Archives for the month of: September, 2005

My friend James was so amused by the Washington Post article about PowerPoint in my del.icio.us links [originally via kottke] that he made his own four-slide presentation about the inanity of the form. It went something like this:

  • Slide One: Title Page ("Why PowerPoint Is Stupid")
  • Slide Two: Points Are For Idiots
  • Slide Three: Dual Points Are For Someone Twice As Dumb
  • Slide Four: Cat Picture

Incidentally a former roommate of mine made a PowerPoint presentation for her boyfriend about how much she loved him. Let's just say the relationship didn't last long after that.

I'm doing M.A. coursework (English Lit.) again for the first time in awhile. Yesterday was the first meeting of the course I'm taking this semester (Textuality). Thinking about something as heady as theories of the text after discussing online marketing in meetings all day is as disconcerting as I expected, but oddly soothing considering the anxiety I used to associate with academia.

Anyway—some cool stuff…

We were discussing this passage from T.S. Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent":

No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. [...] The necessity that he shall conform, that he shall cohere, is not onesided; what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered…

So one point of the discussion was to think about the phenomenon of old literature being transformed by new literature as an example of what Freud called deferred action (which in Freud's sense of the term entailed him observing his patients not experiencing the trauma of a certain event until later gaining significant knowledge or experience—Freud's main focus being of course on the infamous primal scene not being traumatic until gaining a knowledge of what was occuring). Eliot's description is of a dialectical progression rather than fully deferred realization, but I guess the point is that the actual shift is somewhere in between a dialectical progression and a deferred reaction.

So this one guy in the class pointed out that the New Historicists, in their attempt to put whatever literature is under their study back into its original context, can be seen as undermining the deferred-action alteration that later texts have made to what they're studying.

It's an awesome point—the professor was rather giddy off it—but erasing their own historical knowledge isn't exactly the aim of New Historicists, so far as I can tell. Shoddy New Historicism can end up there, sure, but the ideal goal of a New Historical reading would be to study the relationship between literature and history by sussing out the differences between contemporary and historical meanings of whatever lit's under the microscope. Whether or not that really gets accomplished is a question for someone who's read a lot more of those New Historicist folks than I have.

dove campaign for real beauty
snippet of the Campaign for Real Beauty webiste

The people at Dove have their hearts in the right place. They really do. And what they're doing is getting a rather positive response, in a few New York Times articles as well as Dove's own Campaign for Real Beauty promotional website.

So some women feel good when they look at the ads and that—whether or not these women are the majority notwithstanding—alone makes me happy that it's being done. It's a step in the right direction for sure.

But am I the only person around here who feels a little frustrated every time I look at the tag line of this campaign? It's pretty sick that these women can't be put before the eyes of the public without what basically amounts to an asterisk next to their asses and a footnote reading, "Yeah we know they aren't skinny. Aren't we cool for putting them in an ad anyway?" Does every billboard with these women really need an announcement that they aren't as thin as the swizzle sticks on the billboard next door? I think most of us can pretty much see that for ourselves. Does Dove's website really need to insist with methinks-Dove-doth-protest-too-much levels of repetition that it finds these women are beautiful in their own unique ways? C'mon. These are some pretty girls. They've got big, bright smiles, clear skin, and shiny hair. None of them have huge, flabby stomachs or cottage-cheese thighs. They'd be looking a lot prettier without all this insistence that they're going to "celebrate their curves."

Wouldn't Dove's message be coming across a little clearer if it slapped these pictures on its billboards without the "check out these curvy women—but they're still pretty, we swear!" commentary? U.S. women all know what "curvy" really means in the mouths of advertisers and the mainstream media. It means you're not up to their standards.

In this sense, rap—which gets unending flack for objectifying women—is quite a few steps ahead of Dove's game. You know that Kanye West "Gold Digger" video I mentioned one post down? Many of the women wriggling in front of "Fantasy Magazine" and "Oooh LaLa" aren't supermodel-thin either—and Kanye doesn't change the lyrics to "now I ain't sayin' she a supermodel/but it ain't like she so fat she's got a waddle" when the "curvier" women are front and center. In fact there's nothing at all to differentiate them from the thin girls in the video aside from the viewer's own preference.

Maybe advertisers and the mainstream media can take a hint. I'll be a lot happier when I see normal-sized women in ads that don't have the words "curvy," "real," or "plus-size" anywhere in sight. Until then, rap videos and the boastful Dove ads are going to have to do.


Oh my god, yay! Why wasn't this around at this time last year when I was desperately searching all over the internets for an outlet for my sudden and inexplicable desire to play lemmings again after all these years?

I can't remember where I eventually downloaded that old-fashioned bundle of fun, but the fact that I still have this lemmings solution guide in my bookmarks list a year after the re-obsession finally waned should demonstrate the degree of my regressive addiction.

[via boingboing]

Flipping between the Satellite and Katrina views over many parts of Google's New Orleans map is just terrifying. Don't do this right before bed, especially if you live in hurricane territory.

I'm not familiar with New Orleans geography at all, but I found a dramatic contrast between the Satellite and Katrina images along this waterway. Here's a sliver…

before:

nola before

after:

nola after

So apparently Toyota thinks it can cut down on accidents with this new technology that monitors drivers' eye movements. If your eyes wander away from the road, a dashboard device beeps and flashes—and if they don't return to the straight and narrow, the car will begin to break automatically.

Uhhh, Toyota? I know I'm, like, a car-less Brooklynite straphanger, but…the last time I drove, awareness of the road required more than one eye position. In fact, I remember being berated by my mother as a teenager to make sure that my eyes were constantly moving from road to rearview mirror to road to side mirror to road to other side mirror, &c., &c.

So clearly what the dutiful, attentive driver, with eyes always shifting from one angle to another, needs is the distraction of a flashing light (what could be more terrifying while you're driving?) and an irritating noise—and then a removal of his control over the car. I mean, what if the car starts breaking because you've been apprehensively gazing in the rearview mirror at the tailgater behind you? Great plan, guys, great plan.

[via engadget]

So: Funny Village Voice article about Elliot Malkin's digital graffiti project, eRuv: A Street History in Semacode.

semacode for wikipedia's semacode entry

Malkin's project uses semacode posters, which have these funky-looking barcodes that, when photographed with a camera phone, will direct your phone's internet browser to a specific url. Pretty cool, but lost on people who, like me, don't invest much money in their phones.

Anyway, Malkin uses semacode to mark (well, partially) the former path of the Third Avenue el—and his project is called eruv (a Hebrew word roughly meaning a physically delimited communal area) because in 1907 one Rabbi Yehoshua Siegel used the el's path as the western border to an eruv encompassing the entire east side of Manhattan (the other boundaries being water). Why make the whole east side one community? Because, according to Talmudic law you can only carry things around on Shabbat inside your home or eruv. As the eruv wikipedia article points out, that law's a big bummer if you don't have an eruv: "the law on carrying created severe hardships and diminished the oneg ("joy") of Shabbat."

The Village Voice calls Siegel's eruvification of the east side a maphack ahead of its time, but it seems more—dare I say it?—like a lifehack to me: a creative way of getting stuff done within the restrictive parameters of your existence…and of guaranteeing the entire east side an onegful Shabbat.