day three hundred and one: liar, liar, pants on fire

Quite amazing how things come together and are then tangibly connected. I was having a discussion with some of my first year students the other day. One of whom stated that nobody ever tells the truth. That we all lie in some form or other. This obviously led to some kind of Monty Python parody on "You're lying!", "No I'm not!", "How do you know you are not lying?" etc. And the conversation went on. However, the striking thing about this whole conversation is the degree of truth that might be held behind the idea that people may actually be lying and believe they are telling the truth. Or that they are lying to cover something up in order to make better control of the people they are lying to. After all, what is in fact seemingly happening in this modern episode is that people are more and more convincing themselves that they are telling the truth , so that when other people tell the truth then they assume it is a lie.

What other connections happened this week that associate itself to this conversation. Well, I was discussing the conspiracy theory to my other first year students, that governments around the world (basically known for their ability to lie on behalf of their voters and the people they ultimately lie to) are in fact causing this scare with the new virus H1N1. That maybe they are treating the water in some way, as to populate and spread possible viral population control activators. After all, the one thing that all of us need is water. What is the easiest way to then spread anything? Through the water system. But the funny connection here was that this morning my friend came round and we were talking about all the people who have been getting ill recently, and the fact that there is a great concern for over-population. And what better way to seemingly kill large groups of people, other than blaming it on a disease. Anyway, some time after that conversation the following video link was sent through, from here! A strangely funny connection between what I was discussing and the evidence of a reported expert also coming to the same conclusion, through other sources.

To extend this connection, I was also mentioning to people the reasons why the Bilderbergs may have been at a very private talk in Greece this year. That something was cooking. That sometime after that, Karamalis entered into a no win election and then resigned as leader. Obviously this is all speculative and that is the fruit of a good conspiracy theory, but if you watch the video and listen. There is a plausible notation to think about lowering the population. It kind of moves on from the notion of what was being discussed in the series about Darwin's Dangerous Ideas, and that man has determined himself as his own worse enemy. So, do we all lie? Are we all doomed? Will we ever know the truth? And more importantly, will we know it when we see it?

day three hundred: self-destruction button - dangerous idea?

Been watching these interesting programmes by the BBC about 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'. Of course this is referring to the theory of natural selection by Charles Darwin. What makes this programme move away from the typical insightful display of natural history images and narration dictating the method by which mother Earth has evolved many species through climate, condition, resources and breeding, it looked at the possible damning consequences of how this idea can actual fall into the wrong hands. Those wrong hands being those of mankind. I am a strong advocate in Darwin's theory and love to support all the notions that we are simple an evolved monkey that simply grew a brain. But watching this programme made me think that even if people supported the attitudes and philosophies of one of the most controversial ideas that ever existed, they could also do so in such a way that could destroy its essence of being.

Nature is a fantastic mechanism. It has this strong ability to continue. This is in fact the whole essence of natural selection. It has natural problems occurring and then allows nature, through the misused term, "survival of the fittest" to find a solution and to adapt to this ever changing phenomenons. Those that don't change die away. A good example would be the notion that all giraffes some time in the past all had short necks. This was so, because the food they ate was plentiful and there was enough to go around. Over time this food became more scarce and so an adaption came about. One variant of the giraffe family began to reach for the higher leaves to eat. Over time this formed a genetic transformation to allow an evolved state that would cope with this environmental inevitability. Hence the reason that giraffes have long necks. What has occurred with mankind it seems is that due to our manufactured lifestyle we have seemingly stopped evolving. We have no natural changes that we cannot set right via our presumed, more advanced technological lifestyle. However, in our amazingly arrogant role of actually playing god, we are in fact evolving.

What we have done in order to compensate the lack of natural cause for evolution is that we evolve mentally. We have become quite unique in actually developing our brain function on an evolutionary level. And some of the information that was pointed out in this BBC documentary series seems to indicate this. The term eugenics was applied at the turn of the century as a way of possibly dealing with the increasing issue of population growth. As I mentioned in a previous blog, there is a strong indicator that several of the revolutions that occurred in history are in fact the cause of some of these philosophies existence. The first major change that occurred was the agricultural revolution. What this did in some senses, was to take us out of the folds of nature and to actually start the process of mankind's attempt to control nature. We began to become resident and grow crops. What this did was to start the increase in population. What it also did was to work against the notion of what natural selection is intended to do. The food supplies grew and so therefore did the population. There was abundance that meant that the off-spring had a better chance of surviving. However, man also created trade. This conflicted with the prospects of large food surplus, and still exists today. In one sense it is the new evolutionary trait in the mechanism to define who is the strongest. It is not now about physical evolution, but a manufactured evolution based on the growing human mind.

The next thing that occurred was the industrial revolution. This came around the same time that Darwin was returning from his voyage of discovery, and made an bigger divide in the class system. People had the issue of having to adapt to a non-natural occurrence. That of not having money to survive. There was food, but it had a price. This is where the intelligence factor came in, which is a little bit of a misnomer. The high classes believed that as they were born into wealth, they were therefore of a high status over working class folk, simply because they believed their intelligence to be great. Like it was a promotion of Darwin's natural selection. This theory has been used in abhorrent fashion for years to guide genocide, war, population control and eugenics. All, however is a misuse of the understanding of what natural selection is about. What the first programme indicated is that for natural selection to survive in any given species, that species must accept that it has to be governed by self-destruction. This is in fact the reality in the notion of the 'survival of the fittest'. What nature does is allow for the environment to dictate the need for a species to survive. What man has done is to redefine his own evolution through the process of greater intelligence.

What has occurred further down the line is that scientists are now even defining a theory that there is a gene DNA strand that is an evolutionary sign of the old intelligence and the new. That the old intelligence is in fact characteristic of the southern hemisphere and that the new gene is predominant in the European gene pool. This is dangerous thinking even if the fact that this gene does exist or not. Man's attempts to play god with his own future can only ultimately become self-destructive. But, as Darwin defines, in some sense this is how life evolves. What we are trying to do though is generate the rules by which we survive. The sad state is, is that in this definition we are increasingly become detached from that natural order that should define life in the first place. I am eager to see the concluding episode and see what the resolve is, but at the end of the day, our desire to evolve mentally to a non-existant environment of thinking is ultimately doomed and can only end badly.

day two hundred and ninety-nine: do we really live in a beautiful world

I woke this morning and heard my daughter making noises in her bedroom. I went to check, and knowing she is a great student, found her sitting at her desk doing her English homework. Not bad for a early sunday morning. However, I sat down next to her to see if I could help or enlighten her. The exercise was the one that is the main image on this page. As she is very clever, I had little to do, but was interested at staring at the page. One of the aspects I teach my students at college is the need to learn how to read something. The visual communication and language that is held in an image or form. The psychology that can be taken from this form, etc. I found this page very interesting indeed. Now, before I start to describe why I found it interesting, can anyone figure out what I am going to say?

It is a simple reflection of something else I teach in my lessons. Take a look at this!

This is a projection of how the world is shown in all educated schools around the world. If you read the text you will see that what is happening is that they are assigning more visual space to the northern hemisphere than to the south. That has in fact more land mass. Why do they do this? Well, as it says it is giving more emphasis to European colonial powers. In this map Greenland is the same size if not bigger than Africa. This is factually not correct. What is the big issue is that this is being taught to all children in schools. It forms a corruption in the truth by which people will live their lives. It may not seem a big thing, but without giving any evidence of what was just said, ask someone to view a normal atlas with you and ask them what is wrong with it. One hundred percent of the time they will say "nothing". Unless of course they are aware of the Peter's Project. Then ask them to point to where the equator is on that same map. They then, should start realising that the image is wrong.
Look at the correct version:

If you look at this map, which is part of the Peter's project, the land masses are all proportionally correct. What is happening in your mind however, is you are seeing something wrong. Not quite right. This is simply because for years you have been shown the distorted form and promoted this as being correct through your educational lifespan. This can be a very damaging to people's view on the world, and it is a key to good or bad visual communication. In this case it is important that the definition of the global be in favour of the northern hemisphere, as it is a subconscious control mechanism. In many other respects it is also a control aspect, but on a different level.

As I stated in the title, do we actually live in a beautiful world? What is my reasoning for this statement. Well, as part of the process of educating young minds in art, design and visual communication it becomes more and more tangible to see that people are brain-washed considerably by the way that other powers can use art as a devise to psychologically control people. Another example can be seen in this:

People are willing to give life and loss to die for a country based on this form of propaganda. Not necessarily simply due to the poster or the image on a piece of paper, but the message that it tries to sell. Its about connection and form to make the viewer feel connected to their country through a visual icon. It is using art to reinvigorate a patriotism that may not be simply triggered by words alone. The 'Red, White and Blue', the personification of a country into an Uncle, and the directness of his message all stir something, that no other form possibly could. This is powerful visual communication and makes the world either a beautiful place or ugly in the essence of manipulating people. Now how does my daughter's homework all tie into this?

