(click to embiggen)
1/23/2009
No News
I went to check the BBC for the news today. Apparently there isn't any. Ho hum.
(click to embiggen)
(click to embiggen)
1/18/2009
Micro Photography
Are these model people on a tiny beach?
Is this a photo of a model houses or real?They're both photo's of real places i've been, but they've been edited to look as though they were taken with a 'tiltshift' lens, which seems to be the fashionable, quirky photoeffect on the interwebs these days. You can recreate the effect on Photoshop apparently, but this site allows you to make them in a few minutes on library pictures or your own...which is bad, because i'm finding it hideously addictive to do!
If you think the photos are cool, check out this guy's videos using the same technique.
Pure Awesome.
1/13/2009
Instruction Manual
A sweet little animation that matches my own feelings on certain 'Instruction Manuals' that some people (not all, just a very loud minority) like to push on others.
1/09/2009
Xmas Owls
For Xmas this year, me and my family went to an owl sanctuary to fly some of the birds. Here's some of the Pics:
Me and 'Kaln' the Eagle Owl. He weighed about the same as a couple of bags of sugar, so couldn't hold him up for too long.
he had a 5ft wing span, almost as tall as me standing. Quite nervy watching Kaln swoop down to attack your hand!
Those talons on display! We were wearing the wrong sort of gloves for handling the Eagle owl, his beak could go straight through the leather to get at your fingers.
We also flew a Barn Owl called 'Gizmo', but unfortuanately didn't think to take photos due to being distracted by the beautiful birds. It was a really fun and interesting night out and not the usual thing to do at Xmas, beats a boxing day walk anytime!
1/02/2009
New Year's Resolution
To say this Blog has been neglected is a bit of an understatement!
New Year's Resolution: Keep this thing updated more often. Artwork in progress, general musings and stuff that I find entertaining will be coming soon...
New Year's Resolution: Keep this thing updated more often. Artwork in progress, general musings and stuff that I find entertaining will be coming soon...
5/19/2008
Critical Thinking Exercise
A friend sent me a link to a dubious film about 'alternative chronology' not long ago. I was in a skeptical mood and so duly took to task this dodgy theory... Here's my rebuttal:
Crikey, but that was weird! Thanks for the link; it's proved quite a useful exercise! :) Here are my thoughts...
After just reading that short blurb and a bit of research, little red flags were going up all around my brain! Here's a few of ‘em:
1. For a start this is a MATHEMETICIAN who has written a book on HISTORY. This is a variation on the 'Argument from authority'. (i.e.; authority isn't always right) Just because you're clever at maths doesn't mean you're clever at history.
2. Celebrity endorsements! Gary Kasparov (the genius chess player) also endorses this theory, therefore it must be true! Because, after all, being a well known chess champion automatically qualifies you in the field of history and makes your lone opinion way more valid than several hundred years of dedicated research by thousands of professional historians! I’m afraid it’s another massive ‘Argument from authority’! (‘Argument from celebrity endorsement’ perhaps?)
3. You can publish a book on anything. I could publish a book proving that the world is made of pink jelly if I wanted and believed it. Books aren't peer reviewed, and thus aren't picked over by experts and corrected. If Fomenko had a serious hypothesis, peer review would have been the proper and more accurate route to go down. The fact that he seems to have avoided peer review seems to say that he knows it would be shown as dodgy and never published. Creationists, paranormal supporters use this strategy a lot and it's a hallmark of a pseudoscience.
4. From the link you sent me, 2nd para: 'He follows in steps of Sir Isaac Newton' Ah the old 'maverick-going-against-the establishment' fallacy! When people start to bandy around comparisons to people like Newton, or Copernicus (the guy who was imprisoned for saying the earth went around the sun, not vice versa) falsely gives the impression that they have a paradigm shattering theory. Whilst it's true there occasionally is a maverick that goes against the flow and is proven right (these guys did, they did the research and let the evidence speak for itself)
More often than not cries of 'Remember *insert-name-of-outspoken-scientist-here*! Everyone thought he was mad, but he was right!' are a sign of sensationalism, designed to invoke sympathy for the idea and make the reader feel intelligent that they know the ‘real’ truth before everyone else, rather like a…
5. …Conspiracy theory! Conspiracy theories are often posed as the ‘truth’ and ‘earth shattering’ and more often than not ‘suppressed’ by the mainstream because it would shake up the majority view a little too much. More often than not they aren’t suppressed by established experts; they’re exposed as the pile of poo or dodgy research it actually is. But if you really believe something hard enough and someone says it’s rubbish it’s quite easy to start to think that they’re just scared and deliberately being nasty because their job/reputation/research grant is at stake.
