From an article on the movie "The Rise of the Planet of the Apes" in the most recent New Yorker:
"If invention, wild and free, yet tied to emotion and philosophical speculation, is given a chance, digital filmmaking could have a more brilliant future than any we can now imagine."
Replace the word invention with improvisation and digital filmmaking with performance:
If improvisation, wild and free, yet tied to emotion and philosophical speculation, is given a chance, performance could have a more brilliant future than any we can now imagine.
Taking the form of one idea and replacing some of it's parts can lead to interesting thoughts. Improvisation, as it is mostly taught and perceived, is about being wild and free. Emotion, as I read it here, is not the happy or sad generic reading of it, but the faster processing aspect of the human mind. An emotion is really a bundling of thoughts into one package. For some people, such as myself, those packages take a while to unpack. But I digress.
Ensemble Thinking is an improvisation based modality that uses the conscious mind to train the emotional mind. When on stage, a performer trained in E.T. doesn't have to think about where the hotspot is, but feels it allowing him or her to more quickly respond. E.T. allows the improvising performer to be more emotional about the performance.
Improvisation can benefit from more philosophical speculation - why are we improvising, when are we setting the number of performers, the costumes, the performance space and time, but not setting the spatial and kinespheric movements? What are we trying to convey, reveal to the audience? What do we want them to walk away with? Why should they give a damn? Is improvisation the means or an end?
8.30.2011
8.28.2011
The DODOcase
I got a DODOcase for our iPad2. The thing is beautiful. It holds the Pad well, covers it completely and provides more impact protection than the tighter rubber/plastic cases available at the Apple stores and kiosks in malls. I have not done a test, but that is my guess.
When we first had the iPad2, I dropped it as I had gotten used to the magnetic flip cover and was using it as a grip to hold the pad while filming my daughter in my mother's lap. A quick move later and the pad was face down on the edge of the carpet between the dining room and kitchen, the upper left corner cracked and shedding glass. Don't get that cover from the Apple store. But go there if you drop you iPad. They might replace it for free!!
So three days and $65 later, my iPad2 is in a DODOcase. I try to take a picture...no go. Have to use the camera on the front side or pop out the pad. Also to change to volume, flip the mute switch, or turn off the Pad is not so easy. The curves in the bamboo are not generous enough and I have a not easy time accessing those buttons.
I wrote to DODOcase about the camera issue and button issue: Hi Dodo,
Was I accidentally sent an iPod 1 case? There is no hole or window for the camera on the back of the case and I have a hard time changing the volume or flipping the switch on the left side. The case looks good and protects my pad well, but I am surprised that there is no camera hole and that the side buttons are hard to access. Guess I should have read the description better before purchasing.
Andrew
This is their response: Hi Andrew,
After much deliberation the DODOcase design team decided that we did not want to compromise the simple and classic design of the DODOcase by poking holes in it. The DODOcase for iPad 2 does NOT have a cut out so that you can use the rear facing camera while in the case.
We think that in general the rear camera will be best used outside the case. The DODOcase is an easy in easy out case and on the occasion that you would want to use the rear facing camera it is easy enough to remove the iPad from the case. Folio style cases (i.e. the DODOcase) do not easily lend themselves to rear camera use because the front cover is designed to flip all the way back and would still obscure the rear camera even with a camera hole in the back cover.
Thanks!
Team DODOcase
Are they serious!?! Having a hole in the backside would not compromise the design. Punch a whole in it and rivet the hole so the material doesn't fray. And it would be quite easy to take a picture holding the flap at a 90 degree angle so as not to cover the lens. The DODOcase is not an easy in easy out case. I can see in just the few times that I have taken the iPad2 out of the case how the rubber corner pieces that hold the pad in are coming up. Doing that too much, or as much as I would like to USE THE CAMERA ON MY IPAD, will loosen the rubber corner pieces.
The designers of the DODOcase assumed too much about how the case would be used.
