there’s this thing about these…i think the aesthetic side of these is just kind of a decoy. what’s actually fun (and i’ll suggest that the comments above imply the truth of it) is attempting to follow the rube goldberg machine that this guy’s mind must be. i really see this as pretty process driven art. i also might call this guy a sculptor’s sculptor, like people might call gideon bok a painter’s painter. some of the assumptions here–manipulating found objects, incorporating images and texts, etc.–just seem like what sculptor’s do.
i’m wondering how he chooses to edit. like, what he doesn’t include in these lists…because there must be a ton more of these that he comes up with.
with most of the ones he uses on the sign, he starts with ‘A’ so he flips the premise from experience to object. maybe it’s just for sound consistency?
they keep occurring to me. and really, once you get going, your brain turns into a little word factory. and, seeing what i’m seeing, i don’t think i’d like living in this guy’s brain. not even for a day.
alrighty:
‘i want ten dudes’
‘dude was intent’
it is a lot like painting. inventing reinventing. aren’t most creative processes similar to this? funny thing is, there becomes an automatic aspect to the process too. like, a conditioned aspect where your brain just goes on autopilot and you can be doing other things and then, wham, a new something-or-other just appears: like a picture or something. it’s interesting…
undoing the meaningful into the ridiculous. or showing just how nearly disassociated aphorism becomes over time.
obvious: yes.
but, also an ancillary in-road for me to make a plug for Dawkins’ ‘The God Delusion’, which i am reading and enjoying.
i am bouncing back and forth between this and Deuteronomy. a bit schizophrenic…maybe. but, more and more, i am thinking contradiction is the only way to fly.
dawkins + deuteronomy = classic, and paradoxical (both in different ways)… though i’d pair up dawkins with the epistle to the romans or the gospel of john for proper resonance.
one of the strange connections that i’ve never really understood is how dawkins and douglas adams could have been such great friends. i’d certainly assign gleeful irreverence and brilliance and genius to adams, but not so much to dawkins - priggish is a better adjective in my opinion. he and alan guth hold the corner on some sort of holier-than-thou attitude in the popular scientific community. the greatness of adams and sagan and brian greene and strephen j. gould is how they were able to bring the understandings and implications of science into a hopeful, joyful place of discovery and yearning…
i do think he’s giddy. in a way that suggests something that i’m a little leery of. i don’t really see how he could be good friends with much of anyone. he only seems to respect himself. but, i’m trying to benevolent with my adjectives, i guess cause til i suss it all out for myself, i’m never sure what to think. and, i have my suspicions that he’s just a lot smarter than i am. so i tolerate the arrogance to a degree.
when i read sagan, i feel good about things: reassured…maybe even peaceful (?!) there’s a concession for belief there, and the ways in which it nurtures our minds and hopefully for the ways in which it conveys us into different territories of knowledge. he was lovely.
brian greene just annoys me. i think it’s his voice. i know that’s a poor argument for which to pass judgement, but, i can’t listen to him talk about string theory without it just grating on my eardrums.
but, what i like about him is he is really good at talking about mathematics visually. (as in the case for the strings)
last night i was thinking about that, and reminded of a person who makes soft sculpture/quilts based on hyperbolic geometry. (they don’t lie flat) and thank goodness for people like greene and this soft sculpture person, because otherwise mathematics just seems so abstract to me.
i’d agree on some of the greene points there, jen. i have a subjective reason for giving him a pass: one of the most powerfully spiritual experiences of my life occurred while reading the section of his “the elegant universe” where he discusses the way the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces phase transitioned from some uber-force during the initial moments of the big bang. still get the hairs up on my neck while thinking of that sometimes (as a good geek should), not to mention that it’s a nice demonstration of the anthropic principle…
‘naut wind steed’
…or something.
Didnt we eat sun?
These are growing on me, some.
