JOHNCLENDENEN

Space, Time, Americans, Art, Me

2009-11-11T14:44:00.000-06:00

Not, not outer space, just space and the compulsion to own and occupy it.

As an American, I enjoy taking up space. It is also preferable for me to own that space as well as everything in it. When a person buys land, they are really purchasing a volume of space. Legally, the height and depth of development is limited when you purchase an area of land. So what you have is a prism of space that belongs to you as long as you own the property. So not only is it space, but it is space-time. So if we were to think of space-time as an object, we could identify bits of it that belong to certain people. We would be able to see other bits of space-time pass through each other as belongings are transferred and people occupy different spaces. In this way, a person's space-time property is a nodal point, a confluence of things-having-to-do-with-the-owner. Now, this is simply one model of looking at space, time and property, but it is one that I find myself using on a regular basis, and from my admittedly limited life experience, I believe this model ties in, or at least supports, the American approach to property, success and happiness. That is, in America we are able and somewhat encouraged to go out and secure property that we can occupy, control and reproduce in. And the bigger the better, because the larger the volume of space-time that we can occupy and control, the larger our mark will be on space and time. So if we were to look at the great amorphous space-time object, our node would be larger and more substantial than that of the city-dwelling Europeans who were not as concerned with collecting and controlling space, time and objects.

This is what I consider when I look at my apartment and all of my possessions. According to this model, they will be my legacy (the immortal version of myself), and since my mind has for whatever reasons, adopted this model into its daily understanding of reality, my space-time is important to me. However, it is not the most important.

Matter and energy are interchangeable (thank you Einstein). So, we can determine a different kind of personal legacy using a variation on the space-time-property-node model. Instead of focusing on the physical space, we can focus on events, that is, kinetic actions (energy). Then the model changes into a sort of causal network where objects are replaced by events. In this model, a person becomes a collection of causes. The legacy then, are the lineages of effects that he/she releases into the network. I consider this model to be more substantial because it is not as finite. One cause will fan into chaos. Since ownership and objects are more strictly (and arbitrarily) defined, the model of those is less dynamic.

It is difficult to properly explain these ideas with words. I've come to realize that I think in diagrams. This can make it difficult to communicate them verbally which is why I prefer to create visual art and admittedly have little if any capacity to appreciate poetry.

Recently I have been troubled by a distinction in the visual arts. It's a distinction that I have a sense of, but continually fail to explain. I simply haven't found the proper vocabulary for it, and I'm not sure the vocabulary exists. The simplest way to put it is big versus small. Of course, this implies a value judgment, but I don't mean it to, although as I will explain, I do prefer "big" art. It has to do with subject matter and how that subject matter relates the the above models. Let me try to propose some examples. Journalistic documentaries are small. They deal with a very specific, finite instance--a social injustice, a culture, a person... And while a documentary may make an appeal to a larger subject by claiming that the issues presented are more universal and are echoed throughout a larger volume of space and time, this assertion is made from the inside out. It begins with the specific and then expands inductively.

Big art is more difficult for me to explain, even though it is my preference. Big art is most common in novels and films, but can also occupy other media. The one example that immediately comes to mind is Goethe's Faust. In Faust, Dr. Faust is not an individual in the sense that the subject of a documentary is an individual. He is an allegory. He is an idea disguised as a man. Of course Faust is a very complex story and there are many approaches to its interpretation, but the most common in my experience is the interpretation of Faust as an allegory for modernity. Modernity is big. It is the most rapid shift in societal structure ever (and it shows no sign of stopping). It occupies a much larger area of both of my time-space models than any one person, social injustice or individual culture. 2001: A Space Odyssey is another example of a work that has big subject matter--evolution, consciousness, technology... Big art's assertions are deductive. The assertions come from the outside in.

I think my preference for "big" art (both to create and experience) comes from the same mental place as American's desire to take up space. My mind can luxuriate in big art. There is lots of space to stretch my legs and explore. Interpretive variations are almost endless. I can always come back to it and find new things as meaning will gracefully change and adapt over time. Small art will always be doomed to become outdated. Eventually, the subject matter will no longer matter to anyone except highly specialized historians.

I hope some of this makes sense. Otherwise we might just have to wait until I can plug my brain into yours so I can show you the diagrams.

PAID INTERNSHIP

2009-09-20T21:51:00.003-05:00

I am a 2008 photocom alumni and I have a photographer client who needs a lot of metadata entered in for his data asset management system. He exclusively shoots marine life. I am looking for an intern to do the data entry for him. I’d show you how we have his images organized, and then you’d go through and enter keywords and other metadata. It is tedious work, but it is low stress, easy and I can pay you $8 an hour.

