Oh, New York Times Style Section, Why do you Wound me so?

Ack.

Ack ack ack.

I picked up the Sunday NYT yesterday, as a treat. I am a real fan of the style section. I like the half-page of rich/trendy New Yorkers bedecked in whatever is the current rich/trendy outfit of the week. I'm all about the wedding announcements. I have sent two essays in to the Modern Love column, but those bastards haven't published anything of mine. Yet.

I also tend to read most of the articles therein. This is a soft-news section, so I'm not expecting to really edify myself on much more than the current state of Chloe Sevigny's closet, but I also don't expect to want to ball the Style section up and wipe my butt with it, which was my reaction when I read an article about parents who buy modern art for their toddlers and babies. There was talk of the thousands of dollars that had been spent on "collections" for the under-five set, and of what sorts of art these babies who still SHIT THEMSELVES are drawn too.

I am all for having a colorful bedroom for your baby. The little girl I watch has the solar system with glow in the dark stars on one wall of hers. But modern art? OK, OK, I think it's good that these parents are supporting the artists whose work they are buying, but jesus christ almighty, it's just a kid, OK? She's not going to stand in front of a Basquiat and critique it. She'd much rather bang on pans with wooden spoons and put whatever she finds on the floor in her mouth and let the dog give her a tongue bath. Because she's a BABY.

I'm getting the feeling that the NYT is going the way of Vogue magazine -- targeted only towards an elite, and tiny, and stupid community. It's very disappointing.