... for Polysemy Magazine. Its Momma is good ole Collective Unconscious. Her belly is starting to look like a basketball. We (her plus the six other folks that make up our Staff) are doing a lot of meditation, movement exercises, practice birth poses, research, and playful experimentation. We are choosing the natural approach to birth (which includes but is not limited by technology). We love technology, but we love organic creativity more. It has a rhythm all its own that nourishes like nothing else. Which means we commit, we give our all, and we practice patience. That is until the heat breaks, the lightning moves in, the rhythms of labor move towards increasing cycles of peak and valley, the moon is howled down by the wolves, a morning baby emerges to an afternoon of comforting, restful rain.
At which point you read Issue #1 of our print magazine because it has arrived in your mailbox. Consider subscribing (more info to come), because this is gonna be fun.
The Loyola University Museum of Art is dedicated to the exploration, promotion and understanding of art and artistic expression that attempts to illuminate the enduring spiritual questions and concerns of all cultures and societies.
The Museum interprets and displays the university's medieval, renaissance and baroque collection, known as the Martin D'Arcy, S.J., Collection, other museum permanent collections and rotating exhibitions. As a museum with an interest in education and educational programming, the Loyola University Museum of Art reflects the university's Jesuit mission and is dedicated to helping men and women of all creeds explore the roots of their own faith and spiritual quest.
From his essay "Art And Time", published in the book Art and the Creative Unconscious:
The archetypes of the collective unconscious are intrinsically formless psychic structures which become visible in art. The archetypes are varied by the media through which they pass—that is, their form changes according to the time, the place, and the psychological constellation of the individual in whom they are manifested.
Blogged in celebration of Camille Paglia's new essay on Neumann, which advocates his inclusion in contemporary perspectives upon artistry. I'm in full agreement, because I've been struck by the depth and usefulness of Neumann's work, which I've rediscovered only recently as I thumbed through the shelves of local used bookstores, looking for gems. Here's a passage from the same Neumann essay that Paglia rightly cites:
How can the individual, how can our culture, integrate Christianity and antiquity, China and India, the primitive and the modern, the prophet and the atomic physicist, into one humanity? Yet that is just what the individual and our culture must do. Though wars rage and peoples exterminate one another in our atavistic world, the reality living within us tends, whether we know it or not, whether we wish to admit it or not, toward a universal humanism.
And then later in the essay, Neumann writes:
For despite all the despair and darkness which are still more evident in us and our art than the secret forces of the new birth and the new synthesis, we must not forget that no epoch, amid the greatest danger to its existance, has shown so much readiness to burst the narrow limits of its own horizon and open itself to the great power which is striving to rise out of the unknown, here and everywhere in the world. Menaced as we are by our own atom bombs, every act of destruction will be answered by a rebuilding, in which the unity of everything humann will be affirmed more strongly than ever.... Let us not forget that, despite all the darkness and danger, the man of our time, like the art that belongs to him, is a great fulfillment and a still greater hope.
A stirring manifesto, indeed. More evidence that knowledge of myth and archetype ought be a fundamental aspect of one's ongoing learning as a working artist. For to the extent that a new worldview is emerging, that of what I've previously referred to as an "integral worldview", its worldly, semiotic contours will be new myth, transcendent yet inclusive of previous mythic structures—none other than an "integral myth", born of skillful handling of cosmopolitan experience translated and extended into form and ordered signs in countless ways that each evoke mystery in the fullest and most culminated perception possible. The collective unconscious flows through the individual consciousness and determines the broad theme; this has always happening throughout time; our current age perceives previous examples of genuine art with admiration and awe; to that, integral consciousness both collective and individual does one more thing—because it is now alive, it makes all who hear want to sing—for themselves—for everyone.
— URL — — TRI-ANNUAL PRINT MAGAZINE — — ARTISTRY THROUGH PERSPECTIVES — — FOR WORKING ARTISTS, BY WORKING ARTISTS — — PRESS RELEASE, SUBSCRIPTION INFO & MORE COMING SOON! —
"I always aim at the resemblance. An artist should observe nature, but never confuse it with painting. It is only translatable into painting by signs."
GUSTAV MAHLER, FROM A LETTER TO NANNA SPIEGLER (8.19.00)
I am still half living in the world of my Fourth [Symphony] —This one is quite fundamentally different from my other symphonies. But that must be; I could never repeat a state of mind—and as life drives on, so too I follow new tracks in every work. That is why at first it is always so hard for me to get down to work. All the skill that experience has taught one is of no avail. One has to begin to learn all over again for the new thing one sets out to make. So one remains everlastingly a beginner! Once this used to make me anxious and fill me with doubts about myself. But since I have understood how it is, it is my guarantee of the authenticity and permanence of my works.
There is a lot of the artistic process, as well as the nature of mastery, contained in these words. (via)
I've mentioned this band before. If you are interested, you can watch a decent resolution live video here of their most well-known song, King Without A Crown.
Here is an excellent letter from a reader, after which is my reply. Forgive the lengthiness of both, but since this is one of the main issues of our day, and complicated, I gladly err on the side of more light.
