[Thanks Charles]
Friday, February 12, 2010
Karen Bjornson unretouched (updated)
[Thanks tOP]
Karen Bjornson, Portrait by (c)Timothy Greenfield-Sandersarticle, pictures.
I think these photos and women are gorgeous. And it's great to get some high-profile exhibition, fashion-related, which shies away from the super-hyper-anti-reality mind-set of the glossy magazine world.
(Man, what a woman!)I should be clear: what I personally object to about over-photoshopping is not the "message it sends to women", it is a bit broader: the disconnection from reality. The implied lack of ability to see beauty not just in women, but in anything, unless it has been retouched to within an inch of its digital life, every little tiny perceived flaw removed.
TTL said:
I agree, Karen Bjornson looks so charismatic and beautiful here.Thank you for this. I have tattooed the URL of your blog on my arm, under the anchor.
---
In fact, Karen Bjornson ('Björnson'? I wonder) reminds me of a woman of about the same age and beauty, I met in the neighborhood once, asking me for directions. Afterwards I kicked myself for having been too stunned to think of giving her a compliment.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
True Stories, a film
True Stories, a film by David Byrne.
Just a quick mention, wonderful, quirky movie, very funny too. Oh, and some great music, performed by others than Talking Heads, but sometimes better. For example Dream Operator which I couldn't find anywhere in this version, so I recorded it from the DVD. Of course you have to see it in the film to get the ironic juxtapositions and the wild fashion show going on while she sings, but anyway I love her voice.
... Damn, I can't believe somebody put it on youboob three years ago! Is it really over three years ago I did this?
BTW, normally the whitebread "Nancy Reagan" conservative housewife with the big hair doesn't do it for me, but this one is hot!
Oh, and here is the Talking Heads version:
Just a quick mention, wonderful, quirky movie, very funny too. Oh, and some great music, performed by others than Talking Heads, but sometimes better. For example Dream Operator which I couldn't find anywhere in this version, so I recorded it from the DVD. Of course you have to see it in the film to get the ironic juxtapositions and the wild fashion show going on while she sings, but anyway I love her voice.
... Damn, I can't believe somebody put it on youboob three years ago! Is it really over three years ago I did this?
BTW, normally the whitebread "Nancy Reagan" conservative housewife with the big hair doesn't do it for me, but this one is hot!
Oh, and here is the Talking Heads version:
Why Is It (Not) Art?
Why Is It (Not) Art?, article.
Ctein touches on a subject with which I've conflicted with many readers before: what makes something art or not.
If you recall, I claim that if something is clearly and sincerely intended as art, it is art by definition, and saying that it is not art is a value judgment and not a category judgment. It might be great art or lousy art of insignificant art, but my viewpoint is that categories are important in thinking and communicating about things, and using categories-redefinitions as invalidation is confusing and unnecessary.
I think the argument hinges on the widespread perception/belief that calling something Art is implying that it's valuable, and this is what people might want to knock down in specific cases. I say that calling it art does not imply that it's good or bad, just what it is, as opposed to, say, food or a house or a car or a cloud or an insect.
It's similar to the pornography discussion recently. I think it would clarify communication if people would stick to the category definition (text or pictures intended as sexual stimulant) rather than the value definition (worthless smut).
I'll admit though that the whole discussion is confused (as Ctein touches on) by the actual definition of "art" being very much up in the air. Many people feel that it perforce has to involve some display of skill, while others, like Marcel Duchamp, feel that just declaring a urinal to be art makes it art, that it's the intention which counts.
On tOP, John Camp wrote:
"Duchamp's 'Fountain' and some of his other 'readymades' were jokes. In fact, Duchamp's most salient personal characteristic, present throughout his career, was his sense of humor. He had nothing but disdain for people who took some of his pronouncements seriously. He was, at times, an artist, but most often used his art to ridicule the foolishness of his day. Arrant nonsense was just as prevalent then as it is now.
Well, that makes sense. A lot of sense. However I still feel we should not out-of-hand dismiss the Intention theory of art. There are lots of grey areas. For example, take an old wall with patches of different kinds of bricks, remnants of old posters, etc. Most people will just walk past it. But a perceptive person can walk past and get an aesthetic experience from it. If he's a snapshooter, he may transfer that experience to another person, but it's unlikely. But if he's an artist, he could do it, and it's art. Even if it's seemingly just a straight record of the wall.
Or he could tear the wall down and re-erect it in a gallery. Is that art? Would it be art if he had built a new wall in the gallery, but it looked exactly like the old wall?