I am hoping that the clever readers have already worked it out. I teach lateral and creative thinking. I have, after seeing this, used a very emotive speech by Sir Ken Robinson, to put a point across about education. Watch this and then continue to read! One thing that Sir Ken Robinson mentions in this speech is the fact that education; modern education, has been set up as a result of the industrial revolution. A need to teach people the need for logistical aspects to the arts and sciences. If you look at many forms of curriculum there is a constant assertion to promote science. mathematics and language as a key aspect to learning. This is in order to train people in those skills that will maintain the economic integrity of the industrial philosophy. What is a negative aspect to all this is the simple fact that art and art-based subjects are constantly disregarded and basically not taught. I have written previous posts about the fact that my daughter's teachers feel it is more appropriate to skip art lessons to continue mathematics and language. The more damaging thing is that when I talk about this to other parents, they seem not to see a problem with it. Two things come out of Sir Ken Robinson's speech. First, the story of the assumed problem child that later became a world famous dancer, because someone paid attention to their creative streak. The second is the fact that it is so true that art is seen as a unessential aspect to human existence. However, if you look around you, regardless of its quality or bad aspect, all things are designed.

Nature designs, we tend to do a pale and inadequate copy of this, but at the end of the day, all things are designed. So if this is not taught, then where does it come from? Maybe it is a positive attack against the education system by like-minded creatives wanted to express themselves. Just imagine what this world could be like if all artists where heard as much as all politicians, or all doctors, or engineers, etc. Or not heard, but their skills and talents (if you call it that) where allowed to be expressed or found? So, all that said, what has this to do with a page in my daughter's homework book. Take a look again. Think visual psychology and all I have just said about art and how people may read things. What do you see? Look at all the subjects listed on the page. All sort of have roughly the same space assigned to them. Which subject has the least space? And also, which subject has the most space? Does that strike you in anyway? Like the maps of the world. Well, this is how the mind reads this subconsciously. We believe that the cognitive mind is the important aspect, but it is the patterns and subconscious mind that builds these important patterns, and if a young mind takes in this pattern that art is insignificant and history has more visual dominance, then how can we move forward? How can we build a beautiful future? Something to think about?

day two hundred and ninety-eight: the kiss

Hanging on the lips of truth is the essence of a dream!

day two hundred and ninety-seven: what would you do if you were a mayfly?

Was a little unconvinced by one of my student's attitude toward their turning of another year. Seemed a little unenthused by it all, and only twenty. Had a feeling that they wanted to be Peter Pan and never grow up. Anyway, this morning walking down the street I was thinking about a mayfly. Odd in one sense as it is mid-November here (well everywhere actually), and this little creature is a season spectacle. I guess it was in relationship to the notion that this student was dismayed by the promise of getting older and that the poor little Mayfly has but one single day to live. I managed to find a copy of the Vodafone advert that seems to say it all in it's narrative really. For those who can't see the embedded video, you can see it here! It made me think as I walked back, what would you do if you only had one day to do that thing?

Its funny how many of the things I think about come together, as I was relating to anatomy in my drawing class yesterday and that some two thousand and more years ago the life expectancy of the typical human was around thirty years old. Today the life expectancy is closer to eighty. Still, we seem to simply want to live forever. We seem to constantly feel that there is not enough time to do the things we want, but in the same breath end up doing a series of things that takes up that time. So, looking at the one day of life this little insect has, what would be the method in our madness. Can you imagine popping out of our mother's womb and at that moment knowing that by the time the sunsets on that day your existence would be a mere memory. Where would you go? What would you do? How would you interact?

It seems life at present conjures too many reasons to avoid doing many of the important aspects of what would make a life worthwhile. However this would end up being another debate about the rationale behind the way society has dictated modern living. So, like the the video seems to suggest, would we throw ourselves into the joys of life. Is life just about happiness and fulfillment? By what criteria would it be made that this definition of reasonable activity be set. For the common mayfly, there is one real agenda. That is to find a mate and reproduce for the next wave of mayflies to appear in the common name-sake month. To a mayfly, that is what life is about, but I guess in a more cognitive sense, we would be better looking at the analogy of George Bailey, in "It's a Wonderful Life". It is not exactly the same analogy, however the idea that the realisation he discovers occurs in that single cold winter night. So is this a good example of a presumed life. Would we say our forgivenesses to all? Would we connect to people? Would we even say a simple 'good morning' to people passing by. Because we know that we will never see them again, and that simple statement will make their day. Would we define the risk factor as being one that was worthy of a short life? Would we, like the mayfly, see that life was to live for and that this opportunity must be taken.

What the big difference is that unlike the mayfly, who just gets on with it, and isn't even aware of their longevity, we think too much. We think too much of reasons why not to do things, instead of reasons to do things. As a species we seem to live a life based on too much regret. For whatever reason and magnitude, we always seem to look back and say more that we should have said that, or done this, or started something or even finished something. I am no different. I wish life could be as a mayfly's. Capricious and fulfilled in such a way that the life of regret is something that will never appear in that photo album as a curious memory. I love this advert. Not that it is selling something, but the fact that the cleverness of what it is saying should in so many respects be the daily war cry that all should enter the day to. However, we smile at such things as it seems dauntingly alien to us to even contemplating the idea that today could be our last and that we should make the best of it. Maybe the little mayfly knows something more that us larger beings?

day two hundred and ninety-six: nostalgia

I just posted an old video clip of Janice Joplin on my Facebook profile, from YouTube. Just before I did so, and was listening to the sounds of this wonderful songstress, I looked at some of the comments listed below. One stuck out, and is now the seed to this post. It conjured a rhetorical question in my mind. The statement was; "How good it is to see artists perform, when their image and money didn't matter." The rhetorical question that came from this was "Why do people seem to love this trip back into memory lane, but never seem to hold onto it, if it was that good?"

The obvious answer to this would of course that we evolve, or progress, or we could even say that we improve. However, does the technology age deliver us a fad oriented lifestyle that can only survive by literally reinventing. After all the retro fashion mode has only recently become a term used to describe reuse of design styles. It was very unlikely that Edwardian or even Victorian, or any other age of design held any kind of reworking of any design style. They simply designed to their requirements, restriction and the society acceptable norms. One of my students was talking to me the other day and was visibly excited by wanting to tell me that there had been invented a plugin for a computer program that emulated the sound of the crackle that the needle made on vinyl when playing an old record. It is quite amazing to think that through the whole process of technological purification of digital sound that someone thought it 'cool' to make a digital sound that was like an impure sound. A nostalgic parody of something that we all recognise from a time gone by. For some, like myself, it is easy to remember the days when vinyl was all that was available to listen to. For the generation today, they love the idea that it has in fact now become a retro fad.

Does this mean that creativity and aspects of invention have worn thin, and the only way to make a seemingly new aspect to something is to copy something, with new technology or technique? Looking at Janice singing away was a great thing to see. However, if I dare seek a reason to why she became an icon, what would be the answer to seeing her position in history. Is it the connections she had with the other famed icons of the time, is it her actual voice? Was it the time, in the socially changing 60's, that made her an icon? Was it the tragic, artistic lifestyle she held that made her the image she was and is? Hard to put a figure on it. The statement that was made on YouTube was not entirely true. We can look at Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison and other, regardlessly talented folk, who have become iconic due to an image that was omnipresent to the era and the present. The part that was true in the statement was the fact that regardless of how technological pure the sound was, there wa a presence, a style and a feeling. It was about the music rather than spreading the music to make money.

But looking at the old image of Seattle at the top of the post. What comes to mind when we take in the view of something as old as this such image? What is the sense we gain that cannot be regained by the best digital photograph? It seems that many things in our technological age seems to make a point to try to replicate a feeling on imperfection. we have distressed wood look to make fake antique feel, we have sepia toning in photography to make it look like an old picture. We even have torn jeans and stone washing to make it look like worn clothing. So, does this go towards one of two aspects. Firstly, a hatred for the clean and perfect? And secondly, the need to hold onto something from the past? The first is hard to understand, as it is not our nature, nor Darwinian Earth to devolve. All life tends to strive to evolve. Even in our technology we have to improve, make perfect and micronize our lifestyle gadgets. In some senses this is how we have jumped out of the bracket of physical evolution, defined by Charles Darwin, and have invented in our arrogance a new man-made evolutionary track: that of unnatural purification. As far as the second point goes, this has a great deal to do with the psychology of the human mind.

What is clear and definite is that we live in a world that moves forward, but is reflected in our memories. We relate very much with that which has past. A funny thing that I can reflect on is a statement that Marshall McLuhan made in his book Understanding Media. He basically noted that people who live in the present hold onto the past as it is safe and familiar. People who live in the future look to change it and affect the way that future is defined. Maybe, psychologically as well as sociologically we all want to feel safe. However, this delivers the failing of being defined by that past. I am no great fan of the future or the past, however, if we have jumped on this path of self-defining evolution, then we can't fall prey to not taking risks. A wheel has been a wheel since it's inception into our lives. Future thinking would be to discard its presence and notions of function and to think of a radical change. So, our need to live in nostalgia is not simply due to a realisation that this held some denoted value of a lost style, feeling, aspect or whatever, but the fact that it could in fact make us feel safe about moving forward. Almost like the growing boy and girl never really wanting to get rid of that thread bare teddy or doll.

day two hundred and ninety-five: trusting your senses

I really don't know how it works for most people, but as I live in this little place I call my body and have to deal with it every day, I am accustom to trying to figure out what happens within. As with most of us, I have been endowed with five senses. I would also argue that I feel that we also have a sixth sense that is more based on the instinctual aspects of our existence. I also would say that this also has a great deal to do with my functioning as an artist and creative person. What I mean by this is that, something I mentioned some time back, about aptitude can be attributed to this sixth sense. Or what we could say as having a keenness for the passion that drives our creative aspects. Now, I came in to college today, and if you follow a great deal of my blog postings you will know that I absolutely adore Olympus Mountain here in Greece, and the view that was glimpsed today was one of amazing beauty.