The DODOcase might have been great for the first iPad, but it is limiting the user experience with iPad2.
When we first had the iPad2, I dropped it as I had gotten used to the magnetic flip cover and was using it as a grip to hold the pad while filming my daughter in my mother's lap. A quick move later and the pad was face down on the edge of the carpet between the dining room and kitchen, the upper left corner cracked and shedding glass. Don't get that cover from the Apple store. But go there if you drop you iPad. They might replace it for free!!
So three days and $65 later, my iPad2 is in a DODOcase. I try to take a picture...no go. Have to use the camera on the front side or pop out the pad. Also to change to volume, flip the mute switch, or turn off the Pad is not so easy. The curves in the bamboo are not generous enough and I have a not easy time accessing those buttons.
I wrote to DODOcase about the camera issue and button issue: Hi Dodo,
Was I accidentally sent an iPod 1 case? There is no hole or window for the camera on the back of the case and I have a hard time changing the volume or flipping the switch on the left side. The case looks good and protects my pad well, but I am surprised that there is no camera hole and that the side buttons are hard to access. Guess I should have read the description better before purchasing.
Andrew
This is their response: Hi Andrew,
After much deliberation the DODOcase design team decided that we did not want to compromise the simple and classic design of the DODOcase by poking holes in it. The DODOcase for iPad 2 does NOT have a cut out so that you can use the rear facing camera while in the case.
We think that in general the rear camera will be best used outside the case. The DODOcase is an easy in easy out case and on the occasion that you would want to use the rear facing camera it is easy enough to remove the iPad from the case. Folio style cases (i.e. the DODOcase) do not easily lend themselves to rear camera use because the front cover is designed to flip all the way back and would still obscure the rear camera even with a camera hole in the back cover.
Thanks!
Team DODOcase
Are they serious!?! Having a hole in the backside would not compromise the design. Punch a whole in it and rivet the hole so the material doesn't fray. And it would be quite easy to take a picture holding the flap at a 90 degree angle so as not to cover the lens. The DODOcase is not an easy in easy out case. I can see in just the few times that I have taken the iPad2 out of the case how the rubber corner pieces that hold the pad in are coming up. Doing that too much, or as much as I would like to USE THE CAMERA ON MY IPAD, will loosen the rubber corner pieces.
The designers of the DODOcase assumed too much about how the case would be used.
The DODOcase might have been great for the first iPad, but it is limiting the user experience with iPad2.
8.26.2011
Gender in Dance
It has been said many times.
"oh, it's a man dance."
2 guys on stage, it's a man dance. Why, when the dance consists of all women (and 99% of dances made consist of all women), we do not say "Oh, it's a woman dance"?
Well, precisely because 99% of dances made consist of all women. Therefore a dance, by default, is a woman dance. So when a dance has all men or even a slight majority of men, it becomes a "man dance".
Heard this just the other day. In a group of what I thought were contemporary post whatever artists. But I guess not. They are still stuck on gender, on viewing a dance through the lens of gender. Dancers aren't bodies, creating shapes in space/time in relation to other, but men and women creating shapes in space/time. Have we not progressed beyond Martha Graham?
Or have the tools just changed but the story is still the same?
PS
Graham = Bausch = Stuart
"oh, it's a man dance."
2 guys on stage, it's a man dance. Why, when the dance consists of all women (and 99% of dances made consist of all women), we do not say "Oh, it's a woman dance"?
Well, precisely because 99% of dances made consist of all women. Therefore a dance, by default, is a woman dance. So when a dance has all men or even a slight majority of men, it becomes a "man dance".
Heard this just the other day. In a group of what I thought were contemporary post whatever artists. But I guess not. They are still stuck on gender, on viewing a dance through the lens of gender. Dancers aren't bodies, creating shapes in space/time in relation to other, but men and women creating shapes in space/time. Have we not progressed beyond Martha Graham?
Or have the tools just changed but the story is still the same?
