Lot 49 » Academics

Quiet Please

J. Celestino — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:50:50 +0000

I tend not to speak much anymore. I used to be much more animated and lively, etc. Recently there is little to be lively about that I tend not to speak. I’m not mute but muted. I hope this ends soon. I’m considering an idea to force myself to speak daily. Maybe this will help. Maybe the conversation with the air will lead to less forced vocabulary. More on this project soon.

Pencey Prep

J. Celestino — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:19:03 +0000

I heard the news and stared blankly at my computer. People asked me if I was ok, I told them he died. When they didn’t know who he was I could do little with my vision. Suddenly the figures asking me questions evaporated like funny smells in the winter cold. I closed my eyes and tasted salt for a second and continued working.

I kept typing and those figures walked off. I kept typing and wondered if the figures would appear again. I kept typing.

Dear he, Thank you.

f-stop

J. Celestino — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:47:00 +0000

I decided to take a classic photography class this September. I’m now faced with a dilemma. I need a manual film camera. Being the person that I am, I began researching cameras. I’m really interested in a Zorki 4, which is this Russian Leica knock off. It has an interesting history but I’m a little leery of buying one from ebay since they all seem to come from the Ukraine.

I’ll post photos to flickr throughout the term.

Amusing Ourselves to Death

J. Celestino — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:53:45 +0000

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.

- Neil Postman

ÃR

J. Celestino — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:14:46 +0000

I must become a collector…An avid collector. A collector of information, ideas and associations. Here is where I begin. This is a challenge to myself, to my ultimate sense of creation. Do these thoughts have more value than the pretty echoes they create as they bounce around.

More soon on this endeavour.

Speaking Role

J. Celestino — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:06:22 +0000

So I’ve decided to make a podcast of short stories and other writings from the past few years. I thought it would b a good exercise in diction if nothing else. I’ve uploaded an introduction and the first episode. I’ve included a little player below and the rss feed and iTunes link should you want to subscribe.

RSS
iTunes

Synecdoche

J. Celestino — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:15:06 +0000

I’ve just returned from seeing Synecdoche, the latest Charlie Kaufman movie, and I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, some parts are truely hilarious. However I doubt many will. As a matter of fact several comments from neighboring patrons included “I’m glad it’s over” and “What the hell was that all about?” Two people behind us decided to leave near the end, oddly about 15 minutes till the end. Why not stay till the punctuation mark?

Anyway, why they left: The movie is a classic example of postmodernism, throwing the sequence of time out the window as well as being rather self referential. Someone not accustomed to the genre or Kaufman films in general would find the movie hard to follow. Ironically I enjoyed the film for the very reasons that some left. I found it interesting and well layered but about the beginning of the second act I noticed a surprising similarity to Six Characters in Search of an Author. Which gave me a basis for understanding the movie without much explanation. So I spent the movie admiring the details as I no longer had to pay attention to the road signs. I think that is the key to Kaufman movies.

It was enjoyable and interesting, my only wish was that it didn’t hand it to you on a silver platter at the end. He decided to simply beat you over the head with the message at the end like so many art films I wanted to enjoy. Children of Men is a good example of this. Small spoiler: I wanted the movie to end when Hoffman gets the role of Ellen near the end, just after he enters the door.

Watch the trailer and if you are into a slightly tougher read, then give it a go.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Beautiful

J. Celestino — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:41:37 +0000

I stumbled across this short film on the internets and I liked its premise. This idea of finding a common ground between intellectual and social classes.

I’ve been having small conversations about how the labor worker is endangered in this country for a while now. Moreover thanks to technology and necessity there will be a need for more and more knowledge workers. Which we are currently at a deficit, I believe. Mainly because we’ve made it terribly difficult to become a creative knowledge worker. First, its expensive and second, we tend to pinhole a specific discipline and beat them over the head with it. So much so that it begins to dominate their lives. Architects that believe everything is Architecture, because of the very nature of the metaphor. We build relationships and design the very boundaries of our existence, etc… In every discipline as the focus becomes narrower I think a persons entire scope also becomes narrow and they believe that all life subsists of their discipline. Which is an easy correlation to make but we make it at the sacrifice of the myriad of possibilities from every other discipline. Artists love to believe that what they do and what a mathematician does is hugely different. When we know for a fact that both are interrelated. The golden ratio is a prime example as it relates to aesthetics. More over plenty of mathematicians can submit to the idea that a proof can be elegant or even beautiful. Using terms of aesthetics to describe mathematics. Sometimes science becomes more about creativity, rather than logic. Take string theory for example which states that all possibilities exists and are collapsed to a reality by an observer. Granted that being a rather simplistic statement of a particular part of string theory, nonetheless it almost sounds like philosophy rather than physics. These field experts are knowledge workers but they work at a deficit of interdisciplinary knowledge. Which is why collaboration is so important. But what if we were able to collaborate in our own heads as well as with other people. What if an Artist could put down the paint brush and discuss metallurgy or the kazimir effect. Or a chemist having a conversation on color theory or Calvino’s Lightness. What if we found a common ground in our own heads, would it be easier to talk to each other? Would the conversation be good?