The funny thing is that I have many a debate about the way in which people act, use their emotions, etc. Seeing the mountain today was something that, I can only say for myself, was like being on drugs. It looked like a ghostly apparition with a snowy white cap. One of the best views of it I have ever seen. That aside, it is also a remarkably sad event traveling to work. Standing on a crowded bus, being hustled and knocked about. The worse however, is seeing the faces of the people there. All looking like stagnant concrete on a rainy day. The strange fact is that we all have been given this ability to use our senses to, well, sense. The way I started this post was stating that I see how I live inside my own body. What I can assume is that everyone else also lives like this and to look out and to be confronted with the expressionless faces of fellow earthlings must be a strong negative sensory overload. This was a little aside really, to the main thread, but is a way that I feel that humans are negating or misappropriating their senses.

As a creative person I try to instill into my students one of the key aspects, I feel, that cannot be taught. Is not even a thing that can be self-taught. It is an inner sense that either you express or don't express. I am not saying that some people have it and some people are totally void of it. It's more of a case of being able to tap it and use it effectively. That sense, is the sense of passion. To me, it is the fundamental and key motivation to being an artist. Without that connection to the pencil that is then connecting to the paper, there is nothing. It will simply be a line. To place the emotion force of passion on that line as you draw with transform a simple drawing into the same living force that created it. A good example I can call on is if you look at the work of Glen Keene. Glen is a disney animator and chief character developer. Follow this link to see some of his work! To me, as an observant artist I see a great deal of passion being put into his work. It is almost as if every line he draws is one of passion. Now, the thread to this post is about the senses. As I originally stated at the start, we are all endowed with five common senses; smell, touch, sight, hearing and taste. What must be gathered from this, and is a connection the aspect of passion, is how these five senses can in fact aid in our daily existence on this planet. It is obvious that they hold simple values, such as eating breakfast, or burning your finger on a hot stove, etc. However, like animals, we have a deeper ability to our senses. We haven't simply evolved to have a lesser ability. Instead we have simple negated our senses true capabilities. These senses actually lie dormant, and occasionally flare unexpected.

The drudge of everyday life does not give rise or even spark on a daily basis the triggering of these senses, but what is also necessary to understand, is that we should not wait for triggers to occur. We can in fact trigger them ourselves. The most obvious one being the ocular senses. Instead of passing the day NOT looking, be more observant at all that is around us. After all, scientists do state that most of retained ocular sensory perception is taken from our peripheral vision. If we then also take or primary visual field as a key method in which to stimulate the the state of passion. That for example can help create a more stimulating creation. I see it so much that people tend to throw passion out at secondary activity or irrelevant likings. However, when it comes to the self or their own inner being they seldom express this. On hearing a simple statement like; "Oh, I love this piece of music!" then the most obvious query would be, "So why do you love this piece of music." Instead it seems that it is excepted that the initial statement is the finite element to a more internal sense. However it is not. The expression is a release from the sense of passion that the person would have towards a given thing. The reasoning is what could connect us, but is always lost as the question is not asked, or is asked and never answered. Maybe, if all of us look within and see that the five physical senses are triggered or at aid to the sixth sense then we could all live happier and more stimulated lives. Or at least, people would smile on the bus each and every day.

day two hundred and ninety-four: loneliness of long distance freelance artist

I realised the other day that I have spent over two years doing these blogs and not once have I even mentioned the fact that I am a freelance artist, and some of the toils that are faced in such a role. I say this as the past few weeks have encountered a plethora of issues that only go to highlight the position of many a creative in this role. To be damning in the first paragraph, it would be easy to say that clients take the role of the freelancer too much like they would use a pen or even slave. Tossing it to one side once its roll is complete. Never having any ethical respect for the position that these hardy, time resilient practitioners are. This was humorously highlighted by a video I was shown on YouTube. I have added the link here, so that it can be enjoyed by all. Please be warned it has bad language. Which, however, only goes to show the plight that freelancers go through.

Why do I seem so bitter. Well, apart from the spate of services on the internet that are making it ever so much harder for freelancers to get decent work, it is also the process by which people treat you to try and get a fast one over you. I recently became part of the No!Spec movement that tries to encourage freelancers to reveal and defend against speculative work. This, has been a great burden over the past five years. As the economic climate has changed for the worst, it has been more the case that creative have been more willing to take on any work and even do preliminary work to prove their worth, before even being given the commission. All this goes to prove is that you are an enormous sucker, and a great deal of clients have little to no ethics when it comes to f**king over an artist. After all, who would lie to get a talented sole to design some work, knowing full well all they are after is getting a good idea, in order to hirer a cheaper sap and not pay the respective creator. It also seems more the case that clients are willing to negate the notion of copyright and manipulate work done by freelancers in order to squeeze it dry.

I say this as I have had a recent event where I was willing to give a proposal that stated clearly what was to be delivered, and the fact that payment was due 'no later' than 30 days on completion. It is now 32 days past completion and no money, and to top it all they were willing to insist on extras that were not included in the costing and insist it to be a non-completion clause. The funny fact being, as the video shows is that in the reverse situation, they would request payment when due or upfront. I don't really know if freelancers have the word "stupid" burnt into their forehead, but it sure feels like it sometimes. Another service on the internet, (no names) has a policy NOW to stop prospective clients asking for test designs, concepts or preparatory work. This doesn't stop them emailing you privately, like which has happened to me recently, and ask for such. I have indicated that on acceptance of the terms I will do the designs he has been indicating as a thing he is looking forward to seeing. Since I have stated I am to wait until I have been chosen, there has been no more communication.

This happens all the time, and I am now learning to be willing to drop commissions if there is no deposit or contract assigned. It is a simple safeguard that I have learnt over the years, and even though not foolproof, has stopped me being completely walked all over. Also, a friend of mine and I did a piece, over a year ago, and now have faced a series of corrections which occur on a weekly basis. The last was a missing 'M' that was a fault of theirs and not ours. So, seven attempts and seven DVDs and seven trips into town and maybe 12 hours of work later, they have now told me there is an issue at the printers. By the way, none of this extra work is paid for as extra. It is just assumed that its free or included. To put pain on insult, some clients believe that they have rights over the work. Like if you buy a car, you own the rights to the design of the car! This is a great continuation in the struggle that designers face. One of the main reason being is that many an artist is undermined by cheaper hacks or that they don't command enough wealth to protect themselves against exploit. whether the world will change to accept this type of work with the same credibility as any other I very much doubt. After all, someone working twelve+ hours a day, for little to nothing and kick in the face as a thanks should command some sort of respect and ethical treatment as any other creature on this planet. Oh, I forgot, humankind has an inbuilt tendency to be harmful to creatures it sees no use in, other than its own personal gain. Long live the freelancer!

day two hundred and ninety-three: X marks the spot

No, this is not a post about the love I have for Macintosh. Its about another X. Now before I get onto the main subject and the notions and theories I have around this, it is an interesting connection that as human beings we have been designated by scientists with gene classifications. Basically women holding two 'XX' chromosomes and men and 'XY' combination. I am not sure whether the connection has derived from this, but the notation of having a persona above someone else seems to be denoted by the expression; "The X-Factor". Also, now, enhanced by the reality talent(less) show that has been franchised around the world.
So, the X-Factor, whether or not deriving from the idea of having a golden X in your genes, is an indication of talent or notoriety, or even the process of celebrity. Is that true?

Three things caught me eye this weekend. First was the ill-named show, that I was glimpsing with my hand over my eyes. The second was the qualifiers of the formula one on saturday, in which there was a report on an aspect of the motor racing fraternity. The final one was the opening sequence to this years Emmy awards, and the archaic red carpet treatment of celebrities. All these three things combined drew me to the feeling that society puts too much emphasis on ordinary people who, without any fault of their own, have been placed in the spot light. The definition of celebrity. Before I go any further I would really like to point out that my type of celebrity (if I can call them that) are people like Michael Moore. Unsung heroes, who even though have now been noticeably recognised in the lime-light of fame, also hold stedfast in their real life aspects. I remember seeing Michael getting on stage one, to accept and award wearing a dinner suit jacket, but jeans and his recognizable baseball cap. That is the sort of chap I would invite for tea.

So, onto the main aspects of conversation. What is it about fame that makes people believe they are more special than others? after all, scientifically we are all made of the same carbon based life form matter. We all have blood running through our bodies. We all have two legs, two arms and a 2lb brain between our ears. So, what is it that makes people believe that sitting in a fast car, or performing in front of a camera or trying to change history through political notoriety, or singing a song should class them as being better as anyone else? Is it the adoring fans that form this hierarchical structure and therefore create them as celebrity? Is it the lure of money? What we must understand and note is that if the role of celebrity is about achievement then there are a great deal more people out there who deserve that award than those elite that seem to seek the flash of the photographers camera. Nurses, firemen, doctors, etc, all do service that is unquestionably valuable over that of a role in some new director's flick, however are never recognised as being such. This has obvious reason. It's because they don't seek it. They are selfless in their task. Their motivation is for others and not for themselves. So, does this revolve around that Greek term, ego (the self). Is the X factor about people who's ego is too big for their 'reality-check' boots?

