12.06.2003
killer instinct
just a quick post to let you all know about an upcoming show at the new museum in NYC called killer instinct. the show is focused around gaming technologies i guess, which is something i know little about. my friends brody condon and shih chieh huang are both in it. brody is an art tyrant, and once developed a game involving a digitally-buffed-up image of yours truly as a gentrifying imperialist hipster (all in good fun). shih chieh is simply a mad scientist. in a good way. the show is up from december 12th to february 15th.
12.05.2003
blogs
so, if any of the folks i emailed about this site are actually reading this, i figured it might be worthwhile to contextualize blogs a bit.
blogs are sorta like journals or diaries or zines, and they're usually cheap or free (like mine). people set them up to make things they think public, i guess (that's probably a bad explanation). anyway, more importantly, here's a few good blogs and what i have to say about them:
robotwisdom.com is a great site that hasn't been updated in a long while. i used to use it as a kind of refined newspaper, since it is basically a list of links to interesting articles, and things of that sort. i find myself interested in about 80% of the links, so, for a while, it was a nice alternative to scrolling all over the new york times' page, or what have you. the over-arching theme is lefty politics (lots from alexander cockburn's counterpunch site, for example). but also there's just quirky stuff, and he seems to have a decent sense of humor. check out the "harper's index" links...
i remember is a great blog with a simple premise. every day, this guy writes down one specific memory. and they're generally interesting. some are poetic, some are straightforward and most are quaint, for lack of a better word. also, check out the great john ashbery poem at the top of the page.
i check arts and literature daily from time to time, even though i imagine its author to be a hilton kramer-esque curmudgeon. lots of decent links to historical accounts of literary folk, as well as some political stuff from the left and the right (the bias strikes me as a bit right though). interesting, but stuffy. you'll find lots of links that say things like "has feminism changed academic discourse for all eternity??? not likely..." and then there'll be a link to some grumpy nonsense somewhere. just gloss over that stuff. there's better stuff on the site than that.
my favorite blog of late is the pinocchio theory, which was recommended to me in grad school a while back and has remained continually engrossing ever since. a great mix of sci-fi, film theory, comic books, hip hop, indie rock and book reviews, plus just general observations. all through a deleuzian sorta lens. check out his sharp and insightful reasons for not liking "monster's ball," for a start (even though the majority of his posts are less mean-spirited).
and last but certainly not least is my friend ed's blog, which is autobiographical, frank and horny. ed's refined tastes are all his own, and they are mapped out explicitly for our voyeuristic pleasure...
the strange thing about reading blogs is that if you don't know the person who authors it (and i usually don't), there's this sense that you're deriving pleasure from their day to day routines (what they think, do, read, watch, etc.). blogs walk that familiar internet line of desire/voyeurism/banality, i guess. on the other hand, i feel like certain good blogs tend to fill in for a lacking magazine/newspaper culture in my life, and they do so without all the trappings of commerical publications. at their best, blogs make everyday voices intimate-- and occasionally glamorous.
blogs are sorta like journals or diaries or zines, and they're usually cheap or free (like mine). people set them up to make things they think public, i guess (that's probably a bad explanation). anyway, more importantly, here's a few good blogs and what i have to say about them:
robotwisdom.com is a great site that hasn't been updated in a long while. i used to use it as a kind of refined newspaper, since it is basically a list of links to interesting articles, and things of that sort. i find myself interested in about 80% of the links, so, for a while, it was a nice alternative to scrolling all over the new york times' page, or what have you. the over-arching theme is lefty politics (lots from alexander cockburn's counterpunch site, for example). but also there's just quirky stuff, and he seems to have a decent sense of humor. check out the "harper's index" links...
i remember is a great blog with a simple premise. every day, this guy writes down one specific memory. and they're generally interesting. some are poetic, some are straightforward and most are quaint, for lack of a better word. also, check out the great john ashbery poem at the top of the page.
i check arts and literature daily from time to time, even though i imagine its author to be a hilton kramer-esque curmudgeon. lots of decent links to historical accounts of literary folk, as well as some political stuff from the left and the right (the bias strikes me as a bit right though). interesting, but stuffy. you'll find lots of links that say things like "has feminism changed academic discourse for all eternity??? not likely..." and then there'll be a link to some grumpy nonsense somewhere. just gloss over that stuff. there's better stuff on the site than that.
