Sitting in the cozy livingroom-esque seating area of Boston Common Coffee Co. in the north end, patrons are surrounded by Pottery Barn inspired 90's prep goodness, fit for sipping cappuccino and listening to Dave Mathews in Abercombie for hours, chatting about Friends. The walls are laiden with beautiful, lush, vibrant paintings of Italy and the North End, beautifully rendered in vibrant color and confidant, bold bush strokes, hung as densely and enthusiastically as the paintings are composed.
There is something fresh and contemporary about these paintings - crisp, momentary.
With Lens distortion.
That's when it becomes clear that these are paintings of snapshots; paintings of photographs.
At some point in our contemporary re-embrace of hyperrealism, photographs have crossed the line from reference material to subject material. What does this mean for painting? When the photograph itself becomes the subject, does this imply that it is the true source of inspiration? When paintings strive to capture perspectives, moments, and experiences that are either impossible or extraordinarily/prohibitively difficult to capture in person, does the painter cede ground to the photographer?
Then comes the issue of paintings of poor photographs. Even expertly rendered paintings can be compromised when they include the shortcomings of photography rather than exceed them. Distortion, exposure problems, and other amateur photography problems appear with regularity in hyperrealism - even in magazines and galleries, and are sypmtomatic of using a photograph as subject rather than as reference (preferably, many as reference). The most frequent is plane-of-camera errors, which result in buildings squished at the top and bulging in nauseating ways. The composition might be spot-on, but this tell marks the artist not only as an undisciplined photographer but undisciplined artist as well.
But if the true capturer of beauty is the shutter and not the brush, what then?
Some great contemporary impressionism, perhaps?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Clint Eastwood's bittersweet masterpiece - Gran Torino
this isn't really edited, i just threw it up here...
After seeing this movie, I left the theater feeling many things - a deep and overwhelming sadness, hope for a world that seems lost, a nagging wish to return to the days when I would follow my grandfather on his errands, spouting off wisdom in the same tough guy manners Clint Eastwood used.
But the alarming emotion - the one I never expected, and at first didn't really understand, that took the longest to diagnose - was shame.
I'm ashamed of how close the movie has hewn to modern family dynamics, including my own. I'm ashamed for the times I insisted on wearing inappropriate clothes to church, and the times I begged to leave family events early, basically for the entirety of my youth in regard to my familial obligations and general treatment of my elders.
But even more surprising, I became aware of a numb but certain shame for being part of a world that lets this kind of thing play out, for being part of a masculinity that tolerates and even idolizes this dangerous and violent culture, and consequently ruins young lives by the thousands.
I feel guilty for the hours spent on Grand Theft Auto, for the 2Pac and Biggie CDs, (shame for Eminem is a long-established thing), my copy of Scarface. Because the truth is, for kids from strong families and supportive communities, music, video games and movies don't really make a big difference. Its the kids without steady guidance that pay the price of our drugs-and-violence culture- entertainment for us, reality for them. As much as my late twenties have made clear the importance of being a good man, this movie showed me I hadn't even scratched the surface. Because this movie was unapologetically about manhood; about the things it drives us to and from, the ways it is broken and the ways it can be the solution. I want to say it's bigger than manhood, but it's not bigger than that, it's just additional; it applies to things beyond it. This movie may encompass the entirety of what it means to be a man in this world, in simplified, abstracted terms.
But the shame i felt is not the kind you wish you didn't feel - it's the kind you wish you had felt a long, long time ago, and that you are grateful to feel now.
I hope everyone, everywhere sees this movie- its a movie that reminds me of the power of films, and how important they are for our wide-flung world.
After seeing this movie, I left the theater feeling many things - a deep and overwhelming sadness, hope for a world that seems lost, a nagging wish to return to the days when I would follow my grandfather on his errands, spouting off wisdom in the same tough guy manners Clint Eastwood used.
But the alarming emotion - the one I never expected, and at first didn't really understand, that took the longest to diagnose - was shame.
I'm ashamed of how close the movie has hewn to modern family dynamics, including my own. I'm ashamed for the times I insisted on wearing inappropriate clothes to church, and the times I begged to leave family events early, basically for the entirety of my youth in regard to my familial obligations and general treatment of my elders.