I saw your latest posts on the whole cartoon, larger Muslim-West issue, and I still think you're missing a key point. I think you are stilll seeing this issue solely between the poles of anti-Western mutliculturalist-relativist postmodernism (with all its victimhood, blame game, etc.) and have the West stand up for itself--typically modernist, libertarian arguments. Obviously if those are the only poles of to the issue, then I'm with you being against the relativist nonsense.
But there is another element--much more important in my mind--that seems not get the play. In your last post you talk about how not only do we need to understand Muslims but we need to explain to them our worthwhile traditions of tolerance, free speech, rule of law, rights, and so forth. Which sounds good, but does not take into account the history of the Muslim world's relationship to the West and vice versa. Right now, there is no third way for the Middle East--there is either the choice between dictatorships and Islamist governments. There is no ability to have civil society, discussion groups about Western political thought in the Middle East. Those who did support such a view were either tortured, exiled, silenced, murdered, jailed, etc. by the governments that the US supports. And worse when Middle Easterns support such views, they lack legitimacy on the ground. For the Muslim world, accepting Western views on society/politics means Abu Ghraib, redention, colonialism and so on.
The only place to organize to discuss grievances against the political order in the Muslim world, where even the rulers and their pervasive state security appararti have the power to intimidate is the mosque. Secular Arab nationalism is dead--Nasser, Arafat, Hussein all gone. Assad in Syria bordering on the brink and to prop himself up has to support Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, etc. The Muslim world, especially the Middle East, will come to its own version of modernity, but it will not be a Western way. It will not include separation of mosque and state, if you will.
The Western understanding of the modernity is unique--the wave is generally open to all but the Muslim world does not want the secularist Western outlook. And will not for the forseeable future. That's why the more libertarian US arguments that we should be supporting free speech (by railing against US press for not re-publishing), denouncing Westerners who blame the West and aren't willing to stand up for universal rights, and make them understand us, are all somewhat valid, just extremely superficial. There completely Western arguments that only Westerners have with Westerners.
If the West really wants to help--both out of a good desire to share its postiive heritage, for its own safety, and to see others thrive--then it has to be willing to help with the development of moderate Islamic governments. How that will exactly work out is anybody's guess.
Islam, which to date has down very poorly on this account, has to be the vehicle to ride the Muslim world into its own version of modernity. It will manifest differently, but there will be structural parallels--the protests against the cartoons among Muslims in the US and India, were all basically free from violence. They were calm and peaceful. Muslmis in India and the US are (generally) well off and therefore have typical modern, middle class values--i.e. no desperate rage spurting out as violence. But they were still very much against Western secular values. But not in a violent way.
Polls show that the Muslim world wants economic freedom, political rights,but NOT, repeat NOT, Western cultural and social values. That is their right, just as it is our right to continue to hold such values. If we want to be constructive, then focus on helping with what they want and we can provide.
My response: Thank you for this letter and let me address it from my point of view, culling together the various perspectives as best I can in as few words as possible.
I have said pretty consistently that the first-world West must stand up for itself. You cannot gloss over the importance of this. I have said that I support making arguments that seek to show the dignity of liberty, free expression, and plurality of religious inclination. Another way to say this is that the West ought better advertise itself and the fruits of its own development. You mention that you think I'm seeing this through only two poles, entirely within the West, but that is the point. The Western image, seen from within the culture by us Westerners, is a mixed bag picture. Our self-image is all over the place, depending on who you talk to (we are the root of evil, we are the saviors of the world, etc). The post I linked to from Windschuttle demonstrates the infighting over the last 30 years, and especially the fallacies of the Blame The West crowd. To the extent that I believe the West should stand up for itself, it has to do with coming to an informed appraisal of, as I said, the fruits of the Western mindset. These fruits require constant support and renewal, no matter what examples of bad policy or behavior in the West's history.
Thus I don't agree that this is a "typical modernist, libertarian mindset" and I don't agree that this is superficial at all. It is our responsibility to defend that which we were bestowed as cultural and social ideals. I think you can take all the faults, missteps, bad policies, awful atrocities, and even evil aspects of Western history into account and still, on the balance, come out with an entirely optimistic conclusion that takes pride (with caveats) in our heritage. It might be that this is easier said about America in particular, but that is a longer story and my overall conclusion would not change I don't think. Every country and government since the beginning of such things has its own seriously evil warts. No government, now or in the past, can claim moral high ground. Power has been abused and will always be abused. Because human nature has no history, the potential for evil and destruction emerges with every newly born child (I say this as a proud new father).
So first of all, please understand that my clarion calls of late are generally on the "let's get our internal house in order, shall we?" side of things. I'm operating upstream from ensuing global dialogue. If you purify the beginning of the river, its mouth will be all the more coherant.
