Why Not Crimes Against Nature?

Posted by Pinky.

Bunny and I just watched a documentary called Oil on Ice. It's about the controversy surrounding whether or not to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. [mini-review here] One of the most disturbing things in the film for me was how the oil companies would hire scientists to provide 'expert' analyses testifying that oil spills have minimal lasting environmental impact (such as, for example, after the catastrophic Exxon Valdez spill in 1989). These experts are used in the oil corporations' public relations reports and videos to enable them to continue engaging in devastating environmental exploitation.

I guess because I'm actually a big fan of science, it hurts to see scientists acting as academic mercenaries. I really wonder if they'd act this way if they could be held accountable for their role in the systematic harming of the environment. They are, after all, providing a key element of the necessary propaganda required to sway public and governmental opinion.

We already have the concept of 'crimes against humanity' to protect human beings from particularly odious crimes, systematically committed. Why don't human beings apply the same logic to protect the environment against, say, 'crimes against nature'? (and I'm not talking about people doing it with swans, okay?)

~pinky

Movie Review: Oil on Ice (2004)

Posted by Pinky.

This documentary film talks about the controversy surrounding whether or not to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. Until you see this documentary, you might think the area is a barren arctic desert with ‘nothing’ in it. On the contrary, the ANWR is not only visually beautiful but also ecologically diverse and crucial to the survival of a mind-boggling range of animals. The film outlines the impact of drilling in the arctic and tries to place this in context vis-à-vis energy consumption, global warming, and the national and global economy. Another part we liked was that this film tries to show the long-term effects of oil drilling on the lives of contemporary Native people up in Alaska - that was really good.

Bunny and I had mixed feelings about this documentary. On one hand it discusses something that is extremely important and it showed us many things that we would have otherwise never seen. For this reason we were very happy that we saw it and will be recommending it to everyone. On the other hand we wished it did a better job at connecting the dots to the economic, political, cultural forces that drive our (inter)national addiction to oil. Maybe the producers were just trying to keep the film at 1 hour and had to leave some things out. This film would be excellent when shown as part of a sequence of related documentary films (An Inconvenient Truth, Who Killed the Electric Car?, etc.).

~p.

[ pinky: B+ / Bunny: B- ]​

Globalization Mini-Trilogy

Posted by Pinky.

We're almost done with part III of our comic strip series on the topic of globalization. As Bunny mentioned the other day, we're really enjoying the challenge of trying to superimpose a different narrative onto the same cartoon sequence over and over again. For those of you who are curious about the original Peanuts comic that served as inspiration for this series, here it is:

View fullsize

click to see a larger version

I found this comic strip in a Peanuts book a couple of years ago and photocopied it. At the time I used Liquid Paper ('white-out') to remove the dialogue, thinking that I was going to just recycle the original pictures while replacing the words with my own dialogue. I wish I hadn't done that because now I can't remember what the original dialogue was about. If any of you Peanuts fans out there know, please send me an e-mail!

Also, a short note regarding our intent for this series. The subject of globalization is important to understand but also very complicated. Many of the books and reports we've been studying about globalization are fairly dense and take a long time to read. And since we think the best way to learn difficult subject matter is to be able to discuss it with others, we decided to create some 'instruments' to help start up good discussion. We think it's important to create texts - even if they come in a comic strip format - that help stir new questions or concerns in peoples' minds.

By themselves I think these comic strips are actually kind of difficult to understand. And as some of our viewers have noticed, they're actually quite 'dense' - we tried to pack lots of different implications, meanings, and references into every word and phrase. We also tried to write it in such a way that there are some problems and inconsistencies built into what is being said. We hope these things can be drawn out in conversation and argument.

For example, one of the most important questions we're always thinking about when writing Pinky Show episodes are ones concerning 'who'. For these comic strips we had a lot of discussions about questions like: Who does Bunny's character represent? An individual? A certain class of people? How about Mimi's character? Who are the 'we' or 'us' or 'them' that they refer to? Are they mistaken? Stuff like that.