But even more surprising, I became aware of a numb but certain shame for being part of a world that lets this kind of thing play out, for being part of a masculinity that tolerates and even idolizes this dangerous and violent culture, and consequently ruins young lives by the thousands.
I feel guilty for the hours spent on Grand Theft Auto, for the 2Pac and Biggie CDs, (shame for Eminem is a long-established thing), my copy of Scarface. Because the truth is, for kids from strong families and supportive communities, music, video games and movies don't really make a big difference. Its the kids without steady guidance that pay the price of our drugs-and-violence culture- entertainment for us, reality for them. As much as my late twenties have made clear the importance of being a good man, this movie showed me I hadn't even scratched the surface. Because this movie was unapologetically about manhood; about the things it drives us to and from, the ways it is broken and the ways it can be the solution. I want to say it's bigger than manhood, but it's not bigger than that, it's just additional; it applies to things beyond it. This movie may encompass the entirety of what it means to be a man in this world, in simplified, abstracted terms.
But the shame i felt is not the kind you wish you didn't feel - it's the kind you wish you had felt a long, long time ago, and that you are grateful to feel now.
I hope everyone, everywhere sees this movie- its a movie that reminds me of the power of films, and how important they are for our wide-flung world.
Friday, January 23, 2009
not everything is awful!
I heard this on the radio late last night, and could only find it on ABC Australia's website, referring to the BBC news release I had heard on the radio... very mysterious and awesome (not awful). Apparently researchers in Maryland and I forget where else have passed information across an empty one-meter space between two atoms- I suspect it was some kind of basic binary code because they suggest that it's the basis of quantum computing, and in quantum mechanics, particles affect each other instantly across immense distances... which I had heard but never thought of it as something we could apply so directly. It's all the more intriguing because of it's lack of back-up...
Monday, January 5, 2009
the oneironaut
Wikipedia told me that an oneironaut is one who travels through dream worlds and/or explores alternate realities. Another common definition dictates that an oneironaut is one that travels without moving. Moving in this case refers to physical or bodily movement for example daydreaming.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
commencement speech by David Foster Wallace
sometimes it all seems so lonely and futile, like no one else gives a flip and who are you to try to care about anything, and sometimes you find something that makes everything seem ok, that reaches you across everything, that makes you feel like you aren't crazy, and tonite, this commencement speech given by David Foster Wallace at Kenyon College that I found on my boy Joey B's blog is just that thing for me.
Monday, July 14, 2008
classicism: idealized ideals
My awesome friend at work found this article about an archaeologist restoring Grecian ruins to their original color, and makes a strong argument that the ancients would have seen bare marble as undesirable. It's funny, because we have embraced these things in their raw simplicity, accepted their luminous marble uniformity as a tenet of their character and idolized them accordingly. We value the elegance and restraint, the appreciation of the material's inherent qualities, the respectful honesty and wisdom of it. I suspect it played a role in our modern love of materials' innate qualities from frank Lloyd Wright's bare bricks to Mies van der Roe's exposed I-beams and polished concrete to Aalto's /Danish Modern wood. It's a fundamental part of our classical heritage, even though it is as imaginary as the 18th century belief in the Egyptian heritage of the British.
It's almost like we don't idealize just the ancient Greeks, forgetting their gaudy and foolish humanity, we idealize their ideals. We cherish an idealized history; as archaeologists flesh out more and more truths about their lives and times they paint the source of our ideals with humanity- and divorce them from the value that we find in them. These painted reproductions are unlikely to attract the reverence of their ghostly originals, splashed with the too-familiar indulgences of humanity, they are not nearly as compelling as their mute remnants. The humanity of it is amply available in ourselves; it's the idealized version of these ideals we need, the restrained, the purified; something other than, better than ourselves, truer even in their deceit as if time has washed away the foolishness of our predecessors and preserved for us only the best hidden within them.
