Seeing is Believing

Watching Guy Debord films in an attempt to unite personal and academic interests...I love documentaries, and these fall somewhere in that vein. Film or anti film? There is something about a dry capture of reality, the only perspective laid down being in editing choices, knowing where to look and when. Letting reality speak for itself...Well that is not Debord as a filmmaker. Full of subversion, commentary, and artful manipulation, Debord's films are mash ups of mundane reality. Of course, Debord (and the entirety of the Situationist International) protested against the passivity of modern (then modern in 1957, but the idea applies now more than ever) culture, so it wouldn't have fit to make the kind of film that sits back and observes what might chance to happen. While I am brought back the Herzog quote I have mentioned before, about truth only being illuminating when it has some power of viewpoint behind it (he said the phone book was "true" but not a source of important art), I still wonder about what a more sort of "Tao" film making would discover.

Of course, it might all boil down to context...as most things do. Perhaps both kinds are important, depending on situation (and it probably goes without saying that a good eye is necessary in both). Debord's films were overtly political , turning society against itself visually, and it came from an established viewpoint.

Documentaries, both assertive and exploratory, valuable film making.

I do realize I've spent the entire post basically saying I'm watching cool movies and sometimes documentaries are different depending on context, which is pretty pointless. So here are some cool photos for making it this far.

Landscape

I am feeling like getting lost in a panoramic reality and am interested in different mediums of getting there. I want something that is able to create an atmosphere…drifty, pulsing, airy, vast and all encompassing. I noticed some pieces from artist/designer Noemie Goudal, in which she is able to communicate a sense of unnatural elements as either part of or closing in on nature and reality.

I like that the contrast highlights the features of the natural environments…synthetic encroachment provides a useful dichotomy, which is always revealing. I also like the muted colors and balance. A fake, staged world creates an eerily serene atmosphere, beautiful and sinister at once.

I also found this, awesome and lovely and transfixing. Go full screen and give your mind a cosmic break. I love astronomy, the scope and mystery and power of it all. Like most things I love, learning more about it just makes it more amazing and mysterious, reminding you that learning and discovering can keep opening new doors.

And finally, some sonic atmospheres. Ebbing and flowing sheets of sound, like waves carrying you forward. The symbiosis of restraint and bombast is what gives these songs power, and of course that little bit of indefinable magic that just makes it shimmer.

I want to float...

Rhetoric of Design

I was reading an article about design rhetoric and it made me think about all the objects we surround ourselves with. Interesting to think about the non verbal communication of functional units between both the designer and the owner/community, as well as what they reflect about the owner. Now, the latter should really be judged only in an ideal situation, which is to say that I just picked up this computer off of a table that just happened to be in my house and has good height and storage features. If I could have free reign to choose whatever objects I wanted, then there would be acceptable substance on which to be materially analyzed.

Anyway, the article treats design as a mediating device between craftsman and consumer. I was thinking about how we judge civilizations by the art they create, but that it is also valuable to evaluate the objects they utilize. After all, these are things that exist and for people to use, and therefore are weeded out by functionality. So if the only things that survive have inherent practicality, their secondary force is aesthetic. I always strive for a unification of the two, because I want to have elegance in everything.

Think about how we define an era, isn’t it that what is immediately identifiable are useful materials? A painting/sculpture/work of art can define a time and era (and it can do a lot more and say a lot more about society, as well as be unconcerned with usability), but they probably don't envelop us at all times. Art is defining in a macro level, whereas objects are micro level definitions-they live and evolve with us.

If you are interested in just the way things look, what we are surrounded with are functional objects, and that defines how things seem and feel. When you watch Mad Men, seeing all of the historical detail in the homes is fascinating-it completely gives the viewer the feeling of time and space, and its constant reinforcement gives us a sense of reality. It might tell us as much as any book or art that passes through. What we use, and how we use it, can be illuminating.

What if you were to browse through someone's things? Their lamps, utensils, storage, anything they have chosen and then use, what does it say? What does it add up to? Are they sensitive to it, do they care, would they notice if something were changed only in appearance?

We are surrounded with objects that speak, we define what they say.

Filling the Library

AK Press is a great site with a lot of interesting and (to my mind) valuable reading material. There is some weeding to be done, as some of the selection seems rather light and reactionary, but the stuff on Surrealism and Situationism looks pretty good…and well priced. Ken Knabb and Larry Law's short works are only a few dollars each and definitely worth having in the library.

