![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I live in the best decade ever.
Jun. 21st, 2004
Trying to sort through pile of old papers. Argh. A few things are fairly clear - play programs, ball booklets, they're over and done, to be saved (or not) as a record and memento. The rest is a great heap of incompleteness... reviews for restaurants never visited, opening paragraphs of stories never written, song lists for mixes never made. Those NYC maps I might want next time I'm in NYC. What do I *do* with that stuff? I hate to give up on the potential each paper represents - that fic (I still could write!), that restaurant (might be really good!). I also don't want to end up mummified in an accretion of little scraps of paper I might someday act on. If I file them, they're nearly as lost... files are like a dead space, an archive. If I let my desk stay buried under them that chokes off a possible active space where things could get done.
I don't know if it would really help or not, but I want a catchy slogan for reducing clutter. Like how reducing waste has "reduce reuse recycle". So far, I have come up with "triage" and "transcribe" for a parallel slogan. ("Transcribe" since I think I'd rather have eight zillion little text documents than the corresponding pieces of paper... they're lighter, for one thing.)
Can anyone think of a good third? Do you think the "3 Rs" are actually useful in motivating individual behavior as opposed to, like, corporate awareness? Does a good anti-clutter meme have the potential to, say, help my mom clean the house? Or me? (I'm kind of picturing a logo, too... some kind of triangle with arrows converging on one of the points to imply shrinking, maybe.)
I don't know if it would really help or not, but I want a catchy slogan for reducing clutter. Like how reducing waste has "reduce reuse recycle". So far, I have come up with "triage" and "transcribe" for a parallel slogan. ("Transcribe" since I think I'd rather have eight zillion little text documents than the corresponding pieces of paper... they're lighter, for one thing.)
Can anyone think of a good third? Do you think the "3 Rs" are actually useful in motivating individual behavior as opposed to, like, corporate awareness? Does a good anti-clutter meme have the potential to, say, help my mom clean the house? Or me? (I'm kind of picturing a logo, too... some kind of triangle with arrows converging on one of the points to imply shrinking, maybe.)
O'ist art criticism. Ahahahahah. Stumbled upon while going through papers and finding some notes containing the interesting line "if a given work is challenging, experimental, seductive, disturbing, exploring, elevating, or quirky - it is not art. um??" Which of course could only refer to "What Art Is" and their appendix on "artworld buzzwords - one can safely infer that whenever these buzzwords are used in art criticism, the work in question is not art".
Also I had totally forgotten about the whole Randian photography-is-not-art thing. Heh. Apparently it's also not art if you compose a painting by projecting reference photos onto your canvas, as explained in here:
these paintings--as well as others for which Eakins used a "magic lantern" to project photographs onto primed canvas--do not, therefore, qualify as art (even though he noted color and atmosphere in detailed oil studies made on location), although they appear to the eye to be just that.
What an interesting problem it must be for orthodox O'ists if some painting they previously enjoyed is shown by new scholars to have employed tracing techniques. Their art has been de-arted! It would be like your patron saint being downgraded to fictional status. Where did the art go? If it was never there, what were you responding to?
(On the other hand, de-artification can be handy way to tidy up signs of homoeroticism in your favorite painter's work: in copying both the composition and the main details of a projected photograph, Eakins employed a mechanical procedure that belies the projection of such deep feelings as "longing," "desire," or "passion" on his part. Boy, it's sure a good thing you can't project passion or desire via a camera. Ahahahah.)
Also I had totally forgotten about the whole Randian photography-is-not-art thing. Heh. Apparently it's also not art if you compose a painting by projecting reference photos onto your canvas, as explained in here:
these paintings--as well as others for which Eakins used a "magic lantern" to project photographs onto primed canvas--do not, therefore, qualify as art (even though he noted color and atmosphere in detailed oil studies made on location), although they appear to the eye to be just that.
What an interesting problem it must be for orthodox O'ists if some painting they previously enjoyed is shown by new scholars to have employed tracing techniques. Their art has been de-arted! It would be like your patron saint being downgraded to fictional status. Where did the art go? If it was never there, what were you responding to?
(On the other hand, de-artification can be handy way to tidy up signs of homoeroticism in your favorite painter's work: in copying both the composition and the main details of a projected photograph, Eakins employed a mechanical procedure that belies the projection of such deep feelings as "longing," "desire," or "passion" on his part. Boy, it's sure a good thing you can't project passion or desire via a camera. Ahahahah.)