We’ve all felt good and performed a victory dance when we’ve said or thought something that nobody else agrees with, and yet we turn out to be right. Woohoo! In your face establishment! Conspiracy theories appeal to that exact part of us, they make us feel intellectually superior and appeal to our capacity for wonder and intrigue. But all conspiracy theories, when examined properly and without hysterics, collapse under their own weight. This book is no exception. Wikipedia shows how implausible ‘New Chronology’ would be.
6. The whole ‘carbon dating is inaccurate’ argument has been around for ages, used most often by dumb-ass creationists who think the world is 6000 years old, despite radio-carbon dating saying it’s millions of years old. The evidence doesn’t fit my beliefs therefore the evidence must be flawed/wrong. Yes, radiometric dating is approximate but there is more than just one method of radio carbon dating! See here for a good list. And when all these different, independent verified methods of dating point towards a similar answer we can conclude that maybe, just maybe, it is accurate?
I could go on, but I’m tired and I imagine you’re bored of this expansive (and probably unexpected) reply! (Life, have one, possibly get one? I hear you say!)
One reason for this exhaustive rebuttal is that I thought I’d show you how a Skeptic behaves when asked to look at something or believe something they are told. Try to never take anything at face value, consider and research into the claim or belief, look at all possibilities; eliminate the unlikely, preposterous or downright fraudulent and draw your own conclusions. In short think for yourself! It’s hard work, time consuming and not always possible to do, but it’s a damn good viewpoint to have.
Crikey, but that was weird! Thanks for the link; it's proved quite a useful exercise! :) Here are my thoughts...
After just reading that short blurb and a bit of research, little red flags were going up all around my brain! Here's a few of ‘em:
1. For a start this is a MATHEMETICIAN who has written a book on HISTORY. This is a variation on the 'Argument from authority'. (i.e.; authority isn't always right) Just because you're clever at maths doesn't mean you're clever at history.
2. Celebrity endorsements! Gary Kasparov (the genius chess player) also endorses this theory, therefore it must be true! Because, after all, being a well known chess champion automatically qualifies you in the field of history and makes your lone opinion way more valid than several hundred years of dedicated research by thousands of professional historians! I’m afraid it’s another massive ‘Argument from authority’! (‘Argument from celebrity endorsement’ perhaps?)
3. You can publish a book on anything. I could publish a book proving that the world is made of pink jelly if I wanted and believed it. Books aren't peer reviewed, and thus aren't picked over by experts and corrected. If Fomenko had a serious hypothesis, peer review would have been the proper and more accurate route to go down. The fact that he seems to have avoided peer review seems to say that he knows it would be shown as dodgy and never published. Creationists, paranormal supporters use this strategy a lot and it's a hallmark of a pseudoscience.
4. From the link you sent me, 2nd para: 'He follows in steps of Sir Isaac Newton' Ah the old 'maverick-going-against-the establishment' fallacy! When people start to bandy around comparisons to people like Newton, or Copernicus (the guy who was imprisoned for saying the earth went around the sun, not vice versa) falsely gives the impression that they have a paradigm shattering theory. Whilst it's true there occasionally is a maverick that goes against the flow and is proven right (these guys did, they did the research and let the evidence speak for itself)
More often than not cries of 'Remember *insert-name-of-outspoken-scientist-here*! Everyone thought he was mad, but he was right!' are a sign of sensationalism, designed to invoke sympathy for the idea and make the reader feel intelligent that they know the ‘real’ truth before everyone else, rather like a…
5. …Conspiracy theory! Conspiracy theories are often posed as the ‘truth’ and ‘earth shattering’ and more often than not ‘suppressed’ by the mainstream because it would shake up the majority view a little too much. More often than not they aren’t suppressed by established experts; they’re exposed as the pile of poo or dodgy research it actually is. But if you really believe something hard enough and someone says it’s rubbish it’s quite easy to start to think that they’re just scared and deliberately being nasty because their job/reputation/research grant is at stake.
