Art (as in painting, sculpting, etc) has always been somewhat lost on me especially as it moved into the modernist and abstract eras. The tone of this indicates that I may have been alive before such art existed, but, of course, I was not. Point being: I don’t get what a lot of it is all about. I enjoy still lifes and landscapes, more abstract photography I can sometimes get because it’s still a picture of something that is out there in the real (so to speak). But I am continually getting off point. What I don’t get is stuff like this dude Daniel Edwards is making.  He’s the guy who did Britney Spears nude on the bear skin rug with her baby crowning (it’s a sculpture, not some bizarre sex act).  Now he’s done a sarcophagus of Oprah.  Sure I understand that it’s some sort of commentary on popular culture and all that, but I don’t really understand it’s purpose.  I am just simply like “Why?” and then more like “Why the fuck do people care?”  Then again, I’m just an ignorant writer/paralegal/blogger hybrid of sorts that in all likelihood cannot breed (much like the mule).

Best part of the whole thing though, down at the bottom in the comments John from London notes, “Oprah will be President of the U.S.A. - it’s only a matter of time.”

I believe I’ve mentioned before that many of the articles I forward along to you are sent to me by my mother. She has the time to peruse the New York Times and BBC and the like and sends along things she thinks I’ll find interesting (Note: I probably have the time to do this too, but instead fill my hours with TV, video games, and staring at some social networking site or another). This article on a woman who’s stalking Raymond Chandler - it’s okay, it’s for a book! - is no exception. My mother forwarded it along to me and for any Chandler lover like myself, it’s an interesting preview of a book that I may end up reading. The book’s about a novelist’s travels through LA stalking Chandler and his wife’s spirit. It’s nonfiction so far as I can tell, and looks interesting.

What this made me think of however is the purpose of this blog (what, you thought it was just a collection of links from my mother and ramblings about the New York Knicks?) - mostly because my opinions are very important and you should care about them. Anyway, this got me thinking about the lengths people go to get inspired, the places they’re willing to travel to write. I understand that this author, Judith Freeman, has a very personal journey to go through in order to, shall I say, exercise the demon of Chandler that dwells within her. I can understand that (one day I may have to do that with Raymond Carver), but it’s amazing the lengths she’s willing to go to do so. The synopsis describes the work almost as if it was a pained, frantic journey. This is my type of writing. It gives the idea and the feeling that a life is enough inspiration. While Freeman is inspired by a life that’s not really her own, it’s still just a life and she incorporates it with her own crazy journey. It’s the idea that you just need to get out there and live in order to get what you need to write. It does annoy me a little that she had to create such an extravagant tale or mystique in order to be inspired, but this is less about inspiration and more about exercising her demons as I said before (or so it seems - remember, I enjoy blanket statements about things I do not know anything about). But more than anything, I like that she’s out there writing the good write. Out there being key.
(more…)

Many of you, I’m sure, are familiar with Jane Jacobs, and if you’re not, I’ll find it in my heart to forgive you. She stepped into the public eye in the 60’s when she famously battled Robert Moses over the reorganization of the city. Jacobs fought for the city and against what I guess could be called gentrification (though honestly she didn’t fight that, more she fought against the massive changes that gentrification brought along with it - upward mobility is all good, but it doesn’t have to suck the soul from the neighborhood).

Anyway, the Municipal Art Society has a show centered a little bit around her beliefs, around how she saw the city. I haven’t been to it, but from the Metro review, it sounds pretty interesting and I urge you all to go. It will most likely give you a glimpse of different sides of the city and juxtapose the changing elements with the old ones. At least that’s what I’m expecting. I’ll let you know for sure when I see it.

When I first read the WTC Boycott Metro headline this morning, I thought the families were finally standing up against the horrible reconstruction plans. Though this was not the case, they are in fact threatening to boycott the rememberence ceremonies this year if they were not held on the WTC site. Bloomberg has said they can’t hold the ceremony there because of the construction (there’s construction there? looks kinda empty to me). Now, I’m fine with Bloomberg saying it’s unsafe and that they can’t hold it there, etc.,etc. whether I think it’s true or reasonable or not. It’s his call in a lot of ways. But the way he went about it, using the word impossible, seems a little extreme to me. He should be willing to compromise, to listen, and not immediately dismiss plans as impossible. There’s got to be some reasonable compromise, right?

Also, interesting in remembering 9/11 news, apparently the debris from the WTC travels around the states. Colorado has it now, and admittedly when I first found this out I wasn’t a big fan. I don’t know how I feel about sending this debris around like art. A year after the attacks, I went to the Venice biannale where in front of the US pavilion, there was a giant beam from one of the towers. It was frightening to say the least. I wouldn’t necessarily say it was touching to me. It was more that I felt that same sadness, which is exactly what I would not want to feel. So, it’s hard for me to see this debris sent around the states and the world, but at the same time, I do understand the want for the rest of the country to see this and feel it. It’s a delicate line to tip toe along. One does not want to be seen as presenting tragedy as spectacle.

After coming across this article about plaster castings of people, I started thinking about the whole concept of the body as art, but not in the normal sense of performance art or Julianne Moore flinging herself on a zip line against a large piece of white canvas in The Big Lebowski, but in the sense of actually plaster casting people so that the art can exist outside of the person. The Bodies exhibit did something similar if a little more creepy and museum/learning experience oriented (not to say that you don’t learn from art). This whole plaster casting is almost like creating a copy and making it art (there is more that goes into this whole thing I know). I’m not saying this is good art or bad art or good or bad in any sense, just interesting to consider.