[need Picture]

Oh yeah, I was talking about a book!

I’m reading All About Love: new visions by bell hooks. I got it as a gift from the Cross (Yes I have found religion). Thanks Nancy, Edwina, Violeta and Cat. Thanks Fatima, Noah, Chris, Joseph, Brisa, Oraneet, Heidi & Miguel. I’ve learned to live life with these people and the space. Cya soon. =}

Ah! About the book: First of all. After doing hella research for final essays and artistic precedents, I’ve come to the realization that everything has a subtitle now. (The “All About” part reminds me of old Japanese Street Fighter 2 references like this that were the coveted books of pre-internet SF players in the states). 2nd of all, Bell Hooks!? Even the people are subtitles! Aiya, this is ridiiiiculous. But I trust. The strongest message so far has been this:

When we understand love as the will to nurture our own and another’s spiritual growth, it becomes clear that we cannot claim to love if we are hurtful and abusive. Love and abuse cannot coexist. Abuse and neglect are, by definition, the opposites of nurturance and care.

Makes sense huh.

. o O (( So, I have a lot of free time now I suppose… ))

I can read, I can think. I can communicate with friends— and I can act on my random thoughts without guilt.
…I really don’t know why, but while thinking about the sippy cup terrorist, I suddenly wanted to laugh at crying babies. Yes, yes, I know. But I’m not as bad as some people… I’m sure all of you have that one friend. You know the one. The one who wishes cancer to babies. Yes. That one. (But yes… you were intoxicated!)
Anyway, I just wanted a quick laugh of babies in dire, but silly situations.

. o O (( Someone took a picture of his wife holding a little baby. ))

This is what I want to say to them:

“Wow. Be proud!—

You, your wife and the baby have just won the Google Challengeâ„¢ for ‘Crying Babies’ !!!

Yay! =D

In 2 years, the government will kill your television.

“Here’s a coupon,” they say.

“How much will this cost me? I got bills to pay, mouths to feed,” we ask.

“Go away. I’ll tell you later during the ‘transition period’,” they say.

=(

“Our job is not yet done. All industries involved in this transition have a responsibility to educate consumers about this exciting new era in television. CEA will continue our award-winning efforts to meet this responsibility and we look forward to working with our industry and government partners to develop and implement educational programs.” ~ Consumer Electronics Association President, Gary Shapiro

(IOW: Its not our problem, but please pat us on the back for already upgrading our own tvs to 50″ plasmas, and telling our friends).

Surprise!

Originally uploaded by iamanerddotnet.

NOTE: A work-in-progress… beta is yucky I know, but better than nothing for now…
There’s a good discussion going on at flickr (a place I should frequent more often), regarding “obey” and other’s use of images in the public domain (in this case, art that is really old). It’s a pretty good overview of the arguement, and I found myself nodding my head at many different points from bothsides. I believe Shanrosen says it best though:

If you are arguing that copying is unethical, have a deeper look at art history. Historically, artists always learned by copying the masters. Lots of copies of the works of the Old Masters exist, and many works only survive as copies. This is widespread in all the arts. Shakespeare, for example, used many earlier works when developing his plays. Think of the folk process, where works are changed and developed over generations, sometimes retaining much of their original character, and sometimes being substantially reworked but still clearly identifiable. Check out Bob Dylan’s works and his creative process. It is much the same as what we are talking about here (though Dylan is IMHO by far the superior artist).

We need to be clear-headed about copying and copyright. If we’re not, then we could acquiesce to a copyright regime which would be stifling for everyone except the media conglomerates. It is already affecting people here in Flickr who use old found images in their montages. Their pages have been removed from public view in case of (highly unlikely) copyright violation. The risk is seen as too high for Flickr to take.

But what effect is that going to have on the art of montage? We have perfect tools for it now (Photoshop, GIMP) but will we be unable to exhibit montage on the web for fear of copyright violation? (Fairey’s work is a digital montage of public domain works, a bit more subtle than the usual, but you people have identified the source images accurately.)

The Grooveblog discusses Roy Lichtenstein’s fine walk between appropriation and theivery.

sound familiar?

Oh yeah almost forgot. I was listening to Homew0rk when I was blogging, but now its Rage’s debut. Don’t have that plethora of music here like I do at home… but I did just buy Homew0rk, Band of Gypsys, FatBoySlim’s newest one, Dig Your Own Hole (again by mistake), and um… Deltron 3030 Instrumentals. I think that’s about it. I love music, don’t you?