Camera Lucida

New Design Website

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 01:05:00 +0000

Well-Patterned

I have replaced Kidist Designs with a new design website "Well-Patterned" at Wellpatterned.com. It focuses on my original works.

Here is my "About" page:

Textile designers have a wealth of design tradition to draw on. Patterning our designs after our heritage is about pursuing excellence.

Past designs nourish our present ones. Tradition provides a launching board for our own innovations and creations. Tradition is the basis for the patterns of our thoughts and our ideas. It is ultimately the basis for the patterns on our designs. Thus, Kidist Paulos Asrat uses such guidance and examples to shape her patterns. She looks to the past to direct her to the present, with the ardent hope that her designs will in turn positively influence hers, and others’, future endeavors.

Well-followed, well-conceived, well-designed. That is the goal of "Well-Patterned."

Carrie Prejean's Mission

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:54:00 +0000

To redeem herself and other "lost" girls

Carrie Prejean, the pageant model who was asked if she believed in same-sex marriage, and answered in front of millions of viewers that marriage is between men and women, has written a book about her ordeals.

She is a conservative Christian girl, twenty-two years old, and has already garnered her share of controversy. She has also become the target of hate and defamation by gays, liberals and non-Christians.

Her story is perhaps more ordinary than people realize. I think many young girls, when asked difficult questions about marriage, child bearing, abortion, having families, are actually more conservative than expected. I strongly believe that ordinary people intuitively (and practically) know that the sexes are different, marriage is an ancient tradition between men and women, abortion incurs life-long suffering, and families are the basis of society.

It is the incessantly human-hostile media and the elite liberal cabal who keep throwing contrary views out at us, and arranging society so that we have to obey and observe them.

Carrie's brave battle has another dimension. Like many young girls who are brought up on the pornographic entertainment media, she taped various "sex tapes" at seventeen, and sent them to her then boyfriend. These tapes of course became available once she got some fame. She said she sent them before she became a committed Christian, and that they are the biggest mistake of her life.

I don't know how far Carrie will go with her battle to redeem conservatism and Christianity, and herself. She is on a tall mission. She needs all the help she can get, in every way. Least of all not to get confused by the rampantly sexualized culture and the shamefully permissive churches into entering the traps of the evil liberal world.

Unlike the other "lost girls" of the cruel entertainment media, she understands that she needs a force bigger than her self-control to make it through this society as a young and attractive (although I say she is beautiful) girl. May God help her to overcome this, and to be a true model to all those girls searching for direction.

Sarah, Oprah and Hillary

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:56:00 +0000

Let the battles begin!

Sarah Palin and Oprah will finally meet. Palin is scheduled to be on Oprah next Monday, but as always, these interviews are pre-taped and the "trailer" is circulating all over YouTube.

Palin has to address the "bad boy" Levi Johnston, the young man she groomed to comfort her daughter by allowing him to spend nights in her daughter's bedroom, and later on putting him on show as the fiancé at the Republican National Convention. Johnston is set to pose for Playgirl, and is threatening Palin with damaging information, and tells her to just "shut up."

This seems to be the tragedy of the modern family. Mothers who are unavailable, children running amok, out-of-wedlock (i.e. illegitimate) grandkids, and now rumors of divorce which Johnston says is an ongoing affair between Palin and her husband.

People will just say that is the cost of a woman running for public office. But is it really worth it? Has Sarah really something extraordinary to offer? We'll have to wait and see, but I think she (or more like her family) has paid too much for her ambitions.

Of course, I cannot avoid commenting on her appearance - public figures are shown no mercy in that regard. Sarah looks like an aging country music star on her interview with Oprah, with her big hair, over-done makeup and those glasses which give that air of sophistication which many older stars are now sporting. I never saw the beauty in her.

Now, someone who really has paid her dues, and who seems to be battling the callous Obama in her own capacity, is Hillary Clinton. It would indeed be a match to see the young and ruthless Palin against the seasoned and humbled Clinton in the next elections. But have we really come such a long way?