We’ve all felt good and performed a victory dance when we’ve said or thought something that nobody else agrees with, and yet we turn out to be right. Woohoo! In your face establishment! Conspiracy theories appeal to that exact part of us, they make us feel intellectually superior and appeal to our capacity for wonder and intrigue. But all conspiracy theories, when examined properly and without hysterics, collapse under their own weight. This book is no exception. Wikipedia shows how implausible ‘New Chronology’ would be.
6. The whole ‘carbon dating is inaccurate’ argument has been around for ages, used most often by dumb-ass creationists who think the world is 6000 years old, despite radio-carbon dating saying it’s millions of years old. The evidence doesn’t fit my beliefs therefore the evidence must be flawed/wrong. Yes, radiometric dating is approximate but there is more than just one method of radio carbon dating! See here for a good list. And when all these different, independent verified methods of dating point towards a similar answer we can conclude that maybe, just maybe, it is accurate?
I could go on, but I’m tired and I imagine you’re bored of this expansive (and probably unexpected) reply! (Life, have one, possibly get one? I hear you say!)
One reason for this exhaustive rebuttal is that I thought I’d show you how a Skeptic behaves when asked to look at something or believe something they are told. Try to never take anything at face value, consider and research into the claim or belief, look at all possibilities; eliminate the unlikely, preposterous or downright fraudulent and draw your own conclusions. In short think for yourself! It’s hard work, time consuming and not always possible to do, but it’s a damn good viewpoint to have.
3/09/2008
Presentations.
We had a presentation to do last week, 'A historical overview of wallpaper over the last 70 years' The nervous energy in the studio on the morning of the dreaded presentations was very tangible! I sometimes think that i'm a bit odd that i actually don't mind doing them, and occasionally enjoy doing them too. I haven't always enjoyed presenting ideas to an audience, absolutely despised it during my A-levels, but something clicked at the start of my Art Foundation course and they haven't bugged me much since then.
An old arty friend asked me a while ago if i had some advice on how to deal with presentations, which got me thinking and writing a long email with my advice. So, having just finished one recently, here's a quick list of my rationalisations on presentations:
1. I suppose it depends on how long it's for, (often not over 15 minutes max) but i always think 'it's 15 minutes long, why get worked up about it for days on end or fret about it constantly? it's FIFTEEN MINUTES OF YOUR LIFE!'
2. What's the worst that could happen if it goes wrong? You look a bit silly and hopefully get a laugh or two...you are NOT going to die! people are not going to mock you! have you ever mocked someone over their presentation? have you ever willed anyone to do terrible in their presentation? no? neither has anyone else! Your audience wants you to do well! :)
3. We're artists and designers, it is our job to communicate an idea! (usually through visual means) i don't know about you, but i like my work more often than not and want to tell people about it! Even if you think you're work is bad, say why you think it is! tell a story why you did this, why you did that...that's good because this, bad because that, etc. Stories are interesting and people relate to them. Mention group activities that you and your peers have done. I.e, 'i did this during our workshop on whatever, remember that?'
In short: it's a few minutes of your life, don't waste more time on it worrying. if it all goes wrong play it for a few cheesy laughs, no one is going to hate you, they want you to do well! tell your story and let your enthusiasm (or lack of it) show through and help explain your ideas/art.
That's my advice :)
An old arty friend asked me a while ago if i had some advice on how to deal with presentations, which got me thinking and writing a long email with my advice. So, having just finished one recently, here's a quick list of my rationalisations on presentations:
1. I suppose it depends on how long it's for, (often not over 15 minutes max) but i always think 'it's 15 minutes long, why get worked up about it for days on end or fret about it constantly? it's FIFTEEN MINUTES OF YOUR LIFE!'
2. What's the worst that could happen if it goes wrong? You look a bit silly and hopefully get a laugh or two...you are NOT going to die! people are not going to mock you! have you ever mocked someone over their presentation? have you ever willed anyone to do terrible in their presentation? no? neither has anyone else! Your audience wants you to do well! :)
3. We're artists and designers, it is our job to communicate an idea! (usually through visual means) i don't know about you, but i like my work more often than not and want to tell people about it! Even if you think you're work is bad, say why you think it is! tell a story why you did this, why you did that...that's good because this, bad because that, etc. Stories are interesting and people relate to them. Mention group activities that you and your peers have done. I.e, 'i did this during our workshop on whatever, remember that?'
