Quantcast
Channel: Culture & Arts
Viewing all 14839 articles
Browse latest View live

Fear & Loafing at the IMATS

0
0





“You will be the same person in five years as you are today except for the people you meet and the books you read.” - Charlie “Tremendous” Jones


This quote has made enough rounds on the internet - unattributed and bastardized in motivational memes - to be in the public domain by now. And if that’s not how copyright law works, so what? Why should we honor Charlie Jones’ “intellectual property” when the man doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page? Sure, his book, Life is Tremendous, made a splash back in the day, if we can believe the cover’s claim that “more than 2,000,000” copies were sold, but I’m not sure we can. It tries too hard. A better question would be: Why should we trust any of the sophomoric maxims that pop up on our feeds? The answer, of course, is: we should trust anything on the internet if it helps us get through the day or props up our sense of purpose.



I like the idea of being the same person in five years - and I’m inclined to take any life advice at face value if it gives me the impression I can keep doing what I’m doing - prioritizing my art even when it doesn’t pay the bills and even though I happen to live in one of the top ten most expensive cities in the world. It should be noted that I wouldn’t have the luxury to write this fluff if I didn’t have a credit card. The substitute dog-walking shifts are drying up, my webseries has yet to be picked up and I’m starting to feel “The Fear” again. So, here I am resorting to gimmicks like going “in face” to the International Make-up Artist Trade Show with Maddelynn Hatter just to score some clicks.



“Girl, I’m 34 years old, and I’m a professional drag queen. There’s always a level of anxiety there because, like, what the fuck am I doing?” Maddy mused, inspecting the makeup on my face. I would be sporting a ‘water nymph’ boy-giesh look, as we would come to call it, and he had just finished contouring.


“But here’s the thing. . . The whole romance of living as an artist in New York City was the goal. Once you get here, you shouldn’t stress as much. Look up.” I flinched as Maddy pencilled iron-oxide onto my eyelids. He sighed. “Don’t be a pussy.”



Believe me, I’m trying. I just released the first installment of a revolutionary new vlog called The Me Report, and at the time of this writing, it has a paltry 121 views on YouTube. Meanwhile, my contemporaries are out there getting featured on NPR, touring through Europe, selling sitcoms, scoring half-hour specials on Comedy Central, and whatever else. Also, let’s not forget my mom. She likes to remind me how I don’t have the disposable income to visit as often as she’d like, and she has taken to asking some pretty unadorned questions like: “When will you be able to monetize?” The honest answer is the same as it has been for years: “Not soon enough, but try not to worry, mother - I’m surrounding myself with the right people.”


Maddy and I used to work weekend brunch shifts together at a bar in Williamsburg. He quit when he decided he could sustain himself by doing things that fit with his career path, leaving me to pour Bloody Marys and mimosas in peace, without his shrill ultimatums from the service station. Now he makes his money performing, costuming, running a show called TURNt at the Ritz, selling MaDd merchandise and beautifying strippers at Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club. In short, he is living the dream - he is an artist who pays the bills with his craft.


I’ve been trying to leech off of Maddy’s web presence ever since I found out how many Instagram followers he had, and he has always been gracious about it. When he agreed to give me a makeover and guide me through the IMATS, the idea was to write an immersive piece covering the tip of the iceberg that is the world of makeup. But alas, this article is shaping up to be something different, which shouldn’t come as a surprise to my editor, Lonnie, who has seen firsthand how often my work devolves into showy manifestations of my own angst. This one has taken on the gonzo feel.


Yes, I’m one of those Hunter S. Thompson fanboys. And if that’s not cool to admit, know that I’m not going for cool here - something that may end up giving me an edge in the long run since too many people these days lean on obscure, refined or timely palates to supplement their personalities. Me, I rely on my creations, derivative or not, and uh oh. . . it seems we’ve gone down a bitchy little rabbit hole here. Let’s just cap it with: “Leaders are readers.” This is according to Charlie “Tremendous” Jones, of course, and while I do believe that’s the rule, I should add that our President appears to be the exception. If Trump can get ahead without reading, anyone. . . nothing matters is what I think I’m trying to say.


“The people trying to get their shit together don’t understand there is no shit to get together,” Maddy told me once, as he rolled silverware, prepping for one of those brunch shifts of yore. I guess I needed to hear it at the time, because it stuck with me. Nihilistic reasoning is medicine for those of us who don’t see a place for ourselves at the grown-up table. I’d love a career someday, sure, but I’m committed to building one on my own terms. We’ll see how long that lasts; I’m almost 30. I’ll either succeed, break, or remain the wayward Renaissance boy who hammers too many nails to succeed at any one thing. However things pan out, I should probably start paying off my credit card debt. And on that note, here’s a letter to my editor:


 


Hey Lonnie,


I’m trying to avoid getting a 2nd restaurant job, but if it comes to that, I’ll need one that doesn’t bleed into too much of my open-mic time. Chances are I’d end up serving breakfast somewhere. I guess I could do the barista thing, but I’m afraid that culture might ruin me. Next time you go into a coffeeshop, Lonnie, try eavesdropping on all the high-minded feedback loops. They’re getting worse everyday, and to be honest, I’m starting to hate the sound of even my closest friends’ voices. Am I making sense? Nevermind. The point is: I think it might be for the best if you talk to the Outspeak machinery and secure me better payment for future articles. Then I can start writing more of them, and let’s face it - the internet could use A LOT more of me, whether it knows it or not. Maybe I can even start exploring subject matter beyond myself - a prospect that may be exciting to your people, but please let them know: it will cost them extra. If you fail to convince them to pay me enough to stave off more pink-collar work, at least make it a firm priority to get me seen, Lonnie - if not on the “front page” of The Huffington Post, then in one of your own projects. Yes, that’s right. Don’t think it slipped by me that one of your films made it onto New York Magazine’s Approval Matrix. Here’s my acting reel. Do the right thing.


Talk soon.


-AHM


 


Maddy enunciated when he told me his friend was making serious money “sucking dick through Europe.” Our Uber driver, a hard-eyed man with a chinstrap beard, stole a glance in the rearview mirror, and I shuffled in my seat to avoid his eyes. “Live your life,” Maddy reminded us, making sure to project his voice which happens to match the resonant frequency of my skull. There was no telling whether our driver took the counsel to heart, but as we inched through Manhattan traffic toward Pier 94, Maddy cut the tension with tales from the days he slammed hard drugs and rose through the ranks of the drag world on neurochemical autopilot. While those days are gone (Maddy has been sober a year and a half), he still prides himself on not having a filter, or if he has one, not indulging it. It’s a quality I admire more and more these days, as the people around me grow up and refine themselves into phonier, more sensible, versions of themselves.


At the IMATS, nobody gave my face a second glance unless they were familiar with Maddy and wanted to appraise his work. There were too many things to look at. Fantastical creatures with latex prostheses made their way through a labyrinth of exhibition booths that were peacocking for foot traffic and peddling everything from face powder to faux mucus. A moderated discussion with the prosthetics chief and the head of the makeup department for a new rash of Marvel shows was underway, and while I couldn’t process anything the people onstage were saying, I was content to wade in the 133,000-square-foot sea of overstimulation underneath Pier 94’s 26-foot-high ceiling. The packaging of cosmetics is an art in and of itself and the retailers’ attention to presentation is key in scoring impulse buys.



When Maddy wasn’t collecting freebies from familiars who were working the booths, he was dropping money that he had allotted himself for the event. It was clear he was in his element, and as I tailed him, I appreciated his ability to shift from shopping with hawk-eyed focus to schmoozing with pep and candor. I felt a general sense of calm in the space - the kind of calm I imagine people feel when there’s nowhere else they need to be. Here, at the epicenter of their world, it seemed the makeup fiends could zen out. I let Maddy in on the observation, and he shot it down, assuring me the whole place would go to shit if a makeup-tutorial YouTube star walked in.


Right before we left, the people at the Obsessive Compulsive Cosmetics stand mentioned the prospect of giving Maddellynn Hatter her own color. If a company expressed interest in hawking my brand, I might take the day off, but not Maddy. After we parted ways, he headed to the gym. The guy deserves all the success coming his way. He has been hustling for over a decade, and from what I’ve gathered, he hasn’t compromised his vision. I believe it was that guy Tai Lopez, the investor/Mensa member whose 67 Steps took him from broke to driving a Lambo through the Hollywood Hills, who tweeted: practice your skill until you are too good for people to ignore. Maddy is, for the record, and I’m working on it in my own sphere, whatever that is.


Commuting back to Brooklyn from Pier 94 with makeup on was uneventful. I scored a few “looks” but who’s to say what they meant? Certainly not me. This is New York City; it is among the most tolerant cities in the country. Getting home would’ve been more interesting if people had somehow detected that I was straight. Then I might have found myself cornered on the subway, having the ‘appropriation’ conversation with an excitable do-gooder. The theoretical one in my head is mocking me: How nice it must be to be able to play with makeup for a day without first having to endure a lifetime of homophobia or deal with the suffocating societal expectations that prime the average woman to spend about $15,000 on makeup in her lifetime.


Yes, it is nice, but I’m not keen on letting how good I have it dissuade me from seeking out innocuous new experiences. “Good.” Maddy’s voice reverberates in my head like a bee in an empty soda can.


“Don’t be a pussy,” he reminds me. Yes, that’s the idea, Maddy. A lot can and will change in the next five years, and if I haven’t achieved something serious by then, I hope I still have the chutzpah to keep doing what I’m doing - prioritizing my art, even if it’s obnoxious to the vanguard. “Don’t hope,” says another voice, somewhere in the cortex, parroting something from a Chicken Soup for the Soul vignette. “Decide.”


-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


The Best University Art Museums in America

0
0

For Architectural Digest, by Elizabeth Stamp.


While we may not all get accepted into the country’s most elite universities, visiting the museums at these top schools may be just as good (and far less expensive than four years of tuition.) Colleges across the United States show off their impressive collections of everything from antiquities to contemporary art in equally striking buildings by architects such as Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Michael Graves, and Cesar Pelli. Whether they’re located at Ivy League universities, small liberal arts schools, or big state institutions, these exceptional museums alone are worth a college tour.



RISD Museum, Providence, Rhode Island


Founded in 1877, the museum of the Rhode Island School of Design is composed of five buildings on the east side of Providence that date from 1893 to 2008, with the latest addition designed by architect Rafael Moneo. The institution’s impressive permanent collection features approximately 100,000 objects, from historic textiles to paintings by European masters to experimental video works. risdmuseum.org



Michael C. Carlos Museum, Atlanta


Emory University’s collection began in 1876 on the original campus in Oxford, Georgia, and the museum was officially founded in 1919 in Atlanta. Located in a postmodern building by architect Michael Graves, the institution is home to an extensive collection of art and artifacts from ancient times to present day, with particularly notable sections devoted to Egyptian, Greek, and Roman antiquities. carlos.emory.edu



Williams College Museum of Art, Williamstown, Massachusetts


With an emphasis on modern and contemporary works, as well as American art from the late 18th century on, the Williams College Museum of Art is a repository of more than 14,000 pieces, including the world’s largest collection of works by Charles and Maurice Prendergast. The museum is housed in Lawrence Hall, originally built in 1846 as an octogonal library by Thomas Alexander Tefft and expanded in the 1980s by architect Charles Moore. wcma.williams.edu



Weisman Art Museum, Minneapolis


Located in a spectacular Frank Gehry building along the Mississippi River, the University of Minnesota’s Weisman Art Museum brings together over 20,000 works of art, including a breadth of traditional Korean furniture, American modernist art, and ceramics. The museum also offers a rental program that permits students, employees, and university departments to display select pieces from the collection in their homes or offices. wam.umn.edu



Indiana University Art Museum, Bloomington, Indiana


The institution, which is set in a 1982 building by architect I. M. Pei, has an encyclopedic collection of more than 45,000 objects, from paintings by Monet and Picasso to a complete set of Marcel Duchamp’s 1964 “Readymades” to nearly 5,000 pieces of ancient jewelry. artmuseum.indiana.edu



Allen Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin, Ohio


Established in 1917, Oberlin College’s Allen Memorial Art Museum is located in an Italian Renaissance building designed by architect Cass Gilbert. A gallery for modern and contemporary art by the firm Venturi, Rauch, and Scott Brown was added in 1977. The museum’s collection includes more than 14,000 objects, including Dutch and Flemish paintings from the 16th and 17th centuries, Japanese woodblock prints, and modern landscape paintings by such artists as Cézanne, Monet, and Turners. The museum also oversees the Eva Hesse archives and Frank Lloyd Wright’s Weltzheimer/Johnson House. oberlin.edu/amam



Saint Louis University Museum of Art, St. Louis


Though it was founded only 13 years ago, the institution has become well established, with a collection that features artists such as Kiki Smith, Robert Rauschenberg, Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, and Claes Oldenburg. The museum occupies a Beaux Arts building that was once home to the St. Louis club, and in keeping with the school’s Jesuit tradition, the third floor is dedicated to art and artifacts from western missions. slu.edu/sluma-home


View more university art museums here.


More from Architectural Digest:


See What's Inside Donald Trump's Former Superyacht


14 of the Most Luxurious Yacht Decks


10 Incredible Ski Resorts


The 10 Best New Luxury Cruises


The World’s Best Oceanfront Hotels


10 Hotels with Unbelievably High-End Amenities



-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Is It OK To Ignore A Friend Request? Emily Post Is Here With A New Guide To Internet Etiquette

0
0

For W magazine, by Marisa Meltzer.



In a world that is constantly evolving it’s comforting to know that how we interact with one another still matters, and it is both rooted in tradition yet flexible enough to keep up with a rapidly changing and culturally diverse world.”


So begins the just-released Emily Post’s Etiquette: Manners for Today, 19th Edition (William Morrow), written by Lizzie Post (a great-great granddaughter of Emily Post) and Daniel Post Senning (a great-great-grandson). Long gone are the questions of ashtrays on the dinner table and chaperones from past editions. Etiquette, they write, is a newly relevant topic in the era of technology.


Related: Met Gala: The Must-See Bold Hair and Makeup on the Red Carpet


What they are too polite to come out and say directly is that we live in a most impolite time. Yes, the internet, social media, texting, online dating are all relatively new and we’re all trying the best we can to make up the rules as we go along. But as anyone who has so much as glanced at their Twitter mentions or realized their best friend from high school unfollowed them on Instagram can tell you, people are monsters online. (I am tempted to use a less polite word than “monsters” here but I’m making an effort.) Luckily, the Posts have some ground rules for social etiquette in our online lives.


