Date:	2006-03-19 18:39
Subject:	A Little Profanity Goes A Long Way!
Security:	Public
Mood:	Drunk... Or I Will Be Soon!

Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuckity fuck-fuck-fuck, GODS, fuck, fuck, damn it!

*sigh*

Hi, I'm Patricia Sully.
You may remember me from such profanities as just displayed (the f%$k cycle) or Bastard Bush’s uprising, (what a c*#t).

Now while these have merit and I am not advert to hearing these terms it has came to my attention that some people who use this terminology would add years to their lives by simply seeking to add "fuck" to the end, middle and start of each sentence that comes out of their mouth. A good friend of mine who will remain nameless will be an example of this.

Now if you say this simple sentence aloud when hearing someone say "I've seen Mrs Gering today." instead of replying "How is she?" one states "How is the old fucking slut bag?" Now this how much time could be saved over a period of weeks by not adding a profanity (or sentence enhancer) to anything.

“…Don’t say fuck anymore because fuck is the worse word that you can say so just use the words m’kay!”
- Mr Makey

I do not agree with this. “M’kay take up more space in a sentence then fuck. Fuck comes out like a bark, sharp and sweet were “Mkay” rolls of the tongue like a fine liquor…mmm baileys…I need to go now!

Have a good one people! And remember, if you drink booze for the taste, your not an alcoholic!!

Date:	2005-12-11 21:39
Subject:	Does this mean I'm an Artist yet?
Security:	Public
Mood:	So Very French

Gday! Gods its been a long month and a bit. But its all over! I have sold all my prints and the 3D work at The Bank gallery and one at The Junction so I’m dancing in a sea of cash at the moment ^ ^ ...though knowing me that wont last long...:D

The (last) Friday night opening went well. I wore a red dress with white pock-a-dots (so very very fifties) and got absolutely trashed on fluffy ducks! It was so GOOD! Such a release I tell you. Anyway enough about me, let us ponder…

Now at some time or another it's happened to all of us. There's that certain number that pops up wherever you go. Hotel rooms, airline terminals, street addresses -- its haunting presence cannot be escaped. Or, you're in your car, absently humming a song. You turn on the radio. A sudden chill prickles your spine. That same song is now pouring from the speaker.
Coincidence, you tell yourself. Or is it?

For most mainstream scientists, experiences like this, however strange and recurrent, are nothing but lawful expressions of chance, a creation -- not of the divine or mystical -- but of simply that which is possible. Ignorance of natural law, they argue, causes us to fall prey to superstitious thinking, inventing supernatural causes where none exist. In fact, say these statistical law-abiding rationalists, the occasional manifestation of the rare and improbable in daily life is not only permissible, but inevitable.
Consider this: from a well-shuffled deck of fifty-two playing cards, the mathematical odds of dealing a hand of thirteen specified cards are about 635,000,000,000 to one. (This means that, in dealing the hand, there exist as many as 635,000,000,000 different hands that may possibly appear.) What statisticians tell us, though, is that these billions of hands are all equally likely to occur, and that one of them is absolutely certain to occur each time the hand is dealt. Thus, any hand that is dealt, including the most rare and improbable hand is, in terms of probability, merely one of a number of equally likely events, one of which was bound to happen.
Such sobering assurances don't necessarily satisfy everyone, however: many see coincidence as embedded in a higher, transcendental force, a cosmic "glue," as it were, which binds random events together in a meaningful and coherent pattern. The question has always been: could such a harmonizing principle actually exist? Or are skeptics right in regarding this as a product of wishful thinking, a consoling myth spawned by the intellectual discomfort and capriciousness of chance?

Something to think about. ^ ^

…*shuffles some cards*…

Date:	2005-11-27 21:51
Subject:	What is Contemporary?
Security:	Public
Mood:	stressed

Contemporary as an objective usually mean’s it is relevant to the period of time being considered. For example if a judge was to rule by contemporary standards is to judge by the standards of his own time. However, the word has an assortment of other meanings, most often linking to the suggestion of “our own time”. But then some Artists and also Composers have had the label of contemporary slapped on their title and being dead for quite a few decades doesn’t seem to have an affect on this.