There are, unfortunately, so many facets to this idea of celebrity that it is really hard to pin-point an actual cause to the phenomenon, but based on the fact that I have met a few 'celebrities' as such I have seen the divide between what their ego does to them once in that status. Humility is one of the most important and valued of human assets. Celebrity that hold onto this humility is important in the way I feel people should see them. However, what we have to take into account is the way they are in the lime-light. They maybe completely different people behind closed doors. saying that however, it should not be an excuse to assume grandeur over another human being. Walking past a small child who stands in waiting adoration for a signature is not a sign of my kind of celebrity. Standing on a red carpet with regal air is not my sort of celebrity. This is where the argument to the cause and effect of money can destroy individual's reality check to the real world. Money, after all is power.

I personally believe that the notion of celebrity is wasted on the wrong people, or is an institution that should be abolished. You do a job, and you (if fortunate) can choose to do that job. If you choose to do that job simple to raise yourself in status above everyone else, then that is a wrong choice. This is not obviously the case in many a role. The fact that society seems to want to seek notification of celebrity is a curse greater than that of a strong ego. Seems a little ironic on the night a new socialist government is voted into the home of democracy, that a statement I made to my daughter about George Orwell's classic "Animal Farm" seems to all-so-much be alive and well.

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 10

day two hundred and ninety-two: I/O and the youthful failings in computer technology

What do I mean by that? Well, was just having a chat with my friend and colleague, Mark, about the starting of college and the up hill struggle to educate the youth of today. Part of the conversation was about how young students see the use of technology as a bridge between their incompetence and the marvels of what can actually be done with this technology. We remarked that students or young people have a notion (and I wont say all) that pressing a button on the keyboard will result in the instant rectification of a problem they had in their head. Also, they believe that using a computer means that they are relieved of the duty to think about what they are doing. Almost like the idea that the car is controlling the driver. There are a great deal of answers to why this has resulted in such an attitude; sociological, physiological and simply an evolutionary gene malfunction since the invention of the remote control. I'm always keen to point out to my students that the computer and subsequent technology is a tool. A pencil is a tool, but do we ever expect it to pick itself up and draw us a picture. Hardly!

To explain to anyone who is reading this what exactly I/O is, it is basically a computer term. It denotes Input/Output, and is usually used to describe possible situations for errors in computers. Actually, saying that a great deal of errors in computers are at the fault of the user. Hence the other acronym of O/E. This denotes operator error. It is in fact incredible to think that people actually blame computers for making errors. It is very rare that a computer can self initiate an error. It is usually due to some data that has be input or initiated by the user. After all how many computers crash whilst idle and doing nothing? Anyway, taking onboard the notion of input/output we can see that the path of electronic enlightenment is a in fact a two way street. The computer sends back output based on the original input. I can't see what is hard to understand about that. However, the mindset of some young individuals is based on the notion that with little input the computer should (in the case of the course projects) deliver a fully finished, shiny and glossy presentation. I will give a quick anecdote of a good example of I/O and OE combined. I was actually present when this occured, so I do know it to be true:

Sitting in the computer lab, at the last university I worked at, in England, with my technician friend, a young lady in her early twenties approached us. She was casually waving a floppy disk in her hand. She was explaining that she had done some work at home and was saving it on the said disk to bring to college. However, on arriving at college her lecturer informed her that the work may need to be done on PC rather than the Macintosh that she had done it on. She was advised to format the disk for both Macintosh and PC as this would be better for her and PCs would read the disk. The result was her standing in front of Noel and myself saying that she put the disk in the PC in the other lab and reformatted it as said, but now couldn't find her work. She asked what she had done wrong. What she was hoping for was a disk that could retain the data, but set the format to PC. The end of the story, and the funny part, was that she actually blamed the computer for loosing her work.

What this can be attributed to I guess, and by that I mean the common affect and not the young lady and her disk formatting capers, is the fact that there (to me) is an obvious gap between the generations and their desire to put effort into something. My peers and I have all been born outside the technology age. With the introduction of computers some twenty plus years ago, half of my life was spent out of that mould and luckily the seeds of my creativity were also started outside of that era. And don't get me wrong, I believe computers are a very useful tool. However, what they are not, is an excuse to be uncreative because of the limits, or perceived limits of the media. As I said earlier, on of the contributing facts and a stemming factor to all this was the invention of the remote control. Some posts back I did mention the day that we got our first tv. We were the hit of the street as not many people had a television in those days. Even so, even though this was the introduction of technology int our family unit, it still didn't enable the total 'laziness' factor that came a generation later. This was with the advent of the remote control. A reason not to put effort into something by pushing a button. Our first tv had three channels and we had to get up and walk to the set and change them, by pushing in a hefty knob. Also the volume and contrast. Today, you can almost control your entire house from one single device. This has such a pragmatic affect on society. Firstly, it allows for the simplification of an exercise, such as turning channel or turning on a light. However, the down side is that it also makes us lazy. This remote control society seems to be stemming over into almost every walk of life. I was quite horrified in watching the film Wall-E, as it almost portrayed the future of mankind as a rotund chair bound blob that was able to have almost anything done for him via a remote or robotic assistance.

Computers are not that. They are not a substitute, they are a tool to aid, not take over. So, when the youth come into the picture of this technology, then it seems evident that not to any fault of their own, they have become victims to an automated lethargy. Their entire life has been a series of button pressing experiences. Electronic alarms, mobiles, microwaves, remotes for this and that, and also computers. So, it is no surprise when they are sat down in front of a computer that they see that the devise as an assistive aid rather than a tool. Press a button and it will perform the task. Unlike the good old days, when craftsmanship was at play. Where the creator was in charge of the resulting effect. These days, its about this slider, or that nob and this tick box, etc to get a result that isn't the same as the minds eye. What needs to be addressed is that computers are binary organisms almost exactly the same as our own brains. There is an electrical pulse that fires either yes or no variation. The biggest difference is that computer are a long way of from even getting artificial intelligence, whereas we have natural intelligence. This is something that gives us the degree of skill to manipulate and manufacture. See the computer as a tool for that and the input factor that is needed from the creator is strong if not as good as the output of the tool.

day two hundred and ninety-one: seeing blind

Was quite moved by this talk I saw this morning, from Doctor Oliver Sacks. Know for his work in the mental care body of medicine and came to light via the film; "Awakenings", featuring Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro. He has also written books, two of which sit on my shelf; "The Man Who Thought His Wife Was a Hat" and "Awakenings". Watching him talk today triggered some thoughts I found interesting and his interest in discovering matters of the mind. What he said at the drawing of his talk, was that the issue of hallucinations in some people (notably blind or visually impaired people) could be a cause to understand some of the language and images discovered on the walls of caves in prehistoric earth. Now, the past couple of days I have been looking at the quotes of Vincent Van Gogh. A great hero of mine. What I read in one, which I posted on the status today was this;

“For my part I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of the stars makes me dream.” - Vincent van Gogh

Looking at a great deal of Van Gogh's work and knowing of his lapse into mental disorders it is easy to see a slight connection in what Sacks is saying and the work of such great artists. Pollock also, suffering from depression, having wild expressive designs in his work, that relates to the information that Sacks delivered on the hallucinatory repetitiveness of seeing abstract and or wild patterns in this state. However, Sacks although a foremost expert and doctor in this field of neurology, would possibly also have to state that what we know of the brain and how the mind works is still a mystery. It was nice however, to hear that there is some knowledge that leads doctors to believe that there are specific brain cells that store data for specific items. I can only assume that this is evolving with the rate that society works, as his example of having an Aston Martin cell in his brain, from seeing one in the car park, would not occur in a pre-historic caveman's mind. Maybe it did, but was lament due to the fact that there were no Aston Martins 300,000BC. And that could in itself explain the notion that 80% of the brain is not in fact used. I say that with a little degree of humour, as basically the way the brain works is indeed a mystery. But, it could also be noted that the is call to believe that genetically the storage of recursive data from previous generations. A possible explanation to the notion of reincarnation.

What was the connecting trigger for myself in this speech was his analysis of the old lady at the start and the cave painting possibility. The fact that, as De Bono, states we all store patterns in our mind to enable recall for easy communication in any given arena, then there can be a very strong understanding in the way that these patterns are recalled. As the story of John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" could distinguish patterns in numbers and codes, and artists and the visually impaired could see the recall of shapes and colours and visual patterns, is an interesting thought in how people could in fact deliver their role in human society. Blindly seeing their language through visual recall, that is delivered through a subconscious theatre of the mind. More receptive to the visually impaired, as this function has been muted in the real world and therefore the patterns become more vivid to them. I get the impression that this is a difficult subject to lock down and even explain. However, being of a creative mind and having several people state that they feel that this is a talent then I could simply state that this is about how the mind filters, stores and later recalls the data that is all around us and available for the minds of everyone. The mention of the word; aptitude, is better in explaining the abilities of a few in any given area. Just that the patterns present themselves in the correct way to these individuals. For example, I myself have great difficulty in seeing numbers. To another this is a simple task of just looking. My students ask my though, how can I see the faults in their work so easily and quickly. I would say it is about this simple aptitude in brain recognition of the correct patterns. What do you see when you close your eyes. You see blind, but in that blindness is an array of dream like images that are those patterns. You draw them together and the result is language, or verse, or mathematics or creativity. It's all around, but sometimes we maybe have to close our eyes to see.

day two hundred and ninety: happiness

I was just chatting with my former student and friend, Nicola Foufouti, and she drew my attention to something that I thought was a point worth mentioning. That of the subject of happiness. The fact that we seem to strive to be happy. It almost seems to be a struggle to find a state of contentment or even in some situations, even put a smile on our face. However, the opposite seems almost natural. We all seem to be in a constant state of 'down-ness' and unhappiness and that we either moan about it or strive to try and do something about it. Nobody ever seems to strive to be unhappy. The thing that triggered this, by my friend, is the mention of another friend that is always smiling and giggling and generally happy. I say, generally, as she was on my balcony the other day saying the woes that all of us do about money and life matters, that never get ever more better than a dream it seems. I am guessing that she is naturally a happy person, but we all have times. What was a point to make, is not only does it seem that, as my friend pointed out, that most people passing by rarely have a smile on their face or even exalt a greeting on seeing another person and generally seem to have a black cloud over them, but that being around a person of great exuberance also seems to be a time limited experience. Almost that the happiness they exude is annoying or ill-required to maintain their stable balance of despair.

