So I apologize for not posting in over a month. I was on vacation and then I left for France. Now I am living in Tours with a host family until I move to Paris to begin the semester at the Sorbonne.
I've made a few things. One is a poem which I will scan in tomorrow. The other is a mix. I figure I owe you.
The Winds of August.
1 Do You Realize??- The Flaming Lips
2 Furr- Blitzen Trapper
3 Non Je Ne Regret Rien- Edith Piaf
4 The Revolution Will Not Be Televised- Gil Scott-Heron
5 Pale Blue Eyes- The Velvet Underground
6 You Don't Know Where Your Interest Lies- Simon & Garfunkel
7 Northern, Knees, Trees, and Lights- Loch Lomonde
8 Your Light Is Spent- Final Fantasy
9 Blackbird- The Beatles
10 Brass Monkey- Beastie Boys
11 Express Yourself- Charles Wright
12 Heavy Metal Drummer- Wilco
13 La Vie En Rose- Louis Armstrong
14 Ms Jackson- OutKast
15 Money- N.A.S.A.
16 Two Weeks- Grizzly Bear
17 Winter Winds- Mumford & Sons
18 Boy Lilikoi- Jónsi
19 April Come She Will- Simon & Garfunkel
20 Wild Horses- The Rolling Stones
02 September 2010
24 July 2010
I bought some books last night
So this evil woman thought it would be a good idea to take me to this amazing used bookstore. Unfortunately, they knew how amazing they were and they charged accordingly. It took just about as much self-restraint as I had (and the knowledge of only $40 in my bank account) to prevent me from buying $200 worth of books. That's used books. And that's before I saw the entire shelf that was devoted to language.
Every time I've heard someone talk about Heidegger I have known that I would love him, but I've never had the opportunity to read him for myself. I think this will make for some beautiful hammock reading. And it should be a good introduction for me. Hopefully I won't need to understand his whole epistemology in order to understand these essays. That would be bad.
My dad has been telling me all summer that I need to read some Chomsky. Maybe I can get him to spot me for it. Nevertheless, I am excited.
So this doesn't look as exciting as the other ones but this is a pretty jam-packed anthology. Quickly, we have Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Tolstoy (don't ask me), Derrida, Foucault, Freud, Jung, Marinetti, and Kandinsky among so many others.
So there's a story behind this. My dad has recited "The Shooting of Dan McGrew" and "The Cremation of Sam McGee" more times than I can count. He learned them from my great-uncle Jack who would always recite them. I have a feeling that there are a lot of great-uncles and grandfathers out there who recite Robert Service poetry. This goes out to all of them.
There are strange things done in the midnight sun
By the men who moil for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales
That would make your blood run cold;
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights
But the strangest I ever did see
Was that night on the Marge of Lake Labarge
I cremated Sam McGee.
Gotta love it.
Blitzen Trapper!
17 July 2010
Dude... this is weird
Finally Just Rosalie (Daughter, Girlfriend, Wife, Mother, Grandmother)
There's a recent aesthetic trend that I can't put my finger on but it is driving me wild (in a good way).
I don't care that its a documentary photo about a wild fire, it's gorgeous. Unlike most documentary photography, it doesn't depend on the event or the action in the photo to provide an interesting image. In fact I liked the photo before I realized that it was about a wild fire. It kinda makes you think, maybe he's baiting us. like Milton in Paradise Lost. Except I highly doubt that this photo's attractiveness is a brilliantly thought-out trap to make you realize that you have always been a sinner because a talented photographer can make you find fire beautiful. It can be. Yes, yes, I know: "To create. is greater than created to destroy." But if God is beautiful, and God is/created everything, then everything must be beautiful (to a point/ if you think about it the right way). But I don't want to start going on about the fact that the fires are probably started by humans or about our imperialist and destructive way of dealing with anything non-human. It's a great photo.
The more I think about it, it's the weird stuff that gets me. I guess I'm just a sucker for surrealism. Susan Sontag said that all photography is essentially surrealist, but when she said it she meant it as a bad thing. I really don't see it that way. Maybe I'm using the word wrong, but I don't know another word for the use of unconventional words or images to achieve a higher level of expression.