Ctein touches on a subject with which I've conflicted with many readers before: what makes something art or not.
If you recall, I claim that if something is clearly and sincerely intended as art, it is art by definition, and saying that it is not art is a value judgment and not a category judgment. It might be great art or lousy art of insignificant art, but my viewpoint is that categories are important in thinking and communicating about things, and using categories-redefinitions as invalidation is confusing and unnecessary.
I think the argument hinges on the widespread perception/belief that calling something Art is implying that it's valuable, and this is what people might want to knock down in specific cases. I say that calling it art does not imply that it's good or bad, just what it is, as opposed to, say, food or a house or a car or a cloud or an insect.
It's similar to the pornography discussion recently. I think it would clarify communication if people would stick to the category definition (text or pictures intended as sexual stimulant) rather than the value definition (worthless smut).
I'll admit though that the whole discussion is confused (as Ctein touches on) by the actual definition of "art" being very much up in the air. Many people feel that it perforce has to involve some display of skill, while others, like Marcel Duchamp, feel that just declaring a urinal to be art makes it art, that it's the intention which counts.
On tOP, John Camp wrote:
"Duchamp's 'Fountain' and some of his other 'readymades' were jokes. In fact, Duchamp's most salient personal characteristic, present throughout his career, was his sense of humor. He had nothing but disdain for people who took some of his pronouncements seriously. He was, at times, an artist, but most often used his art to ridicule the foolishness of his day. Arrant nonsense was just as prevalent then as it is now.
Well, that makes sense. A lot of sense. However I still feel we should not out-of-hand dismiss the Intention theory of art. There are lots of grey areas. For example, take an old wall with patches of different kinds of bricks, remnants of old posters, etc. Most people will just walk past it. But a perceptive person can walk past and get an aesthetic experience from it. If he's a snapshooter, he may transfer that experience to another person, but it's unlikely. But if he's an artist, he could do it, and it's art. Even if it's seemingly just a straight record of the wall.
Or he could tear the wall down and re-erect it in a gallery. Is that art? Would it be art if he had built a new wall in the gallery, but it looked exactly like the old wall?
Interface flaw
Amazon UK has changed their home page to a slightly different popup menu displaying departments. It's different visually, I'm not sure how it's different technically, maybe it's flash instead of HTML. But what it means for me in practice is that instead of reaching the Search field in two hits of the tab key, I now have to slog through the whole menu, or reach for my mouse. As the kids say these days: FAIL! (The olders say "it's broken".)
Before:
After:
Before:
After:
Scary alterations
When multi-millionaire stars can't pay enough to look good after surgery, maybe the rest of us should be satisfied with what we have?
(Gawd, Rourke is scary. And this is the guy who have always hung out with biker criminals because Hollywood people are so fake??)
(Gawd, Rourke is scary. And this is the guy who have always hung out with biker criminals because Hollywood people are so fake??)
Rock blog
Our reader María Magnética post mostly about rock, it seems. Kewl.
A recent post contrasts (with youtube help) various versions of Bohemian Rhapsody, including the classic one by the Muppet Chickens. Good taste.
A recent post contrasts (with youtube help) various versions of Bohemian Rhapsody, including the classic one by the Muppet Chickens. Good taste.
The Power of Make-Up
The Power of Make-Up, picture post. Don't go there if you don't want your illusions broken! I could hardly even believe the Before Picture was a girl.
Man Gives Away £3 Million
Money Can't Buy Happiness, So Man Gives Away Every Penny of His £3 Million Fortune, article.
The man says:
"Money is counterproductive – it prevents happiness to come."
If that is so, isn't it a nasty thing to do to others to give them money?
It's a complex thing. The best answer I've found so far is that if your inner hurt makes you addicted to material things, you will be unhappy whether you have them or not. And if you have healed that inner hurt, you will be happy, whether you have things or not.
Giving away your money handles a symptom, not the cause. It might help you deal with the cause, but you can deal with the cause without dealing with symptoms.
The man says:
"Money is counterproductive – it prevents happiness to come."
If that is so, isn't it a nasty thing to do to others to give them money?
It's a complex thing. The best answer I've found so far is that if your inner hurt makes you addicted to material things, you will be unhappy whether you have them or not. And if you have healed that inner hurt, you will be happy, whether you have things or not.
Giving away your money handles a symptom, not the cause. It might help you deal with the cause, but you can deal with the cause without dealing with symptoms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)