‘nude nited swat’
that one’s a little dirty. sorry.
then…
‘nude was tinted’
‘undead twinset’
‘it was untended’
ok. i’ll stop now.
or …
“t’was it unended?”
oh dear. this is deadly. i could really be being very productive at something right this minute. i’m sure of it.
there’s this thing about these…i think the aesthetic side of these is just kind of a decoy. what’s actually fun (and i’ll suggest that the comments above imply the truth of it) is attempting to follow the rube goldberg machine that this guy’s mind must be. i really see this as pretty process driven art. i also might call this guy a sculptor’s sculptor, like people might call gideon bok a painter’s painter. some of the assumptions here–manipulating found objects, incorporating images and texts, etc.–just seem like what sculptor’s do.
I’d agree with that assessment.
i’m wondering how he chooses to edit. like, what he doesn’t include in these lists…because there must be a ton more of these that he comes up with.
with most of the ones he uses on the sign, he starts with ‘A’ so he flips the premise from experience to object. maybe it’s just for sound consistency?
they keep occurring to me. and really, once you get going, your brain turns into a little word factory. and, seeing what i’m seeing, i don’t think i’d like living in this guy’s brain. not even for a day.
alrighty:
‘i want ten dudes’
‘dude was intent’
it is a lot like painting. inventing reinventing. aren’t most creative processes similar to this? funny thing is, there becomes an automatic aspect to the process too. like, a conditioned aspect where your brain just goes on autopilot and you can be doing other things and then, wham, a new something-or-other just appears: like a picture or something. it’s interesting…
It seems appropriate to this series of posts to pass along the information that NPR has just reported that Robert Rauschenberg died in Florida today.
undoing the meaningful into the ridiculous. or showing just how nearly disassociated aphorism becomes over time.
obvious: yes.
but, also an ancillary in-road for me to make a plug for Dawkins’ ‘The God Delusion’, which i am reading and enjoying.
i am bouncing back and forth between this and Deuteronomy. a bit schizophrenic…maybe. but, more and more, i am thinking contradiction is the only way to fly.
I believe I’d put my money on paradox…
dawkins + deuteronomy = classic, and paradoxical (both in different ways)… though i’d pair up dawkins with the epistle to the romans or the gospel of john for proper resonance.
yeah. Romans. well…nough said.
dawkins is just so gleefully irreverent. he’s giddy. sagan is so mild and patient and doting in comparison.
one of the strange connections that i’ve never really understood is how dawkins and douglas adams could have been such great friends. i’d certainly assign gleeful irreverence and brilliance and genius to adams, but not so much to dawkins - priggish is a better adjective in my opinion. he and alan guth hold the corner on some sort of holier-than-thou attitude in the popular scientific community. the greatness of adams and sagan and brian greene and strephen j. gould is how they were able to bring the understandings and implications of science into a hopeful, joyful place of discovery and yearning…
i do think he’s giddy. in a way that suggests something that i’m a little leery of. i don’t really see how he could be good friends with much of anyone. he only seems to respect himself. but, i’m trying to benevolent with my adjectives, i guess cause til i suss it all out for myself, i’m never sure what to think. and, i have my suspicions that he’s just a lot smarter than i am. so i tolerate the arrogance to a degree.
when i read sagan, i feel good about things: reassured…maybe even peaceful (?!) there’s a concession for belief there, and the ways in which it nurtures our minds and hopefully for the ways in which it conveys us into different territories of knowledge. he was lovely.
brian greene just annoys me. i think it’s his voice. i know that’s a poor argument for which to pass judgement, but, i can’t listen to him talk about string theory without it just grating on my eardrums.
but, what i like about him is he is really good at talking about mathematics visually. (as in the case for the strings)
last night i was thinking about that, and reminded of a person who makes soft sculpture/quilts based on hyperbolic geometry. (they don’t lie flat) and thank goodness for people like greene and this soft sculpture person, because otherwise mathematics just seems so abstract to me.
i’d agree on some of the greene points there, jen. i have a subjective reason for giving him a pass: one of the most powerfully spiritual experiences of my life occurred while reading the section of his “the elegant universe” where he discusses the way the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces phase transitioned from some uber-force during the initial moments of the big bang. still get the hairs up on my neck while thinking of that sometimes (as a good geek should), not to mention that it’s a nice demonstration of the anthropic principle…