Here's another good one:
Strange things just have so much more potential for expression. That does not make every weird thing good art or even interesting. But if you're entirely comfortable with it, it probably isn't good art. I don't completely understand why or how, but I know it's true.
My posts have been getting a little long so I'll keep it short this time and not go on and on about the definition of surrealism. Keep it weird, but not random.
Here's a song. Don't dismiss it just because it doesn't initially make sense.
13 July 2010
Meet my machete
Producing a photograph is extraordinarily easy—especially with digital cameras—so when looking at photography as art, one must be very critical. You have to be cruel to be kind. At the very center of most aesthetic thought there is the idea that some images are beautiful and interesting and important and that others.. aren't. Art is inherently exclusive, at least a little bit, because not everyone can create great art. So aesthetics is necessary to decide what is art and what isn't, or what is good art and what is crappy. There are probably more photos in print and on hard drives than exist countable numbers, so in this post I will describe what I have affectionately deemed my machete (for hacking away the bad stuff).
There is no checklist for good photography (if there were it'd be too easy) but I do have a list of things that will probably ruin your chances of calling your photo good art.
I think the strongest way to develop an aesthetic is to understand the limitations of the medium. A camera is a machine that captures light and records it, almost removing the human element entirely. The creative power of a photograph comes from the act of choosing. Choosing a subject matter, choosing the composition, choosing the f/ stop and shutter speed, choosing how to print the image. The only active creation comes with darkroom techniques and photoshop. But most of the process is about choice. When photographs are part of a series, their power exponentially increases because an other layer of choices gives meaning to the photographs by association. Only then can they begin to compete with the more noble art-forms (painting, etc.). It is difficult to compare a photograph to a painting because a photograph is a chemical representation. It's like comparing sample based music to music that was recorded live. One sample=lame. 15 samples=profound. It's the killer bee effect.
Taking a photograph of something is the equivalent of saying, "This is important!" or, "Look at this!" Sometimes it's talking about the physical object in the photo, sometimes about their cultural significance, sometimes it's just about the composition and the juxtaposition, sometime it's about past and future events, sometimes it's about something completely foreign. First and foremost, a photograph has to be important. Most are. But if you find yourself disagreeing with the photographer's first statement, then it is probably a bad photograph or it just doesn't relate to you, most often it is the latter because of the former. An inability to articulate a photograph's significance is far different from not knowing if a photograph has any significance. If you don't know, it is probably significant. This is probably true for all art, but it has particular importance for photography. This is a fairly simple criterion but if we continue to sharpen it, we may be able to hack off some good chunks.
Even a photograph of yours truly smiling in front of the Eiffel Tower could be important to upwards of 15 people. Someone could look at is and say, "Oh look at Matt having fun in Paris, I miss him so much how will I ever survive without him." If the person doesn't know me they wouldn't care, the importance would be outside their frame of reference. Sometimes art can be esoteric but there had better be some real value if you expect me to do the research. No matter how much research you did, it would not make this imaginary photograph any more interesting. (Unless some terrible or wonderful thing hung in the balance of me visiting the Eiffel Tower and even then it would only be as interesting as a B movie that you only watch for the fighting, attractive people, and/or sex scenes.)
Because this is a book worthy topic, I'm going to touch quickly on a bunch of different types of photography and elaborate more a little later:
Portraits
An important subject does not make an important photograph. Portraits are very difficult to weigh as art. Portraiture is essentially PR. Portrait photographers are great at taking a small element of person and turning it into something photo-ready. It tries to show who someone is, when a photograph alone is incapable of doing that. A single portrait of a single person can only be expressive up to a certain point. It can guide you to assume a few things about that person and what little there is to assume may or may not be accurate. Photo portraits can only make you think you know who someone is, which is why press photos and publicity photos are so important in one's public image, but the actual person is impossibly complex (and more interesting). No photographer can capture the essence of a person, even with a million photos. Rebel! Say it with me: "I am not a composite of the photos of me on facebook!"
The best photographs don't pretend to make their subjects into an object. Great poems are similar, they come not from understanding but wonder and confusion. They are not the answers but the beginnings of questions.