For the data entry, you would work in Lightroom 2 from a Macbook Pro. Experience with Lightroom 2 is a plus, but not necessary (Lightroom is extremely intuitive). You would also have access to a Macpro that you can use for your own work when I’m not using it for mine. It is a 2.8ghz 8-core system with 10 gigabytes of ram and two 20’ cinema screens. It has CS4 Ultimate as well as Final Cut Studio 2 installed on it.

I primarily do retouching, IT for creative professionals and web design. I also shoot quite often, but rarely as a professional (building a grad school portfolio). I would be happy to give you instruction in any of my areas of expertise, and as with any internship, you will see the day-to-day operation of the business.

I do work out of a home office, so you would be coming over to an apartment (located 2 minutes from St. Eds). That might be appealing to some and less so to others. The environment will be laid back. It is similar to working in the digital lab. You have to be productive, but you can put on a movie and wear whatever you like. Also, there is a cat.

So, if you are technically minded, learn quickly, don’t have a cat allergy and are interested in what I’ve outlined here, please let me know. E-mail is preferable.

BLOGBEGIN

2009-09-20T17:30:00.001-05:00

Hello, my name is John Clendenen and this is my blog. I am a photographer among other things, and I use this outlet to express various thoughts I have on art, the world and everything. I will begin by re-posting some things that were originally posted on my personal facebook profile as notes. I will backdate them, but for the sake of full disclosure, this post marks the creation of my blogspot identity.

For all other things I do and create, visit johnclendenen.com.

ideas

2009-07-31T20:11:00.000-05:00

Some ideas I'd like to record here. May or may not materialize. Who knows.

Video of a man pleasuring a touchpad. Begins with him gently caressing the periphery and ends with him pushing the button rapidly with his tongue. The monitor will have a photograph of a woman. The photograph will appear to react by taking on increasing amounts of jpeg artifacting and pixelation. The climax will be an indecipherably compressed image. Music will be digitally created noise.

This has probably been done, but I'd still like to do it, just to have in my apartment: a painting of the "image not found" graphic. Couch sized in the most ornate frame I can find.

I ragazzi giu nel campo

2009-07-30T12:34:00.000-05:00

I don't generally post lyrics or poetry, and I certainly don't write any, but I heard this today and thought it was very good.

The boys down in the field
Pay no attention to time
But throw themselves in rivers
To catch the prize cross

The boys down in the field
Chase after a crazy man
They throttle him with their hands
And burn his body on the seashore

Come away from the moon and the morning star
That shower these boys with the vast sky's caresses

The boys down in the field
Chase after the bourgeois people
They cut to pieces
The heads of their enemies
And of the faithful

The boys down in the field
Gather branches and rosemary
And camouflage pits and potholes
To catch the girls

The boys down in the field
Chase after a rich man
And make him pull out his gold teeth
Which they take to the market

Come away from the moon and the morning star
That shower these boys with the vast sky's caresses

The boys down in the field
Have no memory
Thats why they sell their ancestors
Because they're gripped by sadness

-Pier Paolo Pasolini

Hear it sung: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dct_vQWOp0g

Virtuosity

2009-05-26T20:35:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking about the way virtuosity manifests in some of the arts but not in others. At the risk of sounding like I'm arguing with myself over semantics, I will record my thought process here.

The first thing that comes to mind is a musician. There have been many virtuosic singers and players of instruments, and it seems as though virtuosity is the primary aim of most musicians. A composer can be considered virtuosic. Mozart is the first the comes to mind, but certainly not all great composers are considered virtuosi. Mozart was virtuosic because he was able to construct whole compositions in his head before writing them down, but there have been plenty of composers who have written down equally important, complex, moving and beautiful music without being able to do so without any drafts. I think this is because virtuosity has everything to do with execution and has less to do with the product.

What about the visual arts? There certainly have been painters that one could describe as virtuosic as well as print makers and sculptors, and again, virtuosity in these areas seems to be very important. These media are very dependent on skillful execution. In fact, I'd say that virtuosity was the primary concern up until the 20th century when the underlying concept became more dominant. Photography and film are very different though, and I will address it last.

