12:40 pm - Mon, Jan 23, 2012
10 notes
Corot is one of my favorite artists, he understands color so well, he can be so precise with a color that just its presence can signify representation better than contour or shading.  Having said that, this is one of the silliest paintings I’ve ever seen. 
via onwardthroughtheramparts:

Bacchante with a Panther (1860) by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, Shelburne Museum, USA

Corot is one of my favorite artists, he understands color so well, he can be so precise with a color that just its presence can signify representation better than contour or shading.  Having said that, this is one of the silliest paintings I’ve ever seen. 

via onwardthroughtheramparts:

Bacchante with a Panther (1860) by Jean-Baptiste-Camille CorotShelburne Museum, USA

(via forthememoryofepicurus-deactiva)

Comments

12:06 pm - Thu, Jan 19, 2012
4 notes

Against SOPA and PIPA

Dear Congresswoman Jackson Lee, Senators Cornyn and Hutchison

I own the Internet.  All taxpayers who paid for the development of the Internet by the US government own the internet.  I will not allow the internet to be censored by the SOPA and PIPA bills.  I will not allow what I own outright to be censored.  The petty copyright concerns of Hollywood over their pirated movies is in no way commensurate with the vast necessity of having a free and open and uncensored Internet.  The revolutions of 2011 that occurred all over the Middle East happened because the Internet could not be shut down or censored.  If the Iranian people can ever overthrow the ayatollahs, it will be the Internet that gives them a voice and the means to organize and rebel.  Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, are too precious and too American as values to be subject to censorship.  There are already plenty of legal avenues and enforceable laws for the holders of copyright to sue and have their day in court.  

Sincerely,

Scott Bodenheimer

Comments

11:41 am
454 notes

 via fucktheory
It’s the Information Economy, Stupid
I’m not a fan of abstractions.  Nominalisms like “free speech” and “human rights” don’t usually get much more than a yawn from me.  So this isn’t a post about principles - it’s a post about activity and privation.  It’s also not a post about abstractions - it’s a post about a very real, crucially important battle that is being waged right now, at this very moment, a battle that is part of a very real, crucially important war, a war that stands to define the shape of capitalism for the foreseeable future. 
Let’s not mince words: information is the most important currency of the 21st century.  Maybe in 100 years, when we’ve used most of it up, oil will return to the top of the pyramid, but at the moment there is no commodity worth more than the endless strings of 1s and 0s that make up your digital life.  The war over the future of the Internet can potentially affect every facet of your daily existence from your ability to send e-mail to your ability to vote. 
Please don’t make the error of thinking that this war is about copyright enforcement.  That may be the form that the current skirmish has taken on, but the stakes of this war are considerably higher than whether or not you should be allowed to download the latest season of Project Runway on BitTorrent.  This is a war about fundamental questions of democratic society, about the ownership and restriction of public utilities, about whether multinational conglomorates will succeed in smashing the rhizomatic, decentralized models of commerce and communication that the Internet has provided for the last 20 years, and about control of what is, for better and for worse, the most powerful tool for revolution that exists in the world today (well, OK, second most powerful after Deleuze & Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus).
The basic problem looks like this.An increasingly large part of our daily lives takes place on-line; this will not be news to anyone.  Communication, shopping, entertainment, travel arrangements - these were just the tip of the iceberg.  US citizens can now pay taxes on-line.  In some places you can vote on-line.  Within a very short time, college admissions will be entirely digital; even today, I’m not sure it’s still possible to apply to a top-tier university without Internet access.  In other words, in the next few years, the Internet will no longer be an option; it will become a requisite tool to which one must have access if one is to enjoy the full range of rights and responsibilities available to you as a citizen. 
The question at the heart of the war is this:  given that access to the Internet will soon be crucial to the basic operations of daily life, do we want that access to be mediated by corporations whose only concern is maximizing profit?  Do you want your ability to vote, to receive tax refunds, and to apply to college to lie in the hands of a private company that has the ability to arbitrarily block your access to any website it chooses?  What if ten years from now Presidential elections are entirely on-line, and by unfortunate coincidence a massive technical outage strikes certain neighborhoods, say, those neighborhoods primarily inhabited by people of color?   
At the moment, you still have the option of logging out of Gmail or not having a Facebook account.  But the days in which the Internet is an option are rapidly disappearing.  The on-line/IRL divide is dwindling to  nothing, and very soon connectivity will be not a possibility but a fact  of life.  If we don’t fight tooth and nail to build an open and public  Internet now, we will be living with the consequences of that failure  for many, many decades. 
The privatization of governmental responsibilities has become so ubiquitous in the United States that we tend to lose sight of the fact that communication infrastructure is a public utility.  YOU OWN THE AIRWAVES.  Not in a bullshit, ideological, “Take back what’s rightfully ours!” kind of way.  Literally.  Time Warner may own the cables, and they may provide service and maintenance for them, but those cables are hanging off of poles sticking out of public sidewalks paid for by taxpayers and running underneath the pavement of public streets paid for by taxpayers.  Let me say it again:  communication infrastructure is a public utility.  It belongs to taxpayers.  Your democratically elected representatives, who are supposed to be protecting your best interests but whose tongues are lodged so far up the corporate lobby’s asshole their epiglottis has turned brown, are giving away your property to companies that want to use the communication infrastructure not only to make money at your expense but also limit personal freedom and potentially severely impact your ability to participate in your own society. 
How many people are even aware of the fact that in the middle of the 20th century the United States government gave the television networks the airwaves in exchange for an ephemeral promise that their programming would serve the best interests of the viewers?  A quick glance at FOX’s show roster will prove how well that worked out.  The most pernicious brilliance of capitalism is its ability to bottle something that already belonged to you and not only sell it back to you for a profit but actually make you grateful that you’re being provided with the service. But it is not a given that access to the Internet must be mediated by private companies that sell you the right to use a public resource. 
The Internet, let’s remember, was developed by the US government with taxpayer money.  The Internet belongs to you.  And your elected representatives are doing their best to give it away to the highest bidder.  Not only will you not see a dime from the billions of dollars in profit this will generate, you will actually be charged for using a resource that was yours in the first place. 
The only way to resist this encroachment is to take action.  First, inform yourself.  Then, decide what you can do to help.  The most important war of the 21st century is being fought above our heads at this very moment, and the consequences of losing it are too grim to enumerate. Don’t just call your Congressman and ask that they vote against PIPA and SOPA.  Call your Congressman and make it clear that the Internet belong to you, that you intend to retain ownership, and that your district might be sending someone else to Congress next term if your Congressman thinks otherwise. 
Click here for more information.