my favorite blog of late is the pinocchio theory, which was recommended to me in grad school a while back and has remained continually engrossing ever since. a great mix of sci-fi, film theory, comic books, hip hop, indie rock and book reviews, plus just general observations. all through a deleuzian sorta lens. check out his sharp and insightful reasons for not liking "monster's ball," for a start (even though the majority of his posts are less mean-spirited).
and last but certainly not least is my friend ed's blog, which is autobiographical, frank and horny. ed's refined tastes are all his own, and they are mapped out explicitly for our voyeuristic pleasure...
the strange thing about reading blogs is that if you don't know the person who authors it (and i usually don't), there's this sense that you're deriving pleasure from their day to day routines (what they think, do, read, watch, etc.). blogs walk that familiar internet line of desire/voyeurism/banality, i guess. on the other hand, i feel like certain good blogs tend to fill in for a lacking magazine/newspaper culture in my life, and they do so without all the trappings of commerical publications. at their best, blogs make everyday voices intimate-- and occasionally glamorous.
12.04.2003
the candidates
for some reason, I can watch c-span for a much longer time than most people. lately, I’ve been watching the democratic debates, and I can’t get enough of them. the whole political climate seems so emotional right now, and things are still early enough that actual topics are getting addressed in something more substantial than bullshit platform sound-bytes. at least occasionally.
I’ve watched two debates from (almost) beginning to end. and I’m fascinated on many levels. first, it’s encouraging to see how deep the liberal hatred of the iraq war is finally running— after all those cowardly months of eggshell walking in the months leading up to it. too little too late, of course, but still somewhat refreshing.
also refreshing is the inclusion of dennis kucinich, one of the few strong dissenting voices in the post-9/11 mayhem. and, unlike similarly-minded ralph nader (whom I like too), he’s a pretty decent public speaker. he’s clear and passionate, and he says "radical" things (he’s in favor of free college tuition, for example) without sounding like the team crackpot or something. he’s added a nice dynamic to the mix, and its interesting to watch howard dean struggle to agree with him— knowing full and well that the anti-war left that’s supporting his campaign would probably prefer kucinich if he had a prayer pragmatically. it seems to me that "the left" is so brimming with confusion and conflicting ideas right now that it’s opened up, via growing animosity to bush, space to really consider progressive politics. admittedly, this is probably just reactionary, emotional hot air, but it’s nice to dream, isn’t it?
at the risk of sounding predictably bohemian, it is, of course, the longshots that are most intriguing. in addition to kucinich, carol moseley braun is easily the most giving in terms of clear agendas. and her charismatic calmness nicely balances the ongoing cat fights of kerry and dean (also fun). she confidently risks white male eye rolling by pushing identity politics in her answers. occasionally, her contributions push the debate itself into similar directions, making each of the candidates clarify what their specific agendas mean to women and people of color. and she’s not a one-trick-pony, either. her answers are often the most complex of the bunch. for example, she was the only believably anti-iraq-war candidate to problematize a quick withdraw from the region. this strikes me as something that needs more discussion. I mean, I opposed the war from the get go, but now that it’s happened, doesn’t our country have a new and deeper obligation to the people of iraq themselves? we can’t exactly say so long and hope for the best…
and then there’s the biggies: I was excited to hear about general wesley clark early on, being a convenient thorn in the side of the GOP (aka a left-leaning military general), but he certainly doesn’t strike me as having much to say. his strength ultimately, seems to be his looks—the silvery hair, the sharp, statesman-like presence, the eloquent speech. hell, he makes howard dean look like the guy who taught health class in your high school. beyond that, he seems too quick to push the military service card, and strikes me as a bit evasive most of the time.
the big drama of course is the constant clawing and hissing between kerry and dean. and it can get really nasty too, so much so that al sharpton will inevitably throw in a joke or two about keeping things concentrated on bush rather than one another. sharpton is strikingly optimistic and seems to be the only one up there who’s enjoying himself, and that adds a nice flavor to the whole thing as well.