Documentary Photographs
Documentary photographs are often just a more convincing way of saying what can be said in a single sentence, it just offers what is understood to be physical proof. Good documentary photographs can be powerful as hell, but even if they are well composed, the power comes almost entirely from the subject matter, instead of from the photographer. So while I think documentary photography is great, and necessary, it's is not really the type of art I'm looking for.
My favorite photographs baffle me so much that I ask, "why?" Not in a, "why are you showing me this?" way but in a "I'm fascinated, go on," way.
Snapshots
I love the chance involved in random photos, but when the creativity isn't in your hands it's hard to take credit for it. Also when it's up to chance, there is no human element or creativity or expression, but it can be pretty...
Abstractions
I will answer your question with a question:
There is no checklist for good photography (if there were it'd be too easy) but I do have a list of things that will probably ruin your chances of calling your photo good art.
- uninteresting/uninspired use of clichéd images
- anything else (NSFW) that might make your photos ugly
- sloppy composition (without getting lucky)
- unskilled use of photoshop
- obnoxious use of photoshop
- obnoxious vignetting
- not caring or feeling passionately about anything, particularly the subject matter
I think the strongest way to develop an aesthetic is to understand the limitations of the medium. A camera is a machine that captures light and records it, almost removing the human element entirely. The creative power of a photograph comes from the act of choosing. Choosing a subject matter, choosing the composition, choosing the f/ stop and shutter speed, choosing how to print the image. The only active creation comes with darkroom techniques and photoshop. But most of the process is about choice. When photographs are part of a series, their power exponentially increases because an other layer of choices gives meaning to the photographs by association. Only then can they begin to compete with the more noble art-forms (painting, etc.). It is difficult to compare a photograph to a painting because a photograph is a chemical representation. It's like comparing sample based music to music that was recorded live. One sample=lame. 15 samples=profound. It's the killer bee effect.
Taking a photograph of something is the equivalent of saying, "This is important!" or, "Look at this!" Sometimes it's talking about the physical object in the photo, sometimes about their cultural significance, sometimes it's just about the composition and the juxtaposition, sometime it's about past and future events, sometimes it's about something completely foreign. First and foremost, a photograph has to be important. Most are. But if you find yourself disagreeing with the photographer's first statement, then it is probably a bad photograph or it just doesn't relate to you, most often it is the latter because of the former. An inability to articulate a photograph's significance is far different from not knowing if a photograph has any significance. If you don't know, it is probably significant. This is probably true for all art, but it has particular importance for photography. This is a fairly simple criterion but if we continue to sharpen it, we may be able to hack off some good chunks.
Even a photograph of yours truly smiling in front of the Eiffel Tower could be important to upwards of 15 people. Someone could look at is and say, "Oh look at Matt having fun in Paris, I miss him so much how will I ever survive without him." If the person doesn't know me they wouldn't care, the importance would be outside their frame of reference. Sometimes art can be esoteric but there had better be some real value if you expect me to do the research. No matter how much research you did, it would not make this imaginary photograph any more interesting. (Unless some terrible or wonderful thing hung in the balance of me visiting the Eiffel Tower and even then it would only be as interesting as a B movie that you only watch for the fighting, attractive people, and/or sex scenes.)
Because this is a book worthy topic, I'm going to touch quickly on a bunch of different types of photography and elaborate more a little later:
Portraits
An important subject does not make an important photograph. Portraits are very difficult to weigh as art. Portraiture is essentially PR. Portrait photographers are great at taking a small element of person and turning it into something photo-ready. It tries to show who someone is, when a photograph alone is incapable of doing that. A single portrait of a single person can only be expressive up to a certain point. It can guide you to assume a few things about that person and what little there is to assume may or may not be accurate. Photo portraits can only make you think you know who someone is, which is why press photos and publicity photos are so important in one's public image, but the actual person is impossibly complex (and more interesting). No photographer can capture the essence of a person, even with a million photos. Rebel! Say it with me: "I am not a composite of the photos of me on facebook!"
The best photographs don't pretend to make their subjects into an object. Great poems are similar, they come not from understanding but wonder and confusion. They are not the answers but the beginnings of questions.