We must see things relatively clearly within our yard. When the very nature of the West's best fruits are called into question, then we must stand up and persuasive articulate why these fruits were worth the effort to grow them. In particular, murders of artists threaten all artists. When one artist's right to reasonably offend is taken away, that potentially leads to the same for everyone else. We cannot stand for bounties being placed on the heads of Danish cartoonists, nor should we have for that upon Rushdie's head. On this I see little reason for real debate, because it is so crystal clear, or should be. Things are sadly not clear for many Western artists, and others, which you can explain by many things that all center around the "blame the West" meme in some way, which you can further take back, via Freud and the like, to various early parental dynamics but that too is a far longer story than I have coffee for here in the office. However I will say that the prestige of parenthood has been, in my own experience, sadly diminished and that has in part foretold of the self-image problems the West is currently suffering from, in my view.
Widening the circle of inclusion into global dialogue, already ongoing, what we have here is a debate that can teeter on large-scale violence, and sometimes tips entirely to bloodshed. We hope it doesn't and we seek to peaceably hash things out over the coming decades. What is the recipe for useful debate? Part of it is the West advertising a somewhat consistent, and in any event truthful, account of itself. And I haven't seen this happen yet in any forceful way. After it does, we will need to stay strong through the tumult of ongoing transformation of Muslim countries. I fully agree we must support moderate governments in the Muslim world.
Let's be real. The West cannot impose its ideals upon the Muslim world. Even if we could, we shouldn't. To the extent that the ideals take root, or to further flower, it depends upon their internal gardening. As you rightly point out, Muslim modernity will look different than Western modernity. President Bush has said this many times, about Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries. Nobody is saying otherwise, are they? I'm not familiar with people who are calling for a homogenous modernity. This is a red herring. But if people need reminding that Muslim modernity might have economic and political rights and responsibilities, but not cultural and social values typical of the first-world West, then they need reminding. But consider the source of people who are arguing against such homogenaity, for my hunch is that is nearly always comes from a liberal-left (in the American sense) and this group is still under the grips of its own latent totalitarian impulses, and thus its arguments are self-referential. But whatever... the main point is that ideals and practical realities are always different, but that doesn't mean we trash the former or deplore the latter.
I'm not sure that there won't be a "separation of mosque and state", as you predict, but in any event we will see what the future holds. In truth, such a "separation" doesn't really exist in America, for example, today, much to the dismay of the liberal-left. It is no where in the constitution, and at most there is a differentiation between the two. Presidents, Justices, and witnesses at criminal trials all put their hand on the Bible as they give their oaths. And there is a media component here—a reasonably free press, by its own nature of poetic collage of perspectives, sets in motion the ingredients for differentation of church and state quite well. This is why it is good that its creation has been part of the goal in millitary actions in Iraq.
So in short, the West has to get its own self-image straight. Then continue to engage in a dialogue with, in this case, the Muslim world, where the West better advertises its own fruits. It then continues to consider Muslim perspectives. And then we see how things shake out, and the West supports emergence of moderate Islamic governments.
And in that illustration, the organic mix of planetary dialogue happens in a million moments simultaneously, as well as through the global village that is television and the internet. I call for more Islamic/Judeo-Christian/Buddhist hybrids in the world of art and pop culture. I call for more study of the world's great religions, as part of world history that sees this conflict, and its archetypes, as not at all new in the world. And within the Western tradition, I call for artists to not destroy but rather celebrate their own roots. We must sustain what we have been given. What are the symbols and signs of that responsibility?
Delivered a powerful speech, The Adversary Culture, a clarion call for the West to stand up for itself. It begins thusly:
For the past three decades and more, many of the leading opinion makers in our universities, the media and the arts have regarded Western culture as, at best, something to be ashamed of, or at worst, something to be opposed. Before the 1960s, if Western intellectuals reflected on the long-term achievements of their culture, they explained it in terms of its own evolution: the inheritance of ancient Greece, Rome and Christianity, tempered by the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the scientific and industrial revolutions. Even a radical critique like Marxism was primarily an internal affair, intent on fulfilling what it imagined to be the destiny of the West, taking its history to what it thought would be a higher level.
Today, however, such thinking is dismissed by the prevailing intelligentsia as triumphalist. Western political and economic dominance is more commonly explained not by its internal dynamics but by its external behaviour, especially its rivalry and aggression towards other cultures. Western success has purportedly been at their expense. Instead of pushing for internal reform or revolution, this new radicalism constitutes an overwhelmingly negative critique of Western civilization itself.
According to this ideology, instead of attempting to globalise its values, the West should stay in its own cultural backyard. Values like universal human rights, individualism and liberalism are regarded merely as ethnocentric products of Western history. The scientific knowledge that the West has produced is simply one of many “ways of knowing”. In place of Western universalism, this critique offers cultural relativism, a concept that regards the West not as the pinnacle of human achievement to date, but as simply one of many equally valid cultural systems.
And ends with this:
The concepts of free enquiry and free expression and the right to criticise entrenched beliefs are things we take so much for granted they are almost part of the air we breathe. We need to recognise them as distinctly Western phenomena. They were never produced by Confucian or Hindu culture. Under Islam, the idea of objective inquiry had a brief life in the fourteenth century but was never heard of again. In the twentieth century, the first thing that every single communist government in the world did was suppress it.
