Opposing Visions

April 27, 2009
Taipie, Taiwan

Here are a couple of art pieces that I saw today that was rather inspiring, although they off opposing visions of the world.


MORE, Written and Directed by Mark Osborne


Lobo Skank Onesong

Symbol of Che

April 22, 2009
Taipei, Taiwan

A book review in the New York Times by MICHIKO KAKUTANI of "CHE’S AFTERLIFE : The Legacy of an Image" By Michael Casey caught me eye today. The question that I am interested in here with the iconic image of Ernesto Guevara by Korda and its current existence as a vast global brand is this, what is a symbol if its divorced from its original meaning and intent?

This particular image of Che has been reproduced as action figures, printed on t-shirts, watches, sneakers, key chains, cigarette lighters, coffee mugs and then some. Gisele Bündchen had once pranced down a runway in a Che bikini. "The historical Che Guevara gave way, post-mortem, to a host of other Ches: St. Che, said to possess the ability to perform miracles; Chesucristo, a Christ-like figure revered for his ideals, not his advocacy of violence; an entrepreneurial Che, promoting the lesson “that individuals should honestly strive to produce their utmost for the good of all”; and the Rock ’n’ Roll Che, more representative of youthful anti-authoritarianism than of any political dogma." It would seem that in our search to fulfill our need for symbols and icons, we have readily forgotten about the politics of Che Guevara, apotheosized him, erased his failing and love of violence from the symbol. The icon is no longer rooted in actuality.

Why are we so starved for symbols and icons? Is it to remind us that the impossible can always become possible? Or is it simply a cultural short hand these days for us to "appear" educated, cultured and politically minded without needing to actually be so? A t-shirt with image of Che becomes a instant-mix of our liberal assertions without needing our politics be backed up by actual actions and thought. Be a leftist today, all you need is a Che t-shirt.

Che was "notorious as a ruthless disciplinarian who unhesitatingly shot defectors and revered by supporters for his rigid dedication to professed doctrines, he remains a controversial and significant historical figure. As a result of his perceived martyrdom, poetic invocations for class struggle, and desire to create the consciousness of a "new man" driven by "moral" rather than "material" incentives." Yet the global Che brand is an example of how "ideas travel and mutate in this age of globalization, how concepts of political ideology have increasingly come to be trumped by notions of commerce and cool and chic" that Che has become "the quintessential postmodern icon” signifying “anything to anyone and everything to everyone." If so, then are we not defiling and devaluing Che's life and work and let the currents of Capitalism triumph and profit from it? Would Che enjoy the notion that he has transcended meaning and can be anything to anyone and everything to everyone?

Why are we unable to divorce some symbols from their root as we can with Che but not with others? Take an extreme example, the phrase "Sieg Heil" which has become commonly known as the Hitler Salute which is actually a variant of the Roman salute and the phrase itself means "Heil Victory" or "Victory and Blessings." The expression itself is older than Nazism and the phrase does not actually celebrate or condone the atrocities of the Third Reich. Yet if I were to wish someone "Sieg Heil," I would probably get a dirty look to say the least but more likely a harsh talking to about how that is inappropriate. How do we decide as a collective whole of which symbol we would divorce from its original meaning and recycle it for Capitalist intent and which ones will be off limits forever?

If Che was alive today, would he sport an Obama T-shrit, snicker at the fact that his face is covering Gisele's million dollar ass and smile when I wish him "Sieg Heil?"

Faith47 - The Cape of Good Hope

April 16, 2009
Taipei, Taiwan

This is really amazing:


Faith47-The Cape Of Good Hope from Rowan on Vimeo.

Will Kindle Kill the Book Star?

April 16, 2009
Taipei, Taiwan

While I was in NYC last month I saw quiet a few people with a Kindle reading device on the subway. As I constantly struggle with the weight of my bag and all the stuff, necessary or not, that is in it, a Kindle seems like just the right thing. It would be light, compact and it would ensure that I would always have a book on me, as the book is always the first to go when I try to make my bag a bit lighter.

Yet, I just can't seem to quiet get with it. I LOVE books! I love the weight, the smell, the sound of pages turning, the different sizes and the feeling of holding one in your hand in anticipation of discovering all the wonderful knowledge it contains. I love writing in my books and making notes or underlining passages that resonates with me or that I have an argument with. I love how the pages yellow and it grows old with you. I love the cracked spine and when you re-read that book, there is a secret history that unravels that you and the book have created together. I love the memory the physical presence the book can evoke."Oh, yes, we bought this at that used book store on the corner next to the Hungarian bakery, then that night, as I was in the tube reading, you came in and..." which is why the book looks like its been soaked and re-dried.

All of these ideas and feelings that the physicality the book invokes cannot be replaced by a digital reading device, irrespective of how convenient and sensible it maybe. Yet the invention of the Kindle is just another step in our cultural evolution.
Gutenberg and the printing press has reigned supreme and changed the course of human cultural evolution like none-other. Will Kindle give Gutenberg a run for its money as it effects publishing and writing and acts as another brick in the wall of our changing notion of possession and ownership?