If you haven't been introduced to any Situationist works, I would start with this pamphlet-esque book. If it intrigues you then jump into the catalogue of Guy Debord and Raoul Vaneigem. My only trouble with the site is that you've got to sift through original authors and instigators of the movements and seemingly random (maybe I'm just not aware of them) peripheral writers. Constant flow of information of course leads to less pure data, so I feel safest sticking with only the originals until I've consumed all of it and am able to better independently analyze other sources. This seems so simple that I wondered for a second if it even needed to be said, but then I thought about the disturbing human tendency to skim off the top layer and reach an early saturation point…capitalizing on information from broken sources they don't even understand. I just want contextual streams of data flowing evenly…and of you want to use only a certain point then fine, just know its place in the world.

Also read an article this week discussing the most overrated modern authors. (Modern as in authors writing today.) To be fair, I'm not familiar with the critic here, but I think he makes some good points. I don't want to go point by point with all of the people he mentioned, but I can say I haven’t found any of them, or any other modern fiction writers, worth really devoting any time to. There are a few people who interest me, at least enough to check out, but no one I really respect or admire. The article points out that these writers, who have all achieved some sort of acclaim or advancements, capitalize on cliches and tricks, existing in a safe (and boring) sphere created, populated, and propagated by the creative writing MFA system. Interesting idea, I like that he commits to a theory about why these writers thrive and not just baselessly trashing them (although that’s always fun too.) Worth a read.

I'm trying to find a balance of modern ideas and appealing language…and not descend into archaism. Unless I intend to. Perhaps its actually a good thing that I don't have any current (in the larger time frame, not my own personal one) literary heroes, makes it less likely I would accidentally emulate someone. Easier to develop a style that is purely my own. Lots of ideas, lots of projects…need to install a refinement process in my brain to synthesize and develop everything. Preferably a non invasive procedure.

At least I've found some material worth reading.

What is Art?

I was thinking about art forms and what it means to create a piece of art in an age of hyper awareness and documentation. Trying to understand what we, as a creative (that’s technically speaking, as in we have the power to create, not complementarily deeming ourselves creative in a progressive sense) institution are doing and why I find it so unsatisfactory. I suppose that means I need to attempt to understand through deconstruction of the process and idea of art.

I'll break it down into three elements that I believe make art-idea, medium, and context. There must be a fluidity of one element for artistic progress. The way in which the interplay of stasis and fluidity interact in the relationship of these elements determines the quality of the creation. What changes, what stays the same, and what does that mean. Ideas must speak from original voices. Mediums grow and change with technology. Context becomes history and pulls art into a capsule style time warp. Not to say there aren't universal human themes that span time and location, but the social situation art thrives by commenting on is constantly re-weaving itself into a new pattern. Embracing that and moving on is the only way to move forward.

This is a delicate balance, and hard to achieve. "Inspiration" from the past can be violently stunting-how quickly does awareness become inspiration and then turn into tribute and prototype until any sense of originality dies? Are we prepared to accept reinvention as enough? Here we have stasis of medium and sometimes idea, fluidity of context. Now this may be something that works in certain situations-where the contrast of the original context is put up strategically against a different backdrop there may be communication of a new and valid message and the art is in the juxtaposition itself. (Such as in Situationist detournement.) However when we simply repeat something that has been successful before without any new ideas we fail. The public acceptance of this kind of art might simply be appreciation and recognition of something seen or known before. This is comfort, and not progress.

There is also a very real danger in art to become enslaved to the idea of novelty. Fluidity of context alone, or medium alone, with no real idea other than hollow shock value and amusement is equally invalid.

So this is a subtle dance with elusive success. I think its interesting to watch the results of different endeavors keeping in mind how the three elements interact. For example, modern graffiti art vs graffiti art in 80's New York, current R&B influenced music removed from its original social context, quality of form and originality in comic book art. What we are saying, how we are saying it, and what does it mean in the framework of where we came from and where we are now are constant forces creating the language of modern art. Hopefully we can learn how to speak them.

Stuff

You need to clean up your stuff. Yes, you, who just left that pile of books on the floor of a bookstore. And you, who decided that a retail shelf was the best place to leave your coffee cup. And definitely you, whose wrappers and cigarettes and unidentifiable discarded belongings found their way onto the sidewalk where you so unceremoniously abandoned possession of them.

