitement and enthusiasm and nostalgia. A painting may be unique, but it doesn't have the number attached to it. And while that might not be the most sophisticated impetus for a collecting interest, I think there are worse grounds for a building a hobby than that.

Say That I Do, Not That I Say

The other day, I put up a skeet complaining about the faction of progressive commentators who were mad at Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear for not just declaring Mitch McConnell dead and calling a special election to replace him. Their complaints generally took on the theme of aggrievement at Democrats who don't "fight" and a concurrent demand that Beshear "do something" rather than just sit around and vegetate while another Republican lie goes unchallenged. Why don't Democrats ever play hardball?

The problem with this hue and cry, I pointed out, is that it completely misreads what the "hardball" play is. As long as Mitch McConnell is missing, he can't cast votes -- functionally losing the GOP one sorely needed seat. If he dies (or we just decide he's dead), and Beshear calls a special election to replace him, that special election will be won by a Republican who can cast votes, giving the Senate GOP its seat back. Calling a special election helps Republicans. Keeping McConnell's seat in purgatory indefinitely helps Democrats. The hardball move isn't for Beshear to just unilaterally declare Mitch McConnell dead; the hardball move is for Beshear to say he'll do nothing until he sees a long form death certificate and then disconnect his phone.

Nonetheless, the amount of traction the "do something" calls against Beshear has gotten is worrisome. For starters, we shouldn't look past the fact that it is at best conspiracy theory adjacent (it is extremely unlikely that McConnell is secretly dead and that fact is being hidden by nefarious GOP operative -- if for no other reason than, again, his death would be good for the GOP as against the alternative of him lingering but incapable of casting votes). But beyond that, it is the apex of a certain type of brainrot which is so mad at supposedly sclerotic Democratic leadership that it fetishizes the appearance of "doing something" above all else. This is itself a gateway to fascism -- a feature of which Umberto Eco identified 30 years ago as including the cult of action for action’s sake. (“Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”) -- but even if it wasn't, it's just stupidity wrapped in an angry self-righteous shell. It's a large part of what gave us Graham Platner, and what made Platner immune to so many normally career-ended scandals until he finally wasn't -- all could be forgiven because "at least he's a fighter."

This is the problem. Too much of our political energy is being channeled exclusively through the lens of "doing something", where that marks out the sole criteria for goodness or badness, in a way that leads to counterproductive or just bizarre contortions. To give a different example, earlier today Nexus issued a statement defending New York City major Zohran Mamdani from allegations of antisemitism leveled by ADL chieftain Jonathan Greenblatt. Someone on BlueSky, while purporting to "applaud" Nexus for calling Greenblatt out, found the statement to be woefully insufficient. The "absence of action is deafening," he wrote. Nexus' "commitment to fight antisemitism rests on what you do, not just what you say/post."

So what is it that Nexus should have "done", as opposed to just "said"? They should have issued a "call for [Greenblatt's] removal from leadership."

Now, maybe that's a good thing for them to do, maybe not. But I could not help but point out that "calling" for Greenblatt's removal is ... a call. It is words. Again, that doesn't make it pointless -- Nexus doesn't sit on the ADL's board, so they can't actually "do" anything. The point is, though, that if there is a divide between "what you say" and "what you do", this falls pretty decisively on the "say" side of the line. And I flag this here because it seems pretty clear that this was an example of someone for whom "doing" is inherently good and "saying" is inherently inadequate, and so they just instinctively decided that their own preferred tactical intervention had to be a "do" even though it was exactly as much of a "say" as the statement whose inaction was so deafening.

To be clear, I'm not urging a return to cautious moderation. Much the opposite, I think Democrats need to be bold, and when they take back power, they need to exercise it. Recall my wishlist for the first week of the next Democratic administration:

By the end of the first week, I'd want to a complete pro-democracy package (including DC statehood) on the president's desk. I want to see prominent Republicans and ICE leaders who've committed crimes frog-marched in handcuffs. I want the corporate executives who approved "settlements" for Trump's frivolous lawsuits indicted for bribery. I want to see public resources and opportunities expressly redirected away from companies and firms who caved to Trump, and towards those who showed backbone, to show that there are penalties to being a quisling. I want the DOJ to announce an anti-corruption task force geared at identifying all the money stolen from the American taxpayer by the Trump family and clawing back as much of it as possible, and I want them to name and shame the Supreme Court as among the primary obstacles to providing accountability for their crimes. I want to uncover the corrupt insiders who bet on the lives of American servicemembers and have their identities blasted across every newspaper in America in advance of their trials. Do it all, do it fast, weather the storm, then consolidate your position.