But without this concept, the world would not be as it is today. There would have been no Copernicus, Galileo, Newton or Darwin. All of these thinkers profoundly offended the conventional wisdom of their day, and at great personal risk, in some cases to their lives but in all cases to their reputations and careers. But because they inherited a culture that valued free inquiry and free expression, it gave them the strength to continue.
Today, we live in an age of barbarism and decadence. There are barbarians outside the walls who want to destroy us and there is a decadent culture within. We are only getting what we deserve. The relentless critique of the West which has engaged our academic left and cultural elite since the 1960s has emboldened our adversaries and at the same time sapped our will to resist.
The consequences of this adversary culture are all around us. The way to oppose it, however, is less clear. The survival of the Western principles of free inquiry and free expression now depend entirely on whether we have the intelligence to understand their true value and the will to face down their enemies.
And he is 100% right. It is important that we seek to further understand Islamic concerns, perspectives, and histories. It is more important, however, to turn the corner, effectively use those insights, and be able to formulate and then forcefully articulate why fundamental Western principles such as those named here are rather human principles, open to all, as vital tools for cohabitation on this planet. We must make informed arguments about why the West deserves its power. Through all forms of media, in cross-cultural dialogue, advertising, and marketing, through art, science, and morals, this much is clear—for the West to survive, in the arena of ideas we must stand strong, we must be immediate, and we must be persuasive. Calling all forward-thinkers. Calling all charismatic visionaries. Calling all artists.
If your curiousity was picqued by the previous posts (for example, here and here) that I made that mentioned the now-published book, Crunchy Cons, then you might want to check out this new collaborative blog that is exploring issues raised in the book. It is rather all over the place, and for me the jury is still out on all this, but what is transpiring is a fascinating picture of how conservative principles are meshing with those typically associated with the liberal-left.
Hannah is right—if my book is a quarter as enduring and impactful as Twyla's Dr. Seuss, I'll die a happy art philosopher. Through her smile alone, Twyla is definitely helping me figure out what is superfluous, what is immediate, and what is lasting.
In uncharacteristically polemical article by NRO's Katherine Jean Lopez, about Judith Warner, Betty Friedan, attitudes towards stay-at-home mommas, and a new book on feminism by Kate O-Beirne comes this kosmic kwote in response to Friedan's statement that "...even if a woman does not have to work to eat, she can find identity only in work that is of real value to society—work for which, usually, our society pays.":
Friedan/Warner thinking is a slap-in-the-face to stay-at-home moms who are home because they actually want to be there. And it's an attitude that is damaging to children. O'Beirne summarizes the research and debates well in a chapter of Women Who Make the World Worse called "Day Care Good; Mother Bad." Besides the ear infections and other physical disadvantages of sending your kid off to an institution, one expert on the first three years of childhood O'Beirne cites says it all—and it's all so natural: "babies form their first human attachment only once. Babies begin to learn language only once ... The outcome of these processes play a major role in shaping the future of each child.
To me, the situation is two-fold. On one hand there is the perception/belief that the only or main value of one's life is determined by their paying job, either by its content or by its salary or both. If you have a good job at good pay, then your life has value. The behavior that comes from this is to go to a job everyday rather than spend the day at home with your child. On the other hand, there is the economic reality that living, for example, in many parts of America is expensive. If you own your house, or if you rent in a desirable neighborhood, as well as want to take advantage of various attractions in your city and country, then your cost of living is likely to require a two-income household. You may think that staying at home with a new child for, say, its first year of life is an important ideal, but reality hits like a brick, and you go back to work even six weeks after your child is born, and baby goes into day-care. Of course providing food and a roof over your child's head is important, so accepting financial reality is of course a way of loving your child. So overall, there is the individual/cultural belief, as well as the social/economic reality which separately or together conspire against the stay-at-home personna. In order for change to come (and I believe it should, at least on the belief side), then both have to be addressed.
Our own solution, since this hits squarely at home for us, is to move to the outskirts of Chicagoland, in Kesosha, Wisc. We are dealing with the economic side. The cost of owning a home is 1/3 of comparable in Chicago, yet we will continue to work, play, and study as a Chicago-based family. This puts us about an hour or so away from the city, which is a disadvantage, but the prospects of reduced cost of living, our own single-family home with a yard, near Lake Michigan, and space for basement creative studios is simply too appealing to have to continue to settle for less in Chicago proper.
Hannah has already been exploring the belief side of things, from her perspective. Scroll through her blog and you will find her ongoing typographic, filmic, and visual commentary about being both a mother and an artist. The question I pose generally is this: besides economic reality, what holds Mommas back from finding preeminent value in life from raising a child?
The artist is the man in any field, scientific or humanistic, who grasps the implications of his actions and of new knowledge in his own times. He is the man of integral awareness.
The work of aesthetic art satisfies many ends, none of which is laid down in advance. It serves life rather than prescribing a defined and limited mode of living.
Emphasis on serves life—which is one of cuisine's fundamental contributions to a transdisciplinary perspective on art.
Check out the music of Alphatonic, dear friends of mine out of Minneapolis. Its leader, Andrew Carlson, and I are best buds from high school. His company, TCBands.com, hosts this website (at the lowest prices on the entire internet).