PS
Graham = Bausch = Stuart
8.09.2011
Maybe...maybe not
Why do we say that?
If it, the situation might happen then it also might not happen. We don't need to say both "maybe" and "maybe not".
Save your breath.
Pick one.
If it, the situation might happen then it also might not happen. We don't need to say both "maybe" and "maybe not".
Save your breath.
Pick one.
Coffee and Orangutans
Just rolled into the Microtel Inns & Suites in Klamath Falls, OR. It is a gorgeous drive from Portland. Green, green, green, and not many other vehicles. Also the most remote wifi - 10 miles west of Oakridge, OR, on the 58.
Not sure how this popped into my mind, maybe because I was in Portland earlier today and had the best cup of ever at a Stumptown. If you don't know what a Stumptown is, think Starbucks before it went national. We bought some friends of ours some beans from the Stumptown Roasters cafe. Fair-trade they are labeled.
Oh, I remember what made me think of all this. Sitting in our gas guzzling F-150 truck in the parking lot of a Safeway. Seeing how far apart all the shops, restaurants,and homes, how large all the vehicles are, how fat everyone is, seeing how large the grocery store is, made me realize that the American way of life is unsustainable.
The great coffee my wife and I enjoyed in Portland,while fair trade, was grown in another country. How did the beans get to Portland? Were they flown there? Was It on a ship? On the backs of donkey led to the great Northwest by Juan Valdez? For all of our crunchy goodness and wanting to keep the world for our children, should we even be drinking coffee?
And then from the Safeway, my wife purchased some gluten free crackers. Very exciting to find those. As I was coming back up to the room from the truck with the crackers, I took a look at the ingredients. Palm oil is one of the ingredients. Palm oil, in case you didn't know, is, or rather the growing of trees for palm oil, is leading to the destruction of orangutan habitat.
You just can't win
Not sure how this popped into my mind, maybe because I was in Portland earlier today and had the best cup of ever at a Stumptown. If you don't know what a Stumptown is, think Starbucks before it went national. We bought some friends of ours some beans from the Stumptown Roasters cafe. Fair-trade they are labeled.
Oh, I remember what made me think of all this. Sitting in our gas guzzling F-150 truck in the parking lot of a Safeway. Seeing how far apart all the shops, restaurants,and homes, how large all the vehicles are, how fat everyone is, seeing how large the grocery store is, made me realize that the American way of life is unsustainable.
The great coffee my wife and I enjoyed in Portland,while fair trade, was grown in another country. How did the beans get to Portland? Were they flown there? Was It on a ship? On the backs of donkey led to the great Northwest by Juan Valdez? For all of our crunchy goodness and wanting to keep the world for our children, should we even be drinking coffee?
And then from the Safeway, my wife purchased some gluten free crackers. Very exciting to find those. As I was coming back up to the room from the truck with the crackers, I took a look at the ingredients. Palm oil is one of the ingredients. Palm oil, in case you didn't know, is, or rather the growing of trees for palm oil, is leading to the destruction of orangutan habitat.
You just can't win
8.03.2011
The Stage is a Test Tube
Imagine, if you will, a Petrie dish or a test tube. A test tube is a glass tube, closed at one end. Usually the end is rounded and the opposite end has a slight lip around the opening.
In a lab a test tube can be used many times. Many different reagents are added to the test tube; experiments are carried out. Acids and bases, metals. Water is split into hydrogen and oxygen; nylon is created. A vast array of experiments can be carried out in a single test tube.
If the experimenters are good and follow a strict protocol, they clean the test tube out each time after their experiments. This is done so that the reagents and results from the previous experiments do not affect the following experiments.
Yes, the information learned from previous experiments informs how the experimenters view the results of their next experiments. Yes, the previous experiments will affect what experiments are later run. Yes, what experiments run in other test tubes in other labs affects through the knowledge of the experimenters what happens in said test tube. But the experiment itself is not affected by the reagents of the previous experiments.