These are, I hope one would agree, pretty "fight-y" in character. And importantly, I'd defend all of them on the merits of being good policy, not just as short-term political expediency but in terms of long-term political health. Critically, they are not good just because they give a powerful aura of fighting and acting. And by the same token, while many of these good things can be announced quickly, a lot of them to be fully operationalized do require a lot of the "boring" work of planning and organizing and thinking and researching in order to actually accomplish what they set out to do. Doing that sort of thing isn't backsliding, it's part of making action work.

It is absolutely true that a political movement, to be worthwhile, has to do some things. We're not a philosophy club; the point is to translate some ideals into practice. But the thirst for action needs to be tempered -- it cannot be its own justification. When we let ourselves indulge action for actions sake (again, even leaving aside the pipeline to fascism risk), we will continually bash our heads into easily avoidable walls and be mad at those not running full speed along side us. That's what we're seeing with the attacks on Beshear, that's what we saw for too long from those demanding everyone hop aboard the Platner train, and that will ultimately rip the party and the movement to shreds.

Permanent Hypermilitaristic Suppression of Palestinians Hasn't Failed Because It's Never Been Tried?

In a recent blog post, Nachum Kaplan claims that the shift in Israel's security orientation post-10/7 stems from its rejection of "the West's most dangerous illusions." It begins as follows:

October 7th was a catastrophic security failure for Israel and an intellectual demolition.

In a matter of hours, assumptions that had governed Israeli strategy for decades were exposed as manifestly inadequate.

So far, so good. Indeed, immediately after the attacks, I said something to this effect:

Hamas' operation represents an explosive repudiation of the notion that Gaza and Hamas could be besieged into obedience. The right-wing fantasy-nightmare that Israelis could (only) be kept safe through ever-greater oppression of Palestinians has been finally and completely falsified. From an Israel security standpoint, the rightwing playbook has only accomplished an unprecedented endangerment of Israeli lives in service of the furthest right-wing fringe. At what point do we say these policies are leading to nowhere but universal damnation?

Except, somehow, these aren't the "assumptions" Kaplan has in mind. In his telling, the policy structure that was exposed as inadequate is a brainchild of liberal internationalism inspired by post-war Europe, centered around shared economic prosperity and political integration. What is replacing it is a "harder" view of power, one that rejects the belief "that every conflict is a misunderstanding, every enemy a potential partner, and every murderous ideology an unmet socioeconomic need waiting for a development grant to address."

This makes me want to scream. I simply do not understand how someone can look at Israeli policy towards Gaza over the decade or so leading up to 10/7 and think it was characterized by economic interdependence under the umbrella of diplomacy and a rules-based international order that would keep everyone safe. That's just not what the policy was. It borders on delusion to assert that's what the policy was. The policy was that Gaza could be kept under indefinite conditions of besiegement and economic isolation, and Israel could successfully avoid significant security blowback because of its vastly superior military and intelligence apparatus.

That's the policy that was in place on 10/7. That the policy that failed on 10/7. It is maddening that the political faction that was in power on 10/7, and for virtually all of the preceding twenty years leading up to 10/7, and whose political raison d'etre was to savagely dismantle any semblance of this liberal, diplomatic, Oslo-inspired policy because it was not sufficiently "realist", can invert reality on this. It was not the liberals who set the policies or priorities that prevailed on 10/7. So why are we acting as if their outlook is what failed? Why are we acting as if "diplomacy and political resolutions are dead ends; the only thing that matters is the size of our tanks" is a strategic pivot, as opposed to returning to the same dry well?