All that said, check out the two songs on the Alphatonic site. Hot stuff!
Hannah and I have begun early discussions about Twyla's formal education. She's not yet seven months, so we aren't getting our undies in a bundle, of course. I figure deciding upon her education will be a journey, so might as well let it begin.
We have talked about homeschooling. This, in part, is inspired by Lady Victoria, who is homeschooling young Sky. We are very interested in exploring how homeschooling might work for Twyla and us. Part of it is dependent upon our goal of building up our real estate investments so I can quit my day job. If we are able to do so, I would suspect that homeschooling would likely happen in some form. Hannah and I would want to co-teach, as it were, rather than have only one of us assume the entire workload.
Through our research into homeschooling already, we have concluded that the "what about socialization/social skills?" question is largely bunk. We would seek out our families that are homeschooling, for field trips and the like group activities, and we would likely enlist local organizations (such as art museums) that offer group classes/workshops so that there would be other children in Twyla's learning environment. What we like about homeschooling is that it can encourage active learning, where the formal/canonical/basic topics that children should learn are supplemented by activities based in large part upon Twyla's curiosity and own sense of discovery.
Simulatracked with our investigations into homeschooling has been recent research into Waldorf education, based upon the philosophies of Rudolph Steiner. Below is the overall curriculum for Waldorf, though this apparently varies to a not-small degree depending upon the school.
What is the curriculum like in a Waldorf school?
Waldorf Education approaches all aspects of schooling in a unique and comprehensive way. The curriculum is designed to meet the various stages of child development. Waldorf teachers are dedicated to creating a genuine inner enthusiasm for learning, that is essential for educational success.
Pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children learn primarily through imitation and imagination. The goal of the kindergarten is to develop a sense of wonder in the young child and reverence for all living things. This creates an eagerness for the academics that follow in the grades.
Kindergarten activities include:
storytelling, puppetry, creative play; singing, eurythmy (movement); games and finger plays; painting, drawing and beeswax modeling; baking and cooking, nature walks; foreign language and circle time for festival and seasonal celebrations
Elementary and middle-school children learn through the guidance of a class teacher who stays with the class ideally for eight years.
The curriculum includes:
English based on world literature, myths, and legends history that is chronological and inclusive of the world’s great civilizations science that surveys geography, astronomy, meteorology, physical and life sciences mathematics that develops competence in arithmetic, algebra, and geometry foreign languages; physical education; gardening arts including music, painting, sculpture, drama, eurythmy, sketching handwork such as knitting, weaving, and woodworking
The Waldorf high school is dedicated to helping students develop their full potential as scholars, artists, athletes, and community members. The course of study includes:
a humanities curriculum that integrates history, literature, and knowledge of world cultures; a science curriculum that includes physics, biology, chemistry, geology, and a four-year college preparatory mathematics program; an arts and crafts program including calligraphy, drawing, painting, sculpture, pottery, weaving, block printing and bookbinding; a performing arts program offering orchestra, choir, eurythmy and drama; a foreign language program; a physical education program.
This, I think, looks great. My only quibble with this curriculum is the apparent lack of art history courses. Exposure to the great works of art within the Western tradition as well as the entire world is fundamental. Paglia thinks (and I agree) that too much emphasis in the States, when placed upon art at all, is in the area of art production. "Here kid, is a brush and some watercolors. Go at it." Which is important, don't get me wrong, but I follow the general axiom of "before you create, you must perceive" and so art production is necessarily anchored, or co-anchored, with investigation of great works of art from the past, in a developmentally-appropriate and stimulating manner, of course.
It looks as though Waldorf in part accomplishes this through study of world literature and myth. That myth and legend assumes such a fundamental position in this education is, to me, very heartening and exciting. I personally grew up with little to no exposure to great myths, and have had to go back and study the subject as an adult. I suppose my the myths of my childhood were athletic-centric, given that I was a multi-sport jock whose first big book was a book of baseball statistics and records.
Study of comparative world religion is something I also agree with Paglia is crucial, so along with art history, here's hoping, if we enroll Twyla in a Waldorf school at some point, that there's areas are covered. If not, then perhaps this is an area where Momma and Daddy actively supplement her education. Museums and Churches/Temples of the world—here we come.
"Perfection, which is the passion of so many people, does not interest me. What is important in art is to vibrate oneself and make others vibrate." —Georges Enesco
PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS DANGEROUS, FREE SPEECH NEEDS DEFENDING
That is the view of Tim Cavanaugh of Reason Magazine. Kosmic kwote:
The Jyllands-Posten controversy is disturbing, but ultimately it is a step in the right direction for both Muslims and secularists. In an ideal, or at least a slightly better, world, nobody would be drawing goofy pictures of Muhammad because there wouldn't be any pressing need to provoke Muslims. We don't live in that world, so the best thing we can do is let controversy rage. It's the only way to clear the air.
Better to have a mighty contest in the arena of ideas than on a physical battlefield, right?
Reason: Somebody once described you as "Ayn Rand on mushrooms." I'm curious whether at some point in your life you've had any encounter with Ayn Rand's work or people influenced by her.