Let’s start with conversation. The Posts liken it to a tennis volley. “Mastering the art of everyday conversation means remembering that it’s a two-way street, with thoughts and ideas shared in both directions,” they write. Trouble comes when we come face-to-face with “the electronic brick wall” of online communication. They identify the problem as a combination of the mistaken belief we are anonymous, the ease of rudeness when not saying something to one’s face, and lax social skills. The antidote all of this is to “tear down your electronic brick wall” by spending time with others IRL.


Online communication is not just easier, in many cases, but unavoidable. Luckily there’s a chapter for that. They advocate for the send delay/undo send function on email, remind us that all caps means yelling online, and to use caution when replying all. They also weigh in on FaceTime/Skype (”take care with your appearance — or what’s going on in the background — before you switch it on”) and such matters as sharing devices (“your game can wait if someone has real work to do”). They take a hard stance against “read” receipts as insulting to the recipient.


They include a case study of someone who wrote an email including some “pretty catty comments” about a poor soul named Diane. Unfortunately, Diane was accidentally sent the message. Their advice? Contact her immediately and meet up, preferably in person, and apologize. “Admit your insensitivity and tell her how terrible you feel about hurting her…Ask for forgiveness, but don’t expect the friendship to be patched up overnight.”


There is something hugely satisfying about the Posts giving you permission to act a certain way. In a chapter called Life Online, the Posts guide us through further online dilemmas. It’s okay to: Ignore a friend request, untag yourself from a photo, delete comments, unfriend someone. There is in fact a whole section on unfriending and unfollowing. For example, they advise exes with children to consider staying friends online so kids can tag both parents in photos.


Related: The Seven Lessons You Need to Date Online Today


I would love to distribute their advice on commenting far and wide through some of the more untamed spaces online (Reddit, Kylie Jenner’s Instagram selfies). When commenting, the Posts remind, “Don’t insult, attack, or impugn someone’s character or even make fun of their typing skills.” It’s also not okay to use text-speak abbreviations when not texting, or to ignore punctuation for that matter.


The section on online dating is all too brief and largely covers safety and general rules of thumb. They advise online daters not to lie or embellish their profiles at the risk of losing trust. At the same time, you don’t have to respond to everyone who messages your online dating. And please, no ghosting. That is “hurtful and inappropriate.” This is mostly geared at the traditional online dating profile à la Match.com; there is no advice for searching for love on Tinder. And for those looking for something a little less committed than that on Grindr and the like, there is no advice on how to politely hook up with near strangers. Online porn is also, predictably, left out.


Even though this new edition of Emily Post makes some real forays into the online world most of us live in — for better or worse — there is much that goes uncovered. I started to keep a list of questions inspired by modern, technology-fueled life I had wished they would weigh in on. Like, how little can you wear in a selfie and still maintain that you’re a respectable, professional person? What does it mean when a married man sends you a perfectly innocuous Instagram DM? How many pictures can you post of your baby or puppy before your Facebook friends hate you? Is it bad taste to post photos of lavish vacations? Is it weird to reference a something you Tweeted in a conversation in real life? What if someone is pretending to be you on Tumblr? Can you send them an all-caps email then?


Related: Gisele Bündchen at the Met Gala: See the Supermodel’s Best Moments on the Red Carpet


The original Emily Post said that, “Whenever two people come together and their behavior affects one another, you have etiquette.” The overarching message of the book is that it’s not our fault we are confused by these matters; it’s human nature. It takes practice to remember that every interaction, whether it’s online or off, affects other people and to act accordingly. And that is what it means to mind your manners.


And for those with conundrum that aren’t answered in the book, there is hope online. In their introduction to this edition, the Posts plug their podcast Awesome Etiquette and website for further advice. That’s apparently entirely appropriate.


More from W Magazine:


Kendall Jenner’s Most Jaw-Dropping Looks


Throwback: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in Domestic Bliss


Kim Kardashian Goes Fully Nude in W Magazine



-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Celebrate Body Positivity With Outspeak

0
0

May is Body Positivity Month here at Outspeak and we’re going to be celebrating bodies of all shapes and sizes, and exploring our complicated relationships with them.


Over the course of the month, Outspeak will cover topics such as illness and disability, fitness, body dysmorphia and eating disorders, self-expression through physical means, media representation, and misconceptions about bodies. There’s a lot to talk about when it comes to our flesh vessels, so let’s get this conversation going.


If you currently have a video, or are interested in creating one related to body positivity, send it to us via Facebook or Twitter. Or email your submissions to social@outspeak.tv.


Your video has the opportunity to be featured on Huffington Post’s massive social media pages, on Outspeak social media, and you have the chance to be featured in an article on HuffingtonPost.com. For an example of how these features look. Check out our recent #YourVoteYourVoice Election campaign.


Please keep the following in mind for your videos:



  • Make sure you’re shooting in a well-lit, non-distracted environment.

  • Keep the shots well-composed and in focus.

  • Keep the video short. 1-2 minutes preferred.

  • Keep the video focused on one theme. People will listen if you can speak focused and passionately.

  • Take a unique approach. How is this personal to you? Why is this issue in particular something you’re passionate about?

  • Do not use offensive or derogatory language. If used maliciously or recklessly, your video will not be considered for circulation.


If you have any questions, please contact us at social@outspeak.tv or give us a shout on Twitter.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

While Jeff Sessions Belittles Pacific Islands, Poet Teaches Resistance

0
0

Speaking on a conservative talk radio show last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions denounced a decision issued by Derrick K. Watson, a federal judge in Hawaii, blocking Trump’s Muslim travel ban: “I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power.”


In one sentence, Sessions turned “island” and “Pacific” into swear words, and expelled Hawaii from the United States. Presumably, for Sessions, had the judge been sitting someplace in the real world, someplace that matters, like St. Louis or Dallas, that might have been home to a more credible challenge to Trump’s travel ban. But an island in the Pacific? Contemptuous.


Sessions’ sneering remark must feel familiar to so many Pacific Islanders whose lands and lives have been the playthings of imperial powers—especially the United States. It reveals an attitude which, in the shadow of the climate crisis, has genocidal implications.



I spent this past week with Kathy Jetñil-Kijiner, a remarkable spoken word artist from the Marshall Islands, located in the Pacific Ocean about halfway between Hawaii and Australia. The Portland Public Schools Climate Justice Committee had hired Jetñil-Kijiner to perform her poetry and lead writing workshops with students and staff in Portland, Oregon, middle schools and high schools.


Jetñil-Kijiner began most of her presentations with a poem that described an incident when she was a 15-year-old high school student, then living in Hawaii. She had entered a history project competition, designing a poster-board presentation on nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. From 1946 to 1958 the United States tested 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands. As Washington Post writer Dan Zak noted in his article, “A Ground Zero Forgotten,” if these weapons’ “combined explosive power was parceled evenly over that 12-year period, it would equal 1.6 Hiroshima-size explosions per day.”


In her poem “History Project,” Jetñil-Kijiner recalls herself as a curious high schooler, and describes what she learned about how these explosions poisoned people in the Marshall Islands:



Jetñil-Kijiner lost the high school History Project competition. When she performed her piece for Portland students, she acknowledged the poem’s sad and sudden end: “And I lost.” She noted that this conclusion underscores the enormity of loss in the Marshalls—no one will ever be able to live on radioactive Bikini Atoll; the carcinogenic legacy in the Marshalls is one of the worst in the world—and in her workshops, Jetñil-Kijiner asked students to reflect on the connection between nuclear testing and climate change.



Students were astute: They both concern the loss of land, of culture, of voices. As Jetñil-Kijiner summed up, “We know about losing islands. We come to the climate change issue with this background.”


Sessions’ flip dismissal of islands in the Pacific holds up a mirror to the Trump administration’s dismissal of climate change, which promises a future of rising oceans, devastating superstorms, and drought, with life-changing consequences for people in the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Niue, the Ryukyu Islands, and too many others to name. In fact, for many, this is not the future, this is the present. It’s why people in frontline communities demand a global commitment to policies that keep the climate from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times. Anything less ambitious is a cultural death warrant. Instead, Trump celebrates coal-burning, nominates a climate denial champion to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and threatens to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord.


For Portland students, Kathy Jetñil-Kijiner performed her poem, “Tell Them,” about what she wants the world to know about the Marshall Islands, especially the threat of climate change:



As Jetñil-Kijiner told students, “Every reef has a story, a chant, a song.” We are nothing without our islands.


The writer Wendell Berry once wrote that social elites “cannot take any place seriously because they must be ready at any moment, by the terms of power and wealth in the modern world, to destroy any place.” In an unguarded moment on a conservative talk radio show, Jeff Sessions offered a perfect illustration of this insight.


Pacific Islands? No one who matters lives there. People there are invisible—at least to Sessions and his ilk.



That’s the bad news. The good news is that Pacific Island poet-prophets like Kathy Jetñil-Kijiner are helping us wake up to the climate emergency. In “Dear Matafele Peinam,” the poem Jetñil-Kijiner addressed to her daughter, and performed at the UN Secretary General’s Climate Summit in 2014—and to almost 1,000 students in 18 sessions last week in Portland—she blasts a warning about the catastrophe-in-the-making, but also trumpets the growing climate movement. “There are those who see us,” she says:



Bill Bigelow is curriculum editor of Rethinking Schools magazine and co-director of the Zinn Education Project. He co-edited A People’s Curriculum for the Earth: Teaching Climate Change and the Environmental Crisis.


The Zinn Education Project is a collaboration between Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change. Learn more about the Zinn Education Project and how you can help bring people’s history to the classroom.


© 2017 The Zinn Education Project.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Martha Cooper Solo Exhibition Reveals Many Unseen 'Action Shots' in New York

0
0

An intrepid photographer who has launched a million dreams (and perhaps a few thousand careers) in graffiti and Street Art with her photography that captured crucial and seminal aspects of our culture that others overlooked.


That is just one way of seeing this brand new collection of images by Martha Cooper that is spread across one wall featuring artists at work, sometimes intimately. Here is where you see 102 individual shots of artists at work, a stunning testament to the range of art-making techniques that are practiced in the public realm, as well as a testament to the passion and curiosity of the woman behind the lens.



For Ms. Cooper’s first solo photography show in New York, Steven Kasher Gallery is featuring 30 new editions of her legendary street art photographs, the ones that have burned themselves into the collective memory of New York and of our streets in the 1970s and 1980s. While her photographs in the 1984 seminal “Subway Art” and her early Hip Hop street shots may be what she is most known for by artists and collectors and fans in cities around the world to which she travels, the new exhibit also contains more than a foreshadowing into the vast collection of important images she has not shown to us.


Clearly she could fill her own museum with the ephemera she has collected as well; the books, clothing articles, black books, stickers, personal drawings that capture her eye and invoke a conversation that happened in the street, under ground, in the train yards. Some of the ephemera is here in a vitrine, much too small to contain everything – for additional context and perhaps to burnish the “living legend” Street Cred that one gains by sticking in the trenches with artists over many decades.


This week during the installation of the show Ms. Cooper also shared with us the valuable history that illustrates the significance of some of the pieces.



Of a 1982 vest painted by graffiti writer Caine1, she explains that shortly after he made the vest for her he was shot – and the photo of the train with the skyline is a memorial to him. A photo spread of a train painted by graffiti writer Spin from that same year is accompanied by the original sketch he did for it in carefully drawn bold letters aimed at the New York Mayor who made war against graffiti, “Dump Koch”. The Keith Haring drawing and dedication in her note book we recognize because she brought it with her to the Haring exhibit dinner at the Brooklyn Museum a few years ago, occasionally bringing it out to show to other guests. Next to it a photo of Martha as a small child, camera in hand, the daughter of a photographer and camera store owner in Baltimore. These are objects and memories that have great meaning to her, and to many others who will see this collection.


This is not a retrospective but it is the first time a New York gallery has dedicated a serious solo show to a photographer whose work has received numerous tributes throughout the world, including the dedication of a new library in her name in the Urban Nation museum in Berlin opening this September. In many ways it is remarkable that aside from the Museum of The City of New York no major museum in New York has recognized the invaluable contributions her professional life’s work has made to the city, let alone to the history of graffiti, hip hop, Street Art, photography, popular culture.



As appreciable as the well-mounted collection here is, it is a small, potent sampling of Cooper’s careers as a photographer, documentarian, ethnographer, preservationist, and reporter worldwide over a half century of travel and investigation. Without these images, crucial information about the creators, techniques and culture of graffiti and Street Art and the culture of art in the streets would be unknown. Yet she’s eager to share more of her many excursions of study into other cultures and subcultures, like traditional tattooing in Japan, and a project comparing two neighborhoods in Baltimore and Southwest Township, South Africa, and a uniquely artful recycling program in Brazil. Even the simple practices of city kids at play has often captured her attention and she has documented it for decades.


The last few years have been a whirlwind of global travel for Ms. Cooper, including trips to nearly every continent for Street Art festivals, graffiti jams, museum and gallery exhibitions, and special events in her honor – she even gave a TED talk in Vienna recently. Taking a moment to cool her heels back in NYC, this show gives us a glimpse into the outstanding and valuable historical archives that Ms. Cooper is turning her attention to these days.



“This show is important to me at this time because I’m at a point in my life where I want to shoot less and organize my archives more,” she tells us. “I’ve been a professional photographer since 1968, almost 50 years. Exhibits help me think about how my work fits together. I want people to see me as a photographer first, not only a documenter of graffiti and hip hop.”


“Having a show at a gallery that specializes in photography helps accomplish this goal. Although I was never interested in being a fine art photographer, I’m happy and somewhat surprised to see that my photographs have a collectible value.” Modest about her talents as usual, even Martha appears to not realize the value of her contribution to so many and so much of the culture.



BSA: Is this your first solo exhibition in NYC?
Martha Cooper: Not really. I had a solo Street Play exhibition at the Museum of the City of New York in 1980, I had a lot of exhibits that Akim Walta organized when Hip Hop Files came out in 2004. I also had the NYCasitas show in East Harlem last year, and there have been others. However it’s my first solo exhibition in NYC at a photography gallery.