So basically what I'm saying is that these comic strips are not intended to be a one-page "everything you need to know about globalization". Not possible, not desirable! There are a ton of excellent books, study reports, analytical essays, documentaries, etc. out there that cover a broad range of perspectives on the many issues surrounding globalization. If you're new to the subject, I tend to think a critical approach is a sensible place to start (after all, the 'pro-globalization' point of view is pretty well covered by the mainstream media, schools, U.S. governmental policy, state/corporate/international financial institutions, and so on...).

• Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace (2005), by Vandana Shiva.
• When Corporations Rule the World (2001, 2nd edition) by David Korten.
• An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire (2004), by Arundhati Roy.
• No Logo (2002), by Naomi Klein.

Primary sources are also very important. Just one such example - please consider the World Bank Extractive Industries Review's report Striking A Better Balance (2004), as well as the World Bank Group Management's official response to the report (also 2004). Fascinating and sobering.

Okay, I better go for now. We want to finish and publish Part III by Friday. Please take care everybody.

~pinky

....................................

Posted by Bunny: Each episode has their own accompanying transcript. Transcripts are easier to contemplate than videos.

Globalization Episode, Part II

Posted by Bunny.

Another new episode in our series about globalization - Defending Globalization: a mission for the educated and enlightened. As you can see we like the long titles. See it here.

We are having lots of fun recycling this comic strip. We're actually almost finished with Part III, which is also about globalization but from yet another angle. Globalization is complicated enough that we could keep on going like this forever (we won't). Hope you like it.

~B.

Globalization Episode

Posted by Bunny.

We have a new episode - it's called Globalization and the metaphysics of control in a free market world. Long title. This one is in comic strip format and is very short (approx. 3 minutes long). See it here.

This comic strip is also available as an 18"x24" poster that you can stick on the wall. We went to the print shop yesterday and printed one out big and had it laminated. It looks cool. It's on the wall next to the computer; it kind of makes our 'office' look a little bit like a classroom - neat. I'm still working on the online store. When I'm done I'll put this poster, and any others we have by then, into the store.

~B.

Today's quote courtesy of: Mark Twain

Posted by Pinky.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself... - Mark Twain

Ouch. I wonder what Mr. Twain would have thought about our current congress?

Oh, speaking of Mark Twain, last week I read A Connecticutt Yankee in King Arthur's Court. I almost never read fiction but I really had a lot of fun reading this. Maybe I should read more fiction - it's good! I had no idea people wrote stories about time travel back in the 19th century (I like time travel; this book was published in 1889). It felt like a very old-fashioned book version of a science fiction movie, like The Terminator.

~p.

Q: Did you used to be owned by anybody?; Dolls v2.0

Posted by Pinky.

In the past few months the number of people watching The Pinky Show has been increasingly quite a bit. And with more viewers we've also been getting more e-mails. Some of them include what I think are 'odd' questions (I don't mind). Like this one:

Dear Pinky,

Are you and the others all strays? Did you used to be owned by anybody? I'm curious because I have a cat named Tanya and I was wondering if she too may be considering making a break for it too!

Elizabeth
Manning, TX

I feel pretty conflicted about human beings. On one hand I'm generally not impressed with the way human beings treat animals. On the other hand I'm sure there are lots of people out there that are capable of having a mutually respectful relationship with a cat. I consider each person on an individual basis.

But to answer Elizabeth's question, "yes we are strays" (though we prefer the term 'dissociated'). My personal history is a bit murky - but here's everything I know: I was born somewhere on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. When I outgrew kitten-stage I was taken to and left at the Humane Society, where I was then 'adopted' by some nice people and taken to live in a house. (trivia: According to Humane Society records, my original name was 'Georgia'.) Anyway I stayed there, living in relative luxury for a while before leaving for Los Angeles in 2004. So I guess you can say I've been 'mostly dissociated since 2004′. I say 'mostly' because I still correspond with my last human being family (who actually helps us with some aspects of The Pinky Show) - unlike Bunny, Kim, and Mimi who were VERY HAPPY to completely sever ties with humans. Tanya - if you are considering "making a break for it", please be sure to have a plan beforehand - it's an extremely dangerous world out here.