It's almost like we don't idealize just the ancient Greeks, forgetting their gaudy and foolish humanity, we idealize their ideals. We cherish an idealized history; as archaeologists flesh out more and more truths about their lives and times they paint the source of our ideals with humanity- and divorce them from the value that we find in them. These painted reproductions are unlikely to attract the reverence of their ghostly originals, splashed with the too-familiar indulgences of humanity, they are not nearly as compelling as their mute remnants. The humanity of it is amply available in ourselves; it's the idealized version of these ideals we need, the restrained, the purified; something other than, better than ourselves, truer even in their deceit as if time has washed away the foolishness of our predecessors and preserved for us only the best hidden within them.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
all that 'empire' stuff form last year
The Boston Athenaeum has archived lecture series online and I noticed the author of a book I had seen a while ago, Cullen Murphy on his book Are We Rome?. What a better way to get the thrust of the book without having to wait until I wade through the seven other books I'm currently trying to read?
The author had a lot to say and a fascinating body of knowledge to draw from, and convinced me that the book is worth reading if just for that - a lot of interesting things about Roman cultural identity and the histories they looked back on to form it, details of society that we don't see, etc.
Comparing of the United States and Rome he highlighted a lot of parallels and gave meaningful background to them. Then he started down the road of "we are Rome and will fall like her because the government is too weak" and how we can learn from Rome how to make sure the government can 'work in concert' when it needs to, has enough power, ie is centralized, well-funded, etc... never addressing the obvious contradiction between demanding exhaustive governmental authority and criticizing an apathetic citizenry, and never addressing the danger of corruption in our own government despite mentioning some ripe parallels in the Roman system.
For 30 some years, the current generation has been beating this same drum, concurrently demanding ever-expanding governmental authority and complaining of abusive leadership, never admitting that the two go hand-in-hand. It seems that those that are running our world would sooner hand society over wholesale to bureaucrats, politicians, and the would-be emperors they harbor than concede that their may be some tiny flaw in their government-panacea ideology. If we are talking about emperors, this sounds like new clothes to me.
I was also surprised that he didn't explore the possibility that Rome began to fall as soon as the Republic was compromised, that the gains of the Empire were like the flight of a rocket whose engine has given out - the crash destroys it, but is not the true cause of the destruction. He didn't broach the subject of an American parallel to this might be the greatest danger of all; that the abdication of authority and responsibility to a centralized power, be it emperor or bureaucracy, creates a system ripe for the picking by any megalomaniac. That may be the true lesson from the fall of Rome; maybe we can avoid that fate.
The author had a lot to say and a fascinating body of knowledge to draw from, and convinced me that the book is worth reading if just for that - a lot of interesting things about Roman cultural identity and the histories they looked back on to form it, details of society that we don't see, etc.
Comparing of the United States and Rome he highlighted a lot of parallels and gave meaningful background to them. Then he started down the road of "we are Rome and will fall like her because the government is too weak" and how we can learn from Rome how to make sure the government can 'work in concert' when it needs to, has enough power, ie is centralized, well-funded, etc... never addressing the obvious contradiction between demanding exhaustive governmental authority and criticizing an apathetic citizenry, and never addressing the danger of corruption in our own government despite mentioning some ripe parallels in the Roman system.
For 30 some years, the current generation has been beating this same drum, concurrently demanding ever-expanding governmental authority and complaining of abusive leadership, never admitting that the two go hand-in-hand. It seems that those that are running our world would sooner hand society over wholesale to bureaucrats, politicians, and the would-be emperors they harbor than concede that their may be some tiny flaw in their government-panacea ideology. If we are talking about emperors, this sounds like new clothes to me.
I was also surprised that he didn't explore the possibility that Rome began to fall as soon as the Republic was compromised, that the gains of the Empire were like the flight of a rocket whose engine has given out - the crash destroys it, but is not the true cause of the destruction. He didn't broach the subject of an American parallel to this might be the greatest danger of all; that the abdication of authority and responsibility to a centralized power, be it emperor or bureaucracy, creates a system ripe for the picking by any megalomaniac. That may be the true lesson from the fall of Rome; maybe we can avoid that fate.
Monday, April 21, 2008
preemption, one better: pop music's inanity and world peace
This post is not about Leona Lewis. It's really about the legions of young people we deploy across the globe, armed with beauty, talent, and inane love songs, and their crucial role in cultural mediation.