Documentary Photographs
Documentary photographs are often just a more convincing way of saying what can be said in a single sentence, it just offers what is understood to be physical proof. Good documentary photographs can be powerful as hell, but even if they are well composed, the power comes almost entirely from the subject matter, instead of from the photographer. So while I think documentary photography is great, and necessary, it's is not really the type of art I'm looking for.
My favorite photographs baffle me so much that I ask, "why?" Not in a, "why are you showing me this?" way but in a "I'm fascinated, go on," way.
Snapshots
I love the chance involved in random photos, but when the creativity isn't in your hands it's hard to take credit for it. Also when it's up to chance, there is no human element or creativity or expression, but it can be pretty...
Abstractions
I will answer your question with a question:
New York City. 1969.
Maria Friedlander. Southwestern United States. 1969.
Nashville, Tennessee. 1963.
I've recently realized how much I love Lee Friedlander. He has a very distinct style and fascinating vision. The link that I gave you four times is a huge collection of his photos at MoMA. It's pretty rad.
I love how self conscious this photo is. It's great.
New York City. 1966.
So this song is not really related to my relationship with photography (you have to be cruel to be kind) but it sounds kinda similar, and I was listening to it today, and it's great.
06 July 2010
Sampling: the great chain of hip hop
Hey guys, it's been a while, so this is going to be a long one.
In my search to find wonderful things to show you all (and maybe to entertain myself) I've been browsing websites looking for interesting art. Examples are yayeveryday.com, booooooom.com, and ffffound.com. There's some pretty cool stuff. I found a trailer for a movie that I will be anxiously awaiting until september. Notre jour viendra (Our Day Will Come). 1) it looks beautiful 2) it looks sexy 3) it's in French (I'm a huge french nerd). So yes I will be impatiently awaiting it's release.
I also came across this video. I really hope you watch it because most of this post is based on it, plus it's really cool.
A lot is said in this video essay, and I don't want to lessen it by trying to describe it (plus it goes a little over my head) but I will use it as a discussion point to explore some ideas of my own.
I've always loved recognizing the reuse of words and images and sounds because of the way they could anachronistically relate things, but I think I am most exposed to this in the context of hip hop. I know, I know, just let me defend myself before you call me crazy for comparing visual art and roman sculpture to hip hop. Good hip hop can be very self-referential. I think it's best to explain with examples.
This is not at all exhaustive of these songs. These are just a few connections I came up with off the top of my head and with a little help from the internet.
We'll start with Rapper's Delight by The Sugarhill Gang. This an extremely well known song in hip hop and it's 7+ minutes long so it's not surprising that it has tons of well quoted lines. Here are two quotes you'll probably recognize:
"Hotel, motel, holiday inn"
"on n n on n on on n on, the beat don't stop until the break of dawn"
"Ricky Ricky Ricky, can't you see
Somehow your words just hypnotize me
And I just love your jazzy ways
So MC Rick my love is here to stay"
It would ridiculous to be on the topic of borrowing/stealing and not talk about sampling. Sampling is all about taking old music and chopping it up and reworking lots of different sounds to make an entirely new work. Sometimes the samples are easily recognizable as a reference, Kanye's "Diamonds are Forever," but often they are very difficult to recognize, even if it's a very famous song: e.g. Jay-z's "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)" (I want you back). It becomes very difficult to discern between who is profiting off of rereleasing someone else's genius and who is being extremely creative and really deserves credit.
I present to you Exhibit A: RJD2. Almost all of his best music is entirely composed of found sounds, but the songs he creates are like nothing anyone's ever heard before. Most of his samples are completely unrecognizable, the only one I have ever caught has been from Elliott Smith (from "I didn't understand" on "Ghostwriter"). But his songs are really fresh. Could the fact that I love RJD2's music have anything to do with my inability to question his originality? Possibly. But if you take any of the samples he uses and listen to them out of context, I think you'll appreciate how creative RJD2 really is. For more information check out his interview on NPR here. Among many interesting things, he mentions that he tries to find something that hasn't already been sampled or at least a different part of the song so he can have a fresh sound. He says he likes taking something that doesn't work too well on its own and he tries to mix it together and turn it into something great. So while there's definitely still a trend of borrowing, the excessive use and reuse is an issue of contention.