In short: it's a few minutes of your life, don't waste more time on it worrying. if it all goes wrong play it for a few cheesy laughs, no one is going to hate you, they want you to do well! tell your story and let your enthusiasm (or lack of it) show through and help explain your ideas/art.
That's my advice :)
2/17/2008
A Recent Musing Involving Kittens and Slayer
A piece of an essay i recently did. It was meant to be more on Pierre Bourdieu's theories but it sort of turned more into my own philosophising:
3. What is Pierre Bourdieu's interpretation of aesthetic dispositions?
From what I’ve read, Bourdieu’s interpretation of aesthetic dispositions is one that is born of class distinction rather than continued experience or tutoring. In short, the different social classes have their own idea of what is aesthetic, and so what we personally choose to consider aesthetically beautiful defines our social class in the eyes of others. So rather than education and tutoring advancing our tastes, it is our social desires that determine what our aesthetic disposition is.
If I am part of ‘group B’ which defines itself by a love for kittens and classical music but want to be part of ‘group A’ which finds puppies and heavy metal music aesthetically superior, I am more likely to change my aesthetic tastes to find puppies and heavy metal music more pleasing because it projects the social image I desire. I haven’t changed my tastes through education or intellectual advancement (as is the current thinking), but social motivation.
To carry on the analogy, I imagine I will not be able to completely erase my old love of small dogs and Slayer and some of it will embed itself within my new ‘group B’ tastes. (Perhaps I’ll like puppies AND kittens?) Thus the societal aesthetic is changed minutely, and over time, with other people, perhaps change the ‘group B’ aesthetic into something completely different. If our social aesthetic tastes never did change or evolve over time, we'd still think cave painting is the aesthetic zenith.
3. What is Pierre Bourdieu's interpretation of aesthetic dispositions?
From what I’ve read, Bourdieu’s interpretation of aesthetic dispositions is one that is born of class distinction rather than continued experience or tutoring. In short, the different social classes have their own idea of what is aesthetic, and so what we personally choose to consider aesthetically beautiful defines our social class in the eyes of others. So rather than education and tutoring advancing our tastes, it is our social desires that determine what our aesthetic disposition is.
If I am part of ‘group B’ which defines itself by a love for kittens and classical music but want to be part of ‘group A’ which finds puppies and heavy metal music aesthetically superior, I am more likely to change my aesthetic tastes to find puppies and heavy metal music more pleasing because it projects the social image I desire. I haven’t changed my tastes through education or intellectual advancement (as is the current thinking), but social motivation.
To carry on the analogy, I imagine I will not be able to completely erase my old love of small dogs and Slayer and some of it will embed itself within my new ‘group B’ tastes. (Perhaps I’ll like puppies AND kittens?) Thus the societal aesthetic is changed minutely, and over time, with other people, perhaps change the ‘group B’ aesthetic into something completely different. If our social aesthetic tastes never did change or evolve over time, we'd still think cave painting is the aesthetic zenith.
2/03/2008
Madness continues...
just when you think they can't stoop any lower, they break their backs and stoop lower than any before.
The stand out passage for me is the whining introduction:
'For misguided reasons you are hiding the body of Heath Ledger, and refusing to divulge the time, date and place of his burial in Perth, Australia, so that we...cannot attend - in respectful proximity - and conduct a religious service.'
There is no distance in the universe that their usual 'Religious service' for funerals could be considered 'respectful'
Hopefully have a more enlightening post up soon, don't want to give too much attention to the crazies.
The stand out passage for me is the whining introduction:
'For misguided reasons you are hiding the body of Heath Ledger, and refusing to divulge the time, date and place of his burial in Perth, Australia, so that we...cannot attend - in respectful proximity - and conduct a religious service.'
There is no distance in the universe that their usual 'Religious service' for funerals could be considered 'respectful'
Hopefully have a more enlightening post up soon, don't want to give too much attention to the crazies.
1/30/2008
Reason 142 i despise hardcore, far right religion...
