Dec 16, 2013
commented on While You're Considering the BS of Post-Racialism
I agree with you about the name thing- but I agree with 25 above- nobody who was serious ever said that racism was suddenly over when Obama was elected- in fact, his election, from day one, has proven, again and again, how insidious and prevalent racism still is in America today.
So, you and charles seem to be doing a good job of kicking a straw man when he is down, which, in the case of both stories, yours and his, just detracts from the actual point of the articles, which in both cases, are quite good ones.
Aug 11, 2013
commented on Sound Check
this be some insipid shit.
and I am way too old to be a hipster, my pants be baggy.
i still dont like it.
now get off my lawn.
Oct 21, 2010
commented on Commenter Letter of the Day
Innovative is undefinable, and probably non-existent.
Maybe, Maybe, a case could be made that Duchamp was innovative- but since then?
Everything has been done before- its not innovation, but HOW you do it, that counts.
Mark Twain is said to have complained-
"I hate the Greeks- they already stole all the good ideas".
None of the artists Jen champions are the least bit "innovative"- they are, to some degree or other, distinct and individual, but nothing Implied Violence does hasnt been done a hundred times in performances going back at least to the Surrealists.
Which is not to say they are not good, and not deserving of awards and money.
It is a telling fact that the most common use of the word "innovation" is by corporate moguls looking to lengthen copyright law coverage, patent parts of human beings, and offshore jobs.
And surely someone like Jen has actually served on a jury or two? In which case its somewhat Tea Party-esque to complain of "weird choices".
As in, pretending not to know how complex reality really is.
I have been on various juries over the years, and a Jury is like a marriage- only harder, shorter, more frustating, and, without the sex.
Its tough enough to agree with, and achieve consensus with, somebody you CHOOSE, and have spent years getting to know.
On a jury, you are thrown together with a group that you didnt choose, often have little in common with, and often disagree with. You have limited time, and, usually, bizarre restrictions, to make a selection of who is most deserving. Politics, esthetics, taste, and age are all large factors, and COMPROMISE is the inevitable result.
Nobody gets what they want, Nobody "Wins".
I have actually been involved in giving awards and commissions to some of the artists being discussed here, both the winners and the losers, and reviewed the work of most of them. Sometimes I was rooting for the same artist I voted against on another jury- the politics, and situations, are slippery, non-linear, and counterintuitive, and often, after arguing for a whole day for an artist, I feel only somewhat vindicated to see my third or fourth choice get selected.
The only way to have much effect on these things is to actually serve on these juries- and somebody like Jen should be able to put the word out that she is willing, and get calls to do it- its a lot of work, with a box lunch, and, sometimes, a small check. Its also fun, frustrating, tiring, and sometimes downright inspirational. (I recently had an artist sing to me at an interview. I wanted to cry, it was so moving)
Like voting, if you dont do it, you dont have much right to complain.
All art is about taste.
All criticism is about opinions.
Opinions are highly localized, everchanging, and subject to influences you cant see after the jury has left the room.
Oct 28, 2009
We had a similar "corrector" working for years at the Bellingham Public Library- primarily on mystery and science fiction novels, this person, most likely a woman, would "correct" the sexual pronouns of every book, thankfully in pencil, crossing out "his" and replacing it with "theirs", removing all "mankind" and similar male pronouns, and replacing them with nice non-gender specific ones.
Politically correct, but annoying as hell when you read the book, and find out some prig has decided they know more than the author.
Sep 24, 2009
commented on Lock and Load Up
Actually, simple old capitalist market forces have a lot more to do with this than all these political conspiracy theories.
Last year, copper prices went thru the roof, then dropped down again in the space of a few months.
As a result, a lot of mines shut down, unable to make a profit.
So, copper, which is a big part of each round of ammo, is scarcer and more expensive than it was a few years ago, and manufacturers are reluctant to stock a lot of it, because they are afraid of further price swings.
Many ammo manufacturers are still selling rounds made with copper that they paid double the current market price for. They are reluctant to lose more money by selling it cheap.
Then, there is a little thing that everybody in the USA is trying so hard to ignore- 2 HUGE wars going on. The US military is shooting off over 4 Billion rounds a year in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is using up most of the US manufacturing capacity for ammo, and affecting worldwide prices on copper and gunpowder components.
Sep 8, 2009
commented on It's Hard Out Here for A...
There was, as stated above, NO inheritance tax involved.
She did, however, buy an airplane seat to fly a hand made journal over from Europe, to document her newborns bowel movements-
But we all do that, right?