Archives for category: Media

Discover is a curious word. I have been fascinated with the word discover for some time. We like to think that it means to learn or invent something spontaneously– as if producing something new out of thin air. We say Galileo discovered the laws of motion. Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity. Christopher Columbus discovered North America. But the truth is that those things were there all along. The forces of gravity worked upon Achilles, Hector and Agamemnon just as effectively as they do upon you and me, today. These things were not transmogrified at their moments of discovery. They were revealed to be true. The cover of ignorance– of unknowing– had been removed: discovered, uncovered.

Art is different. At the moment art is revealed it is handed over. Art is a sacrificial gift to be coveted, savored, squandered, mocked or copied. And there is nothing the artist can do about that choice once it has been given.

The relationship between artist and audience is a strained one. I believe an artist both loves and hates the audience. The artist requires an audience. Is an unread novel really a novel, regardless of how well-drafted it may be? Is a painting truly art if no one views it? Does an actor really act if the balcony is empty? I do not think so. I concede it may be possible to consider these events artistic absent any witnesses; but they strike me as something closer to lost treasures, valueless until the day they are actually discovered.

Now some artists have had fun with this bit of cosmic irony, postulating a world in which discovery functions much more like true prestidigitation. This brings a whole new meaning to something like the Copernican revolution. I appreciate that. I think it speaks to a motivation for some artists: a desire to change the world through expression.

Read the rest of this entry »

We talk about art being derivative. Or at least we talk that way when we do not like it. When we like a piece of art we talk about how it was inspired by others’ works. It is not imitation. I think these two reactions are emotional gut-checks on essentially the same phenomenon facing creativity. I believe creativity is a virus– creativity can infect others, induce them to write, to paint, to sculpt, to sing. And yet we seem to approach that fact with mixed emotions. We complain that our creativity is being copied at the same time we become excited that someone has thought so much of what we have created to do something themselves.

One of my favorite expressions of this paradox is– unsurprisingly– from an artist. These lyrics are from U2’s song, “The Fly” from their 1991 album, Achtung Baby.

It’s no secret that a conscience can sometimes be a pest
It’s no secret ambition bites the nails of success
Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief
All kill their inspiration and sing about their grief

Read the rest of this entry »

What is it that draws me to something for mawkish reasons? Why do I regret actions without rational justification? What is it about something—something simple and concrete—that compels me to attach emotional value to it?

I know I am not alone. I find these experiences permeated throughout almost every aspect of the days between Thanksgiving and New Years Day. By no means are these the only times I come across these sorts of events and feelings. November to December serves as the climactic high point on the calendar. Traditions are born and broken. Or rather—for a pessimist like me, it is the breaking of those familiar traditions that evokes my maudlin, sentimental response.

And yet I wonder if I am a dying breed within my generation. Has Generation X subsumed itself so deeply into the cult of cynicism that we have eliminated any tolerance for sentimentality? We wear a peculiar perfume; the odor pervades us in a cloud of distrust of the integrity and professed motives of others—and even ourselves. We reek. We stink.

Nothing is sacred.

Read the rest of this entry »

“I have just fled my own office in horror at their fucking dimwittedness.”

I do not like Jay Mariotti. I do not like what he writes. I do not like what he says on the radio. I do not like what he says on television. I do not find his arguments compelling. I do not find his style intriguing. I find him tired, weak, and clichéd. I believe that Jay Mariotti wants to attract attention to himself. He wants people to listen to what he has to say. He wants people to read what he has written. He knows that people have done these things when they respond to him. He has found a swift way to accomplish those goals. He says something provocative, critical and negative and waits for the return volleys. Writing for a company that buys ink by the barrel and speaking from behind the one-way broadcast booths of television are radio are low-risk methods to achieve those goals.

I do like Ozzie Guillen. I do not like him simply because he is the manager of my favorite sports team—although that does not hurt his case. I love his candor. I appreciate his instincts with respect to baseball. I believe he does things right and calls things like he sees them. He makes mistakes. He speaks without reflection. These are consequences of his candid, earnest approach.

I believe there is courage in an honest straight-up debate where you present your opponents’ arguments in their strongest possible terms—and then defeat the arguments. I am unsure whether this is the role of sports reporting and sports commentary. I would like to think that it is.

Read the rest of this entry »

The conversation begins innocently enough.