On the other hand, a new digital reading device being developed by a company called Plastic Logic that is the size of 8x10 which is meant to be a digital reading device specifically for magazines and news papers is something that I can get behind. We some how do not have the same feelings of attachment towards periodicals or newspapers. We read them and we toss them. There is no love lost when you throw out yesterday's New York Times. What is it about a book, a physical book, a collection of ink, paper and glue that can quicken and pulse and make you giddy like a school girl? Its pure magic somehow. Maybe our DNA has been embedded with centuries and centuries of relationship, knowledge and intimacy with the printed word that makes me have such unease with Kindle.

Call me a romantic, but I would much rather live in a room stacked floor to ceiling with books than a immaculate white space where at the push of a button I can read the book of my choice.

Trinity College Library, Image Courtesy of http://skippyshamrock.tripod.com/longroom.jpg

===
April 27, 2009

I just read this article on the NYTimes about Kindle and various reactions and opinions about it, is an interesting companion to this blog.

Created for Commerce, Mistaken for Art, Does it Still Count?

April 15, 2009
Taipei, Taiwan

A video of a flash mob dancing at the train station to "Do Ra Mi" from the "Sound of Music" has been quickly passed around on the internet and gotten over a millions hits on YouTube. I saw the video myself last night and immediately send it along to a few friends who I know would love and appreciate it.

On Huffington Post today, it is revealed that the dancing and video was all part of a promotion for an upcoming reality TV show. The note on Huffington Post quietly implies that since the video is made for commercial purposes, it somehow is less than what is it.

Sure, it was choreographed and staged for a Capitalist cause (and a brilliant promotional piece at that, my hat off to the producers) why should that lessen the joy that we take from it? Yet at the same time, I know for a fact that if I had send along the video with a note to my friends that said, check out this brilliant promo for a TV program , they might still like it, but would they love it the way that we all did? Can we separate the actual intention of the work from the reaction that we derive from it? Why does the intention of it taint our enjoyment?

When I watched the video, my thought was only of joy and there was only a smile on my face. Granted there was a bit of curiosity in me as to what the piece was made for (I assumed that it was just a piece of performance art) but really, I didn't care. It made my day and took me out of my misery.

Maybe the real question here is why do we not spontaneously dance more often? If we did, then maybe our cynicism would not step in and take away some of the joy that we got from watching all those people dance to a delightful song.

Anyone want to join me?

Beautiful Woman Wanted to Boost Ego...But Wait, I Love You!

April 14, 2009
Taipei, Taiwan

I just read an article called "Keeping Up with Being Kept" by RUTH PADAWER in the New York Times Magazine and I am speechless...or maybe overwhelmed with things to say...not sure which. The article is about a website called SeekingArrangement, where essentially rich men can "sponsor" young women and become their sugar daddies. Yes, ladies, this would be the site you sign up for if you are in need of a sugar daddy.

Now, the existence of this site and the article is fascinating to me on many fronts. First of all, I have been thinking that the next big project that I am looking to tackle is one about sex and addressing all the different complication that is related to sex. But aside from the research possibility this article affords me, as a thinking women of this modern century,I can't help but be aroused by the various points of interest this site brings up.

First and foremost is the question of prostitution. Is the site a "convenience store for adulterers and at worst a virtual brothel?" Well, "Legally, at least, since the 1970s, courts have ruled that as long as the woman is paid for some service besides sex — housecleaning, companionship — the arrangement is not the equivalent of prostitution. Ok, as a feminist, I have to say WHAT?! So if the prostitute eats a snack bar with her client before they have sex and while she was eating the said snack bar she exchanged pleasantry with her John, does that mean that its not prostitution cause she provided him with "companionship"? Does the legal definition of prostitution bother anyone else here besides me?!

Prostitution is a complicated topic to start with and we could have a very involved conversation regarding the legalization of prostitution, but that is not what we are talking about today. Within historical context "Heterosexual relationships, including marriage, have long involved economic transactions, but [Beth] Bailey, [a Temple University historian of courtship] points out that when men provided financial security, they traditionally did so in exchange for a woman’s sexual virtue (and potential to bear and rear children), not for sexual thrills. For that, they often turned to prostitutes and mistresses, involving a more frank money-for-sex exchange. It’s only in the last century that money has been traded — albeit indirectly — for sexual attention from “respectable” unmarried women. In the early 1900s, courtship shifted from girls’ porches or parlors to a commercial venture: a date. Etiquette manuals of the time were explicit — boys were to pay for meals, entertainment and transportation, and in return, girls were to provide well-groomed company, rapt attention and at least a certain amount of physical affection. His money bought not only companionship but also her indebtedness.“It made a lot of people uneasy, because if men’s money was central to the dating relationship, what distinguished it from prostitution?” Bailey says. Seen in this context, Bailey argues, Seeking Arrangement “is a piece of contemporary society. It’s simply more explicit and transparent about the bargains struck in the traditional model of dating.”