(from here):
'The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas is planning to protest the funeral of Heath Ledger. The church has caused quite a stir while picketing the funerals of soldiers that have died in Iraq. It is Westboro church's belief that Heath Ledger died and is burning in hell for playing the role of a gay cowboy in the critically acclaimed movie "Brokeback Mountain." The church believes that while Heath Ledger was not gay, he still played a homosexual and promoted the gay lifestyle.'
Ugh. To picket someones funeral is foul, but of course they must undoubtably know that they're doing god's work so it's ok. See, it even says so in the bible 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind' (leviticus 18:22) so of course that gives them permission to pester a grieving family. These people are deluded and dangerous halfwits.
Make no mistake, i'm not bashing all religious views here. Just religious fundamentalsim and in particular this moronic entity known appallingly as a 'church'. These people are too much for even the deeply christian nation that is America, and are considered a hate group by the U.S government (bit of an understatement in my opinion).
This also raises the issue of free speech. As appalling as their speech is, they have a right to air it. To deny anyone there opinion is not a free society. But on the other hand, you can't let such vocal viciousness get out of hand, what about the rights of Ledger's family to a peaceful memorial service? Surely their must be a statute in American law prohibiting hate speech?
The Black/White nature of Fundamental religious morality does nothing but complicate an already complex issue; There is a fine line to balance, with many shades of grey to negotiate. Dogmatic beliefs are fast becoming obsolete in our rapidly changing world, and to a degree holding back progress (The farcical debate over Stem Cell research springs to mind)
There is nothing grey, however, about my opinion of the Westboro baptist church (I.e sub-human, ignorant trolls) I would link to their website, but that would only add to their exposure, Google them yourself to get a flavour of their beliefs.
Or even better, go out and buy a copy of Brokeback Mountain (or any other film with Heath Ledger in) and just pause and remember a talented actor whose life was cut tragically short.
'The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas is planning to protest the funeral of Heath Ledger. The church has caused quite a stir while picketing the funerals of soldiers that have died in Iraq. It is Westboro church's belief that Heath Ledger died and is burning in hell for playing the role of a gay cowboy in the critically acclaimed movie "Brokeback Mountain." The church believes that while Heath Ledger was not gay, he still played a homosexual and promoted the gay lifestyle.'
Ugh. To picket someones funeral is foul, but of course they must undoubtably know that they're doing god's work so it's ok. See, it even says so in the bible 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind' (leviticus 18:22) so of course that gives them permission to pester a grieving family. These people are deluded and dangerous halfwits.
Make no mistake, i'm not bashing all religious views here. Just religious fundamentalsim and in particular this moronic entity known appallingly as a 'church'. These people are too much for even the deeply christian nation that is America, and are considered a hate group by the U.S government (bit of an understatement in my opinion).
This also raises the issue of free speech. As appalling as their speech is, they have a right to air it. To deny anyone there opinion is not a free society. But on the other hand, you can't let such vocal viciousness get out of hand, what about the rights of Ledger's family to a peaceful memorial service? Surely their must be a statute in American law prohibiting hate speech?
The Black/White nature of Fundamental religious morality does nothing but complicate an already complex issue; There is a fine line to balance, with many shades of grey to negotiate. Dogmatic beliefs are fast becoming obsolete in our rapidly changing world, and to a degree holding back progress (The farcical debate over Stem Cell research springs to mind)
There is nothing grey, however, about my opinion of the Westboro baptist church (I.e sub-human, ignorant trolls) I would link to their website, but that would only add to their exposure, Google them yourself to get a flavour of their beliefs.
Or even better, go out and buy a copy of Brokeback Mountain (or any other film with Heath Ledger in) and just pause and remember a talented actor whose life was cut tragically short.
1/20/2008
We Are Here 2
Here's 'Reflections on a mote of dust' as read by the great man himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
1/19/2008
We Are Here
A thought provoking photo and text:
The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.' - Carl Sagan (1934-1996)
Reflections on a Mote of Dust
'We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.
The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.' - Carl Sagan (1934-1996)
from http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html
12/02/2007
Alex and Tor's 'Gem of Zen'
A thought struck me and a friend whilst we were working late in the studio.
Whilst we were both complaining, as most people do, that our own respective pieces of work we were working on were 'rubbish' (it's so much easier to see the brilliantness of other peoples work isn't it?) a thought coalesced into being...