Writing has an odd relationship with virtuosity. In prose, the only writer that comes to mind is Joyce, specifically in Ulysses and Finnegans Wake. I'll never let anyone without at least a masters try to tell me what those books are about, and I certainly would never presume to tell anyone myself. The way he uses structure and language is virtuosic. There have certainly been virtuosi of poetry, and I would consider all of Shakespeare's work to be poetry in this sense since all of his work is written within a poetic framework. So as far as writing goes, virtuosity is possible, but not nearly as requisite as with the musician or painter. Many of the best writers of all time wouldn't be described as virtuosic, though virtuosity does seem more requisite in poetry than in prose.

Virtuosic filmmakers? I don't think I could describe a director as virtuosic. Maybe an actor, but not the director. It doesn't seem to make sense in that field. Virtuosity implies a skill that is immediately applied and applied without the aid of many auxiliary people or devices. Where the painter merely has a brush, the writer a pen, the sculptor a chisel, the director has a whole host of people and devices that are necessary for him or her to complete the product. This relates back to virtuosity having to do with execution. The director oversees the others' execution, so he or she is never virtuosic.

Of course I've saved photography for last. I don't believe in a virtuosic photographer. This seems strange because photography is so reliant on execution. The closest a photographer ever got to virtuosity was Cartier-Bresson, but as talented and as execution-centric as he was, I still don't feel like virtuoso is the right term for him. Allow me to attempt an explanation as to why this is. The camera is a layman's instrument. A painter generally doesn't develop exceptional ability until after a master's degree is obtained. The learning curve in photography is much less time consuming. As far as physically using a camera and executing shots, I doubt I will improve all that much from this point. I've gotten to the point where I don't have to think about using the camera to take photographs, and I've been at that point for quite some time. What I can improve is my ability to choose what photographs to take, but that isn't a virtuosic process.

But what kind of a process is that? If writers, composers, directors and photographers don't have to be virtuosic, then what do they have to be? I feel like I'm looking for another term, a counterpart to virtuosity that will complete this image I am forming of art and artists. The term I will use isn't at all unfamiliar, quite the opposite. The counterpart to virtuosity is creativity. To complete my thoughts on photography, the photographers choice of moments is a creative one. The choice of depth of field, over or under exposure and angle are all creative choices. The ability to change the settings on your camera fast enough to take the photograph before the moment passes is the execution and these things can come to most people with relatively little practice (I expect a couple years at most).

Contrast this to a musician who is already presented with virtually all of the choices between notes, tempos and dynamics. The musicians job is almost entirely execution with some room for creative choices in nuance. The director's job is entirely based on creative decision making, and at this point I suppose we should equate decision making with creativity. Direction requires virtually no time-sensitive execution. Whether a director's actions take more or less time (within reason) the end result is unaffected. This also applies to the composer who can be virtuosic if he or she exhibits the ability of Mozart to simply write out a completed composition, but again, since time is not an important factor in composition, the result is largely unaffected.

Writing is an odd exception to this time based distinction. Decision making and execution seem to be inseparable in the case of writing. I have trouble deconstructing my compulsion to name Joyce the only virtuosic prose writer. It has something to do with the complete emphasis on language manipulation over subject or plot. This is what is has in common with poetry which has a history full of virtuosi. I don't know. I have come up with what I consider a fairly valuable distinction between virtuosity (execution) and creativity (decision making) and how the balance between the two changes according to the medium in question. I think that's plenty to expect from a facebook note. I have grown weary of writing this. Clendenen out.

an alternative approach to dimensionality

2009-05-09T15:43:00.000-05:00

I feel like I may have written about this before, but regardless, I am going to write about it here and now.

The 3 (or 4 including 0) physical dimensions that we are all familiar with have always bothered me. The distinctions between them seem inconsistent, like there is something missing. The numbers don't seem to correspond to what they describe. I would like address this by proposing my own dimensional distinctions. Instead of asserting 4 dimensional distinctions, I will propose 5.

--Note: none of this has anything to do with time being a dimension or with string theory, I am only concerned with the physical dimensions that we generally consider when we talk about dimensions--

So, the first distinction is 0. In the current model, a zero dimensional object is a point. But why would we begin with anything at all? Since zero is the numerical description of nothingness, then why doesn't the zero dimension describe the environment of nothingness? Although it wouldn't come in handy too often, it's certainly an important distinction to make. Zero dimensions denoting the possible existence of anything, even just a point, seems counterintuitive. So in my model, zero dimensions is nothingness--a complete lack of anything and the lack of any possibility.