You also have Artist that are considered ‘old school’ by our standards. Is it the way of working or only the idea of the artwork contemporary? If so doesn’t the meaning change through time, shifting with culture itself? This, of course, is not true in all cases but if it is for some then contemporary can either be a fad or an excuse it say why we like something now and didn’t earlier or visa-versa. So on these grounds it seems to mean the host of events, influences and questions, which are still being actively debated. It could be as far stretched as people regarding it as postmodern, and part of the information age, while others could see it as being in the modern period, with post-modernity being a reaction against the general modern trend, and along side all this, all the way back and beyond. This really throw’s the word out in the open where popular culture is concerned. What’s can you do other then fling it up in the air and hope that the ones using it have the same idea about contemporary as you do.

Contemporary artwork.

Presumably, this is another one of those art definitions we are all supposed to know - most likely by osmosis, or some other telepathic means. Most explain this as "art that has been and continues to be created during our lifetimes". In other words, contemporary to us. The problem with this is there are so many age groups that with the meaning of contemporary art you can expect a certain amount of overlapping between "Contemporary" and "Modern" art in your lifetime.

· Modern Art: Art from the Impressionists (say, around 1880) up until the 1960's or 70's.
· Contemporary Art: Art from the 1960's or 70's up until this very minute.

Here at About Art History, 1970 is the cut-off point for two reasons. First, because it was around 1970 that the terms "Post-Modern" and "Postmodernism" popped up by those who were sick to death of the term Modernism.
Secondly, 1970 seems to be the last fortress of easily classified artistic movements. If you look at the normal art history outline of Modern Art, and compare it to the outline of Contemporary Art, you'll quickly notice that there are far more entries on the former page. This is in spite of the fact that contemporary art enjoys far more working artists making far more art. May it be that contemporary artists are mostly working in "movements" that cannot be classified, due to there being around ten artists in any given "movement", none of which have shot off an email saying that there's a new "movement" and "could you please tell others?"
But then again, while it may be hard to classify emergent movements, Contemporary art - collectively - is much more socially conscious than any previous era has been. A whole lot of art from the last 30 years has been connected with one issue or another: feminism, multiculturalism, globalisation and bio-engineering all come readily to mind as subject matter.
Deconstructing Ideologies

There is no way to find haven from Ideologies in today’s contemporary art practice not matter how far we try to move from it. I suggest, firstly, that the idea of 'themes/artwork’s which have been built up at a certain moment during history' sits well with the notion of ideologies and, secondly, that this very process, that of the criticism and destruction of preconceived ideas, can only be conducted via some form of questioning of discourses 'about their silently intended meanings’ in some form of analytical 'ideological critique'. That is to say, no matter if your not intentionally commenting on ideologies at the present time, it is inevitable that this, in human nature, will be assessed on your work. It is the most likely way we compare human emotion/action in everyday life again wether we do this subconsciously or not. Even if you combat ideologies head on , providing the exact opposite of what is expected through social thought, it will itself be compared to that ideology that you are combating, therefore hasn’t in reality moved an inch from it in the communal mind.

Art – Spectacle / Commodity

Art as a product has always been the vocal point of the “Artist” in question in the eye’s of today’s society. Spectacle culture involves everything from film and broadcasting to Internet cyber-culture and encompasses phenomena ranging from elections to terrorism and to the media dramas of the moment. Contemporary art, therefore, (unless we live under a rock) has been impacted by this in some way. Though you could say that during the past decades, every form of culture and significant forms of social life have become permeated by the logic of the spectacle. Movies are bigger and more spectacular than ever, with high-tech special effects expanding the range of cinematic spectacle. Television channels proliferate endlessly with all-day movies, news, sports, specialty niches, re-runs of the history of television, and whatever else can gain an audience. With this, pop culture steel’s the spotlight away from the starving artist, holding “the people”( Wherever they are, they all speak the same private language, where 'traditional values' means 'hang someone'.) on leases with a flowing, greasy and industrial hand. It seems the only way we can be removed from this is to all become and stay students, keep our head’s down and thank the god’s that our art isn’t selling.


This is (half)my essay for environmental art and design, theory unit 6. This is why my head hurts...

Date:	2005-11-06 12:06
Subject:	I'm a phrenologist... let me feel your head
Security:	Public
Mood:	hoping to be productive

I have a talk to complete this Friday…not a bit talk it only goes for 15 –30 min …thing is I’m stressing and when I stress I don’t do anything so it a par for the course for me not to complete it : C …Ah I should stop my bitching and just get on with it only way to go…hmmm anyway back to my normal odd rants about society…a somewhat detached version because I cant be bothered with upfront and normal right now...Ahem



Our critique began as all critiques begin, with doubt. Doubt became our narrative. Ours was a quest for a new story: our own. And we grasped towards this new history driven by the suspicion that ordinary language couldn't tell it. Our past appeared frozen in the distance, and our every gesture and accent signified the negation of the Old World, and the reach for a new one.