Someone wise once said, "we stand on the shoulders of giants" and I couldn't agree more. Maybe it's a little bit like we stand on the giant collective shoulders of all people.
So the important questions of this post are:
In my search to find wonderful things to show you all (and maybe to entertain myself) I've been browsing websites looking for interesting art. Examples are yayeveryday.com, booooooom.com, and ffffound.com. There's some pretty cool stuff. I found a trailer for a movie that I will be anxiously awaiting until september. Notre jour viendra (Our Day Will Come). 1) it looks beautiful 2) it looks sexy 3) it's in French (I'm a huge french nerd). So yes I will be impatiently awaiting it's release.
I also came across this video. I really hope you watch it because most of this post is based on it, plus it's really cool.
A lot is said in this video essay, and I don't want to lessen it by trying to describe it (plus it goes a little over my head) but I will use it as a discussion point to explore some ideas of my own.
I've always loved recognizing the reuse of words and images and sounds because of the way they could anachronistically relate things, but I think I am most exposed to this in the context of hip hop. I know, I know, just let me defend myself before you call me crazy for comparing visual art and roman sculpture to hip hop. Good hip hop can be very self-referential. I think it's best to explain with examples.
This is not at all exhaustive of these songs. These are just a few connections I came up with off the top of my head and with a little help from the internet.
We'll start with Rapper's Delight by The Sugarhill Gang. This an extremely well known song in hip hop and it's 7+ minutes long so it's not surprising that it has tons of well quoted lines. Here are two quotes you'll probably recognize:
"Hotel, motel, holiday inn"
- Findum, F***um & Flee- N.W.A.
- Holidae In- Chingy
(Which reminds me I need to talk about misogyny in hip hop but that's a topic for another day)
"on n n on n on on n on, the beat don't stop until the break of dawn"
- La Di Da Di- Slick Rick
- Scenario (remix)- A Tribe Called Quest
"Ricky Ricky Ricky, can't you see
Somehow your words just hypnotize me
And I just love your jazzy ways
So MC Rick my love is here to stay"
- Hypnotize- The Notorious B.I.G. This was a huge hit single and the hook comes straight from Slick Rick.
I could go on for days about popular phrases in hip hop like "freak freak ya'll" or the popular cadence "... and ya don't stop.... and ya don't quit" and on and on and on on and on but I would never stop until I was really old. Plus I'm getting way over my head in hip hop history, so maybe I'll return to this when I know more about the history of hip hop.
But anyway I was making a point about borrowing, remixing, and reusing someone else's creation and building off of it. This is a huge topic and I definitely haven't managed to wrap my head around it entirely but I want to get down what I can.
It would ridiculous to be on the topic of borrowing/stealing and not talk about sampling. Sampling is all about taking old music and chopping it up and reworking lots of different sounds to make an entirely new work. Sometimes the samples are easily recognizable as a reference, Kanye's "Diamonds are Forever," but often they are very difficult to recognize, even if it's a very famous song: e.g. Jay-z's "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)" (I want you back). It becomes very difficult to discern between who is profiting off of rereleasing someone else's genius and who is being extremely creative and really deserves credit.
I present to you Exhibit A: RJD2. Almost all of his best music is entirely composed of found sounds, but the songs he creates are like nothing anyone's ever heard before. Most of his samples are completely unrecognizable, the only one I have ever caught has been from Elliott Smith (from "I didn't understand" on "Ghostwriter"). But his songs are really fresh. Could the fact that I love RJD2's music have anything to do with my inability to question his originality? Possibly. But if you take any of the samples he uses and listen to them out of context, I think you'll appreciate how creative RJD2 really is. For more information check out his interview on NPR here. Among many interesting things, he mentions that he tries to find something that hasn't already been sampled or at least a different part of the song so he can have a fresh sound. He says he likes taking something that doesn't work too well on its own and he tries to mix it together and turn it into something great. So while there's definitely still a trend of borrowing, the excessive use and reuse is an issue of contention.
