Cultural Vivisection: Christopher Koulouris and his Scallywag and Vagabond

7 March 2010 One Comment by Cody Ross

Cultural Vivisection: Christopher Koulouris and his Scallywag and Vagabond

NYC—The trouble with writers— actually, bloggers— these days, besides the fact that there are way too many of them, is that after a period of hype and attention-grabbing, most degenerate into idle chatter, boredom, solipsism and, inevitably, irrelevance. In short, they recede into oblivion only to be superseded by the next gregarious social climber-cum-publisher. Christopher Koulouris, aka, the “SCALLYWAG” who edits the acclaimed Scallywag and Vagabond, however, seems indefatigable; in fact, Koulouris has been more dashing and prolific than ever and is ruffling some feathers around NYC and beyond—and is penetrating an ever wider audience with his webzine/tabloid he dubs a “salon of cultural affairs.”

Born in Sydney and a domiciled in NYC since 1992, the former derivatives trader (above) is making a name for himself with his online publication, Scallywag and Vagabond, where he takes consistent, relentless swipes at prattling socials, pseudo-celebs and virtually anything/anyone worthy of fun, smart derision. Koulouris’ missives are a series of erudite (and cheeky) columns on everything from international politics and finance to NYC‘s high society snobbery.

His most seditious commentary are editorials highlighting the gaffes and misdemeanors of the ‘illustrious elite’ such as France’s First Lady, Carla Bruni, and, rather provocatively, high-flying bluebloods such as Tinsley Mortimer and Olivia Palermo (see: “The Pathetic Fixtures of NY High Society). In addition, he’s a valued asset of New York’s cultural nexus: a commentator willing to show his teeth in the cause of ‘slapping the chap,’ he’s always got an invite to the City’s most coveted functions and is chummy with the same crowd he mocks and taunts.

As Managing Editor of S&V, Koulouris brings an eclectic and diverse resume to the bench. With a formidable background in applied mathematics and economics, and steeped in literature and the arts (he was a playwright for a while), this Scallywag brings polymath qualities to his enterprise. When he is not writing, he talks in the same tongue-and-cheek, ironic voice as his prose, with like fluency and comical thrust, as if he were paranoid by the prospect of losing a captive listener. He is a polished, funny orator, with the mock-heroic demeanor of an Aussie barrister pushing the moral high-ground (“by all means,” “if you will,” “occasional madame in tow”), using sarcasm, a pedantic diction, and looping dialectics that always revert to a central premise.

While critics view Koulouris as the quintessential provocateur, what underpins his writing is a strong penchant for the sardonic coupled with a distrust of formalism—he loves to poke fun at cliché and elitist cant and does so with charm and elan. That trait informs his excellent ridicule, and allows him to be a first-rate iconoclast/gawker. With inimitable finesse and wit, Christopher Koulouris expresses a wry scape through his super-cool (somewhat tabloidesque) publication, S&V. An excellent read that will have you begging for more!

Here’s a Q & A with the Christopher Koulouris, Editor-in-Chief of Scallywag & Vagabond:

Q: With regard to your missives at S&V, are you a blogger, a journalist/writer or something else? Is the title ‘blogger’ pejorative now?

A: I like to think more than anything that I am a social commentator, an observer of sorts. I suppose that’s what most writers set out to do today but in the face of institutional demands, the saturation of the tabloids the quality of the work and I think to some degree the commitment of observation and continual provocation falters. On some level I like to think of myself as Hunter Thompson in the modern era, who goes on mad missions, a dash of social satire courtesy of Mark Twain and the existential angst of JD Salinger.

With regards to the idea of blogging being a bit of a pejorative past time, I think it has more to do with the over saturation of media and the short attention span of the public. If one perhaps makes an effort to be substantial, provocative and accessible (which is the one thing you have to definitely have to applaud most bloggers for…) then I think over time ‘blogging’ will become the new paradigm that seasoned writers will seek to affect. If on the other hand if most bloggers seek to restrict themselves to the color of Lindsay Lohan’s snot (as most do) then this only serves to further disorient the industry. Just because blogging is instant, doesn’t I think mean it should just be trivial and dismissive. I think that’s a slap to the educated and curious reader out there, who believe it or not actually exists in America.

Q: What are your main interests/favorite topics to write on?

