Archive for February, 2007

That Old Time Premiscuous New Art

Thursday, February 8th, 2007

Harpers has a great essay up by Jonathan Lethem. It covers a wide range of topics from artistic appropriation to copyright law:

Blues and jazz musicians have long been enabled by a kind of “open source” culture, in which pre-existing melodic fragments and larger musical frameworks are freely reworked. Technology has only multiplied the possibilities; musicians have gained the power to duplicate sounds literally rather than simply approximate them through allusion. In Seventies Jamaica, King Tubby and Lee “Scratch” Perry deconstructed recorded music, using astonishingly primitive pre-digital hardware, creating what they called “versions.” The recombinant nature of their means of production quickly spread to DJs in New York and London. Today an endless, gloriously impure, and fundamentally social process generates countless hours of music.

[…] Novelists may glance at the stuff of the world too, but we sometimes get called to task for it. For those whose ganglia were formed pre-TV, the mimetic deployment of pop-culture icons seems at best an annoying tic and at worst a dangerous vapidity that compromises fiction’s seriousness by dating it out of the Platonic Always, where it ought to reside. In a graduate workshop I briefly passed through, a certain gray eminence tried to convince us that a literary story should always eschew “any feature which serves to date it” because “serious fiction must be Timeless.” When we protested that, in his own well-known work, characters moved about electrically lit rooms, drove cars, and spoke not Anglo-Saxon but postwar English—and further, that fiction he’d himself ratified as great, such as Dickens, was liberally strewn with innately topical, commercial, and timebound references—he impatiently amended his proscription to those explicit references that would date a story in the “frivolous Now.” When pressed, he said of course he meant the “trendy mass-popular-media” reference. Here, transgenerational discourse broke down.

This is something interesting. Art, all art, is quickly changing. This greybeard novelist strikes us as hoplessly outdated in his puritanism. But it wasn’t that long ago, just a few years, really that this was the law of the Arts. Andy Warhol is still cursed in some artistic circles, because he had the audacity to incorporate popular culture (pitewy!) into his painting! The nerve! Painting is reserved for alegorical murals depicting moral and religious themes, not soup cans and garish silk screen prints of mocie stars!

Today, we’re starting to see the first generation of people raised on pop art. We don’t fear the stigma of borrowing or quoting. We’ve internalized the idea that there’s nothing new and are setting out to explore the used. Pop art and highbrow met at at a party one night and fell in love, now their babies are making a mess of things. Isn’t it beautiful?

Lethem also has something interesting to say about copyright as well. Read it all and borrow the good parts.

Every Librarian Should Have One

Wednesday, February 7th, 2007

Pulp Magazine Holdings Directory: Library Collections in North America and Europe by Jess Nevins.

I have his Encyclopedia of Fantastic Victoriana and it’s amazing. Can’t wait to get my hands on this one as well.

Via Warren Ellis.

Who Could Argue With Logic Like That?

Sunday, February 4th, 2007

Seems our old pal, Harun Yahya is back with another book. This one sounds like a winner:

PARIS (AFP) - Tens of thousands of French schools and universities have received copies of a Turkish book refuting Darwin’s theory of evolution and describing it as “the true source of terrorism.”

The education ministry said Friday that it had warned school and university directors that the textbook is not in line with the recognized curriculum and that they should disregard it.

Entitled “The Atlas of Creation,” the 770-page book by Turkish author Harun Yahya quotes several passages from the Koran and asserts that “human beings did not evolve (from another species) but were indeed created.”

[…] The book features a photograph of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center with the caption: “Those who perpetuate terror in the world are in fact Darwinists. Darwinism is the only philosophy that values and incites conflict.”

The theories of Charles Darwin are “the true source of terrorism,” it said.

Well, I’m convinced. I mean, the book is 770 pages long! Anything that long must be well researched. I bet it’s just bursting at the seems with well constructed and irrefutable truth.I wonder what other pieces of fine literature these schools have been gifted with?

The official said that the Church of Scientology had also embarked on a mass distribution of literature to schools a few years ago.

Via PZ Myers.

Batman Returns But Katie Does Not

Sunday, February 4th, 2007

Looks like Katie Holmes has been dropped from the Dark Knight, the sequel to Batman Begins. Which isn’t surprising as her performance (or lack thereof) was widely considered the week point in what was othewrwise a solid film.

However, discussing it with Elvira, we couldn’t help but wonder if maybe her new Overlord and all around crazy fuck, Tom Cruise might have had something to do with it. After all, Batman, especially the Christopher Nolan iteration, is one big primer in Abnormal Psychology and given Tom Cruise (and Scientology in general) having a rabid hatred for all things psychological (and rational) it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he didn’t want his blushing zombie-bride even tacitly endorsing psychotherapy. Or getting too near that Heath Ledger. She might be reminded of what she’s missing out here in the real world.

Dark Mark Your Callendars

Sunday, February 4th, 2007

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows hits the shelves on July 21st. This is just a week after Order of the Phoenix hits theaters, which makes July quite a month. It’s also Elvira’s birthday right around this time which means her presents this year are pretty much taken care of. Thanks, JK Rowling!

A Guide For the Perplexed

Thursday, February 1st, 2007

Or people in Boston, which may just be the same thing. Since some people in your town can’t tell the difference between a bomb and a cartoon character, here’s a little guide to help you through the chaos:

Not a Bomb

***

Bomb!

***

Bomb! Wait! Fooled ya. He just looks like a bomb. Not an explosive device!

***

Bomb!

***

NOT A BOMB!

In real life, bombs do not look like bombs. They look like plain packages or unobtrusive things. Trash. Boxes. Sometimes shoes (but only once and never since). Or nothing at all because they are hidden inside other things that are innocuous, like cars or plastic bags or chijuajuas. They do not tick. They do not blink.

Bombs are not used as part of a multi-million dollar marketing plan for a movie, even one directed by Michael Bay. They are dropped on people, usually civilians, form a great height, or strapped to the chest of fourteen year olds who still believe in fairy tales. They are stuffed inside soda cans and thrown through windows or mailed to celebrities by a recluse living in a shack in Montana.

Bombs do not ever look like cartoon characters that give you the finger, which you deserve for being so fucking daft that you shut down a whole frickin’ city because the government has you so shit scared that some religious fanatic living in a cave in some lawless zone in Pakistan, using his hand as toilet paper, is going to somehow deliver a state of the art improvised explosive device to the underside of a bridge in the greater Boston metropolitan area.

And even if they could, it wouldn’t light up!

But hay, at least it distracted us all from that war with Iran that Bush is starting.