Bunny has been very focused on her doll making and is making good progress (the reviews have been mixed - I think they look really good, Mimi says they are 'creepy'). I, on the other hand, have done only one lesson of Chinese (Mandarin) and that's all. That language is so difficult it's not even funny. The pronunciation is a killer and it has different intonations you have to remember for each syllable. It's so hard I've even been practicing guitar extra just to avoid practicing Chinese. :P

~pinky

​Dolls v2.0

Kim's Airplane

Posted by Pinky.

I've been thinking about a small thing that happened last week. The four of us (me, Bunny, Kim, & Mimi) decided to go down to town to try to find some food. Before we left Kim and Mimi kind of got into a disagreement - Kim was going to bring her airplane along with her and Mimi said something like:

Mimi: Why don't you leave the toy at home?
Kim: I want to play with it while we're walking there and back...
Mimi: If you're holding your airplane you can't carry food.
Kim: I can carry food and the airplane.
Mimi: You won't be able to carry as much food.
Kim: Yes I can, etc., etc.

So anyway Kim ended up bringing the airplane and guess what? After three hours of going through dozens and dozens of dumpsters and trash cans all over Baker, CA - we're finally heading back home when Kim suddenly stops and says "Hey! Where's my airplane?!?" She didn't have her airplane anymore. She left it somewhere; we'd been all over town and it could have been anywhere. So we walked back to Baker and started looking in all the places we'd been. As you can imagine, Kim was in a near-panic and Mimi was quiet but visibly grouchy.

We finally found the airplane, or what was left of it, in the parking lot of the Bun Boy Restaurant. A car had run over it and it was flat and smashed into lots of small pieces. Kim started crying and I had to carry her home. I think at that point even Mimi was feeling bad for her because that airplane was Kim’s absolute favorite - she was always playing with it.​

​When we got home Kim wandered off for a while but she came back the next morning. She told us that she decided she's not going to play with toys anymore because she doesn't want to lose any more toys. Mimi said that wasn't necessary and she just needs to be more responsible and leave her toys at home from now on.

I don't know if Kim is going to give up toys for real, but I think I can kind of understand why she said that. I wonder if it’s possible to not have anything precious.

~pinky

New Hobby Update: Chinese; Pinky Doll Prototype

Posted by Pinky.

After thinking about it for a couple of days, I decided that my new hobby is going to be learning how to speak Chinese. The hardest part was trying to decide which language to learn - there are others that I also like the way they sound (German, Hawaiian, Navajo, Spanish, etc.). Bunny suggested that I learn them all at the same time but I thought that'd be too difficult. In the end I just decided to go in alphabetical order. This is in addition to my already-hobbies: reading, documenting stuff, and learning to play a guitar.

Bunny's new hobby (doll-making) is going pretty good. Here is the first one, finished last night.​

I put the light bulbs next to it so you can see how big it is. There were some parts of it she wasn't happy with so now she's working on a revised version. [ Bunny: This doll came out too narrow. I didn't realize it'd lose width when I stuffed it. The revised doll will be a more accurate representation of Pinky - i.e., fatter. ]

For those of you who've been asking when we're going to finish the next episode, please rest assured that we're not spending all our time sewing dolls and watching subtitled kung-fu movies. This hobby stuff is just what we do to 'relax' after our work-day is over. We still work on episodes 7 days a week.

~p.

No Animals

Posted by Pinky.

After thinking about it some more, I've decided to stop eating other animals. I haven’t decided on what to do about dairy & chicken eggs - I'll have to look into that some more.

Happy New Year; New Hobby

Posted by Pinky.

Today is the first day of the Chinese lunar calendar, year 4705. As such it's the Year of the Boar (a.k.a. Year of the Pig). According to the Wikipedia entry, many people traditionally don't eat meat (animals) on the first day of the new year in order to insure greater longevity for themselves. I don't know if that really works or not, but at the very least I'm sure it's appreciated by all the animals that would have otherwise been eaten today. To be on the safe side I would have liked to have avoided eating any animal-related food today too but by the time I read the Wikipedia stuff I had already eaten some dried fish flakes (I think that’s what it was). So I guess no longevity for me.