A: I have a lot of interests, but the one thing that completely catches my imagination is what I like to call manners and etiquette or perhaps the lack of. I am continuously intrigued by the irony of being, the weird juxtapositions that go on religiously in the world. I mean the idea of the Vatican running a male prostitution racket is wicked or the idea that a homeless person in Los Angeles can still make a handsome living by acting as a buffer between the celebrity and the paparazzi is just salacious. What really intrigues me is how did we arrive at this moment and what does this suggest about the wider social/cultural dialectic? It’s kind of like the idea – what makes for good tragedy is the moment when you don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Q: What is a fun trend that has ignited your interest lately in fashion/arts/social theory, etc.?

A: Fun trend? Well I am hopeful and intrigued by the idea that more media and to some degree art collectives, independent theater, producers, fashion designers are now pushing the envelope as to what constitutes as more contemplative and provocative work. I think more and more people are realizing that the sham and fantasy that most life in America is built on is an utter fabrication or a horrible Sunday picnic trip that has gone wrong in the desert. This has of course led to the extension of critical and provocative body of work that I think no longer tows the ‘party’ line but in fact questions and breeds its own aura.

The recent exhibit, or retrospective by David Halle and Richard Phillips- “Your history is not my history,’ of seminal artists in the 80’s was wonderful in the sense that it dared to say ‘Hey remember when we were artists back in the 80’s and we used to challenge authority, institutions and culture?” As opposed to the current mileu of meandering work as evidenced by the Armory show which had many artists strutting the planks as if they were fashion models or worse celebrities (cause that’s what Damien Hirst has taught us makes money and credibility) . . You just had to laugh, or maybe cry…

Q: What’s the coolest thing you’ve seen at Scope or the Armoury this week? Did NYC Fashion Week suck?

A: As I have reiterated, the Armory show pretty much sucked and as for Scope I didn’t have the heart to once again be disappointed. After all, Scope is the little sister to Armory and if Armory is too busy applying and re-applying her make up and checking for photo ops then one can only wonder what is happening at Scope? Actually, I sent out one of our writers to a party that they were hosting at the Standard and essentially the feedback I got was that it was a bunch of douche bag artists who were clambering for the camera flash. That’s gauche, I’m afraid. As for Fashion Week in NY? Another disappointment. Very few designers stood out for me. They are all copying each other and claiming that they are anti-celebrity (suddenly); meanwhile all you see is celebrity at their shows. Some of the more progressive and intriguing designers were Arise out of Africa (whom I adore), Diego Binetti, Bumsuk Choi’s mens collection for General Idea was phenomenal, Thuy and Tibli deeply sensitive and way above the rest, and my absolute favorite, Jill Stuart, was like an emancipated young woman with her legs spread wide open when that is she wanted to be… Frankly I was more beguiled by the collections in London which we covered. Pam Hogg, Ziad Ghanem, Mark Fast and the cleverness of Christopher Bailey’s collection of ‘Burberry Prorsum.’ The campaign was stellar.

Q: Who is your favorite (contemporaneous) thinker/writer? Who do you hate the most and why?

A: My favorite current thinker? I’m always curious by what Noam Chomsky, the linguistics intellectual, has to say. John Pilger the documentary film maker, because what goes on in the state, authority or behind it hints at what will be happening or not happening in the wider culture. I’m also very intrigued by what I like to call the pop thinkers, Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt, authors of Freakonomics (which kind of makes sense because I too am into freaky things) and I do enjoy Malcolm Gladwell. I very much enjoy how he draws attention to the seemingly apparent contradictions in what ever corridors he traverses in.

I also must admit for a while I paid attention to Nouriel Roubini before he became a pr stunt in over drive. He kind of predicted the financial meltdown we had back in 2008. As for whom do I hate. No one really- well I do dislike these hackers- Bill O Reilly, Sarah Palin, even to some degree Keith Oberman, John Stewart, Cooper Anderson. To me they appear as if they are being provocative, and edgy, but really they are media heads looking for the most ‘google hits,’ and essentially it always boils down to hyperbole and scant regard for what anything really means, how we got here or what this reflects. Then again they are working for the mainstream apparatus making lots of money and you have to appreciate at the end of the day they are well paid salesmen towing the party line. Just once I’d really like to see these guys offend their sponsors and question what really goes on. I think the public would get an erection.