BSA: Is this sort of a retrospective?
MC: Again–not really. Although there are photos from 1970 (tattoo) to 2016, there are major projects that this exhibit doesn’t include–for example all the documentation I did for City Lore, or in Baltimore. My archive contains many, many more topics and projects than are included in this exhibit so I don’t want to call it a retrospective. This show is heavy on graffiti and street art with a couple of photos each from Tokyo Tattoo and New York State of Mind.












Martha Cooper
Exhibition: April 20th – June 3rd, 2017
Opening Reception: Thursday, April 20th, 6-8PM


Steven Kasher Gallery
515 West 26th Street, NYC


____________________


Please note: All content including images and text are © BrooklynStreetArt.com, unless otherwise noted. We like sharing BSA content for non-commercial purposes as long as you credit the photographer(s) and BSA, include a link to the original article URL and do not remove the photographer’s name from the .jpg file. Otherwise, please refrain from re-posting. Thanks!


A version of this article is also posted on Brooklyn Street Art here.


Read all posts by Steven P. Harrington and Jaime Rojo on The Huffington Post HERE.


See new photos and read scintillating interviews every day on BrooklynStreetArt.com


Follow us on Instagram @bkstreetart


See our TUMBLR page

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

A Profile of Daniel Deivison-Oliveira, Soloist at San Francisco Ballet

0
0

Daniel Deivison-Oliveira joined San Francisco Ballet in 2005 and was promoted to Soloist in 2011. I first saw him in 2006. It was my first assignment. The occasion – a matinee, the final performance of the Company’s previous production of Swan Lake. The dual roles of Odette / Odile were danced by Lorena Feijóo. Davit Karapetyan appeared as Siegfried. Life was never the same and both superstars have just bid their farewells. ”I was Apprentice for a month,” said Daniel, “and then Corps after that. I danced in the Act I ‘Peasants’ and the Act III ‘Czardas’.”


How did he land at San Francisco Ballet?



“I went to the YAGP competition in New York. Through that, I got a lot of offers for either a contract or a school scholarship including with Canada's National Ballet School, some in Germany, Alvin Ailey, and American Ballet Theatre. Kevin McKenzie [Artistic Director of ABT] offered me an invitation. I was 16 and he thought I was too young to join the company, but would take me when I turned 18. I was also offered an apprenticeship with San Francisco Ballet for 2003, but I had a fight with my teacher. So, it didn’t work out for me to come here and I stopped dancing for a while. In 2004, I was contacted by San Francisco Ballet saying they had a school company they were starting. Then my dad got involved and I came here. I became one of the pioneers in the training program.”



“Coming from Brazil, famous companies such as ABT, Paris Opera, Royal Ballet were always out there. Every kid wants to be in one of those companies because they hear so much about them. I had never heard of San Francisco Ballet. Back then – in Brazil and also South America – I was one of the most talented of the kids and the men in my age group. I say that because of the number of competitions I went to. My name was appearing in the newspapers, on television, the arts world. It never went to my head. I was doing very well and was ready to take another step – such as the opportunity to leave Brazil. My thinking back then was that I wanted to spend a few years outside, to see what was going on, then go back to Brazil and my family. I’m very attached to my family. I believe I made the best decision in coming here. But it wasn’t easy.”


Daniel’s bio on SFBallet.com reflects the company’s amazing range of repertoire and its diverse roster of choreographers. His strong technique, athletic drive and artistic insight commands our attention, especially through the (sometimes challenging) contemporary works and – on the other end – the anticipated demands of a dramatic role such as “Tybalt” in Tomasson’s Romeo and Juliet.



“It’s up to you – your level of artistry – to come up with something. The choreographer should not have to say something like, ‘Smile here, look sad there.’ Even though I’m classically trained and take class every day to maintain my technique – I’m very into the modern and new classical works. But I would like to do Romeo. I’m at my best whenever I have an acting role. It’s what I enjoy performing the most. It’s only a matter of opportunity. I’ve also done Von Rothbart in Swan Lake, the Moor in Petrouchka, the Kaschei in Firebird. There is a tendency for me to play the bad guys. But tonight I have Wheeldon’s Within the Golden Hour – third pas de deux, principal and Tomasson’s Trio – second movement, principal. For me, it’s the most interesting part of the ballet. He has said certain things about what it represents. I do a pas de deux with Lauren Strongin – we look like we are enjoying what we’re doing, we’re in love. Suddenly, another guy comes in. He represents death. He begins pulling her away and eventually takes her away. Technically, I don’t see him. It’s like – omigod, where are you going? I move from smiles and enjoyment to suffering and regret. I would definitely enjoy dancing ‘the bad guy’ – but, in this piece, I’m happy with my role. Whatever the music is – you have to create a mood even though there may be no character, no story.”


I told Daniel that every time I attend The Nutcracker I wonder how many kids out in the audience will wind up in a ballet class the following January. His countless appearances have no doubt sparked many an imagination. What would his advice be to the kid, especially the boy, who thinks he may want to continue with ballet and knows he must compete?



“How much do you want to do this? Where do you see yourself? You will always have to keep up with these things in order to get these other things.


“It’s hard to see somebody who has everything they want in their life. I never wanted to have everything I ever wanted, because that would have made me lazy. It would make me stop being as hard-working as I am – to stay focused, disciplined. It has always been really hard for me. But I can’t complain. I am so blest to be a healthy person. I have a fantastic and supportive family. I understood that difficulties would come, but it was up to me to surpass them in order to achieve my objectives. And I’m still doing that! Every day it’s a different fight. When I was sixteen and started getting lots of attention and opportunity, I realized I could become something out of it. I’ve always had an image of what I wanted to be and where I wanted to be. That has helped me to stay focused and surpass the difficulties – whether it was the separation from my people, my home country or the financial struggles I had at the beginning. Going to ballet class and doing my best work every day, I knew that at some point – no matter how long it took – I would get there.”


I asked Daniel about his greatest difficulty. What is the ‘demon’ he deals with?



“Distance. Every time I go home – my parents are older, my nephew is older. I feel like I have missed so much of their lives because I only go home once a year – every May. Every time I get there, something is different. I have memories of the day I left, how young I was and how everyone looked. When you’re younger you don’t realize some things – how important it is to save money, to be polite, to pay attention to certain things while you’re busy doing something else. I was a different type of younger person. Even as a boy, I felt mature. I had all these priorities. My priorities have changed. I still have a lot of time – a lot of years still left in my legs. But I don’t know how much longer I can take being away from my parents, from my family. I don’t want to have regrets. So, I need to figure out how I can still do what I do and be closer to them.”


“At some point, I would like to move to Europe. It has become so difficult for Brazilians to move to America, because of governmental issues. My parents have never been able to come to San Francisco to see me perform – because of the government. But every time I go to Europe they come to watch me. When I first came here I spoke no English. I had no friends, no money. I had to deal with that situation for a long time before I felt comfortable. Learning English was the easiest thing I had to do. I had my dictionary, I watched movies. A year later, I had a Spanish roommate. He spoke absolutely no English. I knew a few things in Spanish, but not really. As time passed, I realized I was speaking fluent Spanish. Today, my Spanish is on the same level as my English.”



Daniel and I found vocabulary-in-common when I asked what piece of music he would choose to have choreographed on him / just for him. He’s already thought about that. “Can I have more than one?” Sure. He listed four. His category of choice – Opera.


“The flower duet from Lakmé [‘Sous le dôme épais’]; O mio babbino caro [from Gianni Schicchi]; the aria of the Queen of the Night [from Magic Flute, ‘Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen’ aka ‘The vengeance of Hell boils in my heart’]; and every Olympic skater’s favorite aria-without-words competition solo, ‘Nessun dorma’ [from Turandot].”


And his choice of choreographers? That took a moment.


“Val Caniparoli, Christopher Wheeldon, and Yuri Possokhov. I’ve done many pieces by these choreographers – and wonderful ballets by many other choreographers. But you’re asking me to name three, right off – and where I felt I really did something? It would have to be Val Caniparoli for O mio babbino caro; Wheeldon for Lakmé; and Possokhov for Nessun Dorma and the Queen of the Night.”


Perfect. Let’s all bend over backwards and make it so!



-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

The Handmaid’s Tale, Episode 4: What’s So Scary About Women?

0
0

Trigger warning: This post contains discussion about rape, sexual abuse and mistreatment of women.


Spoiler alert: Don’t read unless you have watched the first four episodes of Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale.


The Handmaid’s Tale has a sense of humor, you guys! Gay people are always coming out of the closet to survive. Offred goes into the closet to find the strength to save herself. How hilarious!


Last week the show finished on a highly disturbing note: The government essentially turned Ofglen into a Barbie. It was pointed out to me that the shot was highly stylized, Ofglen sporting a futuristic-looking, transparent girdle over her mangled vagina. The ugliness of their world is made more unsettling by its gauzy, jewel-toned beauty.


Episode 4, “Nolite Te Bastardes Carborundorum” (Don’t Let the Bastards Grind You Down), this week’s slower-paced installment, was practically a frothy relief, full of flashbacks featuring Moira and Offred/June making an escape from the high school gym/Stepford training camp. In Gilead women have to hurt each other in order to stay alive. Patriarchal societies rely on women turning against one another, which is not a novel concept; we live this reality every day in American society.


I’ve been frustrated with the landscape of American politics as of late. Michelle Obama said, “When they go low, we go high.” Don’t we, though? It’s a liberal curse in a way. Moira couldn’t stomach really hurting Aunt Elizabeth during the escape. She left her oppressor tied to a pole, screaming, a choice that threatened Moira’s safe passage. Pointing out Moira’s compassion is victim-blaming to an extent; I recognize this, but I think it’s OK to feel disappointed when a character chooses the moral high ground over revenge or even personal security. We know Moira’s a feminist, the flashbacks showed that, so it’s her values and her human decency that dictate her behavior. She sticks to her beliefs despite the stress and the torture she’s endured at the hands of other women. One could argue that Moira maintaining her sense of self, her identity, even in the worst conditions is, itself, survival.


The Commander flouts convention several times, exposing his discomfort with the strict rules of Gilead. He attempts to connect with Offred before his state-sanctioned monthly raping. He can’t get it up. He runs away. He plays a mean game of Scrabble with the prisoner. And yet, he’s not blameless, is he? When his wife offers strategy on dealing with an Aunt who defected to Canada, he abruptly shuts her down, saying essentially, “Sweetie, us men have it under control.”


The heart of Gilead’s doctrine and its structure is female oppression. Even their common greeting, “Blessed be the fruit,” alludes to female reproduction. Gilead reveres reproduction while criminalizing female sexuality, which begs the question, what’s so dangerous about sex and women?


Is the fear that women, with their beguiling ways, lead good men like the Commander astray? Offred does use her sexuality to manipulate her way out of Serena Joy’s punishment. Is it Eve leading Adam down the garden path all over again?


Only women can bring life into the world. In Gilead, babies are big business, and the womb, along with everything else connected to it, belongs to the government. By subverting women, men gain control over the future. Men are able to steal the reproductive process to further their own ends. Therefore, repression of female sexuality isn’t only about fear, it’s about power.


See you next week for Episode 5. Until then, I’ll meet you on Twitter.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


Star Wars Is More Political Than You Think

0
0





It’s May the 4th, which means it’s time to celebrate Star Wars Day. While we’re eagerly awaiting the next Episode 8 trailer, it’s a good day to reflect on the enormity of what George Lucas has built over the past forty years.


On the surface Star Wars deals with the battle between good and evil, an ancient one at that. But the journey of our heroes, in both the original and prequel trilogies, are set against a backdrop of complex political strife and oppression. The films, at their core, explore the nuanced relationship between a state and its people, and how a democracy can slip into a strict dictatorship.


George Lucas has admitted that one of the biggest influences on the series was the Nixon era. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Lucas said Star Wars “was really about the Vietnam War, and that was the period where Nixon was trying to run for a [second] term, which got me to thinking historically about how do democracies get turned into dictatorships? Because the democracies aren't overthrown; they're given away."


Lucas has also expressed that Emperor Palpatine, or Darth Sidious, was directly inspired by Nixon, which makes a lot of sense given the the nose. In “The Making of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi,” when asked if Emperor Palpatine was a Jedi at one point in his life, Lucas responded, “No, he was a politician. Richard M. Nixon was his name. He subverted the senate and finally took over and became an imperial guy and he was really evil. But he pretended to be a really nice guy.”



But the political inspirations didn’t stop at the original trilogy. Say what you will about the prequels, but revisiting them will show you that Lucas held fast to his political ideology and used his massive entertainment franchise to comment on and predict the Bush administration.


Once again, Lucas drew connections between real life political figures and those in his cinematic universe. In a New York Times interview, Lucas explained that “Anakin Skywalker is a promising young man who is turned to the dark side by an older politician and becomes Darth Vader.” He added, “George Bush is Darth Vader. Cheney is the Emperor.”


The prequels allowed Lucas to fully explore how a people’s republic can turn into an empire. While the original films were largely reactionary to the politics of the time, the prequels were occurring simultaneously to the War on Terror, and it reflects in the films as we see a non-conflict blown up into something that represents absolute patriotism, and the gradual decline into the creation of the Galactic Empire.


Most famously, Lucas got some heat for giving Anakin a line of dialogue that was almost verbatim from a Bush speech. Anakin says to Obi Wan before his ultimate betrayal, “If you’re not with me then you’re my enemy.” Bush’s line was, ““You’re either with us or you’re with the enemy.”


The question is, how will the new era of Star Wars deal with the underlying politics of the universe in the Trump era? Now that Disney holds the keys to the Star Wars universe, they’ve been adamant about them not being political. Some Trump supporters went as far as to boycott Rogue One because they said it was a slight against The Donald. However, Disney chief executive Bob Iger made the absurd claim, “Frankly, this is a film that the world should enjoy. It is not a film that is, in any way, a political film.” The film’s plot centers around rebelling against an oppressive tyrant. That is at least, in some way, political.


With the new trilogy under way, it begs the question of whether Disney’s team will stay true to Lucas’ political influence, and use the billion dollar franchise to comment on the Trump administration. If the original inspiration for Star Wars was to explore how a democracy turns into a dictatorship, certainly this is more relevant now than ever.



-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

'The Promise' Is An Artful Reminder Of The Horror Of The Armenian Genocide

0
0

The surprise film of the year may well be The Promise, about the Ottoman Empire’s massacre of 1.5 million Armenians (the Armenian Genocide), on which Turkey is still in denial. A hundred years ago, both my parents’ families escaped certain death. That makes me the son of holocaust survivors. A part of me does not want to revisit the 1915 horrors. And yet I know that by doing so we understand better our current world.