Bunny has a new hobby. She is now sewing dolls. The way this came about is that we were down by the highway looking for things to eat (as usual) and while we were there we came across a large plastic bag with lots of smaller packages of different colored fabric remnants in it. We're thinking it fell off a delivery truck. Anyway the four of us dragged the whole thing back to our trailer (very tiring). Bunny started cutting out pieces right after and now she is sewing them together in the shape of cats. I will post a picture of one when she is done. Me, I'm not really into sewing. It looks relaxing but I can't get the hang of tying knots.

I think since this is the beginning of a new year, I would like to start a new hobby too. I'm going to try to decide on one before I go to sleep tonight.

~p.

After the Political-Social Stuff...

Posted by Pinky.

Exactly one month ago, I posted our (then) production cue:

"...two new blurbs; a follow-up Q&A episode to the Lt. Watada episode (061222-01); an episode about pollution in the Pacific Ocean; a tutorial on how to videotape an interview; a mini-biography episode (Bunny's current pet project); and hopefully, if we can coordinate it, an episode about nuclear non-proliferation."

Well, the two blurbs were done (Thomas Edison Hates Cats, and Ant: Light Pollution) and we're almost done with a third. The Lt. Watada Pt. II episode morphed into the Iraq War: Legal or Illegal? episode (approx. 2 weeks from completion). Bunny is still working on her mini-biography episode (according to Bunny ETA is "March-ish") and who knows when the Pacific Ocean one will get done (that one is actually being worked on by a friend of ours, so...?). But we did finish the episode on nuclear weapons last night - it's called 27,000 Holocausts. Special thanks to Dr. John Burroughs, Executive Director of Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. I thought he was very clear and easy to understand so I'm happy with the way it came out.

Anyway, after we bring our current production batch to a conclusion, I think I'd like to make an effort to work on some episodes or blurbs that maybe aren't so 'dark'. It's not that I think nuclear weapons or war aren't important enough to keep making new episodes about - of course they are, and we plan on making lots more episodes on these kinds of subject matter. But when we started this Pinky Show project Bunny and I also had lots of ideas for episodes that were about pop culture, the arts, education, traveling, and things like that. We really like that kind of stuff too. But I guess with the war going on our minds have been sort of preoccupied with the more overtly political subjects. So anyway, I guess I'm just writing this entry as a way to remind myself that we shouldn't forget to do some 'non-war' episodes soon.

~p.

New Episode: 27,000 Holocausts

Posted by Bunny.

We just finished this episode last night; it's about nuclear weapons (you can see it here).

Reminder: All our episodes & blurbs have transcripts. The transcripts (plus credits, bibliography, etc.) are located via the [ transcript / credits ] link below each episode or blurb. A typed-out version is good for classroom work or individual study. I do the transcripts now because Pinky types slower than turtles.

~B.

Today's Quote Courtesy of: Aldous Huxley

Posted by Pinky.

​I was poking around Nancy Snow's website and found this quote.

Almost all of us long for peace and freedom; but very few of us have much enthusiasm for the thoughts, feelings and actions that make for peace and freedom. Conversely almost nobody wants war or tyranny; but a great many people find an intense pleasure in the thoughts, feelings, and actions that make for war and tyranny. - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited

Good quote. Before I'm gone I'd like to have a deeper understanding of 'why'.

~p.

p.s. It's 8:45pm and the newswire says that the court-martial of Lt. Watada has been declared a mistrial. Not much information yet - I'm so curious about the details. All I've heard so far is that a new trail is set for March 19.​

Abuse, The Easy Way

Posted by Pinky.

Bunny and I have been closely following the feedback we've received for the Ehren Watada episode we posted at YouTube.