Someone wise once said, "we stand on the shoulders of giants" and I couldn't agree more. Maybe it's a little bit like we stand on the giant collective shoulders of all people.
So the important questions of this post are:
- Is recycling something less creative than creating something from scratch? or is there a distinctive talent in taking something good and reworking it to become great?
- Do you need the original creator's permission to do so?
- Can an image, phrase or be used so much it loses it's meaning?
- Can it ever come back from that?
- Where is the line between stealing an idea and paying homage to the greats of the past?
- Can a canon of clichés increase or build upon its own meaning?
- Can it also lose it's meaning because of its ubiquitous use?
Most importantly:
Which is better, to recognize and reorganize already existing beauty in a powerful way (photography)? or to create something entirely new and beautiful into the world (painting)?
Oh and here's your song:
La Di Da Di- Slick Rick25 June 2010
Ryan McGinley
As I hinted at in my last post, today's post is about the photographer Ryan McGinley, if you didn't catch the hint, it was because he inspired and collaborated with Sigur Rós on the music video for Gobbledigook. He is known for his dramatic yet fresh aesthetic and particularly his photos of naked people running around. McGinley certainly isn't the first person to have nudes in his photographs, but the way he treats his nudes is truly, well, different.
Running Fireworks, 2007
Blue, Moon, 2008/2009
Marcel, Ann & Coley, 2007
Cyclone, 2008/2009
Jonas (Disco Snow), 2008/2009
There is definitely a shocking element to these photos but the shock comes from the fact that the models don't seem to care that they're naked. They just look like they're having so much fun! I strongly suggest you look at the entire photographs series (same link as Ryan McGinley above) because every single image pulls its own weight. And while nudity is certainly a big part of these photos, there are certainly other things (like bears!). When it gets sexual it's not entirely heteronormative either, which is refreshing. I really can't come up with anything bad to say about these photos.
If you look around more on his website you'll find some more marketable photos that manage retain his very distinct style: the Olympics, portraits of M.I.A. and some stills from a short film with Tilda Swinton which showcases Pringle of Scotland's spring 2010 line! This guy is doing stuff all over the place. With his powerful sense of composition and color balance and life I have little doubt that Ryan McGinley will come to be known as one of the great photographers, dare I say artists, of our time.
So I got a little carried away there, if you can't tell I'm a little bit of a fan. This song is for driving at high speeds on warm summer nights with the top down and the music up, preferably on Walnut street.
22 June 2010
Let's Talk About Sex
I really want to talk about gender but that's a much catchier title.
So here's the deal. This whole masculine/feminine gender dichotomy isn't really working for me (I'll talk about dualism later). Maybe it's because I'm stubborn, but I don't particularly enjoy being told what I should and shouldn't like, what I should and shouldn't find attractive, or how to define myself in relation to other people.
I like poetry, I like art. I use the word beautiful in everyday conversation. I study french. I like strong, intelligent women. I'm not afraid to wear purple. I'm not afraid to snuggle with my guy friends.
I promise this is related so just bear with me, but check out this comic from Hark, A Vagrant.
This has always kind of bugged me about Macbeth. But what bugs me even more is when Lady Macbeth challenges Macbeth's manhood when he seems a little hesitant about killing the king. That was a low blow Lady Macbeth. I have a feeling she might have noticed if Macbeth was a woman. What Macbeth should have done was laugh in her face and go and have a nice sandwich. My mother always told me never to decide to kill someone on an empty stomach.
Back to the point, Macbeth's ability to kill King Duncan had very little to do with Macbeth's status as a man, but for some reason it had a lot to do with his perceived status as man. As A Tribe Called Quest would say: "You're not any less of a man if you don't pull the trigger, you're not necessarily a man if you do." [see Sucka Nigga, A Tribe Called Quest, Midnight Marauders—in fact, see that whole album, it's pretty dope.]
In other news I found a cool series of photographs by a French Canadian named Benoit Paillé. He apparently just walked up to these people and asked to take their pictures. I see some of them are in their houses, so I assume after the subjects agreed to model they scheduled dates to shoot but all of the photos maintain a certain distance and spontaneity. I've always been terrible about approaching people on the street and it's a skill that most talented photographers have, so that's definitely something I'm going to have to work at. I love when photography does stuff like this. People are weird.