We live in a cultural pigsty of STUFF. Stuff that holds low value, combined with people who value themselves so highly they can't be bothered to pick up after themselves leaves us with a constant, unedited, overwhelming mess. As someone who has and does work in retail, I'm tired of picking it up. The little specific instances I spend so much time putting away is endemic of a culture that puts no real value on the quality of an item. A mass produced, bargain bin, two for one sale culture where it doesn't matter if you leave that shirt on the ground, you can buy three more in five minutes and do the same to them. The constant churning out of low quality stuff teaches us how to treat things, and the desperate beggar mentality of retail allows people to act out that compulsion of disrespect because they are constantly cleaned up after like an unwell child. (Actually, I was taught better than that when I was a child.) *

The way we treat our things is encouraged by two ostensible major mindsets. First, there are the sections of people who have money to spend and want people to know it. They have cash, and no idea what they are spending it on. Is the word luxury in the title? Yes please. A designer label? They'll take two. Even though there is a lot of money being spent, no one has the class or respect to actually care or consider what they are buying. A classic example? This bag.

It's Louis Vuitton. It's a celebrity coup. It's 42,000. And it's incredibly ugly. Accumulation of stuff as status with no thought.

The second group is one that runs from the common deal finders and bulk buyers to the more extreme hoarders. No one seems to choose just one thing when they can get a second for free-even if they have absolutely no need for that thing. The triumph of stuff rises as the respect with which we treat our possessions falls. The easier it is to find, the more likely we are to have it, accumulate it, destroy it, and buy it again.

Now, I'm not saying that stuff isn't important. "Things" are part of all of our lives, and that’s fine. Maybe it is some kind of spiritual accomplishment to be prepared to renounce all our worldly possessions at a moments notice, but I'm not ready to hang my hat on that peg yet. The reality is that stuff can be good-it connects us, amuses us, holds inspirations and memories. Stuff is tools, aids, creations, monuments. Stuff is not experience, or relationships, but it can mold the rest of our lives between those other things. I just wish we, as a culture, could exercise some critical thought towards our stuff and the stuff we need, and the value we place on it against and over other things. If we understand and work to attain the stuff we have, appreciate its value, then hopefully we will learn to treat our things better and just live better all around.

So clean up your toys, or you won't be allowed to play with them anymore.



*Maybe if we better learned the ideas of respect and responsibility there would be more progress from a government and a company in a certain environmental crisis. But that’s a whole other post.

Cleaning

Overcome by an intense need to organize and purge documents this last week. I have, for as long as I can remember, been consumed by a need to collect and accumulate pictures-magazine pages mostly. (I have other collections, but that seems to be the most cumbersome and becomes quite overwhelming ). I had been in the habit of absorbing glossy pages for what could perhaps be best described as a sort of lifestyle osmosis. Like I didn't trust my own mind to independently develop a sense of style. Seeing random images brought a sense of inspiration that for some reason I didn’t feel strong enough to remember without saving the pages. It was interesting to see what I was drawn to in the past-which images, ideas, fashions, etc that I wanted to incorporate at the time. Like an historical timeline of inspiration. What inspires someone really does say a lot . Finally in I found myself surging through pages of random mags rejecting pretty much everything inside. Suddenly the images don't live up to the ideas in my own mind-I want to create a real life and experiences instead of looking at some projected image. I know what I want my life (and my own personal style) to be and its not a flimsy editorial.

So from now on no more wasteful magazine consumption, I'm only reading things with legitimate cultural value, high fashion coverage/point of view, or valuable information. Goes to my current focus on the importance of editing.


Cleaner mind, cleaner home…and less of a fire hazard.

Energy

I'm trying to understand the idea of art, what it means to foster it and to be a part of it. The role of a creator and appreciation and criticism of creation. There is so much unnecessary worry, so many distractions, so much anxiety and frustration that obscures the real power of the individual in art. Its hard to find anything real behind the false idols of tribute and self congratulation. The solipsism of denial. Somehow a few ideas emerge.