We're not surprised that there's been negative responses. But what was really eye-opening for us was the feeling of rage and hate that dominates the language of the negative feedback. There's not much reasoning going on, not much analysis or argument. Mostly name-calling, racist epithets, and exclamations of self-evident 'truth'. It's weird how people can sound so sure of what they believe even though it appears (based on the logical gaps and misinformation in the responses themselves) that they haven't done much research into the matter. So bizarre: If someone doesn't make the effort to sort out the facts and historical foundation of a given situation, why would they then feel justified in expressing their position with such simplistic and self-assured language?

Until we've done the research on any given subject, it's actually pretty obvious that we don't have enough information to form a well-informed opinion on that subject. In other words, until we do some kind of inquiry into the matter, we are, by definition, ignorant. I don't think there's anything embarrassing about admitting that.

So how come so many people think it's okay to make hurtful declarations, directed at an individual or a group of people, based on nothing but stereotype and preconception? Isn't it useful to think carefully about where and how we learn the things that we are positive we 'know'?

Probably until the day I die I am never going to understand how it came to be that human beings can have so little compassion for each other. I can understand that somebody who is very smart can review all the same information that Lt. Watada did, and then come to the conclusion that he should be sent to prison. After doing some research, I can say that I've actually come to the opposite conclusion, but to be real, of course I believe that it's also possible to see things differently. If I disagree with you and it's important enough, I'll try my best to try to convince you that you should think differently. And maybe there are even some situations where I might even fight you for what I believe in.

But I hope I will never take pleasure in dehumanizing a human being. I doubt there has ever been anything good to come out of reacting to a situation clouded by hate and hasty judgement. What are the benefits of strong, decisive action based on misinformation or misconceptions?

I've been told that human beings should try to respect each other - not just when they are alike, but especially when they are different. Does this also apply to differences caused by the holding of different ideas?

The self-assured believer is a greater sinner in the eyes of God than the troubled disbeliever. - Soren Kierkegaard

I doubt that many of the people who are directing the most scathing words toward Lt. Watada could bear the emotional weight of a million people's animosity for even one day. And if that concept seems hard to even imagine, then I think that means something too.

~pinky

Pinky Show T-shirts Poll

Posted by Bunny.

Hi. We have four Pinky Show t-shirt designs in the Pinky Show store. Please vote for the one you like best. Any comments would be appreciated (send us an e-mail). Thank you.

[ the poll has been closed. ]​

Minor Change of Plans; Here Come the Nuclear Weapons

Posted by Pinky.

A little while ago I think I mentioned that we were working on a follow-up to episode 061222-01, Ehren Watada: a Soldier Refuses an Illegal War. The follow-up was basically an analysis of Lt. Watada's rationale for refusing to deploy. As we were working on it, we looked at hundreds of responses to his statements on the internet and in newspapers, and based on this started diagramming out what kind of stuff we kept on seeing over and over again. We were looking for patterns. And what we saw was that there seems to be one overriding question that people want to know: "Is the U.S. invasion of Iraq legal or not?". No disrespect intended towards Lt. Watada, but we think that knowing the answer to this question is even more important than the other question that keeps popping up - namely, "Are officers in the military allowed (or even obligated) to refuse orders if they are, in fact, illegal orders?" Of course the two questions are connected, but in the interest of keeping the episode easy to follow, we decided to change direction a bit and try to get to the bottom of the first question rather than the second. The current working title of the episode is now The War in Iraq: Legal or Illegal? - or something like that.

Speaking of Ehren Watada, today is the first day of his court-marshal trial at Fort Lewis, Washington. All of us here at The Pinky Show are praying that he receives a fair trial. One thing that especially concerns us is that we heard that the Army has in advance disallowed any presentation of evidence as to why Lt. Watada refused deployment. The presiding Army judge, Lt. Col. John Head, has stated publicly that he considers the reasons behind his actions as "irrelevant". Maybe the Army has learned something from the Pablo Paredes trial...

Last Thursday (February 1) I interviewed John Burroughs, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. I asked him some things about nuclear weapons; I think I really learned a lot. Anyway, we're almost done putting that episode together. Unless we run into some unforseen problems or difficulties, it should be on our site in about a week. The Iraq War one I just mentioned above probably won't be done for another couple weeks ...at least. We want to be as careful as possible about getting all our information in order, checked, and double-checked before we release stuff.