Now my zero dimension is really the only addition to the current system. Everything else shifts upwards. The zero dimensional point becomes the one dimensional, which makes sense since a point is always singular and is the only thing that can exist in that dimension. The first dimension becomes the second dimension which is a line or line segment. This makes sense because a line is the connection between two points, so two points exist in two dimensions. Then the second dimension becomes the third where the triangle is the simplest form (three connected points). And of course, the third dimension becomes the fourth where the tetrahedron is the simplest shape (yes, 4 connected points).

I do understand that the original dimensionality distinctions were based on axes (as in the plural of axis), but why? An axis is a device for understanding forms. In the end dimensionality is also a device for understanding forms, so why not let the distinctions be based on the forms themselves instead of letting one device determine the nature of another? Under the current system, there is an implicit assertion that axes somehow exist before dimensionality ('a priori' for you latin readers). In fact, they are coincidental because they are both human contrivances used to place forms into a useful schematic. I believe that whenever possible, the schematic tools we use to deconstruct forms should be derived from the forms themselves. This will prevent our approach to understanding forms from becoming unintuitive and convoluted.

facebook and art galleries

2009-04-17T00:10:00.000-05:00

"Adults and children sometimes have boards in their bedrooms or living-rooms on which they pin pieces of paper: letters, snapshots, reproductions of paintings, newspaper cuttings, original drawings, postcards. On each board all the images belong to the same language and all are more or less equal within it, because they have been chosen in a highly personal way to match and express the experience of the room's inhabitant. Logically, these boards should replace museums."

-John Berger from Ways of Seeing (The book, not the BBC specials)

Let's replace the board in this quote from John Berger with facebook. Though people certainly do use boards to pin up things in this way, the idea could be extended to some extent to interior decorating in general. Anyway, I agree with Berger about personalized spaces taking on the role of museums. While seeing the original is still the ideal, I can't make it out to the Louvre every time I want to take a look at the Mona Lisa.

In the particular case of the Mona Lisa, I have actually had more fulfilling experiences looking at reproductions than at the actual thing. It's relatively small, and on an average day at the Louvre, it is surrounded by people including a Louvre employee whose job it is to prevent any pictures from being taken. "No photo! No camera!" This is not an environment that is conducive to any sort of meditative contemplation. I'd rather look at a good reproduction in a book alone in silence. So the ideal here, seeing the original in a distraction-free environment, isn't even possible in a museum.

That is really tangential to my actual point though. Museums are where art goes to die. There are instances of new media installations which are an exception, but for the two dimensional art world, I believe this is the case. Let us compare what happens to a good photograph on facebook and what happens to a good photograph in a museum. On facebook, after a photo album is posted, a whole microcosm of social activity begins to occur around the images. People comment and discuss the content of the photographs. People use some of the images as their profile pictures. I find this very significant. The profile picture is an alias, it represents the person. It is a substitute for their physical presence. This is a relatively new and profound use for photographs. You get to choose a photograph that will act as a surrogate you.

Contrast this to a print in a museum which will be quietly passed over by people who most likely already have some idea of how they feel about it. There's much less activity in the museum. The function of the art doesn't evolve. It is just a reference point. It sits there as if to say, "yes, there is an original that does exist and it is here." Elsewhere, in books, on desktop backgrounds, on bedroom walls, the image is functioning out in the world, making impressions, contributing to personalized contexts, generating conversation... but in the museum it sits, remaining the same.

I think the future of art, or at least the relevant future of art is on the internet, in living rooms, in bedrooms and in books.

Don't feel like proofreading this right now. Fuck it.

a thought rolling over on itself like a snowball tumbling into an avalanche: barely structured ideas on valentines day

2009-02-14T22:13:00.001-06:00

I just saw an ad that said, "Texting at Church? TXT3 is a new worshiping experience..."

My reaction occurred to me visually before it took on a description. The vision was that of a member of the clergy pissing into a bottle of wine. The use of communication age technology to engage in Christian worshiping exercises seems extremely counterintuitive. Then again, most everything about religion seems counterintuitive to me. Alas.

Technology is pure but not sacred. Religion is not pure but it is sacred. Technology is pure because it is objective. It carries no implicit judgment and is external to morality. Thus, hypocrisy is an impossibility. Religion is sacred because it is old and tends to, or at least pre-tends to, stay the same. It centers on cycles and recurrences. It is based on tradition and it posits a morality which its members are sporadically faithful to.

Technology is not sacred because it is not nostalgic. Though technology operates in cycles, its overall movement is linear. It progresses and adapts to changes in its environment, just like the Darwinian model of a species. Religion is not pure because it is inconsistent. Its doctrines and its history are polluted with contradiction.