Why do people want to seem unhappy, or actually be unhappy. Does it gain attention in an attempt to get resolution to their troubles, or is it a simple case that being unhappy takes a lot less effort than being too jolly or bouncy? Well it is a known scientific fact that smiling actually takes up less muscle power than the negative action of frowning. So, this can't be it. Also, smiling has been a natural development of the animal instinct of fear. Many creature pull their lips and bare their teeth in a gesture or warning an opponent that they have an aggressive nature, and ultimately will protect themselves. This has turned, in humans, into the smile. A sign that we are wary of something and therefore subconscious are scared of it, therefore smile to reassure ourselves against the unknown attack. We, however, don't recognise it as such and simple feel the euphoria of the hormones picking us up. So, the state of neutrality seems to be one of more natural and stable approach. We should all be walking around like room 101 participants. The really difficult thing to express in such a short amount of words is the many thousand, or million, things that can make someone either unhappy or more inspiringly happy.

It was quite an interesting passing though, to realise that people are more able to turn down their mouth than turn it up. That, then draws into play the fact that laughter is so infectious. It is something we all strive to be; happy, but never put too much concern to how to do it. The common expression is: "I want to be happy". Which indicates that we are not actually there yet. Maybe the best state of being is, is being content. The issue could also arise from the great deal of inequality in the world. Comparing and judging others, and being a little put back by anyone's success. This is a little theory that arises around the mythology of the 'bad eye' that they have here in Greece. A very superstitious practice of actually maintaining the status quo of mundane behaviour. Not allowed to be too happy or express it, else someone will give you the bad eye. That is the general premise, as explained to me. Don't be too happy about getting a new job, one person told me, as they will all curse you and bad things will happen. Apart from the control factors this has via religious overtones, it also makes people fit into the political aspect of being a minion in the greater machine. Success only being for the elite it seems. Again, this can then stem into the debate I have had that people actually believe that talented people are born. And the likes of Einstein and Ghandi, etc are rare exceptions and that nothing that the individual can do will ever get them to those heights of greatness. Bull to that I say. All you need to believe in, is yourself. The issue is that, like these great people, it was a lot to do with effort. A great deal of struggle and an amazing character to get them through some of the greatest hardships and challenges that social interaction could throw at them. This is what makes you great. Whether that makes you happy I don't know, but it surely makes you fulfilled. Happiness is not just about having a smile on your face a great deal of the time, it is the inner smile and that feeling of happiness that counts the most. The best approach and my favourite quote and bumper sticker is to accept that "shit happens", no reason to help it along. After all why did you start running this race if you ever thought that you would never win? That's just giving up. No animal on this planet ever naturally gives up, it's not their nature; and it's not ours. Smile, it's good exercise!!

day two hundred and eighty-nine: gray tomb

The gray walls that tower above, do define this metropolis we call civilisation, but do nothing more than to hold us captures in our own demise. Infirm, aged and cripples alike, stagger in ascending and descending vaults of paper, and crosses alike. Faithless tombs to a social order that quickens death and forsakes the righteous.

What was that all about? Well, I have wrote many a blog on this subject, and I will not go as far as to say that it is just about this country, but the mountainous pile of paper work that civilisation as denoted as bureaucracy, only ever gets higher and higher. The social status of government is at an all time low. Nobody believes a word that emerges from a single lip on the steps of democratic rule anymore. We vote out of an sad obligation to restore power the the lesser of two evils and hope, out of hopes, things will get better. They seldom do. The fact that Lord Acton's sentiments on the matter are just the lyrical guise that hides the stench of such travesty in the fact that power does corrupt, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Without a heavenly hall to fall back into with a faith that is blacker than the darkest hole of some inhuman sin, someone is out to play God; be the puppet master or just extinguish any faint heartbeat that indicates resistance to this tyranny. How is this achieved? The easy answer is to say "they created life". The fact is that all the trappings and trimmings of this so called metropolis (mother of cities) are designed to gag you, repress you, stifle you, deny you, demoralize you, control you, eat at you and knock you back. They want you to suffer. They want you to be miserable. They have no real desire to help, correct, improve anything. If it were so, life would be a bed of roses. They can't have that.

So, rant over and revolution aside. Well, at least for today. I was in receipt of a courier delivered letter (see above), that I was curious about. Quickly came a flash of all possible injustices I may have caused that could have seen me in the dock. Luckily, it passed quickly and I still was curious Even on opening I was curious, a I can't understand a lot of written Greek. So, I was presuming it was notification of my teacher classification that we applied for at the start of the summer. Oh, no!! Later I discovered it was the opposite. It was notification that my Masters degree and First degree were not actually recognised by the European country of Greece. I find this ridiculous. There is no point to do such a thing as become a united group of countries if there are no frilly, pink edged benefits to it all. Well, the benefits go to the power mongers, not the people they are suppose to represent, which seems to be a bigger kick in the teeth of righteousness.
At the cost of €100 I was made to make this application, when I am sure that somewhere there is a list of countries that this 'European' country wont accept degrees from. I am under the suspicion that most of this is actually done to make money for the government. Why tell people they can't apply when we can get money out of them and then tell them they were unsuccessful. Seems to make sense if you are a money grabbing bureaucrat. So, now I have to go through an extremely time consuming process of chasing up papers upon papers to add to the other mountains of papers, in order to try and resolve this simple fact that on January 1st 1973 countries in the continent of Europe decided to become a union. Many years later this has turned out to be as plausible and functional as the Brits and French sitting down to a beef and apple pie dinner together.

Life in our glorious metropolises are not what they are set out to be. They are gray prisons of soulless and wandering folk.

day two hundred and eighty-eight: ignorance is democracy

The last post I wrote was in a reflective moment after watching the movie; "Earthlings". Little did I know that further on the DVD was a couple of featurettes, that had even more damning information. These mini documentaries featuring 'Earthling' director, Shaun Monson, talk of the trials he had to get through in order to get this much needed piece of education to the masses. I have embedded the video here to see the point to my next post section.

Now, beside the point of what the film is about, which is a documentary exploring the human's determination to exploit all kinds of animals for their own gain, there was another point raised in this featurette. I may have mentioned this some time before, but as I now live in Greece, I get into many a talk about the Greek history, mythology, and affect on this world. Much is revolving around the difficult task of getting my tongue around the language. However, some thousands of years ago a group of wise minded men debated the concept of democracy. The theory of which actually seemed to work, but as the country was not actually set as a democratic one and only having one forum of control, never really played out the theory to it's best advantage. Much like the Marxist theories of Communism, all seems great in theory until placed in the hands of man. This, like many political arenas fall fast into that Orwellian approach that make all animals equal, just some more than others.

So, democracy came to light, and was extinguished by those who feared the fact that people would have rights. Strangely, this seems to be the point that the film seems to be making about animals. That, fundamentally, they are entitled to rights. Like any other sentient creature; like us! Democracy has never existed as much as communism has never existed, as if the values that define them are what makes them real then we have never all been equal, and we have never all been free. It is strange to think that government is here in order to represent the people, who pace them in power, in order then to use power against those same people. The point that Shaun is making in this featurette, if you didn' watch it, is that it seems that the rights of 'Freedom of speech". One of the first and strongest aspects of the constitution of democracy has in fact been eroded away. Maybe hidden in some guise of concern for subversive action against the state, but mainly to keep the wheels of industry turning. Why do I say that?