It also suggests the opposite: that every self-absorbed, hedonistic, nihilistic, drug addicted angst-monger we elect to that same role does incalculable damage to our nation and global peace.
In an attempt to stay remotely in touch with national culture, I was flipping through the 'top artist' pages on myspace and I ran across this girl that looked pretty seriously produced & promoted that I had never seen before. She looks and sounds completely American - "looks" in that she's green eyed, toffee skinned & dark blondish, "sounds" as in she's got a gorgeous voice singing the usual piano/synthesizer pop love song type stuff.
Turns out she's British, and it seems the British music industry lately is more integrated with our own, and at least on this level, British culture is largely indistinguishable from ours, basically it's the same culture.
Pop musicians represent the values of our nation's (-s'?) future decision makers; they idealize what we respect and admire. Leona Lewis's face, seemingly derived from almost every race on the planet, is a declaration by the teen hearts of Brittan that they are a modern nation, open and enlightened. Her messages are innocuous but largely constructive, moral. Her celebrity and sophistication broadcasts that British culture is the vehicle for achieving this, this girl that's got it all - beautiful, rich, good. The inanity of her music is actually an asset; only the strictest nationalistic cultures will be able to keep her out. Young girls in every culture with families rich enough for internet access will identify with her; she is one of our strongest ambassadors.
The reverse is true: pop music reinforces negative stereotypes too, fosters anger, justifies anti-westernism from both sides. It would be interesting to track US world popularity against pop-culture ideology: I wouldn't be surprised to see anti-Americanism rise globally with musicians' pseudo-intellectualism starting in the 60s and 70s. While pop lays the foundation for cultural cooperation and unity, gangsta rap, punk, and all the bastardizations of rock & roll lay the foundations for violence, anger, confusion, and ultimately war.
As we become more and more in the spotlight globally, we need to be conscious of these possible effects of our decisions, and we collectively must support constructive ideologies.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
thoughts on the corporate problem: revoking coprorate charters
"It has no body to kick and no soul to damn."[citation]
We all know it doesn't work as well as it should. We have also been convinced that corporations can do whatever they want, and we can't stop them any more than we can issue commands to our neighbors.
But corporations are not our neighbors, they are not "natural persons". They come into being through a charter representing our collective blessing. Should we not be able to revoke that charter at our will?
The cost of corporate dissolution, and possibly the risk of assigning personal liability to the governing board & executives of corporations, would be enough to enable the inherent morality of these "natural persons" to overwhelm the psychopathy of the corporate entity. The stain of being kicked out of even one state would be enough; this could be a 'big stick' for the soft-spoken people of America, and may even be adopted internationally.
The format would be chosen by each state with the goal being a pure referendum, each vote counting.
this is a simplification of our system, a step toward a more raw democracy, where everyone's thoughts are counted, where injustice can't hide in pretensions of subtlety, and would serve to educate the public on corporate structure and behavior.
This would also empower states and highlight the ability of a federal system to act as a political incubator.
anyway I could probably bloviate on this issue for pages, but this is a blog so I'll stop now...
Lord Edward Thurlow, re: the corporation
We all know it doesn't work as well as it should. We have also been convinced that corporations can do whatever they want, and we can't stop them any more than we can issue commands to our neighbors.
But corporations are not our neighbors, they are not "natural persons". They come into being through a charter representing our collective blessing. Should we not be able to revoke that charter at our will?
The cost of corporate dissolution, and possibly the risk of assigning personal liability to the governing board & executives of corporations, would be enough to enable the inherent morality of these "natural persons" to overwhelm the psychopathy of the corporate entity. The stain of being kicked out of even one state would be enough; this could be a 'big stick' for the soft-spoken people of America, and may even be adopted internationally.
The format would be chosen by each state with the goal being a pure referendum, each vote counting.
this is a simplification of our system, a step toward a more raw democracy, where everyone's thoughts are counted, where injustice can't hide in pretensions of subtlety, and would serve to educate the public on corporate structure and behavior.