What choice do we have but to face up to such human cruelty in the past if we are indeed to transcend it in our time?


Growing up in my Armenian family in Cairo, Egypt, I recall fondly the sound of Turkish, a language I learned from my grandma Peka and grandpa Asadour, who were from the village of Adana. Where cultures coexisted, as they did in that part of Eurasia, they shared the same foods and beverages; however, after we emigrated to Toronto, my mother Lucie would insist on only serving “Armenian coffee”—not Turkish.


In my autobiography, The Life Of A Children’s Troubadour, I included first hand accounts of my parents’ families’ flight from annihilation. Here’s an excerpt:



Both my parents’ parents came from the part of Armenia that was under Turkish occupation at the turn of the century, part of the substantial Armenian territory that international geopolitics left within Turkish borders. Although Armenian was my mother tongue, in my family Turkish was spoken as well, especially with Peka Grandma.


Like all Armenians of my generation, I was taught from a young age about the Armenian genocide, the systematic deportation and death of a million or more Armenians by Turkish authorities. April 24, 1915, is the origin of the annual April 24th Remembrance of Armenians’ greatest tragedy, one that nationals inside the country and abroad observe. The hope is that one day officials in Turkey will open their archives and concede the past infamy, so that reconciliation may begin the healing of this gaping wound in the Armenian community.


In the words of [my mother] Lucie, from an audio-tape recording:


“My father was married, and had three girls; when the Turks came to take them away from their home, he put the girls on a donkey with his wife, kissed them, and said good-bye, that’s all; everything was finished.


My mother was married once before, before marrying my father. When the Turks began the massacre, they took her husband to jail. Meantime she had a son. When the son was five months old, news came that they hanged her husband. On hearing this, her breast milk went bad, and she had fever. The child suffered, became ill and died. When the Turks ordered the evacuation, she had to quickly gather her things; they didn’t let her bury the infant.


My parents met after the war. My father was such a good storyteller, I was able to visualize everything. He was sentenced to death seven times. But each time he was interrogated, it was learned he was a building foreman and he was set free because he could be of use.


My father Arto was a baby when his father Ohannes used his wits and exceptional artistry at a critical moment to get his family exempted from deportation the following day. Again, in Lucie’s words:


That night, as they were huddled in a room, he found a small picture of the general commanding officer in charge. His name was Jemal Pasha. Ohannes found this small picture and he said to my mother-in-law, “Give the milk to the child (my husband Arto, then one month old) and take this candle in your hand, I’m going to draw.” So he found a big piece of paper, and he drew from night to morning, a black-and-white charcoal portrait of the commanding officer—the last hope.


Somehow, Ohannes managed to get Jemal Pasha to see his portrait.


The general said, “Bring the artist.” Ohannes was summoned to the general’s hotel, Hotel Baron, a big hotel. “Who did this portrait?” “I did.” “Go, quickly, take your family. From now on, you will be the drawing instructor of our school in Aleppo.” [This was 1916. Aleppo, then among the chief cities of Asiatic Turkey, is now in Syria]. Ohannes agreed, and saved twenty-five to thirty people from the deportation caravan, by saying they were family, aunts and uncles.


The family stayed a while in Aleppo, then went to Jerusalem. In the Armenian Quarter there, Ohannes prayed his gratitude to God: “You saved us from the massacre, now I’m going to do something for you.” He met with the Patriarch of the Armenian convent, the St. James convent. For nine months, on ladders, like Michelangelo, Ohannes repaired the wall paintings of the convent, for no pay. The family lived in the convent, along with other refugees. And the Patriarch gave to our family a painting of the Last Supper, done on black velvet, in appreciation. [Framed, it hung in our home for as long as I can recall.]



Decades later, that my family survived the genocide fills me with an obligation to revisit those stories, and to share them once again. Seeing the film The Promise opened up the ancient wound once again. Armenian intellectuals rounded up and killed, entire villages evacuated, the horrors of that dreadful time reminded me of the historical pain my parents carried all their lives. Once again, I was moved to tears. And I sense that if millions see this film around the world, they might understand that had the international community been able to come to the aid of the Armenians in 1915, the WW2 holocaust of Jews perpetrated by Nazi Germany might have been prevented. Imagine that change in the course of history.


I urge you to see this exceptional movie, The Promise: a film which deals with the Armenian tragedy artfully. You’ll be entertained, informed, and moved to tears.


Raffi Cavoukian, C.M., O.B.C., is a singer, author, and founder of the Centre For Child Honouring. He holds four honorary degrees and has received the Order of Canada and Order of BC awards. Raffi is a passionate children’s advocate, and a defender of democracy.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Why Your Writer’s Block Doesn’t Have To Be A Silent Killer

0
0

As writers, good thoughts tend to come and go; although it seems the best thoughts always come when you don’t have a pen or pencil. It is kind of funny how it works. Then once we get a pen and paper we lose the train of thought we once had before, leaving us wishing we could remember. This is what we call… writer’s block.


I have clearly had a large case of writer’s block and the only thing I can think to write about is writer’s block, but it is actually very hard to do. It is very hard to have a creative mind, one that allows your thought to grow all the time, to develop into something larger than just a thought.


As a writer, you think more about what the readers will think, than the way you write. Because we writers write for more than ourselves. We write for a purpose. A purpose to help someone who is going through the same situations as we have or we are currently going through now, and to create more creative minds around the world. Because we too need a little reading challenge.


I cannot speak for other writers but I personally enjoy reading as much as I enjoy writing. With writing, you have a story to tell but with reading, you have a story to understand, it is the best of both worlds. Plus reading actually keeps your brain sharp. Plus sometimes when reading you pick up a certain word or phrase that creates those energetic juices inside your brain which can regenerate those thoughts and ta-da, you’re able to write again. That is step number one to relieving writer’s block, read.


Step two involves a little more socializing, but it can be very helpful. Just like reading you can also pick up those creative energetic juices by having a conversation. It doesn’t have to be a sit-down, hour-long conversation but sometimes one on one interaction does go a long way.


If those two steps didn’t help I do have one more idea, it just costs more time and money. If anyone reads the rest of my blogs you’ll know exactly what step number three is: traveling.Traveling is so helpful not just with writing but with everything in life as you get to understand new languages, new cultures and see beautiful landscapes. Each one of those new adventures allows for your mind to adapt to the new things you’re learning. Next thing you know, you’ll be writing as much as you possibly can because your creative juices have returned. In all seriousness give it a try, it can be an hour down the road or across the country but either way, you’re traveling and experiencing new things.


If none of these steps work for you I suggest taking a you day. A day spent with only yourself but spent doing the things you like doing. Learn what makes you smile, learn what makes you laugh, learn what you want your life to look like because emotions are good to have, and even better to understand. Then hopefully you’ll find something to write about.


Remember one thing: You are alive with possibilities. You just need to find them.


Originally written by Ashlyn Thomson on Unwritten.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

How Technology Has Stripped Away The Meaning Of A Photo

0
0

 


“THAT’S SUCH A KODAK MOMENT.”

Remember when a photo used to mean something.


Captivating sceneries and sunsets were taken to remember family vacations 10 years from now. Group photos were a mix of gushing, saying cheese, smiling, and taking in the wonderful “Kodak moment” you were able to capture.


As much as I am thankful for the ease and efficiency that technology has brought to our lives, with each and every technological advancement, I feel as though the essence of every action is being diluted. Taking a photo, sending a text message, capturing a video, reading an article, clicking “like” to tell someone congratulations. These were all mediums that used to have some meaning. Sending postcards with cheesy-commercialized photos of your vacation destination’s major landmarks used to be the norm. I have memories of filling up every inch of space on the back of those postcards trying to successfully describe to my grandparents how much fun I was having in Disney World in 200 words or less, even if that required me to write vertically. It’s scary to think that suggesting to our future children that they send their grandparents a postcard will be obsolete. Why would they send a postcard when they can just FaceTime Grandma and Grandpa instead?


A picture now could be a screenshot, an Instagram post, a selfie, a Snapchat with a fancy filter; the possibilities really are endless. We take pictures to provide people with a play-by-play of our daily activities. If you’re ever wondering where someone is, try checking their Snapstory, or Insta-story, or yes even their Facebook-Messenger “Day.”


I have always had an infatuation with photography (so you can imagine my instant obsession when Instagram became a thing). I love how so much can be captured in a photo: emotion, ambiance, scenery.


A PICTURE LITERALLY IS A THOUSAND WORDS.

As much as Instagram has exponentially increased photographers’ exposure, I feel that it has also taken away from the talent associated with the art form. Now anyone can take a mediocre photo, slap a filter on it and claim that they possess photographic talent. Photography is so much more than filters and photoshop edits. There’s aperture, shutter speeds, the rule of thirds, etc. As someone who has taken photography classes, invested in a DSLR, and took pride in capturing that perfect photo it’s bittersweet to hear that every time a new iPhone is released, the camera is that much better. “Shot with an iPhone 6” and “Professional quality in your pocket.” It’s great that these technological advancements have increased accessibility and exposure of the medium, but it also hurts to hear professional photographers be discredited and have their talents diminished. A photo is so much more than just how clear the camera is and how far you slid the exposure setting on your phone’s editing features.


We are not all professional photographers.


Now, this rise in camera access has also lead to a rise in seemingly-random models and “public figures” (aka people sharing what they do, what products they use, etc.). While public figures have risen as a new guerilla marketing campaign for companies, I can’t help but wonder how sustainable this obsession with what other people do is. If anything, it’s definitely not healthy for our self-esteem.


The argument has been made that our generation is narcissistic; constantly taking photos of ourselves, the outfits we wear, the food we eat, the air we are currently breathing. Well yeah, no sh*t we all have a little bit of narcissism in us. When the technology exists to update the world on your every move and thought, sooner or later you’re going to take advantage of it.


And this idea that technology has turned forms of communication and media topsy-turvy applies to a lot more than just the visual space. Hell, 10 years ago the idea of me periodically sharing my thoughts with the world via blogs and online articles was far from existence. So maybe when all is said and done I’m just being one hell of a hypocrite? Could be, I really don’t know.


What I do know is that I miss the days of getting in front of the disposable camera during family vacations, smiling ear to ear in front of Cinderella’s castle in Disney World as my father said “cheese.” Those memories and developed photos were something I cherished, and whether it’s fortunate or unfortunate that I can just search the “Disney World” location on Instagram’s discovery is still up for debate.


Originally written by Alex Duffield on Unwritten.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Does The Party In Power Determine The Monsters In Our Blockbusters?

0
0





The political party governing Americans has a giant influence on the everyday. Generally, their ideologies are reflected through their policies which ultimately shape opinion and culture. The complicated relationship between a people and their government comes to dictate the fears and causes of a generation (anyone remember the war on terror?), and all the triumphs. However, do the politicians in power even go so far as to determine the monsters in our blockbusters?


Short answer ― not directly. Horror movies work primarily by making the familiar into a strange and uncanny force that threatens to consume us. By preying on cultural fears, good horror movies reflect the uncertainties of the modern era.


That’s often the reason why a horror movie that was endeared by a generation of viewers a decade ago can seem stale to modern audiences. However, certain films’ legacies remain long after their theatrical release and stand the test of time. Although ‘The Exorcist’ came along at the height of the Satanic Panic, the film endures thanks to powerful performances, strong direction, and using that cultural fear simply as a thematic undercurrent.



Thematic undercurrents are those weird little ideas you actually have to think about after you walk out of the cinema. It’s not the type of thing that the movie says to you outright. No, it’s something that is presented once you look a little deeper.


In an effort to look deeper, we here at Outspeak examined the relationship between horror movie monsters and the political party in power. When a Republican is in power we get zombies and when a Democrat is in power we get vampires. Each monster represents the fears of the opposition power.


Vampires represent fears of homosexuality, godlessness, and are typically immigrants. One doesn’t have to look long at Donald Trump or Mike Pence’s policy positions to understand why this fits the bill. It’s clear that vampires with their sexy blood drinking attitudes are a threat to American values. Their eternal lives pose a bigger threat to healthcare than Obamacare.


Zombies on the other hand represent everything a Democrat despises: brainless consumers trained to turn others into their way of thinking. President Obama fought for years so that the American people wouldn’t be mindlessly eating Trump steaks and slowly converting every person in America over to a straight white male world view.


Now that we’ve spent far too much time on the subject, it’s interesting to consider just how President Trump will bring on the new zombie apocalypse. 2017 is shaping up to be a massive for zombies at the box office. Luckily there’s plenty of movies out there for us to watch and learn how to resist.



-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Oliver Stone On Interviewing Putin, Documenting Snowden, And Making Controversial Choices

0
0

From “Platoon” and “Born on the Fourth of July” to “Snowden,” director Oliver Stone’s film projects have zoomed in on some tough topics and larger-than-life figures. In this week’s edition of “Scheer Intelligence,” Stone—who is not one to shy away from challenges or controversies—tells Robert Scheer what has motivated him to choose the subjects he has brought to screens big and small.


“I’ve always managed—miraculously—to do what I wanted to do,” Stone says. “I never did a movie because it was good for my career.”


Scheer recalls Stone’s dogged determination to make sure that author Ron Kovic’s book “Born on the Fourth of July” became a film with Stone at the helm. Scheer also engages the director on other topics, including Stone’s upcoming documentary that features lengthy interviews with Vladimir Putin. “The Putin Interviews” will screen on Showtime beginning June 12.


Stone has conducted filmed interviews with other “unpopular figures,” as he puts it, such as Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. (Foreign Policy magazine deemed the latter interview “disgraceful.”). But the filmmaker says his work, which involves getting out into the world and interacting with real people, gives him a “tremendous sense of satisfaction” and keeps him grounded.