That last one's really great. There's an even cooler concept where a photographer gets two or more strangers to touch in his photos. The results are interesting.
Unfortunately today's photos aren't particularly mind blowing, so I'll try to find some HIGH ART ones for next time.
I may have been a little bit of a tease with the title of this post so you get two songs today. I feel like I owe you this one:
Salt-n-Pepa - Let's Talk About Sex
And here's a hint to the next post. God this song just makes me wanna run around naked.
Sigur Rós-Gobbledigook
There's also an option to download these songs if you follow the link.
So here's the deal. This whole masculine/feminine gender dichotomy isn't really working for me (I'll talk about dualism later). Maybe it's because I'm stubborn, but I don't particularly enjoy being told what I should and shouldn't like, what I should and shouldn't find attractive, or how to define myself in relation to other people.
I like poetry, I like art. I use the word beautiful in everyday conversation. I study french. I like strong, intelligent women. I'm not afraid to wear purple. I'm not afraid to snuggle with my guy friends.
I promise this is related so just bear with me, but check out this comic from Hark, A Vagrant.
Back to the point, Macbeth's ability to kill King Duncan had very little to do with Macbeth's status as a man, but for some reason it had a lot to do with his perceived status as man. As A Tribe Called Quest would say: "You're not any less of a man if you don't pull the trigger, you're not necessarily a man if you do." [see Sucka Nigga, A Tribe Called Quest, Midnight Marauders—in fact, see that whole album, it's pretty dope.]
In other news I found a cool series of photographs by a French Canadian named Benoit Paillé. He apparently just walked up to these people and asked to take their pictures. I see some of them are in their houses, so I assume after the subjects agreed to model they scheduled dates to shoot but all of the photos maintain a certain distance and spontaneity. I've always been terrible about approaching people on the street and it's a skill that most talented photographers have, so that's definitely something I'm going to have to work at. I love when photography does stuff like this. People are weird.
Check out more on his flickr.
That last one's really great. There's an even cooler concept where a photographer gets two or more strangers to touch in his photos. The results are interesting.
Unfortunately today's photos aren't particularly mind blowing, so I'll try to find some HIGH ART ones for next time.
I may have been a little bit of a tease with the title of this post so you get two songs today. I feel like I owe you this one:
Salt-n-Pepa - Let's Talk About Sex
And here's a hint to the next post. God this song just makes me wanna run around naked.
Sigur Rós-Gobbledigook
There's also an option to download these songs if you follow the link.
20 June 2010
This is not a review of Mrs. Dalloway
I just read Mrs. Dalloway!
There's probably some sort of format that reviews are supposed to take and probably some well thought out and agreed upon goal as well, but I think a single finite end can reduce the meaning of words. So I aim to ramble, perhaps to bore. Such is the predicament of ADHD.The most striking thing about this book is the way the narrative is arranged. It is told in third person by some omniscient narrator who follows characters like a flea jumping between hosts. (That metaphor only works if you ignore all the negative connotations of a flea.) It makes for seamless transitions once you get the hang of making the jump between central characters. Actually, I never completely got a hang of it but it kept me on my toes.
Relevant or at least very poetic (important) descriptions. I don't care that there is triumphant military music in the streets but when that music bursts into a room where someone just died, then I care. But there was never anything that was unnecessarily flowery or too detailed and I appreciated that.
So instead of inaccurately describing this book anymore I'm just going to give you some quotes which struck me:
- "they had heaps of theories, always theories, as young people have. It was to explain the feeling they had of dissatisfaction; not knowing people; not being known. For how could they know each other? You met every day; then not for six months, or years. It was unsatisfactory, they agreed, how little one knew people." (149)
- "Having done things millions of times enriched them, though it might be said to take the surface off." (159)
- "that very able fellow who should have made a name for himself but hadn't (always in difficulties with women)" (175)
So there's this guy named Arthur Tress:
This is from a series called "Theater of the Mind" and while it sounds pretentious, you should really check it out. There's some really sweet stuff.