fucktheory:

 via fucktheory

It’s the Information Economy, Stupid

I’m not a fan of abstractions.  Nominalisms like “free speech” and “human rights” don’t usually get much more than a yawn from me.  So this isn’t a post about principles - it’s a post about activity and privation.  It’s also not a post about abstractions - it’s a post about a very real, crucially important battle that is being waged right now, at this very moment, a battle that is part of a very real, crucially important war, a war that stands to define the shape of capitalism for the foreseeable future. 

Let’s not mince words: information is the most important currency of the 21st century.  Maybe in 100 years, when we’ve used most of it up, oil will return to the top of the pyramid, but at the moment there is no commodity worth more than the endless strings of 1s and 0s that make up your digital life.  The war over the future of the Internet can potentially affect every facet of your daily existence from your ability to send e-mail to your ability to vote. 

Please don’t make the error of thinking that this war is about copyright enforcement.  That may be the form that the current skirmish has taken on, but the stakes of this war are considerably higher than whether or not you should be allowed to download the latest season of Project Runway on BitTorrent.  This is a war about fundamental questions of democratic society, about the ownership and restriction of public utilities, about whether multinational conglomorates will succeed in smashing the rhizomatic, decentralized models of commerce and communication that the Internet has provided for the last 20 years, and about control of what is, for better and for worse, the most powerful tool for revolution that exists in the world today (well, OK, second most powerful after Deleuze & Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus).

The basic problem looks like this.
An increasingly large part of our daily lives takes place on-line; this will not be news to anyone.  Communication, shopping, entertainment, travel arrangements - these were just the tip of the iceberg.  US citizens can now pay taxes on-line.  In some places you can vote on-line.  Within a very short time, college admissions will be entirely digital; even today, I’m not sure it’s still possible to apply to a top-tier university without Internet access.  In other words, in the next few years, the Internet will no longer be an option; it will become a requisite tool to which one must have access if one is to enjoy the full range of rights and responsibilities available to you as a citizen. 

The question at the heart of the war is this:  given that access to the Internet will soon be crucial to the basic operations of daily life, do we want that access to be mediated by corporations whose only concern is maximizing profit?  Do you want your ability to vote, to receive tax refunds, and to apply to college to lie in the hands of a private company that has the ability to arbitrarily block your access to any website it chooses?  What if ten years from now Presidential elections are entirely on-line, and by unfortunate coincidence a massive technical outage strikes certain neighborhoods, say, those neighborhoods primarily inhabited by people of color?   

At the moment, you still have the option of logging out of Gmail or not having a Facebook account.  But the days in which the Internet is an option are rapidly disappearing.  The on-line/IRL divide is dwindling to nothing, and very soon connectivity will be not a possibility but a fact of life.  If we don’t fight tooth and nail to build an open and public Internet now, we will be living with the consequences of that failure for many, many decades. 