Paglia: Ayn Rand was an enormous figure for people who were intellectuals in college in the mid-'50s and late '50s. I entered college in '64, so I never heard her name in college. She was just gone.
I never read Ayn Rand until people started to compare me to her. Since I came on the scene it has come up repeatedly--people have asked me about Ayn Rand, followers of Ayn Rand. I might be on a call-in show; they always asked. Because I was being asked so much, I went out and I read some of Ayn Rand. And I was struck. I could see what the parallels are.
That is, she was influenced by many of the same works that I was. She was reading Romantic thinkers and Nietzsche and so on. There are certain passages in her where I went, "Oh my God, that sounds like a passage from Sexual Personae." So I was really struck.
At the same time, I saw the differences. First of all, she's a libertarian or a radical individualist as I am, but she is very--like Simone de Beauvoir--contemptuous of religion. I am an atheist, but I respect religion. I respect all the world religions, and I regard them as these symbol systems, belief systems that are like poetry. I love these great mythological systems. I feel that mystical and religious thinking tells you more about the universe in many ways than ordinary prose, or even science, does.
So I'm uncomfortable with that. For both de Beauvoir and Ayn Rand religion is symptomatic of an infantile mind, or of an overemotional mind. I believe in mystery; I believe in both Apollo and Dionysus. So I think that my system is more complete.
And what else? I find both Simone de Beauvoir and Ayn Rand deficient in humor. Comedy is my attitude toward life, and I feel that comedy is the spirit of the last half of the 20th century. The first half of the 20th century would have been the age of Beckett and Waiting for Godot and that whole bleak, nihilistic attitude toward the world that Susan Sontag is still carrying around with her like a big black hat. The attitude of the last 50 years is like that of rock and roll--energy, comedy, exuberance, the pleasure principle, improvisation, spontaneity. These are my principles. So I think I have a kind of childlike quality and playfulness that are missing from the dour adulthood of both Simone de Beauvoir and Ayn Rand.
Also I am a little bit uneasy, OK, with the politics. I don't think that Ayn Rand is a fascist particularly, but I think there is a kind of contempt for ordinary people in Ayn Rand--a little bit. I love the high achiever, I am a great worshiper of the high achiever. But I also feel at home with people of the working class. And I think that in Rand there's a little bit of a kind of snobbish elitism about those vulgar masses out there. That makes me a little uncomfortable with her.
But I think if one is looking at parallels, there is no doubt that there are a lot. I'm very happy to be considered one of her successors, even if not influenced by her directly. And I think there is no doubt that my impact on many people is exactly like her impact on many people. That is, we came as kind of a fresh breeze into a period of conformism. She and I say to people, "Think for yourself! Don't be such a toadie! Stop going along with the group! Don't be such a sheep, just going along passively with other people!"
One would think that women's studies, if it really obeyed its mission, would make her part of the agenda. But no, of course not! Women's studies has been oriented toward rediscovering the mediocre thinker, or the writer who talks about her victimization, rather than someone who preaches individualism and independence as Ayn Rand does.
In American politics, when one party moves left or right, the political center of gravity moves that way too. Bill Clinton, whatever his flaws, moved his party to the right. His triangulation infuriated Republicans because it is always vexing when someone steals your lunch. Democrats despise Bush's compassionate conservatism for similar reasons. A Republican president promising to "leave no child behind" annoys Democrats as much as Clinton's denouncing of Sista Soulja irked Republicans. When the Bush presidency is over, it will be more obvious in hindsight how much he moved the GOP to the left—by making the nanny state bipartisan.
It all boils down to what matters to you most. As a conservative, the extent I root for the GOP depends entirely on how successful it is in moving the political climate of the country toward fiscal restraint, limited government, and cultural decency. Single-issue voters understand this point best: Pro-lifers would dearly love to break the GOP monopoly on opposing abortion, just as abortion-rights supporters dream of the day when both parties are pro-choice. Many conservatives, including yours truly, would have agonized over a choice between a reliably pro-war Democrat and George W. Bush in 2004, particularly if judicial appointments weren't so important.
The point, dear liberals, is that some conservatives who criticize the Democrats or offer them advice do so not solely to salt wounds, but in the hope that someday we will have a real choice on Election Day—and not between the lesser of two evils.
I've traditionally voted Democratic, and once Green; I strongly considered voting for Bush in 2004 before voting for Kerry— so I've experimented. But more and more I consider my leanings on the more libertarian side, or specifically "classical liberal". I have no big attachment to the particular words here, since "liberal" and "conservative" lost meaning when Woodstock erupted into Altamont. But I'm finding a lot of insight (even intuitions symphathetic with an integral worldview) in, for example, this description from Wikipedia:
Classical liberals subscribe to a very basic and universal understanding of the world and the rights of all humans. Classical Liberals believe in private property, free markets, economic competition, freedom from coercion, limited government (all economic freedom), the rule of law, and individual rights (natural rights is also used). These are inherent to all people, of all faiths, cultures, societies, ethnicities, and histories and that all peoples are capable of achieving liberal government and liberal societies not just western cultures.