The empty performance space is a test tube. It is a blank space that can be a place to run experiments. What has happened in the space before, in other test tubes in other labs, does not have to affect what will happen next in the space. What has come before affects what will come next only in the minds of the experimenters - the performers and audience.
As performers, creators, artists, we need to recognize that a blank slate is possible. If we can clean out a test tube, a petrie dish, wipe a chalk board clean, we can also start with a blank(referenceless) performance space.
7.22.2011
What do you see?
This has been a question used in the past couple weeks of my MA course at the Uferstudios here in Berlin.
(please note the use of the word here, as I am in Berlin. This attention to detail is similar to the uses of come and go & of take and bring that are too frequently misused. )
For the past couple weeks, we have been doing an exercise of Susan Rethorst's , who maybe got it from Simone Forti. Who knows where it really came from, but I am sure people have consciously arranged objects in space for millennia. Did an exercise once with Mary Overlie in which we arranged white beans. The focus of that exercise was spatial arrangement. The focus of the Forti/Rethorst/Durning is quick decision making. (does it ever seem like so much of dance creation training is helping dancers get over their @#$%?!?)
Anyways, the exercise progressed from objects to people to solos. Each of us worked on something for 30 minutes (the exact time length varied each round). We watched each person writing down what we saw the person do. After everyone had presented, let's not say performed because there is just too much baggage around that word, we read what we had written about each person.
Somethings I wrote - read from notebook, put notebook down, close eyes, open eyes, place downstage heel to arch of other foot...
Something I heard - a heroin addict, deliciously slipping, time expanding...
After the feedbacks, I felt confused. Were we supposed to write what we saw or what what we saw made us think of? For the next couple weeks, we did variations of this exercise with a new visiting artist. The feedback was stated to be of two different kinds - what you saw and then what it made you think of.
Good, I can roll with that. But then when the feedback happened, both kinds were mingled, eventually the what you saw losing a significant share of the airtime to what it made you think of.
Talking in the Ufer Cantine with my cohorts - (paraphrasing not quoting)
"When you see a man and a woman on stage, you don't immediately think love story"
"No, I see a man and woman on stage."
I am baffled as to why in our post-modern contemporary age we would still automatically see love story. Am I supposed to see war automatically when I see two men on stage? No matter what age we say we are in, we all still have the same expectations. Love songs are still written and will always be written. The only difference will be the instruments and the notes.
But back to seeing...It took me a while to understand, but what everybody else mean by "what do you see?" is "what do you think of when you see..." And this is very dangerous territory. Just because you think something does not mean it is there.
Of course when I see stuff, it makes me think of other things. But when I am in a studio and I see someone sitting slumped against the wall, I see someone sitting slumped against the wall. I don't see a heroin addict, or a depressed business man, or swirls of pain an agony. I might think of those situations or scenarios, but I don't see them.
Are we not trying to be clear with our language and context in this MA program?
During the feedback after my showing on Monday, I brought up this issue and not understanding how people were seeing. This lead to a discussion of poetry...hmm not remembering so well, the connection to what I am thinking of...
but here is the thought anyways -
the need for the poetic, the dissatisfaction with what is there is the same need that has given rise to religion. People want mystery, people want there to be stuff going on behind the curtain and then they want to forget about the curtain.
People want to see what they imagine
Don't get me wrong. I want people to imagine whatever they want. But when we say that we are going to write what we see, let's do that. And then when we saw, we are going to write what what we see makes us think of, let's do that.
there was something else I wanted to write but I forget what it was.
And here is quote of a quote to provide some triangulation and provide some sand to build this house on -
'Ulmer affirms that Beuy's objects are "...both what they are and stimulation for the general processes of memory and imagination."'
We should not confuse the two.