The way we lived created a new situation, one of exuberance and friendship; That of a subversive micro-society in the heart of a society which ignored it. Art was not the goal, but the occasion and the method for locating our specific rhythm and varied possibilities of our time. The discovery of a true communication was what it was about, or at least the quest for such a communication: the adventure of finding it and losing it.

We, the unappeased, the unaccepting, continued looking, filling in the silences with our own wishes, fears, and fantasies, driven forward by the fact that no matter how empty the world seemed, no matter how degraded and used up the world appeared to us, we knew that anything was still possible, and, given the right circumstances, a new world was just as likely as an old one.

Good day

Date:	2005-11-01 21:41
Subject:	The Art of Honest Deception
Security:	Public
Mood:	mellow

Now I find this quite laughable…as most reactions of funny homosapiens like our self’s we have a tenancy to act violently to things we don’t believe to be true or to those who are trying to fool us. Let me explain.

John Mulholland, the well-known magician, was displaying his fascinating mastery of sleight of hand before an audience of college professors and students. He picked up a coin with his left hand, placed it in his right, then opened his hand slowly. The coin had vanished. Suddenly a book flew through the air, narrowly missing the performer's head. An embarrassed professor arose from his seat and quickly apologized.

A akin encounter is described by Milbourne Christopher, another “wielder of the wand” . He was performing before a social gathering in Philadelphia, and he asked a reserved, dignified lady to assist him by selecting a playing card. "I changed the card in her hand from the king of hearts to the three of spades without touching it," Christopher relates. "She looked up, exasperated. Then she gave me a terrific shove, toppling me over a small table and onto the floor. Afterward she was most apologetic."

This instinctive and violent reaction to being fooled occurred because the spectators did not understand, and therefore could not enjoy, the principles in the art of honest deception, which is fair enough really. I mean who enjoys being lied to? But then “tricks” are mostly enjoyed by the people doing the tricking…and yes, yes I’ve been thinking about trick or treating too much XD but still my underlying point is simple.

Let us analyse what happened when the professor was baffled. With a perfectly natural move, the magician apparently picked up the coin with his right hand. Actually the coin remained in his left hand, dropping down into the palm from the extended fingers. His eyes and directed attention followed the moving, closed right hand, while his unobserved left hand slipped the coin into his coat pocket. Then, when the performer slowly opened his right hand, the coin had apparently vanished, and his left hand was empty also.

The coin did not vanish because the hand is quicker than the eye. The hand is slicker, not quicker, than the vision of spectators. Magic is successful because it is nine-tenths simple distraction. Your attention is cleverly misdirected. It is your own brain that deceives you.

You do not see with your eyes alone, but with your brain and mind, which sorts out the confusion of outlines and colours, and forms them into definite, understandable images. Because the mind has so very much to do with what is being observed, deception is made possible. ITS YOUR FAULT! Tehe ^ ^.

You learn quite a few things in the entertainment business...

Date:	2005-10-31 12:13
Subject:
Security:	Public
Mood:	contemplative

Now this is very important people.For my first entry it has to be! Dont even get me started because I'll go even more then i already have XD.

The link between reality and observation is based on what has been called the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum mechanics because it was proposed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and other physicists working in that city. A more colorful and memorable reference, however, is probably one based on a thought experiment. That experiment puts a cat in a box with a device triggered by a single particle's quantum behavior. The device, if activated, kills the cat. Since quantum theory says that the particle's behavior is indeterminate until its probability wave 'collapses' upon observation, the cat can be considered both alive and dead at the same time until the box is opened and one or the other condition is observed.

That animal in the box is known as 'Schrodinger's Cat', named for the physicist who proposed the scenario. So the 'Schrodinger Cat phenomenon' might be another name you'd see associated with this phenomenon.

This view of nature is obviously speculative, and raises questions about what kind of observer is necessary...need it be a human, could it be another cat, or an earthworm? There are other interpretations of 'quantum weirdness', but they all have strange aspects to them because of the unexpectedly bizarre nature of the quantum universe.Oo

Now go away and think about it.

...maow...