the spark
a universal metaphor for inspiration and instigation, "The Spark" was also the title of a prerevolutionary Russian socialist periodical (Iskra) as well as my paternal grandma's maiden name (Iskirka in Slovak). So the title seemed a natural.
BLOGGITY-BLOG
Before everything there was only God.
Ergo all that now exists is a manifestation of God.
God is all.
All is God.
Logic exists.
Ergo, logic is God.
God is logic.
Ergo to hold a faith in God that defies logic is to defy God.
In defense of His Holy Nonesuch, he did not make the
inflammatory address in St. Peter's, for world consumption, but rather
to former students at a private seminar. I suppose it is a testament to
his naivete that — in this age of digital communications and public
figures having no privacy — he failed to consider that the remarks
could become public and could wreak havoc. Rather than being charming,
this naivete bespeaks how out of touch with the real world both this
pope and the Roman hierarchy are.
Arguably, it would have been for the best had he kept his mouth shut. There has been at least one death attributed to this (an Italian nun working in a Somali hospital) and threats of more to come, not to mention civil unrest and the church desecrations. But then if it hadn't been this episode it would have been something else. Those who are reacting are looking for an excuse to react. They're angry, violent, vengeful people spoiling for a fight. Many are eager to kill and die. For good reasons some will say. Random mass murder is unjustifiable, says I.
"Is the conviction that acting unreasonably
contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically
true?" Benedict asked. "I believe that here we
can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the
word and the biblical understanding of faith in God."
It's hard to quibble with that. And they're not. Spengler, a columnist at atonline
posits that the angry mobs and church burners and nun assassins are
defending an assault against the Muslim "sacrament" of Jihad [Jihad, the Lord's Supper and Eternal life
, 9/19/06]. And it's hard to quibble with THAT.
OK.
All religions sound good on paper, and on their best days actually do some good. For instance, I assume that the nun who was just killed in Somalia was there as an act of charity rather than Western imperialism; and the Latin American Liberation Theologists were not propping up any rotting satus quo when they preached the love of Jesus in socialism. On the other hand, I doubt that Christ's Sermon on the Mount was on the minds of those who conducted the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Whatever Islam's potential may be, the stark reality the civilized world is dealing with now is Jihad as (un)holy war.
I'm not an Islamic scholar (any more than I am a Christian one) but it seems to me that Islam is perhaps more naturally turned to violence than Christianity. Before Christ left earth he enjoined his disciples to travel the world and preach the good news. In other words, to reason with the Gentiles. Mohamed, on the other hand, told the faithful to arm themselves as they spread the faith. We saw this played out when the kidnapped Fox journalists "converted" to Islam at gunpoint. We also saw it when an Afghan man was recently on trial for his life for converting to Christianity.
Both "capriciousness" and "justice" have been attributed to Allah (ditto Yahweh). But which view prevails? Which is the face of Islam that most effects the world today? Was it a loving, just and merciful god that inspired 9/11?
I tire of hearing that hatred, injustice and murder are not characteristic of Islam, but rather a perversion of it. Maybe, maybe not. However, it's critically important to note that the point is moot because Jihadism is the dominant force in Islam today. And those Muslims who aren't violent by nature, who have assimilated to the modern world, in overwhelming numbers refuse to condemn the violence.
Or worse yet, they excuse it; Islamist terrorism is comeuppance (What a shame this had to happen… tsk,tsk). That's along the same lines as the Catholics — both hierarchy and rank-and-file — who dutifully condemn the Holocaust and in the very same breath add that, of course, the Jews brought it upon themselves (What a shame… tsk,tsk). I don't want to hear it.
So whereas the comments of the pope may have been impolitic in having fomented more strife; and he is certainly a dotty old fool for not considering that, as a public figure his speech may have become public; and the address was overbearing and chauvanistic; and for the the leader of Roman Catholicism to criticise spreading faith by the sword fairly drips with irony and hypocrisy; his thesis was valid.
The following item showed up on Chicago Craigslist yesterday:
"exhibition space opening this fall near logan square. interested in showing artists ready for a solo exhibition. not interested in having an art party or canned beer hipster gatherings. focus will be on paintings but all media of all sizes are accepted. please send links to images and whatever other information you deem necessary to get us started. we are not concerned with making money or taking it from artist's sales. the only intention is to open critical dialogue in this city outside the currently perscribed circles. thanks."
I gave up trying to make a living selling art years ago. Sales were too
few and prices always too low so it was impossible to to make a living
at it. However, I didn't give up on art. I never stopped painting and
I firmly believe that art demands an audience. So I seldom contact
conventional galleries anymore, and occasionally show in cafes and pubs.
I have often hoped that somebody somewhere would create a serious venue
for serious artists, one that is divorced from the commercial aspects
of art and devoted to aesthetics; to showing art because it is interesting or innovative,
not because it reflects the trend du jour or has the proper provenance;
a venue devoted to creativity; to the exchange of ideas; devoted to fostering a
community of artists bold enough or stubborn enough to continue to
create outside of the mainstream…
For me I always thought this was just remain a dream. Until now it
seems. If you are serious about what you are saying in your listing,
then God bless you, whoever you are.
British Prime Minister Tony "The Hammer" Blair delivering his signature left hook (known to be capable of crushing a ripe grape) on the jaw of "Curious" George Bush. Bush incurred the PM's ire by using a potty word within the range of a hot microphone.