(please note the use of the word here, as I am in Berlin. This attention to detail is similar to the uses of come and go & of take and bring that are too frequently misused. )
For the past couple weeks, we have been doing an exercise of Susan Rethorst's , who maybe got it from Simone Forti. Who knows where it really came from, but I am sure people have consciously arranged objects in space for millennia. Did an exercise once with Mary Overlie in which we arranged white beans. The focus of that exercise was spatial arrangement. The focus of the Forti/Rethorst/Durning is quick decision making. (does it ever seem like so much of dance creation training is helping dancers get over their @#$%?!?)
Anyways, the exercise progressed from objects to people to solos. Each of us worked on something for 30 minutes (the exact time length varied each round). We watched each person writing down what we saw the person do. After everyone had presented, let's not say performed because there is just too much baggage around that word, we read what we had written about each person.
Somethings I wrote - read from notebook, put notebook down, close eyes, open eyes, place downstage heel to arch of other foot...
Something I heard - a heroin addict, deliciously slipping, time expanding...
After the feedbacks, I felt confused. Were we supposed to write what we saw or what what we saw made us think of? For the next couple weeks, we did variations of this exercise with a new visiting artist. The feedback was stated to be of two different kinds - what you saw and then what it made you think of.
Good, I can roll with that. But then when the feedback happened, both kinds were mingled, eventually the what you saw losing a significant share of the airtime to what it made you think of.
Talking in the Ufer Cantine with my cohorts - (paraphrasing not quoting)
"When you see a man and a woman on stage, you don't immediately think love story"
"No, I see a man and woman on stage."
I am baffled as to why in our post-modern contemporary age we would still automatically see love story. Am I supposed to see war automatically when I see two men on stage? No matter what age we say we are in, we all still have the same expectations. Love songs are still written and will always be written. The only difference will be the instruments and the notes.
But back to seeing...It took me a while to understand, but what everybody else mean by "what do you see?" is "what do you think of when you see..." And this is very dangerous territory. Just because you think something does not mean it is there.
Of course when I see stuff, it makes me think of other things. But when I am in a studio and I see someone sitting slumped against the wall, I see someone sitting slumped against the wall. I don't see a heroin addict, or a depressed business man, or swirls of pain an agony. I might think of those situations or scenarios, but I don't see them.
Are we not trying to be clear with our language and context in this MA program?
During the feedback after my showing on Monday, I brought up this issue and not understanding how people were seeing. This lead to a discussion of poetry...hmm not remembering so well, the connection to what I am thinking of...
but here is the thought anyways -
the need for the poetic, the dissatisfaction with what is there is the same need that has given rise to religion. People want mystery, people want there to be stuff going on behind the curtain and then they want to forget about the curtain.
People want to see what they imagine
Don't get me wrong. I want people to imagine whatever they want. But when we say that we are going to write what we see, let's do that. And then when we saw, we are going to write what what we see makes us think of, let's do that.
there was something else I wanted to write but I forget what it was.
And here is quote of a quote to provide some triangulation and provide some sand to build this house on -
'Ulmer affirms that Beuy's objects are "...both what they are and stimulation for the general processes of memory and imagination."'
We should not confuse the two.
7.20.2011
7.18.2011
Formulaic Film
Hey, it's just like 300!
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/immortals/
change the bad guy, change the good guy...isn't this Star Wars all over again? Which was The Hidden Fortress all over again which was...
formulaic, yes...but wasn't also Picasso? He just had time to develop multiple formulas
ps
I wonder how long these links will last.
pps
here is a photo of my current writing process
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/immortals/
change the bad guy, change the good guy...isn't this Star Wars all over again? Which was The Hidden Fortress all over again which was...
formulaic, yes...but wasn't also Picasso? He just had time to develop multiple formulas
ps
I wonder how long these links will last.
pps
here is a photo of my current writing process
7.17.2011
Another definition of choreo and impro
Choreography and improvisation are both a set of rules to follow during a performance.
One is usually a longer more detailed set; the other is shorter.
One has a wide range of acceptable outcomes; the other has fewer.