The problem with religion is that it is largely non-adaptive. It is rigid. It cannot improvise in a dynamic environment. Religion would be a terrible jazz musician. Technology exists only to address its dynamic environment. Quite ironically, the idea of technology would be terrible at executing repetitive tasks (as opposed to the actual physical manifestation of technology which mostly used to execute repetitive tasks with an extremely high degree of accuracy).

The problem with technology is that it is cold. Nazism was a technological society in this sense. Certain people were deemed less effective as others, and the others were overworked and abused until they died. Though the basis for judging who was effective and who was not was essentially flawed because it was based on baseless intolerance, the course of action was coldly rational. If you had a tool that you meant to replace, you might still use it until it gives out completely. If you had a country full of Jews, you might throw them into labor camps until they die. This is the danger of purely progressive, i.e. technological thinking.

What we need is sacredness--a nostalgia for life and the absence of suffering. The problem is that we need to arrive at that nostalgia through the same type of reasoning that led to the holocaust. I am confident that such a thing is possible. Reasoning is impartial. I feel that pragmatism will serve as a segue into a progressive ideology that has room for sacredness and thus, will have safeguards against abuse.

Pragmatism is the marriage of intuition and reasoning. If we think pragmatically long enough, I think that collectively our seemingly separate, intuition-driven conclusions will reveal an underlying system or ideology that can can unite thought as religion once did.

Speaking of linear progression, I am way off from where I started. Apparently I need to develop a nostalgia for how I begin my writing. Oh well. Americans never look back.

high school artifacts

2008-05-06T22:18:00.001-05:00

I was cleaning out my edweb account and found an artifact worth sharing. Freshman year in my rhetoric and composition class, we had 'creativity day.' We were supposed to bring in something we've written or come talk about something we liked. I brought in some creative writing I did in high school back when I had emotions. These were originally stored on a hard drive that failed long ago, taking with it all of the ridiculous shit I had done in high school (thank god), but now, a little of it is back, and is posted below for your enjoyment. It is very high school.

Also, I was pleasantly surprised to find my astronaut motif pop up even though it's in a completely different context.

Flush

Oh Jack of hearts,
Take it from a friend,
You’re value does not surpass the king,
And the lady plays to win,

Oh Nine, I know,
But isn’t there a way,
The lady, she is easily met,
But her suit is not easily swayed,

The king of clubs does not lose his bets,
And he knows Jack, he knows,
Get back in the deck,
It’s your only hope,
She can not love you,

I envy you, Nine,
Your spades serve you straight,
You have no deception of your value,
No illusion of your state,

Jack, I know your tragedy,
You can never be any more,
Than a precursor to your obsession,
Pray they play twenty-one,
She might flirt with you a little,
But just for a bit of fun,
The lady belongs to her man,

She fucks the ace,
I’ve seen them, Nine,
Your spades must know it too,
She lusts for him,
Despite the king,
Why can’t I be her lover,
Tell me the truth,

My dear jack,
Your only eye has left you ignorant,
You’re a victim of your condition,
One that no card envies,
But no card lacks,

Don’t bullshit me, Nine,
I don’t want a friend’s lies,
I want a liar’s facts,

Fine then Jack, here it is,

Your face gives you confidence,
But your hearts do you no good,
A queen needs to be overlooked,
Overlooked and misunderstood,

Here’s your problem, Jack,
You’re just too easy for a lady as black as the queen of hearts is good,

Untitled

Mr. Frisky’s father died in the twilight of an October evening. He left behind a water bowl, and an unsettling mixture of feelings. The clouds were warm and violet, just the way he would have liked. I can still see him looking into the air, and smiling into the light. At night, he’d sometimes stray away, but he always returned by the eighth hour of the very next Thursday. The time is 12:57 on a Saturday afternoon, and the only sign we have of him is his first-born, pure-bred son. Mr. Frisky is looking up to me, his eyes screaming, “Where has my father gone?”
From that moment on, Timmy never trusted God. He died in 1987 when his helicopter ran out of gas somewhere over Minnesota.

The End of an Astronaut

“Oh God! What is this place and how did I arrive?” asked Dr. Tracey.