I used to be completely terrified of the idea of non-existence, an almost constant all consuming worry with no resolution. Eventually I got distracted, or the fear subsided, but it always remained, quelled and dormant beneath the more corporal anxieties that took precedence. Perhaps that fear urged me on in an academic pursuit of religion and philosophy, essentially the dialectic of nothing versus something. But the something was never enough, not sufficiently satisfying as to scar the darkness of nothing with so much light that it became an unrecognizable fear. (Of course I was always loathe to accept anything without energetic, sincere and scathing logical and reason, or at least something like it, so there always existed an appropriate tension between curiosity and unrelenting standard of proof* which fueled my search and, at least in my opinion, lent some sort of legitimacy to my modest discoveries.)

If it seems like this is a digression, well, that’s because it is, a bit. Not into a statement of biography that might send my dear readers into a tangential story about the gory details of my murky cosmogony (not because I lack confidence it its interest, I simply lack the will to synthesize all of that into such a miniscule statement, albeit one that has already grown beyond my intentions. ) I simply mean to impress the sort of friction constantly in the back of my mind, a dance of being and nothingness (to borrow a phrase from Sartre) that has lead us to my modest point.

Basically when I feel the most anxiety about any idea of the fragility of art or self I consider my place as a kind of universal being. We are all made of stardust billions of years old. Cosmic legacy. No myths, no figurehead, no language or sign or symbol. Those will always fall short. So what remains? Energy.

Art creates energetic connections….can’t see them but they remain. Art is unchanged raw dynamic energy, carved out by the artist to be a testament to a moment in time-as such, it cannot remain going forward, but it does remain as a link in the energy chain its own presence necessitates, a moving on to build forward. Recognize the continual process. That constant onward motion is life energy so the creations themselves are vital to the kind of energy that moves forward. (Creations referencing the past too much either strain the energy of forward motion or move back, creations that critique illuminate the present create an increasing forward momentum.) Are we going lightning speed, contributing to our own momentum in an interstellar space train, or sludging forward with feet in wet concrete? Think about progress. Worship at the altar of dynamism. You are raw unchained energy and you can create positive or negative connections. It doesn’t seem like it but it is up to you. You might believe you are a product of turbulence and confusion (like most art itself) but it doesn’t matter. You have insane potential and can do and be whatever you want. Further than static creation, art is the vitality of experience when you allow yourself to sink into the moment.** Love energy, art energy, sin energy, fear energy, life and death and rebirth energy. Realize dynamic connections and thrive on them.

Energy reverberates. Energy never dies.

*This is something I'm certain I'll never be cured of.

**Great art is difficult.

Sounds of Summer

Well, it is becoming increasingly hot outside and rising temperatures has put me in the mood for some vintage folk princesses. I really feel like singing great folk songs, partly because I'm being inspired by the best. Awesome hazy spacey chicks with powerful voices. Singers (especially female singers) today just try so hard to be over the top soul powerhouses, or they are computer augmented and arranged so that any actual talent isn’t even a requirement. I want to listen to someone actually sounds amazing and not like a robot Aretha Franklin with an attention complex.

I like the tendency of folk music to tell a story, have a narrative or historical/national point of view. The voice and the song blending together, when done right is just has a magic authenticity that just doesn't seem to exist today. Here is a sampling of the ladies I'm embracing right now-

Sandy Denny

Fairport's leading lady and solo artist Denny is an obvious choice. I love her voice, it is instantly recognizable but she has the vision and artistry to adjust her performances to each song. I think her phrasing in Matty Groves is great. Just a total classic.

Linda Thompson

Well it should be said that I have some kind of indescribable emotional connection to the albums Richard and Linda Thompson did together, I can’t help it, just think they are fantastic . Still, I don't think I really have to argue the point that Linda has a gorgeous voice. While the most significant work she did was done in tandem with her (then husband) wherein most of the lyrics and arrangements were done by him, I think the point (as is with Denny) is more the spirit and intangible romantic quality she gave to the music.

(Side note-apparently Linda Thompson is also the name of a sometime girlfriend of Elvis Presley, and a google search of the former will lead to many results of the latter. This Linda is NOT the plastic tan one.)