One is usually a longer more detailed set; the other is shorter.
One has a wide range of acceptable outcomes; the other has fewer.
7.07.2011
Dance is a Visual Art
Here are some links to compositional ideas for painting and photography that I think apply to dance. Especially in relation to the instant choreo composition modality of Ensemble Thinking.
The Rabatment of the Rectangle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabatment_of_the_rectangle
The Rule of Thirds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds
The Rule of Odds
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11475/what-is-the-rule-of-odds
Placement of Elements
http://painting.about.com/od/composition/ss/composition-painting-elements.htm
The Painting's Secret Geometry
http://www.francois-murez.com/composition%20en.htm
p.s.
if dance is a visual art, why are the people who watch it called an audience?
Tweet
The Rabatment of the Rectangle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabatment_of_the_rectangle
The Rule of Thirds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds
The Rule of Odds
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/11475/what-is-the-rule-of-odds
Placement of Elements
http://painting.about.com/od/composition/ss/composition-painting-elements.htm
The Painting's Secret Geometry
http://www.francois-murez.com/composition%20en.htm
p.s.
if dance is a visual art, why are the people who watch it called an audience?
Tweet
6.19.2011
Arts, as they descend into entertainment, cling to seriousness and sadness as a means of validation. This leads to dismissal of humor as less valid because it highlights the lack of valence of the performing arts as affecting any real change.
Descend into entertainment can also be read as becoming a commodity; appropriated by the capitalist market.
Descend into entertainment can also be read as becoming a commodity; appropriated by the capitalist market.
6.07.2011
Tour vs. Make
Hot off the mental press, coming at you live. As I ponder more and more of late about what to do in life, what path to follow or forge, all due to grad school and the birth of my first child, I think now about a binary of touring vs. making work. Is it even a binary? All these thoughts could be because I am just lazy and don't want to do the work of getting my work out there. Writing grants, making packets, sending them out, schmoozing with presenters is a lot of work. Work that scares me. Maybe scares me is the wrong word.
I see other artists who tour and get presented and looking at their work, I don't understand why they were presented, why the director of theater X gave them a 6 month residency. Must be in the documentation the artist presented, or maybe the kind of work s/he does is more easily marketable. Could be that my work is just not interesting. Don't get bitter, don't get bitter, don't get bitter.
And grad school, context, context, context. Shit in on context smell, a different context helps make food. So maybe I need to rewrite all my performance blurbs so the context is sexier. And then write the grants, make the packets, and hound the presenters. But for whom am I making the work? Because I work in a time based medium that can be viewed as performative, does that mean the work is made for other people? How many painters make work for themselves, and have studios full of canvasses not meant for general consumption?
And now a child! What a wonderful bundle of joy and confusion. Her laughter, smiles and cries make everything, all my frustrations disappear. But then they come back. Provide, provide, provide...that is what a parent, a father is supposed to do. Hack away at performing, etc to make money to provide. But then touring could conflict with schooling. School is still a couple years off yet.
So, do I finish this schooling, get my MA then jump out of the artistic realm into the academic realm to get health insurance, income to provide? Just as much chance of getting a big grant. Both require applications and schmoozing.
Maybe this is all justification for laziness. Artistic high road and all that. Even now all these thoughts/emotions I don't want to bother to craft into a polished blog post. But isn't this more just for me as a place to vent?
No one reads this anyways...
waaah
waaah
waaah
I see other artists who tour and get presented and looking at their work, I don't understand why they were presented, why the director of theater X gave them a 6 month residency. Must be in the documentation the artist presented, or maybe the kind of work s/he does is more easily marketable. Could be that my work is just not interesting. Don't get bitter, don't get bitter, don't get bitter.
And grad school, context, context, context. Shit in on context smell, a different context helps make food. So maybe I need to rewrite all my performance blurbs so the context is sexier. And then write the grants, make the packets, and hound the presenters. But for whom am I making the work? Because I work in a time based medium that can be viewed as performative, does that mean the work is made for other people? How many painters make work for themselves, and have studios full of canvasses not meant for general consumption?