It is pointed out by Shaun Monson that an act was passed by the Bush administration (no surprises there, as his regime has single handedly set out to curb most legislation to empower the elite money grabbers in order to continue their own self-interest in profiteering) that basically states, that any evidence that can be brought forward that shows that any public action or airing (freedom of speech, basically!) that undermines, or is detrimental to the economic status of any organisation who's prime concerns are related to natural products or by-products will be deemed as a terrorist act. This being under the classification of eco-terrorism. Now, as described by Shaun, his film is now in that threat of classification, and even it would seem are people who view this and even promote this film to the public. Now, a documentary, as much as a news featurette is informative based on its allowance of the freedom of speech. It is assumed that this information is factual and is being aired to educate or inform. After all, the premise of ignorance can only be deemed as a malice against society when it has such affect. So, now it seems it has literally come down to that old political adage of; "tow the party line" in such a literal sense that in some Kafka like trial you will be an enemy of the state simply for opening your mouth. This film is not an attack on anything more than ignorance. It should be watched and learnt from. As Shaun concludes in this featurette, their only marketing campaign for the movie was 'You!'. "The hope that you will have an open mind!"

day two hundred and eighty-seven: see the connection

I thought I had seen most things. However, yesterday saw the delivery of a piece of footage that, not only shocked me to speechlessness, but also made me look at the definition of 'human' once more. I am guessing that the reason for that choice of footage was to highlight the amazing dichotomy we have as human beings. One side stating that we are a caring and loving species, who draw animals such a dogs into our lives as pets, and then the alternate side that was evidently shown in the film "Earthlings". To which I watched yesterday. As described in the introduction to the premise of the film, we are all considered 'Earthlings'. By that, I mean all living creatures. The term 'Earthling' denotes a being that lives on this planet Earth. I guess in our arrogance we fail to note that animals, fish, birds, insects, reptiles, amphibians, and even plants are all also classed in that category of 'Earthling'. This is so, for without them we would not hold this precious balance called life in this fragile ecosystem that exists on this planet. Everything is key, and everything has a connection. What we seem to do, as humans, is to exploit that precious position we have by delivery untold suffering on our fellow 'Earthlings'. So what shocked me? What made me sit with my mouth agape in the horror of knowing that I am connected to such human siblings in a way that turned my stomach? Well, when we see our connection to animals we tend to primarily relate the canines as our closest companions. After all, we have coined the phrase; "Man's best friend". I am really actually wondering, now I just wrote that, whether dogs would say the same thing. Does the expression "Dog's best friend" instantly conjure a picture of a human. Probably not. What man is, is dog's captor, dog's instructor and dog's persecutor. The simple fact that most dog's have been genetically altered, and some can say impaired for the sake of human cosmetic desires, is not enough to sanctify or warrant us the privilege of believing we are helping or even giving a better life to these creatures. Untold dogs are set out as strays. Many of which are killed in barbaric methods (to cut costs), simply because a child sees a puppy as being cute, and a parent can't do anything to want to please their child. But as I said, I thought I had seen everything. And even to the point in this movie, of some terrifying images of man's cruelty to animals and humans alike, I thought nothing was to get worse. However, 17 minutes in, I felt the blood drain from my senses. The image was of a street in an Asian country where a man had snagged a stray dog. Due to the previous footage I was assuming to be taken off to a pound. The dog was forced against it's will to the back of a truck. It was not apparent at this point, to the nature of the truck, but as the camera sweep round it was revealed to be a garbage collection wagon. The crushing jaws were then raised and without remorse the dog was dispatched, like garbage, into the back of the truck. The final image was as the jaws were closed down on the dogs face; looking out at those people (those things) that had once giving it as a pet.

The film needs to be seen. I am not even saying that for the shock value. It has to be seen so that people could and should be educated. Joaquin Phoenix makes a good point in the narration, when he comments that people will avoid seeing such things as it will upset their stomach, or its not something they want to know. However, the truth being is that if many of us were in charge of our own food collection, at the point of origin, then many of us would not find meat so appealing. If we were made to make the clothes manufactured by animal skins, many of us would not see the glamour in it. If we were to entertain ourselves with the behind the scenes entertainment bestowed on many creatures in zoos and circuses alike, we would not see it as entertainment. The film makes a strong point in stating that we are the only sentient creature on this planet who willingly inflicts pain on other species, knowing that it is pain. We are supposed to be the most advanced and developed of all the 'Earthlings' on this planet. Evolving to a state of cognitive awareness and understanding. However, we are the only species that can kill its own for no real justification. Cause torture and suffering on our own, as well as other species for no value or gain. Is it no wonder that no other animal has evolved to such an evolutionary state as mankind. If this is the footprint to 'the best' evolutionary state there is. And this is what it all comes down to. The connection we have. The connection that joins and confirms the link we have with all living things; our DNA. Whether we have actually evolved as animals or in fact have become a rogue element to the ecosystem is hard to define. As we are the masters of definition then it is very unlikely that we will paint ourselves with a negative light. We will always set the balance to our actions as progress rather than regression, but what if our DNA was twisted? What if life on this planet should not have such a terrible creature roaming, killing, destroying, and changing the order of things? What if we are in fact a rogue manifestation?

DNA is quite a close thing to me. Not that it was discovered in my home town, but the technique of DNA fingerprinting was discovered at Leicester University, where I was born. DNA was actually discovered as far back as 1869 by a scientist called Friedrich Miescher, however DNA strands were actually recognized and catalogued in 1953 by Dr James Watson. What DNA fingerprinting has now done is see the connection that our DNA has to many other animal forms. It bridges the connection that we are all in fact part of the same system on this planet. Ironically, one of our closest DNA relatives is the common pig. Many reasons that medical science is exploring the possible uses of pig hearts and organs in transplant situations. Why is this all ironic regarding pigs. Well, apart from being one of the biggest sources of food for humankind, they are also one of the biggest contributors to mutating disease and bacterial infection on the planet. Surprisingly, (or not) it has nothing to do with the animals themselves. It has a great deal to do with the way humankind has forced the creatures habits to become so degraded that has made this manifestation happen. The film actually ends on a quote that seems to sum it all up; "We reap what we sow".

I have mentioned this before, after watching 'Home', that our ignorance in believing that science and technology has saved us as a superior being is the thing that will kill us off as a species. What is important to hope for is that it doesn't kill off all the rest. We are too overpopulated, and the inventions of mechanical farming and industrial process, even though has provided resolutions to many of the original problems has in a sense created new ones. It is making us inhuman! We see all other living things as a commodity. That connection we have (or had) to the DNA connected Earthlings has been extinguished. We no longer live in harmony with this planet. We believe we control it. What we are blind in seeing is that all living things have the equal right to the same level of satisfaction we believe we have in our own existence. Nothing should be caged, trapped, burnt, played with, or used in a way that is out of order to what is natural. So, do we define ourselves as being natural? Were we meant to evolve to such a state of depravity? Not only against animals and nature, but even our own kind. If there were a creature, you would think that they would be sitting with their head in their hands thinking on those words that Robert Oppenhiemer spoke on seeing his affect on creating the atomic bomb; "What have I done!"

Human's are were they are. Nothing much greater than an Orwellian animal revolution would change that, but what can be done to improve this, is to educate. Being an educator I see the difficulties involved in even the simplest of tasks. To try and teach a blind audience to see is a Sisyphean task, that many of us concerned Earthlings have to face for the duration of our time on this planet. As 'Home' and now, 'Earthlings' has taught me, is that time does not seem to be long, and is running out fast. Unless we do something about it. I can only urge the readers of this blog to watch both of these movies. I now have to sit here and think of what I can do. What percentage of change a single voice among 6 billion can say to be heard. I do know that simply changing my own method of existence is not enough. Humankind is a species that needs to evolve holistically. One can only hope that this change will occur.

day two hundred and eighty-six: stand by me

No, this is not some anecdote or explanation revolving around some Sam Cooke song. The connection will hopefully become clear. So, without further ado, we will begin this post.

Can you imagine many years ago. Now when I mean many, we are talking way back into the middle ages, when men wore tin cans and swung hefty blades of steel in chivalrous acts of manliness and stupidity. When they were driven by quests of holy grails and damsel devouring dragons. A time when code was everything and the word of the man was his bond. This is the many years we need to imagine. A time when you were born into your place and that was all the career advise would explain to you. Once a pig swilling farmer, always a pig swilling farmer, as it seemed to be. Anyway, the strange fact is, is that many an expression came out of this period of time, and for some reason I woke this morning with two of them on my mind. So, this post is an attempt to explain them away.

So, after being born to nobility and raising oneself in the position of knightliness and honour, you enter the king's court or some other place of notable position. You had wealth and land, and women and all that you could dream of. However there was a small price. In dark days you would have to straddle your stead and in the colours of king and country try to defend yourself against fearsome foe. Not a big issue really. You've had the training, you've got your suit of armour, shield in one hand, sword in the other. Everything is fine? Well, actually not really. The development of the protective outfits of these medieval chaps had one little chink in the armour (as to speak). As it is more common for a person to be right-handed, then it was a common and obvious practice that knights would carry and wield their shield in their left hand. This was the way they protected that flank. Design however, opened up the right side, as it was the arm that wielded the sword. It was bare and unprotected. So, some brave chap. Usually the king's best and trusted knight would be there by his side in battle with his shield protecting the king's vulnerable side. Hence, came forth the term "Right Hand Man". Te man who would always be on the King's right side and protect his weak spot.

This position was valuable, but very rarely used. They were not accustom to speeding off to battle at the drop of a hat, or gauntlet to be more accurate. Most of their days were spent in court, sitting around doing little to nothing or persecuting the proletarian low-life. Court life was usually a case of staring at the four walls, as there was little in the way of entertainment. No, widescreen plasma with sports channels, or X-Box Nascar. It was a place more of social interaction. However, many a person was below the master of the keep and their fear was for their life, and hence served rather than interacted. One character was introduced to the court in order to liven up the proceedings of the Dark Ages. He was known as the court jester. A character that would be required to snap to order in a dull moment and throw himself to the audience at a whim and to much derogatory comment in order to make people laugh and pass the hours. His roll was to be there when the court had nothing better to do. Once he was relieved of his position, or the laughs died down, he would return to his place. This place would usually be at the feet of the master of the court. Now one would think that was quite a strong place to be, next to the master of the court. And in some respects the court jester was a member of the court the master would always seek and want by his side, at most times. Hence came the term "Sidekick". A term these days that would represent a screen partner that would add comic relief to the main character's role. However, the position had it's draw back, and gives reason to the name. As he would be seated at the foot of the master of the castle, when there was need for his services then the master would simply kick the jester into action. Which explains away the term.

