i know, i know. long time no words. forgive me. in a life of approximately 9,000,000,000 projects (give or take a few), it is sometimes hard to remain a word factory in all available venues.
but yo, i’m back!
the world is a pit of drear and suck. let’s talk about totally superficially meaningful things.
do not ask me how i got here because i cannot tell you. not because i’m mean but because i do not know.
but know this: the world of elvis jewelry is a strange, strange place to be. and i say that as someone who has spent an indecent amount of time in the land of jackie dolls.
by elvis jewelry, i should be more specific. because this maybe isn’t clear.
i am specifically talking here about jewelry featuring depictions of elvis’s head/face. specifically, rings.
i always thought chris isaak was supposed to look like elvis, not the other way around.
that is actually not why we are here though.
you think i would bring you here for that?
that is mediocre. that is small beans. i only bring out britney and her emotions for the serious stuff, the next level business.
despite all that is wrong with this thing:
and seriously, wtf is up with modern masculinity that a skull with elvis hair constitutes “manly”?
but yeah, not even that really qualifies as next level business.
this, my friends, THIS is the next level business:
because, obviously, right off the bat, there’s this:
which is kind of uncanny.
and yes, yes, you can get that in a ring too.
though, bizarrely, the elvis version looks more like the real thing than this.
anyhoo. back to the matter at hand.
i’m not even going to dignify the insanity of that price point with further discussion.
gosh, his eyeholes look satanic, do they not?
also, something about the joinder under his chin makes it looks like he has a teeeeeeensie teeninie body. or, at the very least, like he is a head balanced on a display stand. a head in a museum.
there is nothing scarier than a head in a museum.
there are many, many things scarier than a head in a museum.
but we’re not here to talk about that. we’re here to talk about superficial things and elvis rings.
i do wonder what was the artistic justification for keeping his mouth open.
i mean, i get he was a singer and singers sing with their mouths open, but it looks rather odd on a piece of jewelry, no?
more like a cri de cœur.
a prolonged, inescapable existential scream of noooooooooooooooo!
immortalized in sterling silver. (alas, this moment is not available in gold.)
but then we do not live in a golden moment.
perhaps i just see that because i am reading this creation in this particular historical moment of drear and suck. perhaps in some other, golden time, i would see copious joie de vivre.
but no. in our current times, it looks rather as though he is gazing into the abyss.
his alarm is present but contained.
and maybe a little stupid? is he looking away? with eyeholes instead of eyeballs, it’s rather difficult to tell. hell, maybe he even has eyeballs, they just aren’t obvious in this pic. his tongue, in contrast, is clearly present.
he is pleasantly, passively alarmed. sanguine? is this right? am i reading too much into it?
i feel like he should be more alarmed, less sanguine, less pleasant, uncivil even.
but sometimes reading is hard.
maybe i’m asking too much of an overpriced ring on etsy that bears bad resemblance to the celebrity upon which it is based.
2 thoughts on “the pathos of elvis rings (emotions via britney)”
Pingback: dear new england historical society: no, a white woman was not the first Black first lady | finding jackie
Pingback: on silence | finding jackie