Dr. Tracy stands amongst his comrades in an aged crater. All around him are prisms suspended by unseen forces dispersed amongst stalagmites of incredible height. Tracy’s companions do not stir, so he presumes them dead. He proceeds to walk about. Voices are coming from everywhere. None are discernable. Dr. Tracy’s head begins to ache as the weight of the air infiltrates his mind. He stumbles. The voices grow louder. The prisms blur. He looks up to find that they have begun to melt into pools of silvery reflections. Dr. Tracy falls on his side, his face half buried in dirt. The melted prisms begin to creep around his cheek and mouth. They are cold and sting his face. Dr. Tracy hears a shuffling behind his back. He strains his neck, but is unable to turn his head. Five sets of teeth grip the flesh on his legs. To Dr. Tracy’s surprise, his companions are not dead.

The 2 Year Survey: Installation, The Fourth

2008-02-18T18:28:00.001-06:00

So every two years, I fill out this survey. I filled it out the first time when I was sixteen and my girlfriend at the time (the lovely Camila Matos) sent it to me. Early on it becomes fairly obvious that it was written for a girl, but most of the questions are not gender specific. As for the ones that are gender specific, it is interesting to see how my answers to those have changed over the years (and how the female specific questions have become less and less applicable).

So there are four answers to each question--the first from when I was 16, the second from when I was 18, third 20 and fourth 22. I'm not sure how I remember to fill this thing out every other Spring, but I do.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.first name:
Trip (as of yesterday)
John
John
John

2.middle name:
Douglas (yea, it may sound funny, but it was a Scottish tribe that slaughtered a whole bunch of ppl, coo, huh)
Douglas
Douglas, and it was a clan, not a tribe.
Douglas

3.last name:
Clendenenenenenenenenenenenenenenenen.....
Clendenen
Clendenen, which is derived from The House of Gwendolyn which was part of the Douglas clan.
Clendenen

4.Have you ever been in love?:
Every chance I get
yes
Unfortunately.
Yes

5.do you have a crush?
I suppose, but I consider that an understatement by now :)
no
God no, also I think I actually had a crush on Andrea the last time I filled this out but chose not to mention it.
No

6.do you think your crush likes you?
no, she loathes my very existence, don't you Kami :P
N/A
N/A
N/A

7.could you ever be a lesbian?:
its at this point, I wonder why I was asked to fill this out.
at times i do think myself to be a lesbian trapped within the confines of a man's body
I watched Tootsie the other day and decided that I was indeed a lesbian trapped in a man's body. I wonder what it would be like to have sex dressed as a woman. I do seriously think about this.
No

8.top or bottom?:
I was always fond of tops as a child
is this a self esteem question
I really don't know how to answer that.
What?

9.victoria's secrets or fredricks of hollywood?:
none of the above
i don't wear underwear, and i don't really know what fredricks of hollywood is
I don't know how to answer this either.
What?

10.what color lipstick do you wear?:
whatever kind a girl asks me to
i prefer lip gloss
Usually a red.
Don't.

11.do you wear make up?:
well, there was this one time....
on occasion
When I'm in that kind of mood.
No

12.what are you wearing right now?
jeans, t-shirt, boxers, shoes, socks
scrubs, undershirt
A t-shirt that says "Fuck me I'm famous Ibiza" with women's dickies, a belt and my black panther slippers.
Hoodie, t-shirt, jeans and boots.

13.spit or swallow?:
sorry, I'm not that flexible
not my decision
There really is something more sexually appealing about a woman swallowing, but I'm not one to suggest or request something like that.
Neither

14.who do you love?:
ppl who aren't related to me
people, though not all of them
I'm not going to list all of you, but I'm sure you can figure it out, and if you aren't sure, then give me a call and ask. Also, my first answer to this question is kind of fucked up.
Several individuals to varying degrees.

15.what's your fav. color?:
I have no use for such a thing
selenium
I'm going to have to stick with selenium tone on Ilford glossy warmtone fiber paper.
Red

16.do you want to have kids?:
for dinner perhaps
no
No.
No

17.who do you look like?:
the boy in the mirror, hes been haunting me all my life
a fuckass
Do I look like anyone in particular? I don't think I do.
John Heder (or so I am told)

18.who are your friends?:
yea, this is where yout trick me into leaving someone out and then they get all pissed, you know who you are ppl
who is anyone
I hate these kinds of questions. You know who you are.
They are college-aged, middle class americans.

19.shower or bath?:
alone or....
shower
Shower, I have no patience for baths.
Shower

20.haircut?:
yes
no
I do need one if that's what this question is about.
I just got one yesterday. It is medium length and Amanda Klaus thinks I look like a girl.