If you want to be skeptical of political resolutions, I don't begrudge that skepticism. It's entirely understandable to imagine a future where there is a decisive political resolution imposed to "settle" the Israel/Palestine conflict, one which at least purports to protect the political, economic, and security interests of all parties, and it still ends up collapsing back into terrible violence and mayhem and oppression. But if you are going to be skeptical of that imagined, as-yet-unattempted future, then surely one must be at least as skeptical of the very real, absolutely-attempted past and present that fervently asserted military might was the only thing that truly mattered. One you are imagining to fail, the other already actually has failed.

Again, the inversion of who has to explain themselves to who is infuriating. Kaplan concludes by demanding that "those promising coexistence, deterrence through prosperity, or security through international guarantees must now answer a more brutal question. What happens when you are wrong?"

To which I want to reply, what if you're wrong? No, check that: you already were wrong! Kaplan's belief is that a "harder" view of Palestinians, one that is less concerned with diplomatic niceties or economic development (to say nothing of political equality) and one that relies on "military capability, credible deterrence, intelligence competence, and the willingness to use force" will keep Israel safe. That view is not a departure from the one that governed on 10/7, it is the view that was in force on 10/7 and which failed on 10/7. In a sane world, we who supported political equality and diplomatic resolution would not need to restore our credibility to the militarists, they would need to restore their credibility to us.

Perhaps Kaplan wants an "but even more so" version of the preceding years militarism. But we still, we can ask "what if you're wrong?" What if, it turns out, the near-exclusive reliance on military might, and the belief that Palestinians can be subjected to political subordination and economic devastation in perpetuity, does not prevent October 7ths from occurring? We have powerful evidence from experience on this point. And even if Kaplan wants to contest that his version of military power über alles is different from the prior iterations, "[w]hat cannot seriously be disputed is that the burden of proof has changed."

But people like Kaplan seem to genuinely not see this. And that is wild to me.

Confused Jews are Scared Jews

A small independent movie theater near me with a reputation for witty marquees put up the following display to advertise Christopher Nolan's "The Odyssey":

Before there were the Jews ... there was The Odyssey.

This set off a lot of consternation. All the local papers have stories on it. It was included in an all-congregant email sent by my Rabbi, alongside other concerning events such as a Jewish community member's car defaced with swastikas (very concerning) and the majority of Oregon's House delegation voting against military aid to Israel (less concerning).

From my vantage point, the marquee is mostly confusing. I don't get it. It doesn't seem to have a clear point, or tie into any particular narrative (positive or negative) about Jews. Even at its most literal, it's not clear the Odyssey in fact does predate the existence of Jews. So why does this message feel so off?

The best answer I can give is that -- for better or for worse -- when I see something snarky that mentions Jews that doesn't have a clear punchline, my first assumption is that it represents some sewer meme from 4chan or whatnot that hasn't yet broken through into the public consciousness; a shibboleth that signals "I'm talking shit about Jews in a way (((they))) won't get and can't get me for." Remember "noticing"? Or the echo signs, for that matter? It's rarely good when people talk about Jews in elliptical ways, and so when we see people talking about Jews in ways that are opaque and confusing we rationally respond with alarm.

In any event, the theater's GM has now revealed his intentions behind the marquee ... sort of. Judge for yourself:

“My intention is never to influence opinion or fan flames, but to say: it’s okay to raise eyebrows, though I hope my messages reflect a depth of understanding others find in themselves but not always in the world around them,” said [Jordan] Perry by text message. “Through the media I consume, I believe modern-day antisemitism is exaggerated, mostly as a defense for Israel’s actions in the Middle East and its involvement in our politics, and my intention in referencing Jewish people on the marquee was to prod at everything being seemingly antisemitic with a statement that couldn’t possibly be construed as antisemitic.”

A man who thinks antisemitism is greatly exaggerated, but also doesn't understand antisemitism well enough to comprehend why his marquee would be alarming. One might hope that this dissonance would prompt some self-reflection, but I somehow suspect it will do the opposite. 

Hand Foot Mouth Cock Sacky, Part II

Nathaniel has been sent home from daycare again, with suspected hand foot and mouth disease (aka coxsackie). As you may recall, he had this back in January. As you may also recall, I also had this back in January, with much more severe symptoms.