Below, via KCRW, listen to Stone and Scheer’s discussion about filmmaking, America’s military exploits, surveillance, Russia and other far-reaching topics:


Adapted from Truthdig.com


Robert Scheer: Hi, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of Scheer Intelligence, where the intelligence comes from my guests. In this case, Oliver Stone. And there’s no question, he’s got a lot to say. I want to just right out say, this show is about American originals and how—you know, I’m not glorifying America; every country is interesting and varied. But the crazy-quilt of American culture, the different ethnic backgrounds, racial backgrounds, a mixture of slavery and freedom and everything else has produced a remarkable group of people, from Tom Paine to Oliver Stone, to Martin Luther King, to Jesse Jackson—there’s a lot of people, you know. And you can go down the list. And Oliver, first of all, I would argue you’re, if not the greatest American director I will say you’re certainly the most interesting. And you’ve been able to take an industry that was designed to control people, with the old studio system, and somehow produced the most provocative, interesting, thoughtful movies and challenging, basically, the established point of view. And so I want to begin at the beginning. You’re Yale, and you know, you come from—your father was a stockbroker, you were educated in France, you’re a smart guy, and so forth. And your rebellion against the establishment, against the meritocracy, really begins then, and you go off to become a merchant seaman. Not a lot of people walk away from Yale.


Oliver Stone: Yeah.


RS: And were you there, what, around George W. Bush’s time?


OS: No, I went to Yale in 1960—’65, and it was two years after Mr. Kennedy was killed. By the way, it was a very sweet introduction, thank you, Bob. I mean, I’ve known you long enough, and you always put this tremendous responsibility on my shoulders in calling me an original and stuff. But I really thank you for, thank you for what you said; I value it, and I don’t make light of it. It means a lot to me, because I don’t hear it a lot, and it’s great. I know you think for yourself, and you’re one of the few that I know who really sees things in an original way. You’re an original.


RS: Enough of the flattery, let’s do the—[Laughs]


OS: I’ve known you 30, 40 years, so it’s about time I said that, you know. And although we’ve been ornery together, and we like to mix it up, I just want to say you’re a very special man.


RS: Yeah, but let me say as a confession, I actually worked for you on the Nixon movie with my son Christopher Scheer—


OS: You did.


RS:—and you yelled at me plenty. And I remember one particular scene, because we did a lot of writing on that movie, mostly Christopher did, and we put a dog in the movie. And you had trouble controlling the dog in an air-conditioning scene, because Nixon liked to have the air conditioner on—


OS: Yes.


RS:—and a fire. And I remember on the site, in front of all these people, you came up to me and said, “Don’t ever put a fuckin’ dog in a movie!” Blah, blah, “You’re ruining everything!” You know, so I—


OS: Well, that’s a bit of the cliche of the director, but you know, I don’t—I try not to shout.


RS: Yeah, OK. So let’s go back to this, though, Oliver. Your father was, and you’ve had a great deal of respect for your father; you’ve shown on Wall Street, you did the movie, two movies in Wall Street that, you know, really critically examined and profoundly criticized what happened. But you respected your father. And you also, your French mother, you had a respect for French culture and so forth. And, you were at Yale. [Laughs] And you walked away from this.


OS: Yes, I mean, I didn’t see any pattern except failure at that time; I didn’t think of it as a rebellion in that way. I was a failure in the sense that I was, boarding school for four years had been so tough—you know, it was an all-male school, the Hill School in Pennsylvania—that I found Yale to be, again, a continuation of that. Another four years of this, I thought to myself; I can’t take it. There’s an elite here, they act like they own the world; and there were many rich kids, including George W. Bush, you’re right, he was in my class; I didn’t know him, but that kind of personality, a lot of them. And of course there was also, I have to be honest, there was a tremendous scholarship group too, that were very poor kids, not rich kids at all; and they were doing the best at Yale, because they were working. In fact, I had two of those roommates my first year. But I came from another world that was a privileged world, and I didn’t really relate to them at all. So I left; it was isolating, it was an isolative school; I didn’t like most of the people who I was going to class with, didn’t admire them, felt something was wrong with me. And you know, these were problems of, also, rebellion against your age group and against schools, and against being told what to do all the time. I didn’t know what to do, Bob; I just went out to the Far East. I saw a note on the bulletin board that said, you know, you can get a job here as an English teacher, mathematics teacher in a high school in Vietnam—if you could get there. And my father agreed that he’d let me go for a year from school, and I went to Vietnam. And I became a teacher for two semesters, which is a grueling job, by the way; I learned a lot. And then I went—


RS: This is the Chinese section of Saigon—


OS: Yeah, mostly Chinese, rich Chinese kids.


RS:—under Ngo Dinh Diem, right?


OS: Under Diem, yeah. No, Diem was out of that time; Khánh, I think, was in. He’d been killed, Diem was killed right before Kennedy. And it was a demanding experience, because I had 150 kids, or 20 kids in each class; [laughs] each one had to be monitored, and so forth. But after two semesters, I’d had it as a teacher; I knew I wasn’t, in my gut. And I went off, out of my sense of Joseph Conrad adventures and Hemingway, I went to the merchant marine as a wiper. And I got a job on a couple of ships, one of them coming back to the States.


RS: What does a wiper do?


OS: A wiper is the lowest guy in the engine room; he cleans everything, including all the bathrooms, all the engines, the boiler. A lot of grease, a lot of oil, a lot of heat. And it’s a dangerous job, actually; the boiler can blow out at any point, and blow you away ‘cause you’re right in front of it. We took a 37-day trip back to America to Port Coos Bay, Oregon. You’re making me remember all this stuff. We had giant waves, it was the winter, winter North Pacific. It woke me up. A lot of men, I loved the men on the ship; they were all great storytellers, liars, divorcees, all broken lives. You know, there was all, it was a mess, in a way. But I got back to the States, and I started to write; I started to write about these adventures. And one thing led to the other, I wrote a book. It was called “A Child’s Night Dream.” And it was rejected, and it broke my heart, because it was like 1500 pages, but it was fascinating, young man’s point of view. I went back 30 years later and got it published as “The Child’s Night Dream” in 1997 by St. Martin’s Press. And it’s, to me it’s still an authentic view of a young man’s point of view of the world at that time.


RS: So let me pick up with the Vietnam, because you have obviously made many movies; you’ve made three really important movies on Vietnam, one about your own experience when you ended up volunteering for the Army.


OS: “Platoon”, “Born on the Fourth of July”, and then “Heaven and Earth”.


RS:  “Platoon” and “Born on the Fourth of July” by Ron Kovic and then “Heaven and Earth”, which I have always been very impressed with, because it’s one of the rare attempts to explain war from the point of view of the vulnerable. The people that are being shot at, bombed, and in this case particularly women, who are trying to survive—


OS: Well, that’s what “Heaven and Earth” was about. I went back to Vietnam, because you know, basically I went back to Yale for a second time to give it a shot. My father really wanted me to get an education. And I was more concerned with the book, finishing the book, than I was getting—I never got, I got zeros in all the courses and I was asked to leave, basically. And I went, and my father really was in despair, he thought I’d be a bomb; I thought so, too. So what else can you do? I mean, the book was rejected, there’s no place to do, you’re 18, 19 years old; I went off and joined the Army. No, 20 I joined the military. I volunteered for the draft, went back to Vietnam. And there I said, you know, let the gods deal with me the way I am; if I’m fated to survive, I will, or if not, fine. You know, I can take it. And sure enough, that’s what happened, you know. [Laughs] It’s a very thin line between life and death over there.


RS: And “Platoon” is really that story, right?


OS: “Platoon” is about that person, yes. And it’s a lot of, half that story happened. It gave me a, it was a tremendous success; I never expected that. You have to understand, this was written in despair. But first of all, I came back from Vietnam, I survived, I was wounded twice, I got the Bronze Star. And I ended up years later going back to NYU film school, where I finally completed my education on the GI Bill, where they were paying me $10,000, I think, in tuition; they paid that. My father, of course, thought I was going to end up in trouble; my father was at Wall Street, he was a Republican, a conservative. And by the way, I was, too. I had doubts about the left, I had doubts about Kennedy and Castro and so forth, very strong doubts. And it took me about 10 years after the war until I started to really, until I went back to Central America for the film Salvador, to do the research with Richard Boyle, that was a friend of Kovic’s, that I actually started to see the situation in Central America very much like the Vietnam situation. In other words, I was a slow learner.


RS: And what years were you in Vietnam?


OS: As a soldier, ’67-8; as a civilian, ’65-6.


RS: And so actually, I was in Vietnam as a reporter in ’65 and ’66.


OS: Yeah. You were there in ’65, in the early war.


RS: Yeah, and to my mind, “Platoon” was incredibly important as, you know, the answer to John Wayne and the whole glorification of war. I don’t think there had been anything like that since “All Quiet on the Western Front”, that actually—


OS: It had its impact, it really did, and I’ve never seen a movie go around the world like that. In other words, we made a low-budget movie; very difficult to make, it had been rejected for 10 years as a script. And it was an English producer, John Daly; he gave me a break, he said go make the movie; he also gave me the money for “Salvador”. Very little, but enough to get it made, and then he backed me again on “Platoon”. So we did it for very little money in the jungle in the Philippines, and came out and before you knew it, a few months later, people were starting to see it, talk about it. There was no stopping it, no critic could stop it. It was just destined. And I can’t tell you, it just came at the right time. We were very lucky, because it was in the wake of the Rambo movies, and the Chuck Norris movies, which were extremely heavy-handed, pro-American films; as you know, made a lot of money, though, they made a lot of money, much more than probably “Platoon” ever did in the end.


RS: But “Platoon” was embraced by the Academy Awards.


OS: Oh yeah. Rambo never was that way. But in the end, I’m saying that that militarism still exists in this country, in the movies especially. And they’ve made a lot of money.


RS: Well, this is what I wanted—I wanted to ask you about that, and I should have done my research a little better; I thought I was thoroughly familiar with it. But when did you write “Midnight [Express]”—


OS: That was my first legitimate success. In 1978-9, it came out, a low-budget film about the Turkish prisoner.


RS: Right, you won the Academy Award for that.


OS: I won the writer, out of nowhere I won a writer award.


RS: Yeah, a writer award. So I wanted to ask you that, because I’ve gotten to know Ron Kovic real well; I’ve known him now for 40 years, and for people who don’t know him, I think he’s one of the great figures around, incredible—


OS: Ron is going strong, he looks as good as you.


RS: [Laughs] He looks good, but he’s still in that wheelchair, and now you got to lift him out of the chair into bed with a crane, and you know, his life is threatened. And you, I know you and—you know, Tom Cruise, who played him in the movie that you directed, still sends flowers every time he hears that Ron’s in the spinal ward center in Long Beach. You know, these wounds don’t go away; they threaten his life all the time with infections and everything. And Ron Kovic is very clear. He said you, after his book, “Born on the Fourth of July” came out, you were interested in making a movie about it. And that the effort failed in terms of financing and the star, I forget all the people—


OS: Oh, it was a big deal, yeah.


RS: Yeah, but I mean, Sean Penn was going to play him at one point—


OS: No, Al Pacino was going to play him. For Ron, it was devastating; for me too.


RS: I mean, you’d already scoped out the site—


OS: It was a big-sized movie, and it was being done by a Hollywood, major Hollywood group, and it all fell apart two weeks from shooting with all the rehearsals having been done. I saw Pacino do the rehearsals, and Ron was, he was—he was devastated, it was like being shot again. And he chased me down the boardwalk in Venice, ‘cause I said Ron, whenever I get any power in this town as a director, I’m going to come back and make this fucking movie. And believe it or not, it happened ten years later.


RS: And it was because you won the Academy Award, or—?


OS: It was because of a combination of the success of “Midnight Express”, “Platoon”, “Salvador”—


RS: Yeah, and so he remembers that, because he, as he puts it—and I’ve done one of these interviews with him, Ron, so he talks about that if people want to go listen to it. But he said, you know, he didn’t know whether you really meant it that you would come back for him.


OS: No.


RS: And then when you had that success, you did. And still, you needed someone like Tom Cruise to make the movie. And Tom Cruise gets a bad rap now for a whole bunch of things and so forth, Scientology, what have you. But I remember interviewing him then for Playboy when you’d brought out “Born on the Fourth”, and for a couple of other magazines and stuff, and I think for the LA Times. And I just remember you being—and not only you, anyone who looked at the making of that movie—Tom Cruise really knocked himself out. I mean, he learned what it meant to live in a wheelchair like Ron Kovic, and—


OS: Listen, Tom’s a pro. I still see, when I see his movies, he’s very good. He really goes all out, and if it’s an action movie he does it as best he can. And this movie, he was in a wheelchair, he trained, he listened very closely, he’s sensitive to Ron. And he went all the way. I mean, it was a tough shoot all around.



RS: And he was sacrificing an image that he had already developed with another movie where he—


OS: Yes, “Top Gun”, which was a horrible image in my opinion, but it was a sexy one, made a fortune, much more than we ever made. And you know, “Top Gun” is still very much a paradigm; you realize at the end of that movie, of course, he’s willing to blow, he’s ready to go to war with Russia and blow it away, and he’s looking forward to it, you know. It’s like, it’s a crazy fantasy movie, but very successful. Tom turned around and did this because he believed in me and Ron and the script. I really don’t understand sometimes why actors go and do these movies that make a lot of money, but how can they feel good about it, if they ever think out the implications of what war means?


RS: Yeah, so then there’s the third movie, which you should feel very good about, but didn’t make any money, “Heaven and Earth”. And I remember I went to an early screening of it, you invited me to it. And I told you, yes, very good movie, I liked it very much, whatever cut that was. And then I drove about 10 blocks and I said, no, I got to go back. I went back and I said, you know, ah, are people going to really watch this movie? What do I know, I don’t know anything about sales. But it seemed to me, you know, that you really went through a lot with this woman—I forget her name, Hailey—


OS: Le Ly Hayslip.


RS: And I actually met her there; she was at, I think, the screening. And I thought, you know, so many terrible things had happened; and we know that’s what war is, is these terrible things; but I said, is anybody going to watch a movie with an unknown actress, right, and—


OS: Yeah. Tommy Lee Jones was in the second half of the movie, he’s very good.


RS: Yeah. And what happened? You just were compelled to make it.


OS: I had to make it, yeah. I was also riding high in Hollywood, so I did have power to will it into being. And we did it very first-class, Warner Brothers made it. And we spent the money, we made Vietnam look as beautiful as it did agriculturally. And it’s a terrifying story about a woman who goes through both sides of the Vietnamese, she works with the communists, she works with the U.S. And she sees the agony of war, the destruction of her village, her parents. And she maintains a Buddhist soul in the sense that she’s resilient and compassionate beyond belief. Although she does have a lot of missteps, she comes to America, marries Tommy Lee Jones, who courts her in Vietnam; you think it’s over, but it’s not over. It shows you the lingering effects of war on the United States domestically, and how Tommy Lee is a tortured soul and ends up, you know, committing suicide. It’s a very strong story. And big fights with his wife, but it’s very real to her life. And she ends up, as she says, between two worlds; heaven and earth, between Vietnam and America, going back, doing a lot of good there, working for peace. Her mother lived to about 104 years old, so it’s a really touching story.