edwards says basically the same thing as sharpton when kerry and dean begin to go at it, but in a more calculated manner. he seems to be playing diplomat too much. and in the end, I disagree with both of them about the bickering anyway. I wanna see some hair get pulled. I wanna really figure out what the hell these people have to say. and if that takes a little human emotion than so be it.
ultimately, I see myself voting for dean. no one can catch him. I think most people are backing him primarily based on his opposition to the war, and as simplistic and one-dimensional as that is, I can sympathize. it’s a pretty big deal that we allowed something like that to happen, in my opinion. plus, his grassroots-ish (and blog friendly) campaign has been interesting, he’s got a decent momentum going and most importantly: he seems tough. I hate to think that the election’s gonna come down to some sort of wild west machismo war between bush and ???, but I’m afraid that might be what it takes to win this thing. what an awful thought. oh well.
p.s. i should add that neither debate that i saw included awful joe lieberman, who my mom thinks sounds exactly like the dad from "alf." think about it.
I’ve watched two debates from (almost) beginning to end. and I’m fascinated on many levels. first, it’s encouraging to see how deep the liberal hatred of the iraq war is finally running— after all those cowardly months of eggshell walking in the months leading up to it. too little too late, of course, but still somewhat refreshing.
also refreshing is the inclusion of dennis kucinich, one of the few strong dissenting voices in the post-9/11 mayhem. and, unlike similarly-minded ralph nader (whom I like too), he’s a pretty decent public speaker. he’s clear and passionate, and he says "radical" things (he’s in favor of free college tuition, for example) without sounding like the team crackpot or something. he’s added a nice dynamic to the mix, and its interesting to watch howard dean struggle to agree with him— knowing full and well that the anti-war left that’s supporting his campaign would probably prefer kucinich if he had a prayer pragmatically. it seems to me that "the left" is so brimming with confusion and conflicting ideas right now that it’s opened up, via growing animosity to bush, space to really consider progressive politics. admittedly, this is probably just reactionary, emotional hot air, but it’s nice to dream, isn’t it?
at the risk of sounding predictably bohemian, it is, of course, the longshots that are most intriguing. in addition to kucinich, carol moseley braun is easily the most giving in terms of clear agendas. and her charismatic calmness nicely balances the ongoing cat fights of kerry and dean (also fun). she confidently risks white male eye rolling by pushing identity politics in her answers. occasionally, her contributions push the debate itself into similar directions, making each of the candidates clarify what their specific agendas mean to women and people of color. and she’s not a one-trick-pony, either. her answers are often the most complex of the bunch. for example, she was the only believably anti-iraq-war candidate to problematize a quick withdraw from the region. this strikes me as something that needs more discussion. I mean, I opposed the war from the get go, but now that it’s happened, doesn’t our country have a new and deeper obligation to the people of iraq themselves? we can’t exactly say so long and hope for the best…
and then there’s the biggies: I was excited to hear about general wesley clark early on, being a convenient thorn in the side of the GOP (aka a left-leaning military general), but he certainly doesn’t strike me as having much to say. his strength ultimately, seems to be his looks—the silvery hair, the sharp, statesman-like presence, the eloquent speech. hell, he makes howard dean look like the guy who taught health class in your high school. beyond that, he seems too quick to push the military service card, and strikes me as a bit evasive most of the time.
the big drama of course is the constant clawing and hissing between kerry and dean. and it can get really nasty too, so much so that al sharpton will inevitably throw in a joke or two about keeping things concentrated on bush rather than one another. sharpton is strikingly optimistic and seems to be the only one up there who’s enjoying himself, and that adds a nice flavor to the whole thing as well.
edwards says basically the same thing as sharpton when kerry and dean begin to go at it, but in a more calculated manner. he seems to be playing diplomat too much. and in the end, I disagree with both of them about the bickering anyway. I wanna see some hair get pulled. I wanna really figure out what the hell these people have to say. and if that takes a little human emotion than so be it.
ultimately, I see myself voting for dean. no one can catch him. I think most people are backing him primarily based on his opposition to the war, and as simplistic and one-dimensional as that is, I can sympathize. it’s a pretty big deal that we allowed something like that to happen, in my opinion. plus, his grassroots-ish (and blog friendly) campaign has been interesting, he’s got a decent momentum going and most importantly: he seems tough. I hate to think that the election’s gonna come down to some sort of wild west machismo war between bush and ???, but I’m afraid that might be what it takes to win this thing. what an awful thought. oh well.
p.s. i should add that neither debate that i saw included awful joe lieberman, who my mom thinks sounds exactly like the dad from "alf." think about it.