The timing is ... interesting. My parents were here to visit and literally left this morning. In fact, they were still at PDX airport when we got the call. I admit, my first thought was "great -- Nathaniel's sent home right when we lose extra babysitting." With a little time to reflect, I begrudgingly concluded that it was probably better that my seventy-five-year-old parents were not in our house with a highly contagious disease floating about.

As for Nathaniel, I don't begrudge him getting coxsackie again. He is a baby and his immune system is puny and weak. My immune system, by contrast, is strong and virile, and so I should resist the disease much better this time -- right?

We'll see. Right now, half of my brain is interpreting every twinge and ache as a blister that's about to burst forth, while the other half is wishfully insisting that these symptoms are entirely psychosomatic. I guess we'll know for sure in a few days. Hopefully, I don't nearly pass out in any public places this time.

You Got Meta In My Google!

I have a confession to make.

I enjoy googling myself. Okay? I admit it.

And as embarrassing as that admission is, I'm also going to really out myself as elderly and plea for help in using google.

So lately, when I google myself -- "David Schraub", in quotes, limited to hits from the last week or month -- a lot of the recent hits are from Facebook and, less often, Instagram. The little snippet you get from Google suggests that it's someone (a poster? a commenter?) talking about something I've written. But if I click the link -- nothing! The comment isn't there. I'm nowhere to be found on the page! The page and the Google snippet result seem to have nothing to do with one another. What gives?

Now, to some extent, the question of "is Google screwing up Meta or is Meta screwing up Google" feels like a por que no los dos? situation. But nonetheless, I am confused about what is going on, and what these search results purport to be. Does anyone know?

(And more broadly: does anyone know how to search for anything on Instagram? I only use it for art related things, but I confess I don't understand the app at all).

Avoiding the Obvious

Rabbi Seth Winberg, executive director of Hillel at Brandeis, has an interesting/infuriating essay up on JTA about the growing number of young Jews who express preference for a single, binational democratic state in Israel/Palestine. Winberg specifically is focusing on a subset of these Jews, those who are not true anti-Zionist believers but who remain supportive -- at least in concept -- of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state. What explains their support of this plan?

To this question, Winberg gives a summary that is, more or less, exactly correct.

The first, two states for two peoples, looks dead after the peace process has repeatedly failed to deliver that outcome for their entire lives. It’s certainly not an option according to the Israeli consensus, with only 15% of Israeli Jews currently supporting two states. 

The second, in which Israel annexes the West Bank and Gaza and rules millions of Palestinians who cannot vote, seems to be the vision of Israel’s current government.

The third option, one democratic country, imagines equal rights for everyone. To a young American of decent instincts and thin knowledge of the region, schooled to see the conflict as a matter of racial equality, the last sounds like simple justice: one person, one vote.  

This, broadly speaking, is exactly correct (if maybe a bit patronizingly put). There are three possible solutions to the conflict: some form of a two-state solution, a one-state solution without equal rights (i.e., apartheid), or a one-state solution with equal rights. If the apartheid option is viewed as unacceptable, and the two-state solution is viewed as unfeasible, that leaves door #3. It's really not that complicated. And if you're aghast at young Jews picking door #3, then your options are either to make apartheid sound acceptable (hopefully not) or make a two-state solution seem feasible. Again, not that complicated.

But here is where things fly off course. Instead of accepting the obvious point, Winberg veers off into a long digression about connections to Jewish peoplehood and imbrication in Jewish texts and patriotism and distinguishing between country and government. It's long and meandering and frankly I had trouble following it, but more importantly it just has nothing to do with the problem he accurately identified above.

Let's say a group of the young Jews in question takes on Winberg's ideal course of study. They spend a year in his dojo, burying themselves in Jewish text and ritual. They emerge with a genuine, emotive connection to the entirety of the Jewish people -- in Israel, in America, and around the world. They know full well the difference between country and government. They are proudly part of a live and living Jewish tradition.

They then return to the above trilemma: two states, one apartheid state, or one equal binational state. What's changed? Do they now find apartheid attractive? I hope not! Do they now see two-states as more feasible? I don't see why. Nothing has changed, and so nothing will change. The basic trilemma is identical to what it was before, and so the outcome will be the same as it is before.