RS: [omission] So let me just ask as sort of a footnote to this. I remember once interviewing Francis Coppola, and I actually wrote for a magazine he had in San Francisco. And he had moved up there to get away from Hollywood, he said, to San Francisco. And he told me, he said you know, what you get are two movies—I don’t know if he said two or three—you get two or three on the way down, where you can challenge, you can challenge what they want. And he had already had a great success with “The Godfather”, obviously, series, and now he was making “Apocalypse”. And he asked me one morning to read it, and left it at Clown Alley, this fast food place, under a mat, and: Wake me up when you’ve read it! You know, and everything, and I read it. And I don’t know how to read scripts [Laughter] and it seemed to me to be absolutely brilliant. And so I told him [Laughs], and I asked him, what are you doing? And he said: I’m pushing the envelope. And he said: And that’s what you do. He said: I’m not looking now for commercial, I’m trying to raise some issues that are not going to be raised, and I get the opportunity to do it because I’ve had this success. And in a way, that’s what your career has been about; you know you’ve got that moment, you can push it, and you take risks, right?


OS: I’ve always managed, and I look at it now somewhat miraculously, to do what I wanted to do. If I wanted to do a crime movie, I did it, and if I wanted to do a seedy little lowlife movie like “U Turn”, I did it. I never did a movie because it was good for my career. I never thought like that, and I’m lucky. Then I pranced into documentaries in the 2000 era; I’ve done seven, eight documentaries about unpopular figures like Mr. Castro and Mr. Chavez and so forth, and Mr. Arafat. And none of them were helping my career, but it gave me a tremendous sense of reality and satisfaction to get back out into the world and really meet real people, like you did as a journalist; it was my way to stay real. And I did each one of those movies and suffered for it in the sense that, you know, it didn’t help my career. A lot of the critics were very mean after JFK, you know; that was a big one in terms of, call it the critical consensus, had turned, that I was too much of a troublemaker and so forth.


RS: Well, the amazing thing about JFK is that it’s not as if anyone else has figured it out. It still remains this incredible unknown, this mystery, I mean, you know, how did Oswald get shot, what was with security—I mean, the same thing about the killing of Martin Luther King. You know, the guy was the most—we just went through the 50th anniversary, or we’re up to the 50th anniversary of the killing of Martin Luther King, I guess, this year, coming year. And it’s amazing, you know; how could this guy who was under the microscope of the FBI—they were trying to destroy him. Planting letters, blackmailing him; you know, J. Edgar Hoover and Deke DeLoach and Sullivan and these top guys—this guy couldn’t go to the, you know, take a, go to the bathroom without being observed, you know, in every which way. This is pre-surveillance society, they were following him all the time and then boom—he’s killed and you don’t know who did it, you don’t know anything about it. I mean, you know, how do you guard the president? You were watching this guy, Martin Luther King, probably more closely than you were watching the president; how come you didn’t know? And so you got a lot of heat for, OK, maybe you gave too much credit to Jim Garrison, or maybe you followed this theory or that theory, or so forth. But you would think from the critics that they’ve got it figured out, that the Warren Commission figured it out, or—right?


OS: Well, that’s the least—I mean, the Warren Commission is really a farce, and you can tear it apart if you do any amount of research or thinking of your own. And unfortunately, the critical consensus in our country forms around the Life magazine, Time magazine middle, and the Washington consensus, call it what you will, establishment. We’ve seen that all our lives, both of us; we’ve fought it. And it’s because they have the power of repetition and the money; they’re able to repeat and repeat and repeat the scenario.


RS: Well, the other thing they’re able to do is say: We know, we have the facts, we have the information. If you knew what we know about any place in the world, then you would see, we had to do what we did. And the one example that I pull up a lot—because when I worked at the LA Times my publisher, a very good guy, Tom Johnson, he had been in the White House, he was close to Lyndon Johnson; Bill Moyers had been in the White House as press secretary at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin. And this is before you went to Vietnam, and this is before Ron Kovic got three-quarters of his body paralyzed, and has been in a wheelchair forever. And it was all based on something called the Gulf of Tonkin attack, the second attack, right? And you know, I was sitting there at the LA Times 20 years later—and I had been in Vietnam around that time, and I thought OK, there must have been an attack by some ridiculous PT boats from North Vietnam, they didn’t have a navy, they didn’t have an air force, but maybe some PT boats went out there and shot at this huge aircraft carrier and destroyer. And it was absurd, but nonetheless that was the excuse for bombing North Vietnam, which that war, you know, McNamara said three and a half million people died, Indochinese, maybe; now people feel it’s more like six, seven million died; it was one of the great acts of genocide in human history. Twenty years later—and they always said, if you know what we know, we have this other information, we know this thing—20 years later, it turns out they knew in real time, Lyndon Johnson, McNamara, that there was no second Gulf of Tonkin attack. That the [captains] had said: We have no evidence. You know, the pilots flying above, including Admiral Stockdale later, who was a longstanding prisoner of war, he was flying above it and he said there was no attack, and yet he was one of the people sent off to bomb Vietnam, and he gets shot down and he’s held as a prisoner. So it’s really interesting. The argument that’s used up to this day, you know, what happened with Sarin gas in Syria—they always say: We have information.


OS: Right.


RS: But you know, they don’t give you the accurate information. They invent information. And yet that does not give pause. I want to ask you about somebody who really—they couldn’t use that argument against Snowden. What Snowden did, he said: I had to release all this information or they would have dismissed it. I had to give this broad picture. And he did it in a responsible way by their standard, gave it to standard news organizations, and use what you want, and you know, you don’t have to get anybody killed over this. But the fact of the matter is, his revelation—and no one—I mean, people said, why did you have to give this and why did you have to—well, if he hadn’t done it that way, it would have been dismissed.



OS: That’s correct.


RS: And the people who knew, whether it’s Adam Schiff, the Democratic leader in the House, or it’s Dianne Feinstein, the democratic leader in the Senate [laughs], let alone the Republicans, the people who knew—they never told us anything about this. So you got to know Snowden, who I think of as one of the great heroes of our modern history. What made this—what was he then, 29 years old—what made this 29-year-old guy do—


OS: Well, if you see the movie, it’s a very precise development. And the story is his; it comes from his point of view. I can’t speak for the NSA, because they never cooperated with us. And frankly, what they said about the movie was baseless. This young man did what he did, in my opinion, after he told us the story—he did have a strong conscience like Ron Kovic did. In the sense that it came out under duress because the more he traveled in the upper brackets, the more he saw of how extensive this surveillance was. Not only that it was worldwide, not only that it was not based against terrorism; it was based on pure power, the desire for knowledge of everything, economic, social control for the U.S., supremacy of our country. And some people defend that argument, but it really leads to so many distortions and dangers to the world, that actually we can take that into another argument where the United States becomes the greatest, as King said, Martin Luther King, the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. We bring intervention, regime change, coup d’etats on various countries that get in our way of the world, the way we see the world.


RS: OK, that’s what I really want to get at in this series, which to my mind is the really big question: Why do we have so few people of conscience? Because after all, we’re raised on a mythology about the American Revolution—


OS: That’s true.


RS:—of it took—I mean, it did. They—Tom Paine certainly had, great guy—but you know, George Washington and people like that, they knew they were risking their lives; they knew the enemy was very strong; they knew that a lot of their own compatriots thought this was bad, right? And yet they stood up; they took these actions and so forth. And so we’ve always had this idea that if we have freedom, there will be some souls, brave souls who will tell us the truth and fight for the truth, right? And then you have the counter view of an Orwell or a Huxley saying, no, you can actually have a sort of pretend free society in which, through consumerism or coercion or manipulation or agitprop, you take away freedom without people even acknowledging it. And when I look at your life, I wonder, well—not why did Oliver Stone, or what drives Oliver Stone—why aren’t there more Oliver Stones? You know, why did it take so long for Hollywood to make honest movies about war? They didn’t make them during World War II; there were a few, Coming Home was one about Vietnam, a few others. But in the main, if we take your three movies out of it, then where was Hollywood, you know?


OS: Well, there’s other movies, there have always been brave ones. But you know, you have to look at the post-World War II climate in the United States. This was a key moment. We did our series, “The Untold History of the United States”, and we pinpointed the acceleration of state power after World War II when—McCarthyism is the ugliest side of it, but basically the national security state took hold under Harry Truman. But McCarthy represents the very worst of it, and J. Edgar Hoover. Look at the charges he brought against innocent people, look at all the people who he got fired, who he accused of being communists when he had no evidence. Owen Lattimore stands out as a very courageous American, he was an Asian scholar, he had never been a spy, anything like that; on the contrary, he had been very honest in his assessment of the Communist Party in China. And of course, he was brought to trial five times until 1955. It’s a great story, maybe one day I’ll live to tell it, Owen Lattimore against Joe McCarthy. But he attacked everybody, McCarthy. George Marshall, the greatest general we had in World War II, resigned because of McCarthy’s irritations, the way McCarthy [accused] him.


RS: I know, but we’re—


OS: How can you get away with that in this country when we had fought a war against fascism? We should have been—John Wayne, who ended up being the, what do you call it, the symbolism of that war, that desire, ended up being one of the greatest outers of communists; he became a right-wing McCarthyite.


RS: John Wayne, as opposed to Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic, had not seen—


OS: But that happened, and they get away with it like that—


RS: But he had not seen conflict.


OS: Exactly.


RS: He was a war hero who had not actually witnessed war. And the only reason I bring that up, and it wasn’t just about Vietnam, it was about what was—Hollywood actually had a lot of Jewish executives, didn’t make a movie about the Holocaust until many years later. Didn’t address what was going on during World War II, turning back Jewish refugees and others. But it’s easy to pick on a McCarthy or even a J. Edgar Hoover and say, OK. Some grotesque figures got excessive power and somehow won in the moment. But I think of what David Halberstam, the title of his book, which was really important, even more so than the book, “The Best and the Brightest”. And this takes me back to Yale, and you: Why did all the others go along? And again, that’s why I bring up somebody like Snowden. But it could be Thomas Drake, it could be Bill Binney, it could be any of the people that have actually—Ray McGovern who I’ve done, 27 years in the CIA, I did a podcast with him. But we have, it’s a handful—Daniel Ellsberg—you could name them all right now, 15, 20 people in this whole period, and yet you had these tens of thousands of people—


OS: You said “careerism” to me in the car coming over here.


RS: Yeah, careerism trumps everything. That’s the basic religion, that and consumerism are the two things—right? You got the toys you want and get, right, and they’re going to be symbols of your success, and that includes even being able to endow buildings and have things named after you and so forth. That’ll excuse everything else, right? And you know, integrity be damned. No one really believes they’re going to be judged by some almighty, right? You know, that’s gone. Very few people believe that, and they certainly don’t rise to power. And so I just, I want to take one movie, like “Zero Dark Thirty”, for instance. OK? There’s a movie that, you know, was made with the cooperation of people who did torture. Right? I mean, the CIA, whether run by Democrats or Republicans or professionals or what have you, the only person, the first person and really only one to this day who really exposed the torture program was John Kiriakou, and he goes to jail for two and a half years because he talked to a New York Times reporter. And you know, these people, Hollywood, after everything is said and done, they go and made a movie with the CIA justifying torture as being necessary—which was a lie—to get Bin Laden. Turned out to be a total fraud. And in the way, they’re giving the names of Navy SEAL people who could be targets, they’re exposed, you know, giving real secret information, there’s actually an inspector general report which criticizes the CIA for that. So it’s not just the Joe McCarthys and it’s not just the Donald Trumps. I mean, Donald Trump is actually, aside from that he has his finger all the button and all that, it’s quite dangerous, but Donald Trump is actually in some ways less of a threat because he has so many people critical of him. All the mainstream media is critical of him—


OS: Well, we’ve seen that, yeah.


RS: Yeah, I mean, they’re just going after this guy. But what about the ones who don’t come on excessively, who you know—


OS: Well, that’s the middle, that’s the careerism aspect.


RS: Yeah.


OS: Listen, Hillary Clinton is that kind of person. She should be standing for something, but she stands for herself and her selfishness. And I think she’s driven the Democratic Party into a place—I don’t recognize the Democratic Party that I liked as a younger person. When it was anti-war, it was about let’s lessen the foreign interventions. It’s become something else now. Trump, the only good thing I liked about Trump, the only thing that stood out to me in the campaign, was his statements about Russia: what’s our beef with Russia? And that became the target point for all the Democratic attack on him. They started early with the hacking claims, which they couldn’t prove, and then it’s turned into a monster brouhaha, like McCarthyism, where they’re accusing anybody who supports anything about detente with Russia as an enemy, as somebody who’s against the interest of our state.


RS: Right. Now he’s got to go blow up some, you know—


OS: And he has to blow up a Syria to prove that he’s not Putin’s puppet, which is a ridiculous charge. The Democratic Party is completely fractured on this issue. They’re scared of their populist base, which was apparent with Mr. Sanders. But now, because Sanders didn’t contest this thing, didn’t go far enough in my opinion, and is not a foreign policy expert, it seems, they have the elite of that party, the big banks, the big Democratic Party does not want to hear from the populist segment. And the only way to defuse that argument was to blame Russia, which goes back many years in our history.


RS: OK, Oliver. That’s, I want to thank you for this interview. Not as fascinating as your movies, but people can watch that on their own time. Our producers are Rebecca Mooney and Joshua Scheer. Our excellent technical engineers are Kat Yore and Mario Diaz. See you next week with another edition of Scheer Intelligence.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

New Books By Women You're Guaranteed To Love This Summer

0
0

For Glamour, by Elizabeth Logan.



The sun is shining, the air is clear, and we have your new favorite book right here. Yes, summer means reading in the park, on the beach, beside the pool, and well into the night — so with that in mind, we’ve chosen 21 of our favorite new and upcoming releases. Some are just out, some are to look forward to, but all will keep you entertained even on the longest, hottest day. Even better? Each and every author is a woman.