This would also empower states and highlight the ability of a federal system to act as a political incubator.
anyway I could probably bloviate on this issue for pages, but this is a blog so I'll stop now...
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Beantown
on the t home today I was reading Bostons newest free paper, Boston Now, and after reading the two-t-stop article on Castro's resignation I found this little reflection on our city. Pinned to a quote from a PR person at BC, the article reflected on our position as an academic haven. This was charming and heartwarming reminder or why I like this place, and it got me thinking - in the emerging world order where we are increasingly the exporters of ideas and less and less of products , academic communities like ours could be very valuable things. The article made some surprising suggestions - specifically about beantown being the hub of academia, going as far as suggesting that there is no other city in the world that can offer the concentration and diversity that Boston can. It was shocking not to be able to name a city that can compete.
Could it be possible that the long tides are turning, that we still can become the city on the hill? Will our dowdy stoicism and fussy morality pay in the new century? Maybe. Of course, in a world where creativity wields authority, it is fluid and decentralized and cannot have a true "capitol" (compromised dominance - what else would Bostonians accept?), but certainly we would be a bright star in the new constellation, a fast-firing neuron in the network. Maybe the things we have cherished in our nerdy backwater will turn out to be the stuff of the new economy, and the specialized, corporatized, industrialized hedonism of the 20th century will recede, the filthy money that has washed over America since the first tobacco plantation will relent, and at least allow the other America, the wholesome heart that has kept us together, to be seen again?
As the red line rumbled out of it's tunnel and the sparkling skyline appeared before me, the slow-icing Charles running beneath my feet, I couldn't help feeling good about life, for the first time in a long while.
Could it be possible that the long tides are turning, that we still can become the city on the hill? Will our dowdy stoicism and fussy morality pay in the new century? Maybe. Of course, in a world where creativity wields authority, it is fluid and decentralized and cannot have a true "capitol" (compromised dominance - what else would Bostonians accept?), but certainly we would be a bright star in the new constellation, a fast-firing neuron in the network. Maybe the things we have cherished in our nerdy backwater will turn out to be the stuff of the new economy, and the specialized, corporatized, industrialized hedonism of the 20th century will recede, the filthy money that has washed over America since the first tobacco plantation will relent, and at least allow the other America, the wholesome heart that has kept us together, to be seen again?
As the red line rumbled out of it's tunnel and the sparkling skyline appeared before me, the slow-icing Charles running beneath my feet, I couldn't help feeling good about life, for the first time in a long while.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Friday, December 21, 2007
numbers
There is a part in Alice in Wonderland where her math is all gibberish - she says 9 + 9 = 10 or something like that; the crazy thing I just learned is that she was right - she's just using a base 18 decimal system.
Why do we use base 10? Some cultures have used base 12, the number of knuckles on the human hand, base 20, even base 60... in our decimal system, we have 10 named numbers and all others are a combination of those. 1-9, then 10 is really just (1 x 10) + 0. "10" isnt a number, it's a code.
In Alice's case the concept of 18 (9 + 9) is represented by "10", because in a base 18 system 10 is code for (1 x 18) + 0.
crazy.
I'm reading this book The Golden Ratio: The Story of Phi, the World's Most Astonishing Number which is a tangential romp through the history of numbers and I love it.
Why do we use base 10? Some cultures have used base 12, the number of knuckles on the human hand, base 20, even base 60... in our decimal system, we have 10 named numbers and all others are a combination of those. 1-9, then 10 is really just (1 x 10) + 0. "10" isnt a number, it's a code.
In Alice's case the concept of 18 (9 + 9) is represented by "10", because in a base 18 system 10 is code for (1 x 18) + 0.
crazy.
I'm reading this book The Golden Ratio: The Story of Phi, the World's Most Astonishing Number which is a tangential romp through the history of numbers and I love it.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
the importance of Santa
Why do childhood myths like Santa have such sticking power? People talk about the duplicity of it, speculating that we are misleading our children, etc... But I've come to believe that these childhood myths, the ones that are clearly false to older people, play a crucial role in developing critical thinking ability. The process of discovery is the first exercise of a crucial skill: the ability to see through the popularly accepted truth. It's interesting that Christians caught up in the perverse and corrupt middle-ages' Catholic hierarchies and politics probably originated many of them.
just a thought for this morning.
just a thought for this morning.