~pinky

Sudden Piñata Invasion

Posted by Pinky.

I experienced a very bizarre day the other day. Bunny was teasing me about having gained some weight recently (I haven't) when she used the word 'piñata'. I'd never heard of a piñata.

Bunny: You don't know what a piñata is?
Me: No.
Bunny: Are you serious? You never heard of piñatas?
Me: No.
Bunny: What are you? From Mars?
Me: grrrr.

Annoying, but at least I learned a new word. So anyway, fast forward a few hours and Mimi is watching TV and there's this comedian on Comedy Central telling jokes (Demetri Martin - he's actually pretty funny). Anyway, he says something like "I like parties but I don't like piñatas because piñatas promote violence against flamboyant animals". I got the joke because Bunny had just told me what a piñata is. Cool.

Then, the same night, now we're all watching TV and there's this commercial for a show called Viva Piñata. It's a animated show where the characters are all piñatas. Info from the website:

"Viva Piñata™ is a wacky, zany, anything-can-happen animated cartoon series about the world of Piñatas.

In the lush environment of Piñata Island, a multitude of happy, colorful Piñatas live the sweet life, frolicking, dancing and filling themselves up with the most delicious goodies a child could ever want!

They eagerly await the glorious day when they are chosen by the Piñata Factory to attend birthday parties or special celebrations all over the world, bringing joy, treats, and tons of fun to kids of all ages. It's no wonder that wherever the Piñatas go, they're the life of the party!"

Very cute, and interesting premise - though oddly enough it kind of reminds me of the rhetoric of martyr recruitment (not that I know what that really sounds like...). I realize this is all just make pretend, but don't you think the piñatas should be terrified to get the call? What a horrible end:

1) hang you from the rafters or a tree.
2) children take turns beating you with a stick.
3) beating continues until you break open and your insides spill to the floor/ground.
4) much celebration and joy as children madly scramble for candy.

*shiver* All I can say is I'm glad I'm not a piñata. Anyway, I still can't get over the coincidence. They do say that strange things happen in threes, but I didn't know it was true till yesterday.

~pinky

the Viva Piñata piñatas.

....................................

Posted by Bunny: Piñatas come in all kinds of shapes, including non-animal shapes. I don't know how it is elsewhere but in LA there are supermarkets and piñaterias where you can get practically anything popular with children in piñata form - Pokemon, Batman, whatever. But kids like animals. And a festive-looking donkey is at least 10 times more fun for kids than, say, a piñata made in the shape of a toilet bowl or telephone.

....................................

Posted by Kim: I bet they have cell phone piñatas. Kids love cell phones.

Complexity is Good

Posted by Pinky.

I've been thinking about Bunny's response to my last post these past couple of days. I think her point about me comparing apples and oranges (different historical moments; 'high' & 'low' art forms) is pretty important. Because after I thought about it some more, I came up with lots of additional observations and questions that didn't really answer my question (basically "Are Artists Irrelevant?") but did help make me to think through things some more. A couple of examples:

• Maybe the general public can't name 5 contemporary artists, but is that really a reliable indication that artists are not impacting society in a meaningful way? Maybe their innovations or ways of thinking are being assimilated by society and culture in other ways (other than simply becoming individually 'famous', cult-of-personality-style). Maybe their art is just being filtered though a broad network of 'middlemen' - including some of the same formats Bunny mentioned (advertising, comic books, t-shirts, advertisements, etc.). It's possible that the public really does have a connection to practicing contemporary artists without being aware of it. I should talk to the art directors at the big advertising or design firms, and ask them if they look to contemporary artists for inspiration and ideas. I'm guessing they do.