Ok, so we honor the fact that SeekingArrangement is more frank about the preexisting social model that currently exists, irrespective to the motives of all parties involved, whether be it the women want money for tuition, lavish dinners or Fendi purses and the men want sex, "intense connection without commitment" or to walk into a room with a beautiful woman on his arm and be the envy of all. What about the question of power dynamic that is involved when you are paying for sex? Fine, we are all consenting adults and if these are the types of arrangements that we choose to enter into, then YAY for freewill?

If the "Sugar Daddies" are essentially paying for an illusion and the "Sugar Babies" are simply trying to find a way to put themselves through school (lets not talk about the girls who are doing this for shoes, purses and etc) then what happens when the illusion becomes inseparable from reality? When the men falls in love with the women but the relationship is not set up to handle love? Or when the illusion is so convincing that the men can no longer distinguish it from reality?

One "Sugar Daddy," Sam "has an almost mathematical approach to assessing relationships, and once even computed the costs for a girlfriend, mistress, prostitute and wife — mistresses turn out to be most expensive by the hour; wives, by the year; girlfriends are cheapest all around. But he’s not as calculating as he seems. In fact, he concluded there’s little correlation between cost and quality. Still, he is relentlessly searching for an algorithm that will predict relationships’ success." Sam has even set up contracts with his "Sugar Babies...the contract specifies that the romance and sex are to end by the preset date, so there’s no break up, no rejection, no bruised ego. She’s not dumping him; the gig’s just over." So Sam is still searching for love, for a soul mate, but is just too fragile to deal with rejections and have assessed the return on investment for a mistress, wife and girlfriend?

How has mankind ended up here? How have we made our lives so complicated that on the one hand we respect the honesty of the transaction and yet on the other we are still searching for love, or at least the illusion of love but can't admit to it?

I am still baffled and speechless. But at this moment, I long for the day when a village boy likes the look of my raven hair, he give my father a flock of goats, and from then on, I am his women until I die and he will do everything he can to defend my honor and make me happy, even if that means taking out the trash.*

* Yes, as a feminist, I am a little ashamed.

Painting by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (French, 1864–1901)

You are an arist? Can you READ?

April 13, 2009
Taipei, Taiwan

I am home with my mom for a little while. I hope to pick up my camera for something worth while during my stay here, hoping, believing, trusting that "something" will fill the void that is in my heart as the sages of the ages proclaim that it would...but for the time being, the cameras are sitting neatly in their cases.

Yet in the mean time...I read a post on Wooster Collective about why they don't post calls for submission for design contests and I have a thought or two to share in regards to that.

As artists, we try to build our CV with exhibit opportunities, awards and publications, after all, how else do we put our work forward and get noticed? This is the way the system is set up. Hence comes forth a sleuth of contests in which you can enter for a nominal fee of $25 onwards in the hopes that you will get a shot at the prize. Sometimes the prize is ok, sometimes is not, but I think for the most part, we are all just hoping for a bit of recognition, something for our CVs, another piece of news to add to our press kit. The entities who organizes these contests often in takes more than enough from the entry fee to cover the prize, or the labor involved in sorting through all the entries. On top of which, as Wooster Collective points out, we often have to sign over the rights to that particular piece of work for the use of the the entity who is sponsoring the contest.

Wooster's argument is that they believe there is no value in the work that is generated if the artist is willing to sign over the rights just so that they can have a shot the prize. I couldn't agree more. Our rights to our work is the only thing that we have, so why do we ever give it away so easily? Then again, if you were to go up to an artist who is still trying to "make it" and offered him the artistic career he dreams of in exchange for a pound of flesh or his first born, I don't know how many would say "NO!"

Hence comes all who tries to profit from our dreams.

If the artist is willing to sign over rights just to have a chance to nudge his career forward another tiny inch, if the entities understand this mentality, then who is at fault? Are both parties not willing participants? Sure the entities do make out better in the end, but if we are all consenting adults, then can we really point the finger at the entity and claim that we are being taken advantage of?

Maybe the moral here is that we should always read over the fine lines and terms and conditions carefully before we agree to anything. After all, being an artist is not an excuse for not being literate.

Another related topics here in recent photographic / art news is of Annie Leibovitz putting up the rights to her life's work (all her images, past, present and future) as collateral in order to secure a loan to deal with her debt. Yes, I believe that photographers should be able to retain the copyright to their work and Annie has been able to secure the rights to much of her work despite the fact that many photographers lose the rights to the editorials that they are working for. YAY for Annie. But if Annie has mis-managed her fiances to such degree that she needs a $16 million dollar loan, how much sympathy should we have for her? Mind you, Annie is one of the top paid photographers in the world! She works plenty and has made plenty of money through the years.

Irrespective to who should own the copyright to the work, should we not in the end assume responsibility for the contracts, agreements, debts that we choose to enter into?