'It's not your artwork that is shit, it's the process of making it that can be shit. Ergo; don't mix up the feelings appropriate to the process with the final product'
It sort of made sense at the time...
Whilst we were both complaining, as most people do, that our own respective pieces of work we were working on were 'rubbish' (it's so much easier to see the brilliantness of other peoples work isn't it?) a thought coalesced into being...
'It's not your artwork that is shit, it's the process of making it that can be shit. Ergo; don't mix up the feelings appropriate to the process with the final product'
It sort of made sense at the time...
Agh!
I know this isn't particularly to do with art and creativity, but it wound me up so much i had to vent my anger somewhere.
Here's the source of my anger: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7119399.stm
It is unbelievable. All this international angst, mouth-foaming religious 'offense', and a possible 40 lashes over a teddy bear. A fucking teddy bear. Once again; Unbelievable.
I respect other people's viewpoints/religions, but respect must be earnt in my opinion, not demanded or pandered to. So, to accuse this poor woman of 'inciting religious hatred' when it is obviously a naive cultural faux pas on her part is absurd (And wasn't it the children that named the bear, not Mrs Gibbons?)
What's most disappointing is that it is totally unrepresentative of religious people in general, it is always the few fundamentalists in power that do such negative things. Surely it would pass off better to acknowledge that a foreigner made a mistake and pardon her? Thus showing that religions can be benevolent and understanding? Way to reconcile the Muslim world with the western world Sudan.
Religious Theocracies: are they a bit backward, or are they finest governments of the 14th century?
Here's the source of my anger: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7119399.stm
It is unbelievable. All this international angst, mouth-foaming religious 'offense', and a possible 40 lashes over a teddy bear. A fucking teddy bear. Once again; Unbelievable.
I respect other people's viewpoints/religions, but respect must be earnt in my opinion, not demanded or pandered to. So, to accuse this poor woman of 'inciting religious hatred' when it is obviously a naive cultural faux pas on her part is absurd (And wasn't it the children that named the bear, not Mrs Gibbons?)
What's most disappointing is that it is totally unrepresentative of religious people in general, it is always the few fundamentalists in power that do such negative things. Surely it would pass off better to acknowledge that a foreigner made a mistake and pardon her? Thus showing that religions can be benevolent and understanding? Way to reconcile the Muslim world with the western world Sudan.
Religious Theocracies: are they a bit backward, or are they finest governments of the 14th century?
Banksy
From the BBC website(Full article here ):
'Graffiti art by the acclaimed artist Banksy on streets in Tower Hamlets is to be painted over.
Stencilled artwork from the guerrilla artist can be seen on walls across London, but Tower Hamlets is the first council to treat them as vandalism.'
Stencilled artwork from the guerrilla artist can be seen on walls across London, but Tower Hamlets is the first council to treat them as vandalism.'
Grafitti or art? it's a tough one with Banksy. I personally think it's an awesome form of public art; it's composed, usually witty and makes a point unlike most graffiti which is usually incomprehensible letters and 'tags'.
Whatever you think of his stuff though, it's undoubtably popular. (see the video in the right of the article) So popular in fact, that they've recently published a guidebook of his work in London. Think of the tourism they could attract to the area, and the inevitable money they would bring! It could be the novelty that sets Tower hamlets apart from the rest of London! A unique selling point! So quite naturally they should stick dogmatically to the law and wipe them away. Stupid. Bet the guidebook publisher's are kicking themselves...
I much prefer Bristol council's approach to his work (though i suspect their comparative leniency may have something to do with being Banksy's hometown) 97% voted for his most recent graffiti to stay where it is. Power to the people!
Incidentally i happened to see the piece in question when i visited some friends down there, here's my pic:
11/12/2007
Modern Art
A perfect illustration of what people do when confronted with the rotting-head of 'Modern Art'. You are either the child, bemused by it all; or the daddy, enthusiastic and knowledgable.
I reckon most are the uncomprehending child and rely upon the few daddy's amongst us to explain it for them. The more you look into the context of a Modern Art piece and the reason for it being; the more meaningful and clearer it becomes.
But in the case of some, like David Shrigley's drawings, i'd say it's best to revert back to the humour of your childhood :)
10/30/2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