I was listening to sports radio the other dayas I doand they meandered into the topic of misunderstood lyrics. Mick Jagger being the undisputed king of them, of course, brought up the lyric in “Sympathy for the Devil”.

Jagger? Moreso than Michael Stipe?

Jagger. Jagger was mumbling and howling words while Michael Stipe was still sucking his mammy’s titty. The lyrics actually say: “I watched and gleamed while you kings and queens fought for ten decades for the gods they made.” Anastasia screamed in vain, you know. The whole song is genius, man. Genius! Best. Rock. Song. Evar. And the challenge is thrown down, Come on. Try me. (And don’t give me no Led Zeppelin pansy ass shit either. All that stuff about faeries and flowers in the hair.) I immediately nominate, “Like a Rolling Stone” by Bob Dylan and “London Calling” by The Clash. The answer: Like a Rolling Stone, done by Jimi Hendrix, is a good choice. London Calling too, but neither holds a candle.

And so it goes, suggestion and counter:

“My Generation”, The Who: Serious consideration, but no. “Hey Jude”, The Beatles: Not even the best Beatles song. “I Walk The Line”, Johnny Cash: Doesn’t have the same effect. “Me And Bobby McGee” Janis Joplin: Written by? Kris Kristofferson. Therefore, not rock. Q.E.D.

What makes the Best. Rock. Song. Evar? The question, once broached, demanded an answer. For the next two weeks I asked. I interrogated. I debated. I questioned. I tested. No one was safe. Cab drivers would find themselves musing on the idea as they drove. Before I would help people at work, I would require them to answer this one question. It was the new currency of technical support. I asked everyone I ran across. I took notes on the opinions of my friends and family, associates and enemies. I wrote to people I had not spoken to in months—years in at least one case.

Sometimes my target would nominate a song purely subjectively. I just like it. It rocks! Sometimes they would attempt an explanation, like this brilliant bit of poetry from Eamon:

Man, that’s a toughie. I think I’m going to go with AC/DC’s “For Those About to Rock (We Salute You)”, and here’s why: not only does it rock, but it makes you feel like you rock just for listening to it, and it makes whatever song comes after it rock even harder. Because while the song repeatedly promises that full-on rocking is imminent, in fact it has already begun rocking, thus thoroughly priming your sub-consciousness for continued rock.

I add that the fusillade at the end of the song does not hurt the strength of the nomination by any stretch. Liz went so far as to declare this to be the song she wants played at her funeral and Smokes has gallantly agreed to provide the necessary cannon fire.

Read the rest of this entry »

“No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that human affairs were being watched from the timeless worlds of space. No one could have dreamed that we were being scrutinized as someone with a microscope studies creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. Few men even considered the possibility of life on other planets. And yet, across the gulf of space, minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded this earth with envious eyes. And slowly and surely they drew their plans against us.”

Updated for a more contemporary audience, an introduction quite similar to the one above precedes the inevitable in Stephen Spielberg’s latest science fiction film, War of the Worlds.

I saw the new film this past week and it was the introductory words voiced by Morgan Freeman that drew me back to when I first heard something so similar. It was 1978. The words quoted above were spoken by a man who was to become one of my favorite actors, Richard Burton. They are the opening to “Eve of the War” in Jeff Wayne’s musical interpretation of H.G. Wells’ novel The War of the Worlds.

I was seven at the time I heard this album. My good friend Matt had acquired it. His father had been the one to purchase the album almost immediately after it had been released and one night when I was over at Matt’s house I saw the new cover among his family’s record collection and asked to listen to it. I remember being intrigued by the cover art, and the interior artwork of the double LP album. And I remember the album. Particularly I remember Richard Burton’s haunting voice as he would propel the narrative forward in and among the various tracks.

Read the rest of this entry »

Watched the pilot of Point Pleasant last night based mainly on its connection to some of the folks involved with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Joss Whedon does not appear to be directly connected with the new project, but I wouldn’t take that as definitive. That is, you may want to do your own research on the subject, before you believe me.

Set in the summertime along the Jersey shore, the cast of characters features what is apparently the daughter of the devil. The show revolves around the pulls of good and evil. Evil is obviously represented by the girl’s father. The girl’s mother, who remains mysteriously absent in the early going, apparently represents the good.