The privatization of governmental responsibilities has become so ubiquitous in the United States that we tend to lose sight of the fact that communication infrastructure is a public utilityYOU OWN THE AIRWAVES.  Not in a bullshit, ideological, “Take back what’s rightfully ours!” kind of way.  Literally.  Time Warner may own the cables, and they may provide service and maintenance for them, but those cables are hanging off of poles sticking out of public sidewalks paid for by taxpayers and running underneath the pavement of public streets paid for by taxpayers.  Let me say it again:  communication infrastructure is a public utility.  It belongs to taxpayers.  Your democratically elected representatives, who are supposed to be protecting your best interests but whose tongues are lodged so far up the corporate lobby’s asshole their epiglottis has turned brown, are giving away your property to companies that want to use the communication infrastructure not only to make money at your expense but also limit personal freedom and potentially severely impact your ability to participate in your own society. 

How many people are even aware of the fact that in the middle of the 20th century the United States government gave the television networks the airwaves in exchange for an ephemeral promise that their programming would serve the best interests of the viewers?  A quick glance at FOX’s show roster will prove how well that worked out.  The most pernicious brilliance of capitalism is its ability to bottle something that already belonged to you and not only sell it back to you for a profit but actually make you grateful that you’re being provided with the service. But it is not a given that access to the Internet must be mediated by private companies that sell you the right to use a public resource

The Internet, let’s remember, was developed by the US government with taxpayer money.  The Internet belongs to you.  And your elected representatives are doing their best to give it away to the highest bidder.  Not only will you not see a dime from the billions of dollars in profit this will generate, you will actually be charged for using a resource that was yours in the first place

The only way to resist this encroachment is to take action.  First, inform yourself.  Then, decide what you can do to help.  The most important war of the 21st century is being fought above our heads at this very moment, and the consequences of losing it are too grim to enumerate. Don’t just call your Congressman and ask that they vote against PIPA and SOPA.  Call your Congressman and make it clear that the Internet belong to you, that you intend to retain ownership, and that your district might be sending someone else to Congress next term if your Congressman thinks otherwise. 

Click here for more information.

fucktheory:

(via beyondneptune)

Comments

10:37 am - Mon, Jan 16, 2012
5 notes
via onwardthroughtheramparts:

Three Male Figures (chiaroscuro woodcut, ca. 1500-1550) by Domenico Beccafumi

Comments

3:10 pm - Sat, Jan 14, 2012
6 notes
via lacalaveracatrina:

Still Life Glass, Silver Goblet and Cup of Champagne, 1871 by Henri Fantin-Latour.

via lacalaveracatrina:

Still Life Glass, Silver Goblet and Cup of Champagne, 1871 by Henri Fantin-Latour.

Comments

10:00 am
4 notes
via boursicot:

The 1929 Michigan Theater in Detroit now serves as a car park.

via boursicot:

The 1929 Michigan Theater in Detroit now serves as a car park.

Comments

3:10 pm - Fri, Jan 13, 2012
64 notes
via artqueer:

Patrick AngusHanky PankyOil on canvas 40.5” x 54.25”
leslielohman.org/ArtistsPages/Angus.html
“Once  called the “the Toulouse-Lautrec of Times Square” by Robert Patrick, a  noted New York playwright, Patrick Angus (1953-1992) is to the gay  underground of New York’s 1980s as the famous French painter was to the  outré Paris of a century earlier. Much as Lautrec devoted his art to the  risqué world of Parisian dance hall girls and prostitutes, Patrick  Angus focused his incisive eye on New York’s largely neglected gay  underground - the hustler bars, baths and the male burlesques at the  fringes of gay life.”

via artqueer:

Patrick Angus
Hanky Panky
Oil on canvas
40.5” x 54.25”

“Once called the “the Toulouse-Lautrec of Times Square” by Robert Patrick, a noted New York playwright, Patrick Angus (1953-1992) is to the gay underground of New York’s 1980s as the famous French painter was to the outré Paris of a century earlier. Much as Lautrec devoted his art to the risqué world of Parisian dance hall girls and prostitutes, Patrick Angus focused his incisive eye on New York’s largely neglected gay underground - the hustler bars, baths and the male burlesques at the fringes of gay life.”

(via forthememoryofepicurus-deactiva)

Comments

10:00 am
352 notes
Louise Serpa, photographer of the West, rodeos, and cowboys, died in Tucson last week at 86.  An account of her life and career at this New York Times link. 

Louise Serpa, photographer of the West, rodeos, and cowboys, died in Tucson last week at 86.  An account of her life and career at this New York Times link

Comments

3:10 pm - Thu, Jan 12, 2012
9 notes
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
Noam Chomsky (via filthyphil)

Comments

10:03 am
13 notes

I first heard Elton Motello’s 1977 classic punk anthem Jet Boy, Jet Girl back in 1981 when I was 18 year old architecture student. I liked punk, I was into the Jam and the Buzzcocks and the Ramones and Nina Hagen and X and the Cramps, and had seen some less well known bands at the Island, which was a divey club near the freeway overpass in midtown Houston, but a friend who was more of a punk rock follower introduced this song to me.  Apparently even though I lived through this period, I was unaware that there was all sorts of cross fertilization between situationist ideology and punk music. "He gave me head" was such a transgressive thrill to hear back then.

Comments

Following
Likes
More Likes
Install Headline