Judee Sill

Criminally over-looked American writer-singer. Compelling songwriter and absolutely amazing voice. Overlooked in the shadow of Joni Mitchell and Carole King, Sill had a much deeper and darker perspective. She was fascinated with religion and death and was a habitual drug user. She was arrested for robbery (pre music career) and spent time in a reform school. A really cult chick. In short, the kind of woman I'd rather hear stories from. (If you read that article, I think it is pretty revealing and disturbingly funny when she said that as a hooker her heart "just wasn't in it." Because, you know, that is a job you do for the love of it.) Many of her songs have a "church-ey" quality, as in something I would have heard in some forgotten church on a dirt road that five people go to on Sunday mornings, but I think that’s because she relies on a hymn-like choral structure and some obvious religious imagery when really much darker and more achingly curious themes lie beneath. Sill seems distinctly American, (as American as Denny and Thompson are British) and still quite otherworldly. I think that I have trouble connecting to many of Judee's more famous peers because they don’t have any kind of real weight or substance to them. They are pretty veneers of zeitgeist movements. They are like historical documents with no real historical gravity. Sill just seems to go beyond that.

I really love the song Down Where the Valleys Are Low (couldn't find a good video version, don't mess it up by listening to a poor version). I think the first time I heard it I actually stopped what I was doing because there is a real intensity to it and her voice is really masterful. It was also a live version, which was pitch perfect so doubly impressive.

Well clearly this is a cursory glance and there are other talented singers I'm overlooking, but I'm just really impressed with Sandy, Linda and Judee so I'm having trouble moving on. Suggestions are welcome of course. Until then I really wish I was hanging out in an awesome field with a great flowy dress and some very select company. Back to listening and singing along for now.

Shiny and New

"I prefer being relevant to being cool"

Fantastic interview with Alber Elbaz of Lanvin in a series about the future of fashion from those prominent in the industry. Basically Elbaz has to reconcile the idea of being an artist (several others interviewed in the series were editors and reviewers) in an arena that is increasingly influenced by commercial sales and novice access to information/product. He is (maybe one of the few legitimate) distinctly modern designers who has a classical sensibility and professionalism while still decidedly moving forward and making style new.

One of the things that struck me in the interview was when he commented on how designers are now expected to do so many collections a year, and that to maintain a pace like that in any medium is unrealistic. Wouldn't creating two impeccably done, stylistically forward, artistically strong collections a year be vastly preferable to six throwaway collections in 12 months? Of course the unfortunate answer is no, people want to consume as much as possible so that they never have to actually consider what they are trying to be a part of or defining anything of their own.

I think this idea applies with equal validity to art/film/creativity in general. Because, for the most part, the issues affecting the modern fashion world are the same ones that affect anything creative. Status, and money rule everything. No one wants to make clothes people don't want to wear, and no one wants to make a movie no one will see. Because its all about the cult of followers and the money they bring. Now, fashion as a whole is about an aesthetic that is not going to happen if the clothes remain in a showroom, so designers (like Elvaz, who had been incredibly successful at this) have to merge their artistic sensibility with the human form and some sense of functionality. Movies, books, television and art thrive when they have an audience to whom their points are imparted. (Not to say an unpopular or unseen piece of art is invalid, I'm just talking about the underlying issues that have seemed to create the current entertainment atmosphere.) And people have no attention span. They have too much to absorb. Therefore, no attention to detail, no skills for analyzing and processing, no appreciation of theme, form and structure. In a better world the myriad of options would allow people to demand quality-they could choose the best and reject anything less than. Entertainment could compete based on artistry. This unfortunately, is not the case. The only winners are what is loudest, brightest, most amusingly absurd in a non committal way. Artistry is a liability. Too slow, too complex, too disturbingly unpleasant fails to ignite the serotonin levels and is passed on for something a bit less taxing. Either artificially sweetened or cliché emotional are the only endings we accept. What is truly disturbing is that we do not just accept it as our preferred viewing, we have allowed it to become art. Our standards are so low that anything with a marginal effort is lauded.

Art is supposed to be challenging, but for anything to be challenging we have to pay attention to it. We have to require more from it. Real life is difficult, its brilliant, terrifying, funny, sad, confusing, and mad. Art, and, yes, entertainment should reflect that or its just distracting us from making any of ours better.

Below, several looks from Lanvin's stellar Fall RTW 2010 collection-

Art in Interesting Places

There is so much "high art" today that means nothing. The idea of art itself barricades it from real criticism, so much is so ancient and revered it has become a superstition. No one can look through the vapor of the idea of a piece of classical art to see what exists behind it. A real radical idea is rare. When I was younger I had a collection of beautiful notebooks and journals that I would never write in because I felt like any ideas I would have wouldn’t match the book itself. I've realized however that anything worth keeping was usually mad scratchings and scribblings on scratch paper and napkin fragments.