21.haircolor?:
brown
still brown
You guessed it.
Brown

22.piercings?:
0
i used to have two on my left ear, but they have healed
No updates here, although I had forgotten that I at one time had a pierced ear.
None.

23.tattooes?:
they washed off
no
I had some temporary ones a few weeks ago actually.
None.

24.what's your fav. animal?:
all of them, they have more of a right to be alive than humans
i don't really prefer any one
Cats.
Cats.

25.are you angelina jolie or winona ryder?:
Hedwig
i am neither as far as i know
Keira Knightly!
Neither.

26.when's the last time you cried?:
hmm, 2, 3, maybe 4 years ago.
Sunday i think
When I found out my cat died (see a few posts back).
Don't know.

27.when's the last time you got high?:
first day of school, well, illegally anyway
um, allie, when did we see kill bill?
Two nights ago.
Around 6 weeks ago.

28.when's the last time you got drunk?
don't think I've ever actually gotten to the 'drunk' stage, severely buzzed at most
eh, when me, nick, and john went to john's beach house and it wasn't good
Two nights ago, although I had some wine earlier tonight.
Three days ago (a Saturday)

29.when's the last time you kissed someone?
last night
two sundays ago
I kiss lots of people on the head and cheek, but if that doesn't count, then March or April.
Two months ago.

30.do you bite your nails?:
when they get too long
far too much
Yes, I have done so ever since I learned what a bad habit was in kindergarten and realized that I didn't have one.
Yes, constantly.

31.what's your cutest attribute?:
well, theres this patch of skin at the end of my pinky finger that is about an 1/8 of an inch in diameter that I am incredibly fond of
some say my hair, some my eyes, some my attire, i say it's my arrogance
I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer this. I am told that my cheek bones are spot on though.
I haven't been cute in years.

32.do you believe in god?:
only when hes me
god is best used as a poetic device as far as im concerned
Yes, but I don't think he exists (Yeah that's right, fuck you St. Anselm, you're full of fallacious shit).
No.

33.coke or Pepsi?
cyanide
i drink water mostly
I read a study where they conducted the Pepsi challenge and measured the subjects' brain activity with an fMRI. Apparently, Pepsi is more pleasurable to drink if you don't know what you're drinking, but the cultural implications of Coke make it the preference of most Americans. I prefer Coke because I think cultural implications are just as relevant to a beverage as its chemical affect on the brain.
Coke.

34.do you have any pets?
yes, a completely black cat named Evil
evil and booboo
Evil and Booboo are both dead. I have no pets.
Donna.

35.what kind of car do you drive?:
the kind that dreams are made of
black t100 truck with a cover on the back
A green Ford Explorer which I call Little Green. RIP Big Black.
Ford Explorer.

36.hot or cold?:
depends on the location
hot
Hot, but just because it's cold right now.
Cold.

37.rain or snow?:
snow
snow
Snow.
Snow.

38.do you have any zits right now?:
c'mon, its one of my few insecurities, although the meds help a lot. um, dormant or active?
not too many
Probably somewhere.
Small ones.

39.are you crazy?:
I'd like to think so
i don't like that question
Probably.
Getting there.

40.what color are your eyes?:
blue I think
blue, green, and brown
Primarily blue and green, although there is a brown spot in one of them.
Blue and green with a spot of brown.

41.what's your natural hair color?:
brown
brown
Still brown.
Brown.

42.are you tan or pale?:
pale
pale
Moderately pale.
Pale, but not pasty.

43.how tall are you?:
taller than 5'7" apparently
around 6' with my plats on
Six feet.
Between 5' 11" and 6'

44.how much do you weigh?:
somewhere inbetween 120 and 125 depending on how long ago I ate
130
If I had to guess, I'd say about 135.
I haven't weighed myself for a very long time, but I think I'm 150.

45.what's you're favorite pair of shoes?:
the ones on my feet
the ones they used to have at leopard lounge until i got enough money to buy them
My payless dress shoes.
My black boots.

46.what's your fav. movie?:
right now, probably hedwig, but it fluctuates too much for that to mean anything
buffalo 66 still gets me every time
Leon: The professional (International Cut)
I'm a big fan of No Country for Old Men right now. I don't remember the last time I went to see a movie twice in the theaters.

47.what are you going to do today?:
hmm, I'm getting kinda anxious to take a visit to the little boys room...
go to sleep, wake up, and get started on dying
Get up, print a paper, go to class, fuck around, go to work till midnight, fuck around some more and then go to sleep.
Well, it's 11pm, so I'm going to finish working my shift and go home.

