quarta-feira, 26 de dezembro de 2007
sábado, 15 de dezembro de 2007
humans still evolving
(...) The question of whether modern humans are evolving has not gone away, though. This week, scientists added to a growing pile of papers that indicate human evolution is not only continuing, but may be accelerating at an unprecedented pace. Where this will take us has become one of the most contentious questions in evolutionary biology.
In an essay entitled The Spice of Life published in 2000, the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould reinforced the idea that thanks to improvements in medicine, shelter and, for many, plentiful food, humans had all but stepped off the evolutionary ladder. "Natural selection has almost become irrelevant," he wrote. "There's been no biological change in humans in 40,000 years or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilisation we've built with the same body and brain."
This week, Harpending's group published details of a study that asked how much humans have evolved in the past 80,000 years, a period that includes the exodus of humanity from Africa. The answer, they concluded, was an awful lot. They identified a rapid increase in evolution, as our ancestors adapted first to harsh latitudes with miserable climates, then to farming, which revolutionised the human diet. Harpending's group studied the DNA of four distinct groups around the planet: Japanese, Han Chinese, Europeans and Yoruba in Africa. They found that nearly 2,000 genes, or 7% of the genome, have been subjected to recent natural selection.
Randy Kennedy's interesting Times article on Richard Prince and his commercial sources; but first, some thoughts from Christian Patterson via Speak, See, Remember:
Christian Patterson: ...in the article, Jim Krantz, one of the photographers whose work Prince has appropriated, shares his feelings:
Jim Krantz: My whole issue with this, truly, is attribution and recognition. It's an unusual thing to see an artist who doesn't create his own work, and I don't understand the frenzy around it.
If I italicized Moby-Dick, then would it be my book? I don't know. But I don't think so."
Christian Patterson: I personally enjoy looking at a lot of this type of work.
There is often a complex relationship between the original and appropriated images. There is often a difference in artistic intent. And the appropriated image usage often relies on the viewer's familiarity with the original image to achieve a certain effect.
If you'd like to learn more, and read a couple of interesting case studies:
Wikipedia - Appropriation (Art) (This page includes many good links to appropriation artists, and examples of legal decisions dealing with the subject.)
NEWSgrist: Krantz's naive remarks about "artists who don't create their own work" and appropriation in visual art being tantamount to italicizing Moby Dick, illustrates commonly-held misconceptions about originality (not just appropriation), and about how all art is sourced. People do get caught up in appearances; of course there is more to it than meets the eye, as Mr Patterson points out above.... anyway, I find it hard to sympathize with commercial photographers for what should be obvious reasons.
NYTimes article: ...Mr. Krantz said he considered his ad work distinctive, not simply the kind of anonymous commercial imagery that he feels Mr. Prince considers it to be. "People hire me to do big American brands to help elevate their images to these kinds of iconic images," he said.
NEWSgrist: Corporations pay Krantz to make their product more desirable. As far as the public is concerned, he IS anonymous (does Marlborough let him sign his name to the ads?)
If the Copy Is an Artwork, Then What's the Original?
By RANDY KENNEDY
Published: December 6, 2007
Since the late 1970s, when Richard Prince became known as a pioneer of appropriation art — photographing other photographs, usually from magazine ads, then enlarging and exhibiting them in galleries — the question has always hovered just outside the frames: What do the photographers who took the original pictures think of these pictures of their pictures, apotheosized into art but without their names anywhere in sight?
Recently a successful commercial photographer from Chicago named Jim Krantz was in New York and paid a quick visit to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, where Mr. Prince is having a well-regarded 30-year retrospective that continues through Jan. 9. But even before Mr. Krantz entered the museum's spiral, he was stopped short by an image on a poster outside advertising the show, a rough-hewn close-up of a cowboy's hat and outstretched arm.
Mr. Krantz knew it quite well. He had shot it in the late 1990s on a ranch in the small town of Albany, Tex., for a Marlboro advertisement. "Like anyone who knows his work," Mr. Krantz said of his picture in a telephone interview, "it's like seeing yourself in a mirror." He did not investigate much further to see if any other photos hanging in the museum might be his own, but said of his visit that day, "When I left, I didn't know if I should be proud, or if I looked like an idiot."
When Mr. Prince started reshooting ads, first prosaic ones of fountain pens and furniture sets and then more traditionally striking ones like those for Marlboro, he said he was trying to get at something he could not get at by creating his own images. He once compared the effect to the funny way that "certain records sound better when someone on the radio station plays them, than when we’re home alone and play the same records ourselves."
But he was not circumspect about what it meant or how it would be viewed. In a 1992 discussion at the Whitney Museum of American Art he said of rustling the Marlboro aesthetic: "No one was looking. This was a famous campaign. If you're going to steal something, you know, you go to the bank."
People might not have been looking at the time, when his art was not highly sought. But as his reputation and prices for his work rose steeply — one of the Marlboro pictures set an auction record for a photograph in 2005, selling for $1.2 million — they began to look, and Mr. Prince has spoken of receiving threats, some legal and some more physical in nature, from his unsuspecting lenders. He is said to have made a small payment in an out-of-court settlement with one photographer, Garry Gross, who took the original shot for one of Mr. Prince's most notorious early borrowings, an image of a young unclothed Brooke Shields. (Mr. Prince declined to comment for this article, saying in an e-mail message only, "I never associated advertisements with having an author.")cont
sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2007
Chocolate Santa is 10" and is made with 14 oz. of Guittard semi-sweet dark chocolate and comes with a podium. Chocolate Santa is $100 plus Shipping and Handling.
David Shrigley (British, born 1968)
From a portfolio of sixteen etchings
Copenhagen: Galleri Nicolai Wallner, 2005
Printed at Niels Borch Jensen’s Værksted for Kobbertryk, Copenhagen
The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs, Print Collection.
Courtesy of Galleri Nicolai Wallner; photographer: Anders Sun Berg
quinta-feira, 13 de dezembro de 2007
OI mocada, fui no show do led zeppelin na segunda; ganhei convite do
jimmy page... [Nota: ele sempre menciona q eh amigo do j page. se fosse eu tb mencionaria. ;) T]
Fiz uns clips la, o meu youtube site estava sendo o mais visto na
terca, ate que a warner bros mandou censurar tudo, alegando coprirght.
A mocada fez o maior bafafa nos comentarios, passei a terca no
computador respondendo emails. E impressionante a internet.
O youtube recolocou os videos hoje. O site ja tem ate medalha do mais
ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE ITS TOO LATE
GLOBAL DAY OF ACTION
THE TIME IS NOW
THE TIME IS NOW