I believe that classical liberalism can still have its senses open to various socioeconomic ills, and remedies for those ills, without need for concretized federal law that centralizes remedies in what is derogatively referred to as a "Mommy State". The further realization that the capacity to take-on increasing perspectives is a spectrum that in large part undergirds social structures is a vital addition to 'classical liberalism'.
It bears note that my emerging sympathies with classical liberalism form the political aspect of what "Contemplative Humanism" (first mentioned here) is the overall interior aspect, which manifests in my artwork as "American Contemplative". And of course I take all this pretty lightly, because I strongly believe that the arts ought transcend political dynamics; the latter is the social result of pioneering aesthetic efforts of the former, more upstream in consciousness.
THESSALONIKI, Greece (AP) -- A Greek hiker found a 6,500-year-old gold pendant in a field and handed it over to authorities, an archaeologist said Thursday.
The flat, roughly ring-shaped prehistoric pendant probably had religious significance and would have been worn on a necklace by a prominent member of society.
Only three such gold artifacts have been discovered during organized digs, archaeologist Georgia Karamitrou-Mendesidi, head of the Greek archaeological service in the northern region where the discovery was made, told The Associated Press.
"It belongs to the Neolithic period, about which we know very little regarding the use of metals, particularly gold," she said. "The fact that it is made of gold indicates that these people were highly advanced, producing significant works of art."
She said the pendant, measuring rough 1 1/2 by 1 1/2 inches, was picked up last year near the town of Ptolemaida, about 90 miles southwest of the northern city of Thessaloniki. Karamitrou-Mendesidi is to present the artifact at a three-day archaeological conference that opened Thursday in Thessaloniki.
First issued in the late 1950s (!). Recorded in the rainforests of the now Democratic Republic of the Congo. I'm really digging the elaborate vocal textures. From the notes at Smithsonian Global Sound :
The music of the Mbuti is primarily focused around vocal music and this recording beautifully captures the extraordinary variety and tonal quality of the solo and choral traditions. The songs are primarily about the Mbuti's nomadic life and the forest, from which their lives and those of the animal kingdom are sustained. This compilation set a new standard for quality ethnic field recordings for all labels in ethnic music. These prized recordings have been remastered and resequenced to reflect Dr. Turnbull's original mode: the recording begins in the forest with music associated with hunting and gathering, then moves to the village for a Bantu initiation ritual and finally returns to the forest for the Mbuti rituals. This record documents the music discussed in the book The Forest People, read by many anthropology classes. A superbly annotated favorite among world music enthusiasts. "...from the moment Colin Turnbull lets the chatter and work rhythms of the encampment he's approaching engulf the jungle's ambient insect and bird music, I'm hooked." -- The Village Voice
What is TuneCore? TuneCore is a music delivery and distribution service that gets music you created (even cover versions) up for sale on iTunes and Rhapsody without asking for your rights or taking any money from the sale or use of your music.
What Are You Paid? You get 100% of what iTunes and Rhapsody pay. We take nothing, all the money goes to you. You keep ALL the rights and ownership of your music and master recordings. TuneCore is non-exclusive, so you're never locked in.
Even though we are seeing these photos from 2003 in the prison completely ripped of context, each nonetheless is disturbing, disgusting, and disheartening as is. I maintain that further commentary upon them requires knowledge of the contexts at the prison, as well as of these particular detainees and officers. In any event, these have a lurid shock value. Also note Salon.com's explanation of why the outfit chose to publish the phots.
we root mysterious earth— signs intone invisible yet organic stabbing that plows psychobiosexual cultures cleared from the fertility— moldy unless mothered through water & disease & leprosy
like farmers wield tech & breath to seed & destroy— we improvise with the weather— enlighting the canvas integral as psychic acreage tromped by souls rains old worlds— moist shots transplant selves grappling for sheath & gestalt & sun
like midwives gather rituals with death-fears tempting recoil— windless, the moment fevers—we blot fulsome confusion & all godly die alive by midnight: charged, unillusioned, burning whole by a pushless push & a cry & everything is pregnant
A reader from Holland sent me a link to this short animation/film named "Gevoelig" that recently screened in his country at the end of a televised discussion on the "cartoon jihad" controvery. Be sure to listen to the accompanying sound. I agree with the reader—this is very poignant commentary on the current situation, taken from a global perspective.
I mean, as of July 2005—30 mass murder attacks, 4,895 people have been killed in these attacks, and 12,345 plus have been wounded. (source) These are by al-Qaeda alone, a group that claims support for their activities from the Koran. Do these statistics, and what they stand for, matter to those folks currently rioting because of some cartoons?
From the end of chapter five of his Art As Experience:
How, then, can object of experience avoid becoming expressive? ...[A]pathy and torpor conceal this expressiveness by building a shell about objects. Familiarity induces indifferences, prejudice blinds us; conceit looks through the wrong end of a telescope and minimizes the significance possessed by objects in favor of the alleged importance of the self. Art throws off the covers that hide the expressiveness of experienced things; it quickens us from the slackness of routine and enables us to forget ourselves by finding ourselves in the delight of experiencing the world about us in its varied qualities and forms. It intercepts every shade of expressiveness found in objects and orders them in a new experience of life.