Hundreds of years later the two terms are still widely used to describe positions close to a person. More metaphoric than physical, but still used. The more recognised one however, maybe due to Hollywood and the movie method, is that of sidekick; The court jester. The one that is always there to be kicked into action to get a laugh. Which is the most important role. Is there a need really to define that. Both positions are at the call of another's status, which makes them both degrading to the recipient of the title, but in a world where laughter is seemingly lacking too much, is it a place to have to be kicked in order to bring that emotion to light. Maybe, there will always be someone who is kicked down, someone who is the fool.

day two hundred and eighty-six: technology wows and woes

Most of the people who know me, or follow this blog on a continuous basis will know that I am a Mac addict. Not just a fan, but an addict. This has now been added upon as a good friend of mine, literally gave me his old iPhone 3G. I say old. It can't be more than a year old. It was a treat that made the old apple shine a little stronger. Basically, I am working to get a new laptop or tower, or better both. However, as many owners and would be owners know they don't come cheap. So, is this going to be another rant about Macintosh in a different guise of the iPhone. Not really. The main reason for the title is that there has been that amazing yin-yang swing in the technology that has passed through my life since the introduction of the iPhone. Balance is good and the karma is equalizing if not waning to the stressed. Not through anything Apple I might point out.

The only thing I have found with the iPhone that niggles me (wanted to use that word) is that I can't instantly reply to mail that comes into certain mailboxes. Only the .Mac account seems to allow direct reply. Not a major hassle and am working to fix it. What I do is design. One of the things I design are web pages. Now being a visual designer I would not say that I am good at this, but capable. One of the silly things I do try to do however is I try to push the levels of affect in the design to what I know is capable in web design. This, this weekend has introduced the shadow of the nemesis upon me, in the form of Windows, or more specifically Internet Explorer, woes. It was almost a continuous stream of wows this week until I decided to add two features to two websites. First was a bit of javascript that I have been using for years, and has successfully been working for years to a method I incorporate in these designs. I find it really annoying waiting for pages to load. So, one of the things I do is design to have hidden areas that get opened like when you activate a menu item. Makes the whole experience more fluid I feel. That is until you put IE into the equation. The only browser on the internet that a) has issues (different) to each build version, and b) doesn't conform to W3 standards like the wonderful Safari (Apple browser) and Firefox. However, as Mr. Gates deal to make IBM carry Windows on all their computers made the PC a more popular, if not more effective computer, we find that many people (maybe 60%) still use IE. This means us poor designers have to consider this in our design.

This would be easy if this was a global issue with Internet Explorer. Oh no! There are separate issues related to IE 5.5, next to 6, next to 7 and even 8 (the latest), to which highlighted this latest issue. With the javascript I found a quick solution, even though I was knocking my head against my newly acquired iPhone for some 2 days. It was a simple case of adding a 'var' declaration in front of an 'el' tag. Wouldn't you know it! Because only IE and Gates would have it see this as the method to define both local and global variables. Thumbs up to that genius. Anyway, I was happy moving a long when problem two snapped at me like a pit bull guarding PC integrity (little there is left of it, and that is if you want to play games on it). Now, what happened, I don't know, but as I guess Macintosh originated the colour computer monitor in that race, I possibly would think that Gates again tried to stick the oar in and ruin most technology based people's lives, yet again. It seems that these two computers have a variance of 128 colours in the colour range they support. That is quite a lot; half in fact. So, little does the good old designer realise that when building his happy, "slightly not conforming to web safe colours" design, and exporting out to png (which has great flexibility in transparency), that there would be a variation in the colour values between Mac and PC. Well there is, and not surprising as it was Microsoft that developed the png (another ironic leap in technology, as their browsers only now [8] support that transparency technology). So for three days there has been a continuous asking of online PC friends to check websites I am developing to see if the png colour matches the hexdecimal value used in the design. I say, PC uses, as the design is flawless in every respect on the Macintosh system. And there is where you find another stumbling block. Not only does the PC not support image formats it develops, or have standardised issues with progressive browsers, it also doesn't comply to most of the W3 coding structures. And now we are moving to CSS3 we have to bare the problems of IE not supporting RGB colours.

So, it seems that I might have to buy cheap PC and allow 'it' into my home, just in order to see how messed up it makes things on the web. The price you have to pay to be on a good system challenging a globally dominating bad system. The good news is the transfer rate to Macintosh has increased considerably. Even some of my friends (previous PC owners) are switching and even telling me the joy they feel about being on the Macintosh system. I guess this is just a big gripe against Microsoft again, but I feel it is deserved. It almost seems to want to make a monopoly not out of providing an undisputed top notch product, but out of people needing to have it due to its inability to conform to almost all that is standard. I think I have resolved the issues with the design. It was in a round about fashion, but was the only way. Now I have to look at IE7 and IE6 for those painful (please get updated) tweaks. As an owner of several pieces of Apple hardware (some of which are ten years old) I can truly say that I am more that satisfied with their performance, longevity and beauty. No wonder I am a Mac fan. And as the Tony Hawkes' Switch campaign legend goes; "If you don't know how to use a computer, buy a Mac." Wise words indeed.

day two hundred and eighty-five: cover me

Bruce Springsteen wrote a song some years back; called "Cover Me". Great song! I'm a big fan of 'The Boss' and that song popped into mind when I was having a second discussion about the subject of song covers. I was at a BBQ on sunday and my host, and friend Mark Lobjoit was doing the honours of almost everything, but also at the same as cooking was putting on a playlist of songs to listen to, waiting for the coals to warm up a little. I can't recall how it came about, but there was a selection of Bob Dylan songs being played. Am also a big fan of Bob! The reason being, and a coincidence with Bruce as well, is that both of them write the most amazingly poetic lyrics. I like getting into music the same way I like getting into films, for the stories they tell. So, my playlist can, and does include, some fantastic lyricists. Not all the styles would appeal to most I am sure, but I guess that is one of the points of this blog.

So, we were all sat down, with Bob strumming in the background, gnawing at our selective pieces of barbecued flesh when "Knock, knock, knocking on heaven's door" started to chime out. Brilliant song, and words to move you. Instantly, the son of my friend said "Not as good as the Guns and Roses" cover. Now, on hearing the words 'cover' and 'not as good as' just sent chills down my spin. I'm glad the young lad has an opinion, but I really have to say I am a puritan as far as art and music goes. Being an artist myself I strive to believe in originality. And so started the debate to which this blog was inspired. People may like variations on something, that is fine, but I am strong in the idea that the creator, being the originator or the piece, has the handle on knowing what the song is about and how it is meant to be aired. Many of the people at the BBQ seemed to side with the lad and said that they preferred the 'Guns and Roses' version over Bob's original. Then came a spate of Bob Dylan covers listed out and noted as being better than our Bob's original. This included the multiple covered "All along the watchtower", which has included the master, Jimi Hendrix, U2, Neil Young, Pearl Jam and Bryan Ferry. All these great singers in their own way. And I must say, that on listening to Jimi Hendrix version as my first hearing of the song, I would have placed that above many of the others. However, and I will return to the argument, on listening to Bob Dylan's original version I have to declare that I have a soft spot for it. Minus the guitar twangs an riffs and whaling voices, Bob's version still holds the power of the song to which he wrote.

I place music in the category that it should be placed. As an art form. Regardless of how commercialised it has become, it is still a piece of art that has been created. Saying this, one of the arguments I had in both discussions I made on this point of covers is, that if you take other forms of art; fine art being a good example, you would be appalled and shocked if someone came along and did a 'cover' of the "Mona Lisa" for example. For a start, it is illegal, secondly in many people's minds it is just something that isn't done. Let's face it. The passion from the artist's eye just cannot be reproduced in the same way; surely? It can also be said about the constant desire for Hollywood to recapture the amazing quality of foreign movies in their own inimitable way. The sad truth is that many if not all remakes of foreign originals are a sad, pale comparison to the visioned original. "La Femme Nikita", "Mon père, ce héros", "Seven Samurai", "La Cage aux Folles", "Wings of Desire" to mention some of the masterful originals that have been sliced and dices in the Hollywood cutting room. There was even a rumour some years back that Hollywood was going to do a remake of "Cinema Paradiso" with Bruce Willis as Afredo! Please, that is just an idea of a sick Philistine. Some films should just not be touched, and this is one of them. Anyway, the point being here, is that all the originals have some quality that is held in them. The originator's touch, essence or style. Whatever you would like to call it. This is the signature that states it is this artist's work.