All Grown Up, by Jami Attenberg - March 7



From the whip-smart and LOL-funny Jami Attenberg comes the tale of Andrea, a kinda-adult 39-year-old single gal forced to finally figure things out when her family is thrust into unexpected crisis. Expect lessons both instructive and of warning.


The Price of Illusion, by Joan Juliet Buck - March 7



It's a memoir from a former editor-in-chief of Paris *Vogue.* Basically, your perfect rooftop read. Buck is the first and only American to ever fill the Paris *Vogue* editor-in-chief position, so get your heels on and pour yourself some rosé for an honest look at a glossy life.


Too Much and Not in the Mood, by Durga Chew-Bose - April 11



Borrowing its title from Virginia Woolf, *Too Much and Not in the Mood* is a poetic and personal collection of essays on artistic growth among female writers from Durga Chew-Bose, one of the best essayists writing today.


Priestdaddy, by Patricia Lockwood - May 2



A memoir about growing up different and Catholic, but unlike any you've read before. Poet and writer Patricia Lockwood brings her uniquely bracing yet humorous prose to the story of where it all began: home.


My Life With Bob: Flawed Heroine Keeps Book of Books, Plot Ensues, by Pamela Paul - May 2



For nearly 30 years, Pamela Paul kept a record of every book she read. That record was in a notebook named Bob. Follow Bob and Pamela's adventures, and then record this in your very own book tracker.


Into the Water, by Paula Hawkins - May 2



From the author of *The Girl on the Train* comes the story of a town with a water problem: Women keep turning up dead in the river. First a teenage girl, then a single mother. Who — or what — is down there?


Saints for All Occasions, by J. Courtney Sullivan - May 9



Fans of *Brooklyn* will enjoy this multigeneration tale of two Irish sisters—Nora and Theresa Flynn—who leave their home for life in Boston, only to confront even harder circumstances when one of them becomes pregnant.


Sycamore, by Bryn Chancellor - May 9



A mystery, a coming-of-age story, and an ensemble drama are woven together in this tale of love, loss, grief…and human remains found deep in the desert.


Boundless, by Jillian Tamaki - May 30



A fantastical and surreal look at modern life, in gorgeous pencil sketch. Perfect for fans of *Black Mirror,* Daniel Clowes, and getting introspective as hell.


Touch, by Courtney Maum - May 30



A biting satire about a trend forecaster gone rogue who begins to see that the "IRL" experience of touch technology isn't *quite* the same thing as life offline.


Do Not Become Alarmed, by Maile Meloy - June 6



The story of two families vacationing together, this novel weaves a tapestry of viewpoints, hopping from family to family, children to adults, as they deal with the repercussions of becoming briefly separated.


The Bright Hour, by Nina Riggs - June 6



Author Nina Riggs was 37, the mother of two young sons, and married to her best friend when she was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer. This is the story of how she faced the unthinkable with humanity and most of all with love.


The Answers, by Catherine Lacey - June 6



Following her breakout debut *Nobody Is Ever Missing,* Catherine Lacey's second novel introduces us to Mary, a young NYC woman dealing with debilitating pain who works as the "emotional girlfriend" of an eccentric actor to pay for her expensive treatments.


The Ministry of Utmost Happiness, by Arundhati Roy - June 6



A rich, romantic, and sprawling tale that plays out across India through time and space. You're guaranteed to fall in love with the characters and be swept up by the writing.


Estranged: Leaving Family and Finding Home, by Jessica Berger Gross



A gripping memoir about growing up in—and growing out of—a deeply dysfunctional, abusive family. Jessica Berger Gross' childhood may have looked happy from the outside, but it wasn't until she left home for good and cut her abusers off completely that she found happiness.


What We Lose, by Zinzi Clemmons - July 11



Clemmons' debut novel is a stunning work about growing up, losing your parents, and being an outsider. Perfect for fans of tangled immigrant stories like *Americanah.*


Watch Me Disappear, by Janelle Brown - July 11



If you're hungry for another mystery after finishing *Big Little Lies,* pick up this story about Billie Flanagan, a Berkeley mom who disappears one day while hiking and the unnerving circumstances that bring her daughter Olive into the case.


Une Femme Française, by Catherine Malandrino - August 1



Amid a glut of tomes preaching to American women about how to act/live/dress French, Catherine Malandrino's stands out. First of all, she's a bona fide fashion designer. Second, she's quintessentially French. Finally, she's lived in the States for decades. If anyone can teach us how to do it, she can.


New People, by Danzy Senna - August 3



It's the nineties, and Maria truly has it all. Beautiful fiancé, hip apartment, exciting new projects, and a starring role in a cool documentary. But she can't stop daydreaming about another man. She really can't stop.


Real American, by Julie Lythcott-Haims - August 15



From the author of the best-selling *How to Raise an Adult* comes a memoir about the insecurities and microaggressions that come with growing up biracial in today's America. This is a necessary and timely read for anyone looking not just to learn but to understand.


Sour Heart, by Jenny Zhang - August 1



The debut collection of stories from National Magazine Award winner Jenny Zhang, *Sour Heart* is all about the chaos and wonder of being young in the city.


More from Glamour:


What’s That Salad the Kardashians Are Always Eating on Their Show?


Ryan Reynolds Reveals He Fell in Love With Blake Lively While on a Double Date With Someone Else


34 Times Kate Middleton and Prince William Gave Us Major Relationship Goals


13 Celebrities Who Have Hot Siblings


12 Photos of the Friends Cast Before They Were Famous That Will Make You Ridiculously Happy


A Look at the Emmy It Girls of the Past 20 Years: Taraji P. Henson, Tina Fey, and More



-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.


Beyond The NEA budget: The Political Side Of Art

0
0

by Niv Sultan



The Recording Academy’s high-wattage GRAMMYs on the Hill event in early April honored Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) for their commitment to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) — an agency that President Donald Trump‘s administration has proposed cutting.


Still, stars like country singers Keith Urban and Wynonna Judd, both of whom performed that night, don’t rely on the NEA for their survival; they were there, in part, to underscore the central role of the endowment in the artistic endeavors of nonprofits, museums, schools, local governments and other noncommercial organizations. Among last fall’s grantees: The city of Los Angeles, which received $50,000 for an exhibition about Latin American art and architecture; Step Afrika! of Washington, D.C., awarded $10,000 to support its Black History Month tour; and the Cuyahoga Community College Foundation in Cleveland, which won two grants, including $20,000 for an educational jazz festival.


Without much of a presence on the Hill, such community-centric organizations rely largely on advocates in the broader arts universe, like the Recording Academy, which spent $162,000 lobbying last year, and Americans for the Arts, a group that spent $160,000 lobbying on issues like arts education and creative arts therapy access for veterans.


In the first quarter of 2017, Americans for the Arts ramped up, spending $90,000 on lobbying — more than half its outlays for all of 2016. Funding for NEA and its companion group, the National Endowment for the Humanities, was the first concern it listed on its lobbying report.


Another concern listed by the group: tax deductions for charitable contributions, which, as of last month, some in the Trump administration reportedly were considering capping as part of a tax reform proposal.


That could be a matter of life and death for arts groups, which rely heavily on donations. In 2012, for example, the NEA reported that nonprofit performing arts groups and museums received nearly 45 percent of their revenue from government and private sector contributions. Almost all of that, however, came from individuals, foundations and corporations; less than 7 percent of total revenue came from the government at any level.


Then why is the NEA so significant for these groups?


For one, the endowment helps make up for the geographically disproportionate nature of charitable giving, said Elizabeth Auclair, an NEA spokesperson, in an email. Rural areas receive only 5.5 percent of philanthropic dollars, she explained.


The second reason: Government grants can catalyze private giving by legitimizing a project. “Research shows that even a low level of public funding can stimulate private giving,” wrote Auclair. NEA’s funding must be matched by money from other sources, and “when a nonprofit receives an NEA award, it provides the credibility for other funders to step up.”


In fiscal year 2016, NEA grants resulted in $500 million in matching support, Auclair noted.


Art is for everyone, but its money leans left


When it comes to campaign contributions, the kinds of arts organizations that might receive a small NEA grant are unlikely to be rife with high-earning employees capable of donating large sums of money to politicians. Still, some of the bigger groups and arts institutions do make a mark. Americans for the Arts has a PAC (a rarity in the art world), and between that and gifts from its leadership and staff, the organization gave nearly $143,000 in contributions last cycle, 84 percent of which went to Democrats. The group’s top recipient after presidential candidate Hillary Clinton ($10,711) was Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), co-chair of the Congressional Arts Caucus. She received $10,000, and her co-chair, Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), received $3,500.


Overall, Democrats get the lion’s share of contributions from arts organizations, perhaps because they seem more willing to publicly associate themselves with the cause. Although the Recording Academy honored one senator from each party (Maine Republican Collins and New Mexico Democrat Udall) with its political Grammys, about 79 percent of the 160 members of the Congressional Arts Caucus are Democrats.


In the 2016 cycle, individuals associated with the American Museum of Natural History, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the American Association of Museums all gave 99 percent or more of their contributions to Democrats. In fact, Natural History has given all of its contributions of more than $200 to Democrats since at least 1994. The level of the gifts varies widely between groups: The museum association gave $1,600, Natural History gave more than $27,8000, and the Met gave a relatively whopping $282,000 ($20,000 from Joanne Lyman, who used to manage jewelry reproduction for the museum; about $50,000 from Laurel Britton, head of strategy; and nearly $161,000 from Annette de la Renta, a board member.)


Private art galleries skew no less Democratic.



Over the course of the past four election cycles, seven galleries (selected for their prominence and because they employ active political donors) gave less than $1 million combined. Two of them, Gagosian Gallery and Pace Gallery, accounted for more than half that total. (We didn’t include Christie’s and Sotheby’s, as their business dealings extend beyond those of a traditional gallery.)


Most of the money from Gagosian and Pace came from their respective owners. In the 2016 cycle, Larry Gagosian gave about $86,400 (almost all of Gagosian Gallery’s contributions) to candidates, party committees and other groups, and Arnold and Mildred Glimcher of Pace Gallery gave more than $186,000. Gagosian made six gifts, and only one went to a Republican; all 159 of the Glimcher couple’s gifts went to Democratic candidates and groups.


In addition to gallery owners and employees, some of the artists on display are donors as well. Multimedia artists Carol Brown Goldberg and Pamela Joseph have contributed more than $1 million and nearly $233,000, respectively, since 2008 — all to Democratic and liberal candidates and groups. And remember the iconic “Hope” poster from President Barack Obama‘s 2008 campaign? Shepard Fairey, its designer, gave $17,700 to the DNC that cycle. (He also sent $2,300 Obama’s way.)


Before his death in 1997, pop artist Roy Lichtenstein was a reliable Democratic donor. His contributions pale next to those of his widow, though: Dorothy Lichtenstein, president of the foundation that bears his name, made more than $1.2 million in contributions in the 2016 cycle. Planned Parenthood Votes, a super PAC, received $900,000 of that, another $100,200 benefited the DNC Services Corp. and other gifts went to various Democratic party committees, candidates and PACs.


Regardless of the arts universe’s progressive leanings, lawmakers of both parties might find reason to get behind the NEA; Its data shows it awards 40 percent of its grantmaking budget directly to states, and, in fiscal year 2016, it recommended grants in every congressional district in the country. At a cost equal to approximately 0.004 percent of the federal budget, that kind of local aid could be difficult even for Congress’ most hardened small-government advocates to make a stink about.


On April 7, 11 House Republicans — along with many of their Democratic peers — signed a letter not only standing by the NEA, but also seeking a roughly 5 percent increase in its funding. The letter went to Reps. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) and Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), the chairman and ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, which handles the NEA and NEH’s budgets.


And now, those lawmakers, along with the arts community, seem to be getting what they want — for the time being, at least. Last week, Congress agreed on a budget that calls for a $2 million increase in the NEA’s funding, which would raise the agency’s budget to what it had requested for fiscal year 2017 more than a year ago.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Meet The Man Making Surfboards More Green

0
0





Surfing is an unfortunately wasteful sport. Surfboards can be made with one of two types of foam: polyurethane or polystyrene. Neither material is biodegradable, and they can both be toxic to aquatic life. Polystyrene, the kind typically used for foam packaging like styrofoam, is a petroleum-based product that is banned in various cities. When boards break, leftover foam is typically left in the ocean or sent to a landfill where it could hypothetically sit for centuries. Luckily, there are people working for a solution by implementing recycled foam into new boards.


Recycling foam into boards is an obvious but seldom practiced solution. It answers the question of what to do with existing foam produced by other industries, and it prevents the surf industry from adding to the foam epidemic. It’s all rather easy too, check out YouTuber and activist Rob Greenfield’s new spotlight video to see how easily the surf industry can change.


Meet Marc Sanchez, the founder of Reeco Surfboards. Marc upcycles dumpster boards into beautiful new surfboards. He does this by taking broken surfboards that were destined for a landfill, strips them down and crafts them into one of a kind recycled surfboards. All the materials used in Reeco boards are sourced locally, and glassed with a eco-friendly bio-based epoxy resin.


Marc is an inspiration in a naturally wasteful industry. By becoming a leader in eco-friendly surfboards, he’s pushing for a world where surfboards are built with compostable foam and entropy resins.


Help Marc revolutionize his industry and check out some of his recycled boards.


-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

How Amazon, Once Again, Is Driving Down The Value Of Books And Undermining Authors

0
0

On March 1, while the only people paying real attention were hypervigilant third-party sellers and book geeks on Reddit, Amazon enacted a policy change that allows third-party sellers to compete for the Buy Box for books in “new condition.”


In case you’re not visualizing the Buy Box in your mind, it’s this:



When you go to a product page on Amazon, the ADD TO CART button is the default offer. Other used options fall below the Buy Box. Where books are concerned, the default Buy Box option has always belonged to the publisher. When you buy a book, Amazon pays the publisher 45 percent of the list price, so authors are making a profit (albeit small) every time you buy. This contributes to authors’ royalties and also means that your purchase is supporting the entity that published the book, namely the publisher.


The suggestion in some of the articles I’ve read on this topic is that this new policy hurts small sellers, favoring bigger third-seller operations. But I’d like to break down how much this policy hurts authors and publishers.


I finally clued in to how problematic this policy is a couple weeks ago when one of my authors emailed me to inform me that her book was no longer being listed on Amazon—at all—as available from her publisher, in this case SparkPress, one of my company’s two imprints. When you typed in the title of her book, the only listings that came up were from third-party sellers. Amazon’s policy states that “eligible sellers will be able to compete for the buy box,” but in this case, we had been completely wiped off of Amazon as an eligible seller in any capacity, without being notified.