Because the objects of art are expressive, they communicate. I do not say that communication to others is the intent of an artist. But it is the consequence of his work—which indeed lives only in communication when it operates in the experience of others. If the artist desires to communicate a special message, he thereby tends to limit the expressiveness of his work to others—whether he wishes to communicate a moral lesson or a sense of his own cleverness. Indifference to response of the immediate audiences is a necessary trait of all artists that have something new to say. But they are animated by a deep conviction that since they can only say what they have to say, the trouble is not with their work but those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not. Communicability has nothing to do with popularity.
I have to say that, having watched Craig Ferguson's "The Late, Late Show" since its inception, I think we may finally have a genuine comedic artist hosting a late night television show. Of course Carson, Letterman, Conan, and Stewart have been or currently are very funny. Carson is the legend who refined the genre after Paar; Letterman's best days are behind him but he still excels at the absurd and sardonic; Conan is excellent at interviews and 'zany' in general, though his self-consciousness wears thin; Stewart showcases the absurdities of modern politics better than anyone, though risks being a one-trick pony in that regard.
Ferguson, the newcomer, has more shows to perform before he enters any pantheon. He's only been at this for about a year. Letterman's been on late night since 1982, and Leno since 1992. But evidence of Ferguson's star juice exists now. And since comedy's best when on the edge of falling apart, this may be the perfect time to really appreciate Ferguson's artistry, before it gets too formulaic from repetition.
Why do I think he's the only genuine artist of the bunch? I'm using a more narrow definition of artist here, one that focuses on the capacity to convey a range of human experience through economic means, in this case through the discipline of live comedy. I particularly cite Ferguson's monologues (here for recent selections). After the monologues, his show usually is pretty conventional if still funny as he interviews his guests. But the monologues that open the show are fast-paced, the longest of the field, are largely improvised and delightfully impromptu, and feel as if they can go in any direction at any moment, including collapse, which too can be riveting. His best monologues run the gamut of topics, tangents, digressions long and short, and shades of subtlety yet are held together by some line, some theme, some angle introduced early in the oratory.
Sometimes he creates arcs that last several shows. His is a decidedly wacky kind of train that is laying its tracks as it zooms down the rails. His humor explodes as a rant, but somehow you are partner. There is an immediacy, even an intimacy. He's not interested in doing this alone, or for himself only. He invites you to "re-create" with him, because his is a full-arsenal of comedy tools—bodily humor, physical comedy, conceptual experiments, irony, one-liners, historical re-enactment and re-imagining, momentum-based long-form narrative, political/cultural spoofs, provocations of taboo, intellectual/geeky reference, impressions/impersonations, catharsis, opinionated rants, autobiographical confession (he's Scottish and he wants you to know), straight-up honesty, cosmopolitan/internationalist references, and, as he showed in his moving tribute to his late father's death, just two weeks ago, heartbreakingly poignant sincerity.
All of which makes for multiple angles upon the traditional task— that of busting your stomach from laughter and making apparent human truths and frailties. Ferguson is at heart a provocaeur, though his current bits are usually warm and emphathetic with his audiences. He's experienced as an actor, writer, director, producer, and comic. He's famous in the US for his role on The Drew Carey Show and infamous in the UK as an edgy comic who once used a stage name "Bing Hitler". As he continues to tailor his show and his comedic personna, he works through his admitted years of alcohol abuse, and the subsequent rehab. He litters his humor with the occasional, but regular, references to pot (about which he wrote, produced, and acted in a feature-length film, Saving Grace). He's been divorced twice. All of which shows that his comedy is rightly influenced by the experiences in his life, and he is not afraid to confront fear. He seems like the friend you'd want to hang out with at the local pub, having three too many as the wolves howl down the moon. In his best moments, he seems to cross over to a "shared expanse" or clearing where the joke, the audience, and himself are lit up, transparent to a common soul.
Ratings have improved from a slow start, and he's survived an entire year, which is probably the most difficult time for a newcomer to the field, although one is only as good as their most Nielson report. He's had his feet to the fire even before he got the job. CBS created a live job interview of sorts to replace the thankfully departed Craig Kilborn, who brought nothing more than dopey, fraternity comedic sense that was tired before he began. After he decided not to renew his contract, Ferguson competed with D. L. Hughley, Damien Fahey, and Michael Ian Black, together the four finalists for the gig. It is a competition that prepared Ferguson for the heat, and bodes well for a run on the Late Late Show as long as he wants. Because of his biography, his intentions, his experience, his full-bag of skills, and the experimental nature of his show and its time-slot, Ferguson allows us to suspend disbelief and just enjoy the ride that he takes us on as, I believe, he gradually but irrevocably re-defines the genre of late-night television comedy. He is an integral artist, leading the edge of his art form.
THESSALONIKI, Greece (AP) -- A Greek hiker found a 6,500-year-old gold pendant in a field and handed it over to authorities, an archaeologist said Thursday.