And now a child! What a wonderful bundle of joy and confusion. Her laughter, smiles and cries make everything, all my frustrations disappear. But then they come back. Provide, provide, provide...that is what a parent, a father is supposed to do. Hack away at performing, etc to make money to provide. But then touring could conflict with schooling. School is still a couple years off yet.
So, do I finish this schooling, get my MA then jump out of the artistic realm into the academic realm to get health insurance, income to provide? Just as much chance of getting a big grant. Both require applications and schmoozing.
Maybe this is all justification for laziness. Artistic high road and all that. Even now all these thoughts/emotions I don't want to bother to craft into a polished blog post. But isn't this more just for me as a place to vent?
No one reads this anyways...
waaah
waaah
waaah
5.24.2011
What is it?
Flo eminates from the kitchen.
Grub is collated frantically.
Foxy lemmings kite checks.
Worst Oma eliminates four tiny kittens.
Bald Mary stems collegial fraternizing.
The rebar knows kind chicks.
A kangaroo taps foul Tibetan koans.
The wild bran challah collective failed.
We all got tan in Kay's chalet.
The tilted atrium failed the kinetic colloquial festival king's child.
Tweet
Grub is collated frantically.
Foxy lemmings kite checks.
Worst Oma eliminates four tiny kittens.
Bald Mary stems collegial fraternizing.
The rebar knows kind chicks.
A kangaroo taps foul Tibetan koans.
The wild bran challah collective failed.
We all got tan in Kay's chalet.
The tilted atrium failed the kinetic colloquial festival king's child.
Tweet
5.23.2011
5.22.2011
The Need for Context
The need for contextualization exists because humans can not free themselves from the good-bad binary. That being said, contextualization is also needed because we are now in a post-disciplinary moment. How long that moment will last is another question.
Because we are in a post-disciplinary time and still are saddled with the evaluative binary, we need contextualization to help us determine where a given work of art/documentation/performance/representation lies on that spectrum. For better or worse, we are no longer saddled (not really but roll with it) with the evaluative binaries of disciplines, which are themselves shorthands for contextualization.
Tweet
Because we are in a post-disciplinary time and still are saddled with the evaluative binary, we need contextualization to help us determine where a given work of art/documentation/performance/representation lies on that spectrum. For better or worse, we are no longer saddled (not really but roll with it) with the evaluative binaries of disciplines, which are themselves shorthands for contextualization.
Tweet
5.15.2011
Osama
Hmm...Osama is now dead and his body was dumped out to see. Of course, the U.S. military observed strict Islamic protocol before they dumped his body. So as not to enrage anyone. When are the photos of the Navy Seals or Delta Force or whoever caught him going to surface? The photos with the soldiers posing with empty beer cans, hot dogs and Osama's dead body?
That question aside, I think it is quite remarkable that the US found him without co-operation by the Pakistani government. We give them billions every year, his compound was within spitting distance of a Pakistani military base. What I bet happened is that the Pakistani government co-operated fully with the understanding that the US government would make a big stink about how they received no co-operation. That way the Pakistani government gets full deniability(sp?) and the US gets Osama. A win-win situation. Yes, there have been some deaths due to do protests/retaliations by Osama supporters.
But imagine how much worse it would have been if the Pakistani government had publicly supported his capture and been excited by his death?
Also, what happened to due process of law and trial by a jury of peers? Or are those not unalienable self-evident rights...?
Tweet
That question aside, I think it is quite remarkable that the US found him without co-operation by the Pakistani government. We give them billions every year, his compound was within spitting distance of a Pakistani military base. What I bet happened is that the Pakistani government co-operated fully with the understanding that the US government would make a big stink about how they received no co-operation. That way the Pakistani government gets full deniability(sp?) and the US gets Osama. A win-win situation. Yes, there have been some deaths due to do protests/retaliations by Osama supporters.
