Redefining Amazing

Spring 2013 | The good, the bad, and the talented.

(Sign by Max Rippon 2025)

(My Amazing Friends at Deitch, 76 Grand St NYC. Open until February 22nd.)

By now, many of you know that I’m a big collector of amazing stuff. In fact, my stuff is the basis of my new memoir-ish history slash philosophy book (called STUFF) that is launching in March. But even more than just stuff, I also love to collect AMAZING PEOPLE. And when I meet someone I think is amazing— whether I’ve fallen for their personality, their look, their art, or their ideas — I often end up befriending them, collaborating with them, and adding their work to my collection. Oh, and connecting them with all my other amazing friends. Once I befriend them, I always want to find out who they think is amazing and who their amazing friends are, too. It’s like one giant spider web that I continue to weave in my life. Because good people know good people. (My late friend Geoffrey Beene once told me this expression. You can read about it in my book. It’s a really good story.)

Amazingness is subjective. Someone who I think is amazing might not be your cup of tea. And I am very picky about who I spend my time with. I have a strict no-asshole policy. I also value realness, kindness, and nontransactional friends. Oh, and brilliant minds that think sideways are also high on my list of priorities. I loved digging up this vintage column I wrote twelve years ago called REDEFINING AMAZING. It was about how as an editor I (and our whole team at PAPER) struggled with how to define what is AMAZING and worthy of coverage on the pages of PAPER. Amazingness is tricky. Do you only look at the output of an artist? Or do you look at the whole human? If someone makes genius stuff but is an asshole do you write about them? Whether to support someone who is a friend is easy, but as a journalist, it was more difficult. Once again, same shit different day.

I write about 45+ of my most amazing friends throughout my new book STUFF and this month I brought that aspect of my book to life at my show at Jeffrey Deitch Gallery that just opened called MY AMAZING FRIENDS. I invited 60+ of my most amazing and eclectic artist friends to submit a piece that they thought I’d adore. They range in age from 27-87. Some are famous, others not yet recognized. Many are friends and collaborators with each other because I introduced them to each other. These are not only great and in my mind important artists, but also great people who are friends I both love and respect. It’s the whole package! Try to see the show if you’re in NYC (it’s up until Feb 22 at Deitch, 76 Grand Street). If you want to grab a copy of STUFF (co-published by Amazing Unlimited and Damiani books) you can get it here. K.H.

(Cover of Vanessa Hudgens)

Redefining Amazing | Spring 2013

FOR ALMOST THREE DECADES NOW, we've created our magazine by shining a spotlight on who and what we think is amazing. When I say "amazing," I don't necessarily mean successful (a different story). While we never seem to have a problem shouting from the treetops about superb talents who aren't necessarily famous or successful, we do sometimes avoid mediocre ones even if they are, for non-talent-related reasons like cuteness, wealth, promotional skills, or social status, the current "It" person. We're like heat-seeking missiles in our search for brilliant, creative work and nothing fires us up more than turning the world on to plain old extraordinary talent. Oh, and by the way, we live for the moment when we find out that spectacular work was also created by a spectacular person.

But what happens when it doesn't work out exactly that way? Every so often, we're surprised and crushed to find out that a true genius is also a true asshole. Oh, dear. Even after all these years, we always seem to return to this debate around our editorial table: How can we rave about genius talents who we believe are not good people? Is talent really enough by itself?

Most of us were disappointed when we saw Oprah interview the talented yet super-arrogant and deluded Lance Armstrong. Who knew he was such a prick? After watching that, I could never forgive Armstrong because he was truly clueless about being the tremendous asshole he proved to be.

On another hand, I was devastated after finishing Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs, which I read shortly after Jobs died. The Apple visionary had been my hero and inspiration for as long as I could remember. I followed him and idolized him with religious fervor. You can't imagine how my bubble burst when I read about his lack of generosity and empathy. Boy, what a letdown to find out that he was a mercurial and intolerant genius. That said, if Jobs were still alive and I knew what I know now, I would still write about, purchase, and lust after his new products. Am I a hypocrite? Or does Jobs' genius win over Armstrong's?

Recently, jaded fashion folks saw a generous and classy gesture from the designer Oscar de la Renta, who welcomed the brilliant but disgraced designer John Galliano into his studio to help prepare for his show. Galliano, whose deep character flaws were exposed to the world when his drug-and alcohol-induced rant (about loving Hitler and hating Jews) was caught on video, told the press he was a recovering addict trying to make amends and he was humbled to be given this chance. Oscar defended the right of Galliano to be given a second chance. Although I never felt warm and fuzzy for Galliano personally, I've still covered his work regularly and have always regarded him as one of the great talents of the fashion world. Would I want to have him for a friend? (No.) But could I still get excited by his work, now that he has tried to do the right thing? (Yes.) Do I now have a newfound respect for Oscar de la Renta? (Yes.) In fact, I'm more excited for Oscar's show this season than ever.

I admit I'm a sucker for great talent. But, equally, I'm also a sucker for great people. And we will continue the debate in our editorial meetings. Should we cover this superb movie even though the director is evil? (Yes.) Should we write about the heart-stoppingly genius show of an artist who is a selfish, social-climbing jerk? (Yes.) Should we cover the work of one of the most incredible people though what they have done is not the best? (Perhaps.) Should we cover mediocre stuff from the “It" person of the moment? (Probably not.)

I will certainly continue to give kudos professionally to deserving, great work no matter who creates it. But in my personal life, surrounding myself with good people is my top priority. And I feel extraordinarily lucky to have forged deep, wonderful friendships with people who are both brilliant at who they are—ethical, generous and honest souls on the inside—and visionaries in what they do. I like to call them "My Amazing Friends," and once even curated a gallery show of their work (and am longing to write a series of books about them). They're a diverse cast of characters, and include folks like Ted Muehling, Pedro Almodóvar, Ingo Maurer, Joey Arias, John Waters, Tauba Auerbach and Alber Elbaz (trust me there are many more on the list). Amazing talents, amazing people, amazing friends. This is where my heart truly is. Does it get any better than that?