So what is the point here? Don’t ignore the subversive power of a real idea in a surprising location. Maybe that even increases its power.

.

Sonic Atmosphere

I am interested in sonic atmospheres right now, noise and music that create and respond to entire ideas of being like an inescapable wall of sound, a rolling wave you have to succumb to. Living in an ocean of deep sound, revel in perfect moments of clarity.

Over-saturation of banality is an enemy. Believe only in what matters.

Let go to be alive.

Cause Me Pain Hedi Slimane

I have a tee shirt from House of Holland's designer line that reads, or rather shouts in big red block letters, "CAUSE ME PAIN HEDI SLIMANE." Usually when I wear it out I get a few confused and unfamiliar glances. Hedi Slimane is one of the people whose name remains unknown by many (outside the fashion world) but whose designs and general aesthetic reverberate out into increasing spheres of influence.

As the designer for Dior Homme from 200-2007, his slimmed down suiting and louche musician sensibility made him an instant icon. Although he has retired from design he still communicates his point of view through his prolific blog/photo diary hedislimane.com, as well appearing behind the camera for magazine photo spreads.

Slimane's photos are stark and modern but never empty or unimportant. Unkempt yet refined. Harsh yet glamorous. Largely black and white, his portraits are honest and confrontational. They highlight style and uniqueness without seeming posed or self congratulatory. They are the documentation of people and moments who are allowed to exist naturally and then to evolve. You get the sense that these are moments like beats, moving to the next and the next on and on in a rhythmic series but remaining beautiful and necessary in their brief time to continue and define their place in the song.

The reason why I respect Hedi Slimane, besides an instant indefinable aesthetic connection, is that he always seems to be moving forward. He is literally and figuratively capturing the world in motion. There is no clinging to an idea of a romanticized past. No re-creation, no sense of the desperation trap fashion can easily excite themselves into. Just now and beyond. He delves into the moment, uses and defines it to the highest degree of design and experience, and then moves seamlessly into the next now. The thread of constant evolution.

I still get strange looks when I wear my shirt, but I don't mind. It is only a moment.

All images from www.hedislimane.com

Documentation

In a 2009 interview film maker Werner Herzog made the following statement-

"You should bear in mind that almost all my documentaries are feature films in disguise. Because I stylize, I invent, there’s a lot of fantasy in it—not for creating a fraud, but exactly the contrary, to create a deeper form of truth, which is not fact-related. Facts hardly ever give you any truth, and that’s a mistake of cinéma vérité, because they always postulate it as if facts would constitute truth. In that case, my answer is that the phone directory of Manhattan is a book of books. Because it has 4 million entries, and they are all factually correct, but it doesn’t illuminate us. You see, I do things for creating moments that illuminate you as an audience, and the same thing happens with feature films as well."

Is the role of the documentarian to simply organize facts and present the most clear picture of reality? Or is it, as Herzog suggests, to go beyond black and white facts and restructure to illuminate a deeper form of truth. Which school of thought gives a sense of gravity to the sense of truth in question… is it a case of fact vs. truth, or more complexly, true vs. truth? (Obviously this all takes for granted that the documentarian is a fair source of information.) What information proves to elevate reality from true to revelatory?

I am reading Haruki Murakami's book Underground, a collection of accounts based on the 1995 Tokyo gas attacks. I truly discovered it by chance, and for some reason a book with varied points of view of a horrific incident compiled by a modern surrealist-esque writer of fiction appealed to me. In the preface of Underground Murakami notes that he spent a large part of his interviews with the victims establishing the lives and personalities of the people themselves, who they were before they became statistics and news fodder. While the details of this effort (by t he admission of the author) only appeared in small ratio to the stories of that day, the information wove the stories together in an almost unconscious balance of the "irreducible humanity" Murakami, as a novelist, embraced. It was a conscious effort by the author to offset media reports dealing with facts and pure information that nonetheless devolved into an "us vs them" portrayal of faceless citizens and cruel perpetrators. The book, is structured quite masterfully, with factual information about each car that was hit, followed by the individual accounts based on interviews Murakami conducted with the willing participants. The interviews are all mainly the words of the subject, guided by Murakami's questions, but they are prefaced with brief, almost staccato introductions ("He speaks quickly, and never mulls over his words…He plays guitar…He always carries two lucky charms his wife gave him.") Descriptions, short and jagged like a jotted note or overheard party banter provide tiny glimpses into the victims and always lead to the final words of the intros which violently interrupt the pleasant trivialities with a sentence such as " Mr. Arima had the bad luck to catch the Marunouchi Line-which he doesn't usually take-and get gassed." The effect is jarring and elucidative. It is not so much the emotional effect of envisioning real people in difficult situations as it is contextualizing an event. Adding a sense of reality to what a news report or list of facts would seem to establish as "real."