• I'm not sure about the 'high art/low art' dichotomy. It's complicated enough that I don't really know how to use it for analytical purposes. I mean, intuitively I know there are some pretty powerful associations that people make that are hard to entirely dismiss. Like there are tons of people who wouldn't really want to go visit a museum on a Sunday afternoon because they just don't consider themselves 'museum people'. I think there's a lot of assumptions rolled into labels like that - there's an implied class thing, the education-level thing, and so on. I wonder - is that a relatively new phenomena? Did a wider segment of the population go visitng museums on Sunday afternoons, say, during the 19th century? If they did, was it because television hadn't been invented yet as a form of competition? Or if they didn't, what kind of stuff were ordinary people looking at back in those days? Certainly they didn't have billboards and advertisements and photographs and glossy magazines everywhere like we have today. Come to think of it, did museums back then even function the same way they do nowadays? Nowadays anybody can pay $5 or $10 and then go in and roam around for a few hours. How back then? Were they free? Were they exlusive? When were museums invented anyway?

Anyway, so I guess one big thing that I've been reminded of in the past couple of days is that every question is like a fortune cookie. A fortune cookie with at least 50 or a 100 slips of paper stuffed into it, each with even more questions on it. And instead of getting freaked out that the original question is getting too complicated to answer, I guess it's important for me to try to keep a good attitude about it and be open to complexity.

Oh, by the way, in Bunny's posted response, instead of the word 'obtuse' she originally called me 'stupid'. She only changed it after Mimi and Kim said she was being mean.

~pinky

....................................

Posted by Bunny: I did not call you stupid. I called your post stupid.

Where Are the Artists?

Posted by Pinky.

I like art. I like looking at it and I like drawing too. But something occurred to me yesterday when Bunny, Mimi, and I were talking about art. They were asking me who my favorite artists are. I named a few but they hadn't heard of any of them. They know some artists - Giotto, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Vermeer, van Gogh, Degas, etc. But no one who doesn't fall into the 'dead white men' category. Isn't that interesting? They both read the newspaper every day but can't name even one artist who is alive and practicing art right now.

Which started me to wondering: In today's society, are artists irrelevant? I mean, to me, maybe because I like art and I try to go out of my way to read about it whenever possible, I would say "Of course artists are relevant!". But to be realistic I think that may be an extreme minority position these days. Imagine: You ask a thousand random Americans to name five contemporary artists. Artists from the U.S. or from anywhere else in the world, I don't care. I doubt more than 1% of them would be able to name even five. Some people might have a hard time coming up with even one! If no one knows you exist then it becomes kinda difficult to argue that you're making any kind of impact on society.

Art is one of those things, like 'education' or 'strong families', that nearly everybody automatically will say is good, important, and so on. Very few people are going to say "Art is bad. Destroy all art." Even people who don't like art themselves will probably try to soften the tone by saying something like "Well I'm not really into art myself, but I guess it's important...". Something like that. But if it's so good or important, then how come nobody cares enough to know something about it?

Another weird thing: When I say 'art', I think most people automatically assume I mean 'visual art' (painting, drawing, sculpture, etc.) - not the literary arts, not film, not theater, not dance, and so on. So the term 'art' is most powerfully connected to the visual arts; it's not like saying 'the arts', which I think then implies the inclusion of all the different arts, right? So why then, of all the arts, contemporary visual art is possibly the most off-the-radar screen with the general public? I mean, most people can name at least a few current writers, at least a few filmmakers, TONS of actors I'm sure... but no visual artists. Okay, I just realized - no one cares about dance either. Unless it's in a movie like Flashdance or Save the Last Dance or whatevers.

I'm not saying that Raphael, Degas, Vermeer, et. al. aren't worth looking at, I'm just wondering why people don't care enough about the visual arts to go check out what's going on right now. Isn't there anybody out there doing something important?

~pinky

....................................

Posted by Bunny: This is one of your more obtuse posts so far. Yeah, art is dead to the masses. But that's 'high art'. Popular visual art is bigger than ever. It's advertisements, comic books, pictures on t-shirts. You're comparing high art with low art, and across different moments in history. What about all the independent and avant-garde filmmakers who are making films nowadays - you think most people even know who they are? Nope. So not a fair comparison. Corporations (and their respective design/PR departments) have replaced the individual artist. And guess what - I didn't read any of your art books to figure that out.