But imagine how much worse it would have been if the Pakistani government had publicly supported his capture and been excited by his death?
Also, what happened to due process of law and trial by a jury of peers? Or are those not unalienable self-evident rights...?
Tweet
5.05.2011
John Cleese on Terrorism
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved."
Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 400 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Three more escalation levels remain: "Crikey!", "I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.
Tweet
Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 400 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Three more escalation levels remain: "Crikey!", "I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.
Tweet
5.02.2011
There is no bad art. Only bad craft.
Recently tweeted that. It is another iteration of the burrito/taco/shoe/title idea.
Craft as defined by dictionary.com is - an occupation requiring special skill. It is also a verb defined as - to make or manufacture.
Craft, then, we could say is to make or manufacture something requiring a special skill.
Art, coming from the Latin ars, means craftmanship. But why go back to the roots of the words. Useful? Maybe, but the meaning and relationships to those meanings change with fashions and trends of the day. (insert appropriate dead French philosopher quote here).
I prefer to use my relationship to these words now. Art and artificial, similar, no? For me art is anything that is intentionally created, something that did not already exist in nature. Nature is the opposite of art (insert dead German philosopher quote here). To create art, all one has to do is something, anything.
Craft, on the other hand, has a set of skills and expectations. To craft a chair from walnut wood and leather requires a certain set of skills - cutting, measuring, sanding, staining - that must be executed in order to create an object that can fulfill a certain function. In this case, someone has to be able to sit in the chair. If the chair cannot fulfill this expectation - it breaks, hurts the person sitting in it, isn't comfortable - it is not a very good chair.
Another layer of craft, the visual component, then, comes into question. Does the viewer like the way the chair looks.
Hmm...just had the thought that craft is many layers of either/or statements.
Art, on the other hand, is a henna tattoo for an Indian wedding. Yes, and doesn't have the same level of either/ors. In relation to dance, many dancers are more craftspeople. They spend many hours trying to get a specific sequence down pat. They are not creating anything new, they are not creating anything artificial, but crafting, getting the either/or statements as correct as possible. They are simultaneously creating and defining an infinite number of either/or statements.
Art happens before craft. Only down the road, as time passes, does craft come into being.
Tweet
Craft as defined by dictionary.com is - an occupation requiring special skill. It is also a verb defined as - to make or manufacture.
Craft, then, we could say is to make or manufacture something requiring a special skill.
Art, coming from the Latin ars, means craftmanship. But why go back to the roots of the words. Useful? Maybe, but the meaning and relationships to those meanings change with fashions and trends of the day. (insert appropriate dead French philosopher quote here).
I prefer to use my relationship to these words now. Art and artificial, similar, no? For me art is anything that is intentionally created, something that did not already exist in nature. Nature is the opposite of art (insert dead German philosopher quote here). To create art, all one has to do is something, anything.
Craft, on the other hand, has a set of skills and expectations. To craft a chair from walnut wood and leather requires a certain set of skills - cutting, measuring, sanding, staining - that must be executed in order to create an object that can fulfill a certain function. In this case, someone has to be able to sit in the chair. If the chair cannot fulfill this expectation - it breaks, hurts the person sitting in it, isn't comfortable - it is not a very good chair.
Another layer of craft, the visual component, then, comes into question. Does the viewer like the way the chair looks.
Hmm...just had the thought that craft is many layers of either/or statements.
Art, on the other hand, is a henna tattoo for an Indian wedding. Yes, and doesn't have the same level of either/ors. In relation to dance, many dancers are more craftspeople. They spend many hours trying to get a specific sequence down pat. They are not creating anything new, they are not creating anything artificial, but crafting, getting the either/or statements as correct as possible. They are simultaneously creating and defining an infinite number of either/or statements.
Art happens before craft. Only down the road, as time passes, does craft come into being.
Tweet
4.24.2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)