Without such context we remain trapped in a constant good and evil battle of the unaware, condemned by dry figures with their lack of depth of reality into the tired cliché of "bad things happen to good people." Shrug and sigh. A true documentarian shouldn't let us get off so easy.

Through what filter do we document our own lives, and what do we believe because of it?

Style File-Celine

Celine. Fall 2010 RTW.

Phoebe Philo's second outing at Celine made huge fashion waves in Paris this season with her swoon worthy Fall collection. This is not fantasy or fetish fashion, it is something more rare. Real life high style. Clothing as the expression of a modern woman, powerful and dynamic. I could describe the collection in more detail, but I think the images speak for themselves.

Sober, refined, modern.


Fantastic lines. With pockets. I love pockets.

Who do I need to see to get this coat immediately?

More interesting lines, modern proportions, spot on fit and a hint of shimmer.

It is a phenomenal collections, maybe the best of the season. Architectural cuts, stark colors, all sleek style and powerful modern sophistication. Urbane class and a most promising nod to the present and future from Philo's reign at Celine.

Deep Into the Void

This is a clip from a program on the BBC that was filmed in 1997 called, from the best I can gather, Modern Minimalists. In it, Bjork, who hosts the show, talks with Estonian composer Arvo Part about his music and the idea of silence as the tool of the creator.

Now, I'm not saying I do not respond to a sensory overload approach to art; any kind of orgiastic fury of sound, movement, color, sparkle, light, and anything else dazzling, dizzying, or otherwise mind bending and I'm likely won't be complaining. In fact, I'm quite happy having my senses overloaded from time to time. What I do believe, however, is that we live in a time of total sensory overindulgence and the only way to any kind of new idea or progress in a post modern age is to refine, pull back and rely on a new appreciation of silence and restraint. When we have said everything there is to say and still not arrived at a point of awareness the only logical reaction is to stop and synthesize.

Thus is the power of minimalism. It is both a process of creation and synthesis.

A minimalistic approach inherently works in the symbiotic dichotomy and creative powerhouse of the positive/negative relationship. Creating in the negative, the dark empty space of minimalism has an illuminative effect of the positive. An entity hanging in a the harsh background of negative space highlights the gravity of the positive unit. In the interview Part says, "You can kill people with sound, and if you can kill, then maybe there is also the sound that is the opposite of killing." Delving into the silence amplifies the carefully orchestrated and incredibly powerful effect of sound.

Minimalism also grants a greater power to the creator, whose work, balancing on less, therefore must be more clean and pure. Each note (using the example of music, but I think the idea will stand across mediums) stands in greater distance from its companions. It must be stronger and bolder than a note that is lost in a chorus of its symphonic brethren. A masterful artist is able to do more with less while creating a strong statement. This is why minimalism allows the opportunity for the creation of great art, but the reason it is uniquely suited to be a force of new enlightenment and opportunity in the present falls to the viewer. It is an art respectful of the mind taking it in. With less to apprehend, the mind of the listener/viewer/participant becomes more active, filling in the spaces. Instead of a sensory overload, where the information is shoved towards you and almost distracts you into acceptance, minimalism posits and allows for reflection. The artist/viewer dynamic becomes real and alive.
-

Perhaps we will be able to approach the world with a better eye for the ebb and flow of sound and silence, space and weight, feeling and reason, tiny illuminated notes in a sea of inky depth. When I approach a crowded world I always return to the best piece of advice I have received, artistic or otherwise-

"Sometimes you have to contemplate the spaces between the words."*

*Thanks Dad!