Monday, November 12, 2007
coming back soon
I've been gone from this project for a while, pouring every ounce of myself into portfolio, essay, and paperwork for grad school. I can't believe I am so far behind. Soon, I will be back posting rants and random stuff.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
national service- time mag/charlie rose
Right now, I'm watching a totally inspiring Charlie Rose with Jeffrey Sachs, Richard Stengel & Caroline Kennedy talking about the upsurge in our generation's public service (the "9/11 generation"). The subject totally makes me optimistic about restoring our culture, maybe we aren't 'late Rome' quite yet. From companies having trouble hiring without charitable efforts to the peace core, it's fantastic.
I'm also watching Richard Stengel pitch this totally lecherous scheme for politicians to feed off the vitality of these charitable efforts to promote their own campaigns and sneak their fingers into the public service cookie jar. Just the idea of political fingers still wet from back-room deals all over something so pure, innocent, and true, I cant stomach it. If I could think of anyone less deserving... they'd give my the heebies too.
I'm also watching Richard Stengel pitch this totally lecherous scheme for politicians to feed off the vitality of these charitable efforts to promote their own campaigns and sneak their fingers into the public service cookie jar. Just the idea of political fingers still wet from back-room deals all over something so pure, innocent, and true, I cant stomach it. If I could think of anyone less deserving... they'd give my the heebies too.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
systemic racism in standardized testing
more evidence that separating people statistically by race reinforces racism, in far more serious ways than its results could ever make up for.
This is intuitively obvious, but some people are just too thick.
This is intuitively obvious, but some people are just too thick.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Ron Paul, political outsider, shakes up prez. race
Ron Paul's giving the mainstream a shake-up; is he too much of an outsider to make a difference? will he split the republican vote? or the Democrat vote?? He's not just saying what people want to hear, he's saying what people believe, what real American Conservatives believe but mainstream news won't report.
Plus, both his names are monosyllabic first names.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
the biggest mistake ever
I'm reading this book, The Metaphysical Club, which has a totally pretentious t
itle but is just about American History, and I'm thinking about the French Revolution and how it was totally f*d, esp. after seeing Simon Schama's The Power of Art on PBS about the painting "the death of marat" and I came to a terrible hypothesis.What if the American Revolution is responsible for the hundreds of bloody, miserable, terrible failed revolutions which have swept Europe and the third world during this century? Have we, by not loudly clarifying what actually happened in our own history, tacitly provided the groundwork for bloodshed and terror?
What did happen here that was right? Why have other cultures failed, even ones outwardly more civilized and culturally accomplished than ourselves, such as France? The crucial distinction is that Americans were defending an existing civilization against arbitrary rule. Ours was a formality, a political revolution. The French sought to reform their society, it was a cultural revolution. The French were destroying an existing civilization to set up a new one. It tore them to shreds and a lesser people wouldn't have survived- in fact, less cohesive civilizations everywhere have not.
A revolution has never created a free and just society. that world must exist, however repressed, and must be strong and resilient enough to withstand the shock of war and the ensuing power-grab that is inevitable in the wake of overthrows and depositions. A revolution can only free the underlying society - often when that is not strong enough, something much more terrible is unleashed.
We are at fault for not sharing this information that we are so close to- and it is never said; maybe we are too close to it to see. But our laziness has inspired not only the French, but countless (well I'm not going to count them, at least) revolutions in the name of 'freedom' and 'the people'. Unfortunately, almost all have been the French model, a revolution to spontaneously generate a fair and just society, I do not know of an instance of a vibrant and strong existing society throwing off its oppressors - maybe Iran? but they seem a little delusional lately...
It all comes down to the fundamental building block of society- trust, between neighbors, friends, colleagues, strangers - our revolution was to defend that trust, cultural revolutions break it in order to remake them in some ideal way. The most eminent intellectuals and philosophers or strongest political leaders and orators will never be able to create that trust, it is made every day by you and me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