12.01.2003
matmos: "the civil war"
I’ve been listening to a lot of albums that sound as if they would have been fun to make (the slits’ "cut," the clash’s "london calling," "de la soul is dead," among others). and the most recent addition to this list is the new record by matmos—which is a tricky entry into the lexicon of "fun," I guess, being artsy and "electronic" and all.
matmos makes a habit of providing distinct thematic frameworks (basically good gimmicks, in my opinion) to each of their albums. most notable is their last record (2001’s "a chance to cut is a chance to cure"), which is composed almost entirely out of sounds from surgical procedures. these catalysts (and the new record’s title, "the civil war," should be taken literally to discover their latest) ultimately have rather little to do with what’s enjoyable about the music. but they’re also funny. and the sense of humor isn’t the garden variety robot voices and 80’s nods so typical of the genre. also, the arrangements are so good that the laughs don’t overshadow the sounds. by the time you get around to the john philips sousa cover song (I’m not kidding), you’ve already digested five tracks worth of surprising twists and turns.
the record is refreshingly organic as well. matmos has always struck me as a band that’s particularly at home with being avant-garde. which makes them hard to roll your eyes at. unlike many other names that come up under the unfortunate tag of "post rock," matmos always seem as if they’re doing precisely what they wish to be doing. these guys aren’t a bunch of fugazi fans who feel like they need to play "bitches brew" to be provocative. like much of the artists that move me most, they seem to approach intellect with great curiosity. take, for example, the wonderful track notes to "the civil war" on their website—a series of downright gleeful explanations— involving topics ranging from madonna’s "lucky star" to viennese aktionist otto muehl.
unlike some of their previous releases, the album is as versatile as a great rock record. there are a greater variety of moods to it, and the flow is a bit more accessible. which isn’t to say it’s "dumbed down" in any way. the changes are constantly surprising, and it amounts to the sort of album that feels whole when listened to from beginning to end. I miss that novel-like quality in albums lately. "the civil war" is like an epic tale of the objects encountered by curious pets. it reminds me of my cat when he’s frisky. definitely check it out.
matmos makes a habit of providing distinct thematic frameworks (basically good gimmicks, in my opinion) to each of their albums. most notable is their last record (2001’s "a chance to cut is a chance to cure"), which is composed almost entirely out of sounds from surgical procedures. these catalysts (and the new record’s title, "the civil war," should be taken literally to discover their latest) ultimately have rather little to do with what’s enjoyable about the music. but they’re also funny. and the sense of humor isn’t the garden variety robot voices and 80’s nods so typical of the genre. also, the arrangements are so good that the laughs don’t overshadow the sounds. by the time you get around to the john philips sousa cover song (I’m not kidding), you’ve already digested five tracks worth of surprising twists and turns.
the record is refreshingly organic as well. matmos has always struck me as a band that’s particularly at home with being avant-garde. which makes them hard to roll your eyes at. unlike many other names that come up under the unfortunate tag of "post rock," matmos always seem as if they’re doing precisely what they wish to be doing. these guys aren’t a bunch of fugazi fans who feel like they need to play "bitches brew" to be provocative. like much of the artists that move me most, they seem to approach intellect with great curiosity. take, for example, the wonderful track notes to "the civil war" on their website—a series of downright gleeful explanations— involving topics ranging from madonna’s "lucky star" to viennese aktionist otto muehl.
unlike some of their previous releases, the album is as versatile as a great rock record. there are a greater variety of moods to it, and the flow is a bit more accessible. which isn’t to say it’s "dumbed down" in any way. the changes are constantly surprising, and it amounts to the sort of album that feels whole when listened to from beginning to end. I miss that novel-like quality in albums lately. "the civil war" is like an epic tale of the objects encountered by curious pets. it reminds me of my cat when he’s frisky. definitely check it out.