It actually occured to me that "actually" has replaced "basically" as the filler word of the decade. A filler word, basically — that is to say, actually — is a word that fills the conversational pauses so that people won't feel dumb actually speaking haltingly as they search for words. "Um" and "y'know" used to serve that function, and actually they still are used. They remain essential to the lexicon of the sports locker room interview.
However, among non jocks the filler word of choice — the new "basically" — is "actually". I think the reason for that is that people have been told repeatedly by grade school teachers that they sound stupid saying "y'know" and "uh". That's unfortunate.
Unlike "actually", "y'know" actually works syntactically… Y'know? And "um" (or its variants, "uh" or "duh") fill conversational gaps with neutral — and thus innocuous sound — and thus do no real harm.
"Actually", actually, usually becomes nonsensical when used as a filler... as in: "Actually, I'm from Chicago" or "Actually I'd Like fries with my hotdog", or "Actually my sofa is blue". "Uh" would work much better in these cases, and so it remains my filler word of choice.
Actually, let's hear it for "uh"!
Is it any wonder that with both the Empire and the world going to hell in a handcart, the Imperial Senate is debating and preparing to vote on a flag burning ammendment?
Not to me it isn't. Like the move to constitutionally define marriage, flag burning is one of just many red herrings strewn upon the sociopolitical landscape. The preponderance of emotional hotbuttons — most of which seldom have any real, practical effect on any citizen's life — is a symptom of a very sick (terminal is my prognosis) body politic.
Coping with the real problems after all is too difficult and costly; the lobby and PAC money not only goes to th
ose who skirt the issues, it is spent to silence those who don't. So political discourse becomes a combination emotional "issues" and seemingly soothing bromides, all of which are extremely vague and ultimately irrelevant.
And too, too many of the public happily buy into this way of doing things. It's more comforting not to think.
That's how a single party state works,
Ok, granted I'm not entirely impartial on the subject, but these are great.
I learned during this morning's sitdown that Art Garfunkel has read 948 books since 1968.
Also that the ratio of energy expended to produce ethenol to that produced when it is burned is 1:1
The ratio for gasoline is 6:5
Love that Harper's Index.
When you begin to methodically think about the above cocktail party factoids (the second two, that is) you discover many tangled tendrils — the energy business, agribusiness, globalism, conservation, environmentalism, gentetic engeneering — and the picture becomes more complex the more you delve into it. (Sort of like the famous painting, Dogs Playing Poker.)
This complexity has been well illustrated in an earlier Harper's piece, an essay entitled The Oil We Eat by Richard Manning. If you haven't read it yet, I strongly suggest you do so.
If we could, at this time, shrink the Earth’s population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look like this:
• There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from the Western Hemisphere (North and South) and 8 Africans.
• 70 would be non-white; 30 white.
• 70 would be non-Christian; 30 Christian.
• 50 percent of the entire world wealth would be in the hands of only 6 people.
• All 6 would be citizens of the United States.
• 70 would be unable to read.
• 50 would suffer from malnutrition.
• 80 would live in sub-standard housing.
• Only 1 would have a college education.
Something I picked up from "Walgreens Corporate Briefs".
From an interview with Paul Berman, author of Terror and Liberalism. You may read the entire interview at
http://www.democratiya.com/interview.asp?issueid=5
"...there is a clique with a style and that style is marked by
ruthlessness. [That is, the] 'romance of the ruthless' ... It was visible in Central America during
the Reagan administration – the expectation that a small number of
people could be very effective is they acted ruthlessly enough; an
over-reliance on military force and proxy armies, a tendency to an
apocalyptic hysteria about the danger that Communism in Central America
presented to the
This ruthless style has contributed to the gigantic errors that have been committed in
Another
element of neoconservatism—or maybe just of right-wing republicanism—I
have always found very unattractive is a PR approach to debate. Debate
is manipulated. Reagan's administration engaged in all kinds of
propaganda machinations. The same approach was exactly what we saw in
the build up to the
The Art Market. It's like buying and selling anything really -- a razor with five blades that costs more, when a single blade works as well; Julian Schnabel's Ho-hum expressionist shmears which are nothing really new or exciting or even particularly well done techinically... but they're BIG; Scott Turrow selling writing by the pound.
I know people who are more talented than Turrow or Schnabel, but they don't have the "Brand". They're not marketable, and the powers-that-be would rather not take a chance at making them marketable.
Capitalism just isn't arts friendly.
I once worked with a guy who was a graduate of the Art Institute of Chicago. He told me some horror stories. His time there was all about pursuing fellowships and grants (understandable) but not just for the money, but to be able to get into a grad school (not understandable).
Huh?... Grad school for art?
If I'm not mistaken, Picasso and Monet and Rembrandt and lo-ong list of other rightly famous artists never even had BFAs, let alone MFAs.
Mind you, any old grad school won't do it. It must be one of only a half dozen or so schools, very pricey ones too, such as Yale. Yale?
So if you have an MFA, from one of the right schools (no small feat given the number of openings vs the number of applicants) then you will be a brand artist. You will automatically be represented by a major gallery and command prices that enable you to live comfortably on your income as an artist.
But getting the grants and fellowships which improves one's chances of getting into the right grad school requires one to chase ever changing trends. The student must win the approval of the faculty by producing a body of work aping what's hot in the Soho galleries. If one miscalculates, and does something that is like so last winter -- or, god forbid, new and original -- they've blown it.
What's right with this picture?
I gave up on mainstream venues for my art many years ago. I simply don't have the provenance to make a living as a painter. I'm willing to be a wage slave by day and paint seriously in my spare time. Showing my work in pubs, cafes and on line galleries will suit me. It will have to.
| 1 of 2 | Next Page |