Q: As a former trader and Wall Street alum, do you believe in ‘laissez faire capitalism’? What’s your fav asset class over the next year and why?

A: No I don’t believe in ‘laissez faire capitalism.’ That’s just a con game sold to the American public. Every time a big financial institution falters, they get bailed out, but every time a small nation or an individual falters- and they need help they are the first to cry out (or make sure their paid lobby contingent in Washington and the perceived media elite cries out on their behalf) – “Oh no, we can’t do that- that will make us socialists.” It’s offensive and farcical. I like to call it moving the goal posts when it suits you. The markets at the end of the day will come across bouts of inefficiency and locked in disregard for the greater public good and a sensitive and thoughtful society should address these concerns rather than neglecting them and holding themselves ransom to bankers, lobbyists, the pharmaceutical and health care industries. Middle class Americans living in white tents is not a sustainable idea, no matter how much fibs you lather them up about why they should consider themselves free. What does freedom really mean then, when you can’t even afford it, after all- “It’s only free as long as you can afford it.” As for my favorite asset class- I am afraid nothing intrigues me. The best bet a savvy trader or investor could make is in the underlying volatility in various financial classes.I wont go into the specifics, but a cursory regard of what’s off the radar at the moment and what’s historically had large volatile movements should have you possibly looking to exploit these situations. The Euro and European debt market would of have been stellar plays. I’d be looking to sell volatility there now after the fracas, but who knows if Italy or Spain default after Greece?

Q: What celeb would you most like to have your way with?

A: Frankly I don’t like most celebrities. They are offensive, rude, vapid and thoughtless. I would like to spend an evening with Lindsay Lohan, but I am afraid I might somehow end up liking her and have her calling me religiously every time her nose starts bleeding. I also don’t care for Perez Hilton, he has no business being a celebrity- he is a buffoon that has overstayed his welcome just like the other one. Talking of which, I would love to give Jon Gosselin a swift kick up the rear, but then again you have to realize he’s a fool who can’t help believing his own and the studio’s con game.

Of course there are thoughtful and enigmatic celebrities- Leonardo Di Caprio, Bjork, Tom Wolfe, Sasha Cohen Baron, various film directors, theater directors, writers- that I do admire and would very much enjoy a chance to meet.

Q: In your view, which ‘online publication’ sucks the most? Which is your fav?

A: I think it’s obvious it’s Gawker and NY Post. They are vapid entities that give scant regard as to what actually anything ever means. It’s just constant loud hysteria and stick beating. Another one that offends me is Guest of a Guest. I think it’s extraordinary that you can take a bunch of 20 somethings and convince them that if they tag their names at the bottom of some picture or are photographed by some celebrity photographer like Patrick McMullan that they too are now celebrities and wonderful people we should care about when in fact they are useless, unproductive and extremely selfish and destructive members of society. It’s a sham and I think they know it. I can’t wait for these kids to one day wake up to themselves. That said, I’m guilty of browsing and referencing their sites. Then again I think we are all guilty of eating the occasional Quarter Pounder.

Which is my fav? I always enjoy reading D-listed. The guy is straight up vulgar, rude and hilarious. He gives it to you without the pretension that so many others do. I also enjoy reading NY Mag (Daily Intel is amazing), ViceLand from time to time, NY Times Styles Section, the UK Spectator, the Atlantic, Cracked.com, Daily Mail for it vulgarness, i-D, Vanity Fair and Tattler are so kindred and educated; the Financial Times weekend culture section, Bomb Mag for thoughtful interviews, N+1 for their supposed intellectual ennui and whatever else comes my way from time to time. For pictures I love the Sartorialist.

Q: Who would you rather beat up: Noam Chomsky or Chris Hitchens?

A: Who would I rather beat up? – Obviously Christopher Hitchins. He’ s a neophyte and a hypocrite and a staunch supporter of aggressive right wing policy. Of course like others I suspect I might come to enjoy him if I were to ever meet him but I would be concerned that he too would call me every time he’s nose started bleeding or another brick landed in his living room. I have such pathos for obviously tainted human individuals, well to a point anyway…

Q: What’s your favorite quote?

A: “Just because you recognize me, doesn’t mean I recognize you.”

Check out: www.scallywagandvagabond.com