48.do you sing in the shower?:
no, too paranoid
no
No.
No.

49.do you have any stickers on your car?:
dreams aren't that detailed
no
No.
No.

50.do you wear rings?:
no, but I should
sometimes
Yes, a pinky ring.
No.

51.what parfume do you wear?:
Gucci Rush as of sometime soon
none
I remember Allie once said that deodorant is the best way a guy can smell good because most colognes are just obnoxious, so I don't wear any.
Don't wear perfume.

52.what does your significant other wear?:
ck1.. taty.. giovanna baby..alfazema..
a glove :-o
A glove? What the fuck was that about?
Don't have a significant other.

53.who would be your celebrity dream date?:
John Cameron Mitchell
i'd like to go on a date with the girl from lost in translation
Keira Knightly!
No one comes to mind.

54.what kind of panties do you wear?:
hmm, I don't make a habit of such things
i don't
I've only worn panties once and they belonged to Beth Fulmer. Katie gave them to me to wear on 70s day in high school. I don't think Beth ever found out. I might still have the panties, they were purple.
Don't wear panties. I do wear briefs and boxer briefs when it's cold.

55.fav. music genre?:
I do not limit myself to genres
right now post-disco i guess
Pop from the 50s and early 60s, especially Roy Orbison.
Pre-Beatles pop and rock n roll music. And Brian Eno.

56.are you tired of this survey?:
only cause I need to piss
no, just tired
Not particularly.
Not really.

57.do you hate good byes?:
depends on who I'm saying goodbye to
sometimes
Sometimes, but not this time.
Hate is a strong word.

Some thoughts on shock value and controversy

2007-09-10T22:57:00.001-05:00

The escalation of that-which-will-shock-average-audiences-without-offending-them-enough-to-lose-their-attentions is fairly evident over the course of western civilization and most noticeable since the advent of modern art (circa 1863). Icons to leaf-censored nudes to battle scenes to piss christ is the sort of time table I have in mind. Of course, there have been instances where this progression took the form of two steps forward, one step back hence the censoring of previously created art with leaves, the burning of art, etc... Anyway, so this seems like a linear escalation of subject matter. The Battle of Algiers was banned in France when it was released (1966) and unbanned five years later. More recent films of controversy that have been recently unbanned include Cannibal Holocaust (unbanned in 1999 in the US) and Sweet Movie which remains banned in several countries and was recently released in the US by Criterion. In this case, controversial material suddenly deemed fit for mass consumption has changed from the politically and emotionally charged Battle of Algiers to the overtly and realistically violent Cannibal Holocaust and the strange sexual accounts of Sweet Movie which include instances of copraphilia, shades of pedophilia and a gold penis.

Concerning this escalation,

I recall being desensitized to a variety of things during my early pubescent years. I had the fortune/misfortune/opportunity to share my pre-adolescence with that of the Internet. Thus, by 14 or 15, I had been exposed to photographs of autopsies, war casualties, bestiality, lynchings, gaping assholes, aborted fetuses, every fetish imaginable and otherwise, and of course, a girl shitting liquid onto her face in a bathtub. I remember that I was utterly disgusted at seeing a video still of Pamela Anderson giving Tommy Lee a blow job when I was about 12. Two years later, I was mostly unaffected by a close-up photograph of a woman's vagina featuring several mouse traps clamped to her labia.

What does this mean?

I'm not entirely sure. It seems like a linear progression, but there is room for cyclical interpretation. For instance, though I have seen photographs of all sorts of ridiculous things, I have never seen someone executed. Public executions used to be common-place and well attended as their entertainment value was top notch at the time. Would I still be desensitized to these things if I were to witness them in person? I can't really answer that truthfully. Perhaps, in an age where penises in paintings and frescoes were being covered with foliage, more horrible things than what I have witnessed were occurring on an incredibly regular basis. If we were to switch the elements in each time period (a nude depiction to the dark ages and a public execution to the present), then both would be met with equal disgust and horror. In this sense, shock and controversy can be something other than a finite resource. They can be recycled from the norms of ages past. Perhaps in some utopian pluralistic future where all intolerance has been eliminated along with prejudice, audiences will look back in horror at Birth of a Nation and cringe knowing that a nation could be born out of such ideals. Filmmakers and artists of that day will create works dramatizing accounts of racism and the socioeconomic separation between minorities and majorities, and they will be banned due to content to be unbanned years later. Who knows? I don't.