So no one ever really introduced me to Bob Dylan, so it wasn't until recently that I started listening to him. By recently I mean around the beginning of this summer. Blonde on Blonde is a pretty great album.
Here's the opening track.
Here's the opening track.
16 June 2010
I'm up late writing poetry again
I saw a moon goddess I wanted
with skin that read: shake her well
after worship and
milk
& sweet time - GOD
a knife out and sweating in my hand
behind my cold monkey of a lie
was bare feet and falling.
I ask her: can you smile
like the sea in its juices?
can you remember that chant to
make mountains drool?
teach me something precious
so I can l(ea)ve you
she says: I am the wind, kid,
and this is the family you come from.
It's so great to be writing again. I just sat down in front of my fridge and cranked this baby out. My favorite way to write is with refrigerator magnets (this may have had something to do with the naming of this blog). It's great because it forces me to find new things to do with words that should have been stale long ago but it also works as a very strict form to help guide my creative process.
3 recent photo pet peeves:
with skin that read: shake her well
after worship and
milk
& sweet time - GOD
a knife out and sweating in my hand
behind my cold monkey of a lie
was bare feet and falling.
I ask her: can you smile
like the sea in its juices?
can you remember that chant to
make mountains drool?
teach me something precious
so I can l(ea)ve you
she says: I am the wind, kid,
and this is the family you come from.
It's so great to be writing again. I just sat down in front of my fridge and cranked this baby out. My favorite way to write is with refrigerator magnets (this may have had something to do with the naming of this blog). It's great because it forces me to find new things to do with words that should have been stale long ago but it also works as a very strict form to help guide my creative process.
3 recent photo pet peeves:
- Figurines. Just don't.
- Picture every day for X years. That first youtube video was pretty interesting, but I'm done.
- Your baby. I don't care how cute it is.
I should be clear. I mean specifically photography as an art form. I won't criticize you for taking pictures of your baby. If you don't want to take pictures of your baby there's probably something wrong with you. With that said, you've got do a lot more than just take pictures of your baby and call it art.
I've been trying to use stumble upon to find good photographers but that hasn't been going so well recently so here are a few old favorites from deviantart:
These are by a user named ErosTurranos
©2009-2010 ~ErosTurranos
©2009-2010 ~ErosTurranos
This user is named Kimbell and while light painting is usally a big turn off for me, this guy is a pro.
©2010 ~Kimbell
Sorry I had to resort to back up photos, I wish stumbleupon would give me a little more to work with but there's a remarkable amount of bad photography out there on the internet.
But here's a great summer song to play us out. FUCK IT WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
13 June 2010
Sup.
I thought I'd start with a few things about myself.
I put two spaces after every sentence. I think it lets a paragraph breathe nicely.
I put two spaces after every sentence. I think it lets a paragraph breathe nicely.
I love writing with refrigerator magnets. It forces me to play with language and create a story or a scene or an emotion out of what is really just a clump of words. I'll probably post some pieces of stuff up later.
Comfortable underwear can be the foundation for a beautiful day.
I think that a single photograph has a limited potential for expression and if you put that photograph into a series or a work of photographs, this potential is exponentially increased. What's interesting here is that many of strongest photos might seem boring if viewed as a standalone, but the context of the other photos reveals the strength of this photographer's vision. I like Been There and Getting Lost, but most of them are good.
Check this out. I am a big fan of street photography and candid photographs. A lot of people call it creepy, but I think that there is something to be revealed the expression of a person who is off in his or her own world. Privacy is a really interesting concept anyway. But most importantly it's a great sentiment.
Check this out. I am a big fan of street photography and candid photographs. A lot of people call it creepy, but I think that there is something to be revealed the expression of a person who is off in his or her own world. Privacy is a really interesting concept anyway. But most importantly it's a great sentiment.
Since this is my first post I figure I owe you some sort of explanation.
- rants
- ampersands
- poem fragments
- philosophy (more rants)
- lists
- assorted internet artifacts
- whims
- more whims
I'll leave you with this:
I love the Flaming Lips because: a) they're wacky b) they're upfront about it c) they know how to have a good time. Seriously, see them in concert.
Cheers,
Matt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)