As an experiment, I typed in a few backlist books from my Seal Press days. By my third try, I’d hit upon Second Wind, by Cami Ostman. Same scenario. No offering from the publisher. When you click on the product page, here’s what you see:



Note the paperback price: $3.23. Note the seller: Meadowland Media. At first glance, I could not find Seal Press’s listing, but it turns out it is there, just four buttons down—the one that says “Sold by: Amazon”:



A big question that comes to mind here: Where is Amazon’s accountability to publishers? The impact this policy has on publishers’ backlist (typically meaning any book that’s six months or older) is potentially devastating, especially because consumers don’t understand what’s going on here. When you search for this book, it looks as if the only listing that’s available is through Meadowland Media because the search function leads to a page where the only visibility you have is that Second Wind is $3.23. This screen shot says that there are “more buying options” but those buying options alert you to the 25-cent copy, not the copy being sold by the publisher for $10.62.



Small publishers in particular are dependent on backlist sales for their livelihood. Amazon is a Herculean player when it comes to backlist sales because bookstores favor front-list books. If you’re looking for a book that’s a year old or more, you’re likely to go to Amazon to find it. Second Wind was published in 2010, but the way Amazon has set up this listing, it’s as if the book were out of print with the publisher. I know for a fact it is not.


Here’s what Amazon says about “winning” the Buy Box:



To compete for the Buy Box, both your selling account and your listed item must be eligible. Becoming eligible to compete for the Buy Box doesn’t guarantee that you will win it. You can increase your chances by pricing your items competitively, offering Prime and free shipping, providing great customer service, and keeping stock available.



Let me break this down in terms of the ramifications of this policy on authors.


• Amazon, once again, is attempting to drive down the value of books, and therefore intellectual property and creative work in general. I’ve argued in the past that Amazon price fixes e-books by fostering a system in which authors get better royalties if they price their books between $2.99 and $9.99. In this scenario, Amazon is rewarding the seller that conforms to its rules (“competitive pricing”) by granting them the coveted buy button. Dropping the publisher listing to fourth is an affront, and it seems very likely that publisher listings will fall off the buy page completely—at Amazon’s discretion of course.


• If a book is not showing up as readily available by its publisher on Amazon, the author doesn’t make royalties. Third-party sellers may have obtained the books they sell in any number of ways. They might be a used bookstore that buys stock back from consumers at a cheap cost. They might troll book bins where people recycle books. They might have relationships with distributors and wholesalers where they buy “hurts” (often good enough quality to be considered “new condition”) at a super low cost. They might have connections to reviewers who get more books than they can handle who are looking to offload. And this goes on and on. Regardless, the books these vendors are selling do not qualify as sales because they’ve already been sold, or they originally existed as promotional copies. (Someone pointed out to me today that some of these third-party vendors are buying books through wholesale channels, but it begs the question of how Amazon is measuring “new condition.” And if you’re buying a used book, it doesn’t benefit the author or the publisher. Before now, I’ve never been against used books, but this takes used books to a whole new level. If consumers don’t see the option to buy new, from the publisher, then Amazon is promoting piracy. Is this an extreme charge? Maybe. But the facts are the facts. Authors get nothing from used books because you’re buying something that’s already been bought and tracked as a sale. If this new policy takes hold for the vast majority of backlist books, authors’ and publishers’ revenue will dry up completely, and more and more books will go more quickly out of print. Publishers will not be able to afford to keep books in print that are not for sale on Amazon. So this policy is essentially driving books to an earlier death—and thereby hurting authors.


• Amazon suggests that one of the ways you can win the Buy Box is to keep books “in stock.” This poses a major problem for self-published authors and any backlist author whose books are print-on-demand. Print-on-demand automatically means there’s no stock. The books are printed to order. If Amazon is penalizing books that are set up as POD titles and favoring third-party sellers who have stock due to any of the abovementioned means of procurement, authors will again be dinged when their own listing, or publisher listing, doesn’t exist on Amazon. I’m going to venture to guess that Amazon will not penalize or remove books that are listed with CreateSpace—and as Amazon moves away from CreateSpace to consolidate its print and e-book self-publishing program onto Kindle, you will undoubtedly see that self-published authors with Kindle accounts will continue to be listed, while other self-published authors will suffer. Monopoly much?


As consumers and concerned citizens, we should be very bothered by this new policy. As a publisher, I feel powerless to help my authors. My author who issued the original complaint had her publisher listing magically reappear one week after emailing us to notify us it had gone missing. Now I realize that maybe it was buried on a secondary page all along, but no one is going to go digging for a higher-cost book on a secondary or tertiary Amazon page. Amazon is a mammoth player in the publishing space, but its goal is to disrupt publishing, not to support publishers or authors. This new third-party seller policy is potentially terrorizing, in that it can and will literally result in publishers selling fewer copies and ultimately being forced to declare backlist books out of print.


We can effect change and make our dissatisfaction about this policy known by buying elsewhere. Last year I got rid of Amazon Prime. Last month I tested the waters and bought backlist books at Book Passage and Powell’s. It was great. Both platforms are selling Cami Ostman’s Second Wind, from the publisher. Yes, the shipping cost is higher and I didn’t get two-day delivery for my purchases, but I had my peace of mind.


Support indie bookstores. Beware of these third-party sellers. Before you buy, at least look at who you’re buying from. Don’t buy blindly. Consider the ramifications of your purchases. If you want to support the authors you love, get off Amazon.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

'Maven Of Modernism: Galka Scheyer In California' At The Norton Simon Museum

0
0

Art is not about itself but the attention we bring to it. - Marcel Duchamp


The artist Beatrice Wood once tried to patiently explain to Emmy “Galka” Scheyer (1889-1945)—a German-born emigrée whose lifetime mission was to popularize modern art in the United States—that Scheyer would be invited to more social events in Los Angeles if she just wouldn’t shout so much.“ Galka, look, dear... you dominate,” Wood advised, “And I think that’s why you’re not always invited.”


“Well, why shouldn’t I shout?” Scheyer countered: “I’m more intelligent than them! I know everything! Of course I’m going to shout! Nothing’s going to stop me! I have something to give and they should know it.”


The exhibition “Maven of Modernism: Galka Scheyer in California,” on view at the Norton Simon Museum through September 25th, 2017, more than validates Scheyer’s point: she did indeed have a great deal to give. The roughly 500 paintings, drawings, prints, photographs and sculptures left in her estate—originally deeded to UCLA—transformed the fledgling Pasadena Art Institute, which received them in 1953, into the Pasadena Art Museum. That museum, after a decade of notable exhibits and lingering financial challenges, was in turn absorbed by the Norton Simon Museum in the mid- 1970s.


“In a quirk of art history,” comments writer/curator Victoria Dailey, “one of the greatest collections of works by German, Russian and Swiss modern artists wound up in an unlikely spot: Pasadena.”



The Blue Four Galka Scheyer Collection at the Norton Simon Museum is familiar to most Southern California museum-goers, but Scheyer herself is ripe for rediscovery. Although over 100 of her letters to the “Blue Four” (Jawlensky, Klee, Feininger and Kandinsky) have been published there is no official biography of Scheyer yet available. To help bring Scheyer’s persona into the gallery, Gloria Willams Sander, the curator and organizer of “Maven” has designed the exhibition to include ephemera—including glass slides, brochures and correspondence—as well as some rarely seen works that offer telling insights into Scheyer’s life and milleu. One detail that stands out: Scheyer’s crisply-designed brochures for the “Blue Four” look like they were designed yesterday, not 90 years ago.


Victoria Dailey, who will be speaking about Scheyer on Saturday, May 13th, has studied Scheyer’s dynamism and social connections: “Yes, Galka was part of the Schindler-Neutra crowd, who were, at the time, the ’cool crowd’ of Los Angeles: architects, artists, musicians, raconteurs, bon vivants and bohemians. Galka even lived for a time at the Schindler house, and studied architecture with Schindler during 1927.”



In Peter Krasnow’s 1927 watercolor, “Recalling Happy Memories,”—given to Scheyer by the artist as a gift—Scheyer lectures to a fashionable crowd in Schindler’s King’s Road living room, holding a modern painting in one hand and a baton in the other. “Her voice was so strident,” Beatrice Wood recalled, “and her manner so intense it was abrasive. Yet, she was so alive in a room, and scintillating, that no one else counted.” Lyonel Feininger, one of the “Blue Four” artists, addressed one of his many letters to her “Dear Little Tornado.”


Of course, in an era when modern art was seen by most as repellent or crazy, it took a brilliant, hard-driving speaker to convince even sophisticated people that modern art was worth their cash or attention. A Stanford professor who heard her lecture in 1926 said that "...she made her hearers understand something of the serious aims of even this ultra-modern art because she showed that it is closely related to all modernism in which we live, and that it contains elements essential to our growth." A raconteur par excellence, in 1929 Scheyer charged members of the Oakland Art Gallery an astonishing $250 to attend her 500 slide lecture series “From Prehistoric Art to the Blue Four.”


Jake Zeitlin (1902-87), a Los Angeles bookseller, once told an interviewer that Scheyer had approached him sometime in the 1930s with a “Blue Four” painting and said, "Jake, why don't you come up and buy one of those paintings. It will cost you $300, and you can pay $10 a month." Zeitlin was not interested: “I thought, I was not going to be stuck with those things. So she never stuck me with one of those great paintings, and the only man who really supported her in those days was Walter Arensberg.”


Scheyer’s connection to Walter and Louise Arensberg, early and important collectors of Duchamp whose Hollywood soirées were, in the recollection of one artist’s wife, “...an inconceivable orgy of sexuality, jazz and alcohol" is just one of many social contacts that deserves further examination. So do Scheyer’s interactions with Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo, who she cajoled into helping organize a 1931 “Blue Four” exhibition in Mexico.



Although “Maven of Modernism” features the works of many well-known artists—including Alexander Archipenko, László Moholy-Nagy, Emil Nolde, and Pablo Picasso—there are some welcome surprises from relatively unknown artists. One of them is an attenuated nude by Edward Hagedorn (1902-1982), a reclusive draftsman and printmaker who Scheyer met in the late 1920s in the Bay Area. Scheyer reportedly wanted to add Hagedorn to the “Blue Four,”—which would have then become the “Blue Five”—an offer he apparently declined.



Adding pathos to Scheyer’s accomplishments is that fact that she never wavered from her support for modern art during some of the Twentieth Century’s darkest challenges including the Great Depression and the rise of Adolf Hitler. During lean years she taught children’s art classes—first in Berkeley and later in Los Angeles—which kept her afloat when art dealing and lecturing would not pay the bills. Scheyer, who was Jewish, must have also been deeply affected by the death of her mother in Germany: she took her own life when alerted that the Nazis were coming for her.


Although Scheyer was often assertive, loud and even impolite in social situations, those who got to know her personally saw a very different side. Asked about Scheyer’s apparent rudeness, Beatrice Wood replied: “...I got over it and realized what a beautiful person she was inside. This absolute devotion to art. This great generosity to art. She was just a wonderful person.”


Maven of Modernism: Galka Scheyer in California


April 7, 2017 - September 25, 2017


The Norton Simon Museum


411 W. Colorado Boulevard


Pasadena, CA 91105-1825

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

10 Books To Wake Up Your Book Club

0
0

Originally published on Kirkus. For more from Kirkus, click here.



Chuck Klosterman X: A Highly Specific, Defiantly Incomplete History of the Early 21st Century by Chuck Klosterman


“Even those who only dimly remember Royce White, Pavement, or Gnarls Barkley will find the reflections on them engaging.” A collection of journalistic pieces that remain provocative, or at least interesting, even if the subjects that inspired them have faded from memory. Read full book review.



Love and Trouble by Claire Dederer


“Insightful, provocative, and fearlessly frank, Dederer seduces readers with her warmth, wit, and wisdom.” A fierce new memoir from the essayist and longtime New York Times contributor. Read full book review.



Woman No. 17 by Edan Lepucki


“Always enjoyable if not always believable, this novel succeeds by staying light on its feet. Or, as one character puts it, ‘Please don’t monetize my bunny.’ ” In the Hollywood Hills, a smart, damaged mother of two hires a nanny so she can work on a memoir—but the younger woman is no less a piece of work than she is and intent on an art project of her own. Read full book review.



The Lines We Cross by Randa Abdel-Fattah


“A meditation on a timely subject that never forgets to put its characters and their stories first.(Fiction. 12-17)” An Afghani-Australian teen named Mina earns a scholarship to a prestigious private school and meets Michael, whose family opposes allowing Muslim refugees and immigrants into the country. Read full book review.



Change Agent by Daniel Suarez


“A natural at making future shocks seem perfectly believable, Suarez (Influx, 2014, etc.) delivers his most entertaining high-tech thriller yet.” In the year 2045, Singapore-based Interpol agent Kenneth Durand's campaign against black-market gene editing is set back when he's injected with a synthetic "change agent" that transforms him into the spitting image of his evil nemesis. Read full book review.



No One Cares About Crazy People by Ron Powers


“This hybrid narrative, enhanced by the author’s considerable skills as a literary stylist, succeeds on every level.” Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Powers (Mark Twain: A Life, 2005, etc.) presents two searing sagas: an indictment of mental health care in the United States and the story of his two schizophrenic sons. Read full book review.



Exit West by Mohsin Hamid


“One of the most bittersweet love stories in modern memory and a book to savor even while despairing of its truths.” Hamid (Discontent and Its Civilizations, 2014, etc.) crafts a richly imaginative tale of love and loss in the ashes of civil war. Read full book review.



A Separation by Katie Kitamura


“A minutely observed novel of infidelity unsettles its characters and readers.” Dread and lassitude twist into a spare and stunning portrait of a marital estrangement. Read full book review.



The Golden Legend by Nadeem Aslam


“Brooding and beautiful: a mature, assured story of the fragility of the world and of ourselves.” “This world is the last thing God will ever tell us”: an aching, lyrical story of schisms and secrets in present-day Pakistan. Read full book review.



Imagine Wanting Only This by Kristen Radtke


“Powerfully illustrated and incisively written—a subtle dazzler of a debut.” Insights and images combine in a meditation on loss, grief, and the illusions of permanence. Read full book review.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Viewing all 14839 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images