What is the point about covers, is that the new artist, with obvious respect for the original, wishes to place their values on the song. Now, I can't accept the term 'better than the original' in these process. 'Different' and maybe fitting to the new listener's ear a little better, but never 'better'. Axel Rose has an obvious gravelly voice that makes his songs distinctive, this is true, but as my friend Dionusia pointed out yesterday, "Who doesn't like Bob?" Which seems to put a cap on the discussion. Not everyone will like Guns and Roses, or Bryan Ferry or even Jimi Hendrix, but when those cords start up and people recognise the song, they will think "Bob Dylan's KNocking on Heaven's Door". Well I hope, and that is at least some conciliation to all this. When the originator is remembered, and the performer is noted as simply that. Which leaves me to a funny anecdote that occurred one day as I entered the refectory at college. They play music there, to pass away the hours. On the occasion I entered, the song "California Dreamin'" covered by Royal Gigolos was airing. I sighed, in my puritan fashion, and stated "Not as good as the original", to which the girl who was swaying to this version said, "What this isn't the original?" Oh dear! I am sure the Mammas and the Pappas are screaming to hear that statement. I guess there are two types of covers. The first is out of respect for the original, the second out of 'lack of original creative juice' in the modern music arena. I state this as my opinion, which I hope I am entitled to. Too much remixing and not enough new sound is diluting the music industry. On an endnote, the simple fact is that all artists and originators of works should be respected. However much the piece of music is not to your ear. So, Bob is Bob Dylan, enough said. Axel, did a decent cover!

day two hundred and eighty-four: why women love men

I was just turning off my computer last night and managed to glimpse a 'tweet' that Paulo Coehlo added to Twitter before it shut down. Basically he made the statement; "Why do women love men". Now I am sitting here this morning after reflecting on that statement, listening to Ave Marie and thinking it seems a task to define. It would, of course, be easy to do the alternate option, to which reasoning does a man love a woman. And absent of Percy Sledge, does a man actually love a woman? Is this direction more to do with lust and physical need that then gets disguised in some reminiscent act of dedication? Is man about animal and reproduction and all that testosterone and the like? I am sure I could find easier answers to that query than the reasoning to 'why women love men'.

Do women love? Does anyone love? What is love? Very hard questions to answer when trying to define one of the fascinating conundrums on a matter of heart and simply curiosity. An emotion sort by many, and said to have hurt and driven many. An emotion that can be hard to define, but easy to miss. So, do we fall in love. I remember a blog a good friend of my posting, stating that we 'Don't fall in love', as falling defines a negative sentiment. Instead we move into love. In that same aspect though, there are so many varieties of love to move into that its hard to bracket the best defining state that one could find oneself in. You can love a piece of music, like just now with Ave Maria. I don't like Schubert per say, but that piece of music touches me someway. Is it the pureness of the female voice? Maybe. Who knows. You can love an animal, or a child, or a car, or a favoured object. These forms of love add difference descriptive qualities that define their value in your heart, but all are absent of that definition which we believe defines that true love. That necessity to be adoring toward someone.

So, is there a difference in how a woman loves a man, and vice versa? Not being of the female persuasion I would not even start to be authoritarian on the ways to which the most delicate of creatures operates, but I can speculate to their nature. It is very apparent that, even without reading the book; "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus", it is clear that it seems that the two genders in our species are in fact from alternate planetary sources. This is however, not so. It is more about the genetic rolls that are built into our psyche. To try and explain a little easier, and with a seemingly abstract method, I will relate to some tropical fish that sit in the fish tank close to me. Three recently acquired 'Pink Parrot Fish'. Lovely as they are to look at, a quick piece of research on the internet has found them to be the most aggressive of the fishes that can be kept in a fish tank. That aside, as it has nothing to do with my point, I noticed, and the reason for the internet enquiry, the large fish was attacking the two smaller ones. Was piling the small stones, and generally being territorial. The discovery is that this is in fact the male who believes himself to be the dominant one in the tank. Hence his nature towards the others and the area he has claimed. He does this soon as he has hit maturity. No other reason. Now, after trying to find reason on the internet (maybe a fruitless task) I came across this fact. However, in pursuit of this fact I also found the similar fact about the female of the species, and the reason for the comparison. The female of the species only become aggressive to 'things' when they have eggs to protect. The strange thing is that these fish in their female form are more aggressive when in their maternal state, than a territorial male can be. But only then.

Now, whether this proves anything I don't know, but it seems to occur to me that the aspects that divide the masculine and feminine are based either on 'ego' or 'nurturing' aspects. This now draws me to the notion of love, and Mr. Coelho. The juices in the hormone that constitute 'territorialism' is testosterone. A strongly male derived hormone. The one that delivers 'nurture' is estrogen; a predominantly female hormone. However, the funny fact is that both members of the human species can excrete amounts of the opposing hormone. What does this have to do with love. Well a great deal actually. Firstly, as I tried to explain in a previous post, we, as humans, tend to define and place definition on things. So, with that in mind, it could be seen that 'love' is in fact a definition to a state of being that is wholly based on hormonal states, rather than any long term state of mind. As I said before, it is a difficult subject to put pins into, and as I am probably no expert in this, would not like to lay anything in concrete. It just seems to state that the notion of why we are seen as coming from two different planets is that our singular definition of love based on our gender is made clear due to its association to our physical characteristics.

Men say they love someone because of their desire to 'dominate' (a strong word, but is meant to define the territorial aspect of a male's nature) a female. It happens in nature, and as the only thing that differentiates us from nature is our ability to add definition to things, then maybe male love is formed around what 'he can have'. The alternate to that is the female approach. Females, are the mainstay of human, and any animal species. As Freud put it, they are the most powerful of the two in any given creature. They are powerful because they nurture. And so, maybe this is the key. Women, at their blossoming ripeness of maturity become as nurturing as men become territorial. Therefore, their nature is to look after, careful, protect and interact with those around. Maybe then the definition of female love is 'that to which she can hold' (in a sense of take care of, protect, etc). Because, as animals, we choose mates. There is a slight amount of control in possession from the female testosterone that is countered by the more overwhelming nature of estrogen. Maybe, that is why women fall in love with men, as much as men are men. Its their nature.

This could turn into a debate of morals and mental rationalization, but as a Darwinist I see much more in the Id and recurring connection to our animal being than to what we would have believe to be important in codes that society has defined. At the end of the day, codes and laws are written by mankind, feelings are governed by nature. To guide one by the manufactured values of another in an attempt to make some holistic entity is wrong. Saying that I don't think its right to throw law aside. What is meant by this is the simple fact that if a definition should be give to 'what is love' or 'do people fall in love' then it is not a matter of dictionary definition, or what our society determines to be right. It is a true matter of the heart. If not only due to the fact that some mystery of love lies there in an etherial reasoning, but the fact that our hormones travel in our blood stream, and therefore through our hearts. Why women love men? That is the craziness that makes life such a thrilling roller-coaster. Does love last? Now, is that another blog?

day two hundred and eighty-three: booklist

A friend, and writer, recently asked me why they couldn't see a list of my favourite books. So, as I have done a list of my favourite films, and even a list of films that must be seen, I thought I would oblige and do a book list. There are obviously a load more that could go on this list, such as Othello, Republic, Catcher in the Rye and even My Family and Other Animals, but I have kept it short. My best five novels that have made a mark for one reason or another.
First, and my favourite book of all time, has to be John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men". I had a text debate about this some time back, trying to explain the values of it holding the dichotomy of people's psyche. The the two characters of George and Lenny are in fact a metaphor of the two sides of any man (human). Holding the strength of conviction and at the same time, the childlike naivety that we can all possess. I read this book when I was at school, around the age of 15 years. It made a very strong mark on me, and occasionally I think about the book, as it sits comfortably in my book collection.

I had to include this book for many reasons. Firstly, as it is one of the books I can remember starting me reading. I loved it! Teh second reason is, and maybe a little more importantly,it started me on my path as an artist. I remember looking at the strong and wondrous images by E.H.Shepherd and finding them fascinating. I spent time copying them and tried to explore what made them so good. The stories also made me wander into that place where dreams go to live, and the magic of childhood eyes and thoughts. They are great stories, even if a little destroyed by the Disney touch.

Watched the film, got the proverbial T-Shirt, and then bought the book. Did I make a mistake in getting that combination the wrong was round. Many people say, when you have seen the film, "Oh, the book is much better!" I can truly say, on reading this and the next book on the list, that statement doesn't even hold justice to the books. They are so powerful. Have that fantastic ability to make you visualize with words the places the author wants to take you. I would fully recommend "Name of the Rose", as it is a trip into semantic beauty that was only touched on in the film.

Am a big, big film fan. Just love watching them, and could in fact live in a cinema. Is see them as living dreams. Again, I love quality friend films, and saw these two at the art cinema in Newcastle when I was a student. They struck me as being perfect. Perfect to look at, perfect to follow, and perfect sentiment. You can't actually falter the films. Well, until you read the books. All that richness in the cinematographer's eye was reaped from the words of these books. I tend to be a slow reader, but with this book I was able to get through it in days. It captured my drive to read each sentence.

Richard Brautigan is one of my favourite authors. He has a style that sits into my lap of reading experience. I am not saying that his short and well crafted chapters are what favours him to me, but allows me to quite effortlessly skip through the books. He has a style. Its hard to even describe this style, but its like a literary eccentricity that combines stark reality with a wonderful sense of humour. I first read "The Hawkline Monster" and was hooked. So much so that I have as many of his available books on my shelf. He will never go down in history as one of the masters of the pen, but in my book (no pun intended) he is there. A skill that makes him stand out from the rest.

So there ends my list. As I said before, many could be on it, but I will also state now that I also have a pile I am ready to read. Whether because of a film that triggered it, or whether through natural curiosity. They include: To Kill a Mockingbird, Catch 22, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Shipping News and The Alchemist (which I am reading).

Books are priceless, books are not lost. They are a great tool of knowledge and education. I love my book collection and treasure it as much as any value I hold. I truly recommend these in my list if you have not already enjoyed them.