Everything Winberg is suggesting about cultivating Jewish connection and peoplehood and authentic bonds may be good for its own sake. None of it changes the dynamics of the problem he's accurately identified. And the most maddening feature of all is that the answer to that problem actually is obvious. If you don't like the binational one-state option, and you're not willing to endorse the apartheid one-state option, then the only move is to do whatever you can to make a two-state solution viable. Actually viable, not just a talking point. That should be the full-court press move of Winberg and all the other Jewish organizations fretting about this problem. Do whatever it takes to bring a two-state solution to fruition, no matter who's standing in the way.

Of course, framed that way, it's obvious why the obvious solution is resisted. In the present moment, genuine, material, full-throated support for a two-state solution puts one in sharp opposition to the Israeli government (and a pretty wide swath of the Israeli Jewish populace too). That opposition is not just rhetorical, it'd be material too -- the government would actively be sabotaging your proposed initiatives, and so many of your initiatives would be directly antagonistic to the government (anything from sanctioning price tag terrorists to imposing boycotts on settlement goods to recognizing a Palestinian state on 1967 borders). For all the talk about separating the concept of Israel-as-a-Jewish-state from a particular suite of government policies, this is what Winberg and his ilk recoil from. They cannot bring themselves to occupy the position of clear and vocal opponents of the Israeli government.  They also cannot bring themselves to endorse either of the two alternatives to the two-state solution. So they start spinning out long complex essays with long complex proposals that sound attractive except for the part that they change nothing about the fundamental problem, which is that you have to back either two-states, one-state with apartheid, or one-state binationalism.

I'm picking on Winberg's essay not because it is unique, but because it is of a type. The trilemma above is a variation on the trilemma we've known about for years: Israel can be Jewish, democratic, or in control of the West Bank and Gaza -- pick two. You can pick any two, but you can only pick two. And everyone kind of knows this, but also resists actually picking the two. They say "it's essential for Israel to be a Jewish, democratic state." Okay, then you must support ending the occupation? "Well," they hem and haw, "I'm not sure about the timing, and there are genuine security needs, and after 10/7 Israel can't be expected to cede control over Palestinian territories." Okay, so if Israel has to stay in control over these territories, democracy means that the Palestinians who live there must get equal voting rights, yes? "No -- that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state!" "So control of the territory but no equal rights ... apartheid then?" "How dare you! Israel must be Jewish and democratic." Round and round we go.

There's a lot about Israel/Palestine that is complicated. But this part of it is not complicated. Winberg is right that even among young Jews, there is not a wholesale rejection of the idea of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. What is there is a wholesale rejection of apartheid and a fatalistic sense that a two-state solution is unfeasible. That leaves one equal state. If one doesn't like being left there, your choices are to make apartheid okay again or to make a two-solution viable again. There isn't another move.

Project Runway Season 22: Opening Thoughts

Long-timers may recall that periodic Project Runway chirping is a recurrent feature on this blog. The oldest post I was able to find about the show was yelling about Mondo's loss in Season 8 (of course it was), but I've seen every season and (I think) every spin-off, and started watching them live as of Season 5.

Anyway, the first episode of Season 22 just dropped. It's the second season on Freeform, whatever that is, or Hulu or Disney+ if you're a normal person. It's either a sign of how far Project Runway has fallen or how far Google has fallen that I cannot for the life of me find pics of the designers' looks from this episode, so I'm going off of memory and hastily fast-forwarding through my recording.

The immediate gimmick was that they're starting with a whopping 22 designers (For season 22! Get it?), but cutting six of them right off the jump. It wasn't even a real Project Runway challenge -- they got to bring a look from home, and just had to fit, edit, and style it. I actually don't mind the concept here -- let's let people put their best foot forward -- but the opening cut (six going home out of a bottom eight) was pretty brutal.

Anyway, I won't comment on everyone or everything, because who has the time, but here are my initial thoughts. First, the general stuff:

• The sassy chyrons continue to be the best innovation of the Freeform era. The stupid "to be continued" cliffhangers continue to be the worst. What, are you afraid I won't watch another episode if I'm not on tenterhooks from the last one? Try making a good product and you solve that problem.

• I've never liked Tyra Banks, and I can't imagine starting now. I suppose she's still better than Isaac Mizrahi. Still, even more than before, I just pray that Nina Garcia actually shows up for more than three episodes this season.

• JosephMcRae is polarizing, and I get that, but as returning designers go I'm not mad about it. The "eliminated by your fellow designers" bit he was subjected to last season was bullshit.

• Law Roach is polarizing, but I am liking him a bit more this time around. Jill was cackling about how he absolutely refused to engage with any of the contestants if they tried to joke around with him.

• There's clearly some tension between the RuPaul fandom that invades Project Runway now that their people are being cast on the show, and the OG PR fandom. I'm very much the latter, and know nothing about the former, which makes it weird to see people on Reddit talk about how they've only watched the former and have no exposure to the latter. Perhaps for that reason, it would be very funny to me if both the Drag Race alumni were eliminated immediately this season (and I think they both deserve it).

And now, the designs (or at least some of them).

• Overall, I thought this was a strong runway -- as one would hope, given the infinite time allotted. I'm not sure I'm convinced Andriy's look deserved to be in the top. I also cannot figure out why I liked his Russian bestie Bobby's look as much as I do, given that it looks like a comforter, but the heart wants what it wants.

• The hat was too much on JosephMcRae's look, but the pattern was actually gorgeous. Learn to edit, my man!

• Bi's coat genuinely did rock. What was originally under it genuinely was tragic, and it probably did need something else there to end up on top. Also, I hate to say it, but that sweatshop joke (a professor called him a "one-man sweatshop", and he was offended because "I don't sweat!") was hilarious.

• Chloe's look had some very good ideas -- the wide-open back was fantastic -- but it seemed to be ill-constructed.

• Octavius' look was pretty cool. He ended up in the middle, but said that if he was sent home it basically would mean "they don't like me." That sure seems like a healthy attitude.

• The collar on Jude's look was fantastic. I'm a sucker for a tailored suit though.

• Elizabeth's look didn't feel fresh to me. I don't hate it, but I felt like I'd seen it before.

• I'm a little sad we didn't get commentary on Anna's unconventional-materials-in-a-conventional-challenge look. It was very well done! Kudos to her for showing looks like that can hang with the big dogs!

• Look, Bryan: you can have the giant sleeve or the poofy stomach, but not both. Or do both and end up on top -- clearly, I'm not the one you need to impress.

Moving to the bottom designers.

• Jennifer is a former Project Runway model. That could have been a cool angle, and I didn't mind the Poison Ivy costume, but I get why it was sent off. Still rough to be the first one auf-ed though.

• I did kind of find the pants on Andrea's look interesting, and I liked the layers-on-layers concept, but it just didn't all work together. You could make a case for her staying on "has ideas" grounds, but her elimination is not protest-worthy.

• Lre the Artist was fine, but not notable. Goodbye! I won't remember you!

• There really weren't many outright bad outfits on the runway today. Dani's was one of them (did someone say "pirate princess"?). I absolutely cannot fathom how, in a world where three-fourths of the bottom designers were eliminated, she got a reprieve. Completely undeserved.

• Robby's look was also outright bad. He's part of the cliffhanger quartet, but I can't imagine he survives.

• Jeffrey's dress looked, as my astute wife observed, like a fungus.

• I liked the spiked purse Plane Jane's model was carrying. That concludes the parts of Plane Jane's look I liked. The spike-nipples were in particularly ghastly taste.

• The final member of the cliffhanger quartet (along with Jeffrey and Plane Jane) is R'Bonney. So here's the thing. Every few seasons, a designer comes on and brings out a look with an Assassin's Creed style hood. And every time, I like it, because I think that hood looks cool. And every time, the judges hate it, because reasons. At least this time around, I called my shot and said as soon as the model walked "I like that but the judges will hate it, because it has that hood." And wouldn't you know it if she's on the bottom, with Tyra Banks yelling platitudes about how it's good but that's not good enough.

So we have four designers in limbo, and three will be eliminated. Who will be the survivor? I like R'Bonney the best, but the judges will never reward someone they think is boring this early in the competition. And Robby's look was a trainwreck. So that leaves Plane Jane and Jeffrey. I guess I'm pulling for Jeffrey, since he seems less insufferable? Slightly?

To another great season, and may there be 22 more!