Manufactured Transcendence by Modern Artists

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:52:00 +0000

And the search goes on

As a culmination of my points on modern artists and the transcendent (for now, since this is an ongoing investigation), here is a quote which I had previously posted, from Bruce Elder's new book Harmony and Dissent: Film and Avant-garde Art Movements in the Early Twentieth Century on avant-garde artists and their their manufactured transcendence. Elder states clearly that artists knew what they were doing and pursuing. The search for transcendence was, and still is, a major component of their art.

Vanguard artists proposed that a universal transcendent art might come forth, might yet unite the arts, might yet re-enchant the world of nature and even of ordinary objects by treating them as hieroglyphs of an invisible reality, and so sway the mind toward a creator-unity immanent in nature. That new art might yet come forth that could fully express the artist's mind. At the beginning of the twentieth century, cinema seemed to many that most closely approximated this ideal. Furthermore... they believed that since it was a synthetic art that exemplified the best attributes of each of the other arts, it was the Ottima Arte.

Interview with Filmmaker Bruce Elder

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:19:00 +0000

And the method behind his films

Still from Bruce Elder's The Young Prince.
Colour film, 16 mm, 125 min. 2007.

Here is a very readable interview (not too obscure or arcane, considering it is experimental film that is the subject) with prolific filmmaker Bruce Elder, who has been the subject of my last several posts on artists and the transcendent. It supports many of the positions I propose about film, and modern art in general.

Modern Artists' Spiritual Journeys

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:41:00 +0000

The influence of Islamic art

Matisse, Still Life with Blue Tablecloth, 1909

Here is a blog post I wrote about a year ago on the spiritual in Islamic and modern art. This is a quote from the post:

The same spirit that produced Islamic "art" - which is really a profusion of ornamentation and decoration - is the same spirit that produced, eventually, abstract and non-representational art. That spirit is the disinclination to reproduce representational art, since non-representational art is believed (by these [modern] art practitioners) to be more pure and more spiritual.

The rest is a description of the influence of textile art in these artists' non-Christian spiritual journey, and especially of Matisse's.

Muslims and Their Path to Their God

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:48:00 +0000

Same methods as modern artists

Tiles at the Friday Mosque in Herat, Afghanistan.
Photo by E.Andersen

(Note: I have updated my post on Rothko to make a better argument for the (false) transcendentalism in his art.)

Over the last couple of days, I have tried to show how modern artists build a parallel universe for us to take us down their transcendental paths. I started off with the experimental films of Bruce Elder, then I described the methods of the well-known painter Mark Rothko.

For a little while, I was intrigued by the design and architecture of Islam. I was interested mostly because I felt that many of their innovative works were actually copies of European, Byzantine or Roman endeavors. As I studied this a little more, I was struck by the "tricks" they used to lure their believers (and even non-believers) into their fold. They do this in almost the same methods that I have described Elder and Rothko using, namely: a disorienting of our senses to have them open and receptive to this "other world."

I sent some of these thoughts to View From the Right a while ago.

After spending some time with Elder's and Rothko's works, I am struck by the similarities of methods that Islamic art uses.

* Like Rothko’s huge canvases, they use unexpected proportions and sizes.

* As in Elder's editing methods, Islamic designs are a chaotic juxtaposition of patterns and shapes.

* There is an incessant repetition of forms (the arches in the Great Mosque of Cordoba - now a cathedral, for example) as though to induce trance-like conditions. Similarly with the muezzin’s repetitive chants (wails). Elder’s film uses repetition of imagery throughout.

Great Mosque of Cordoba, now a cathedral, from Wikipedia

* There is very little empty space in the wall tile patterns. The huge courtyards in the mosques fill up to the maximum with bodies, so they are always densely packed when in full function. Even the arches and pillars in the Cordoba (former) mosque show this relentless avoidance of empty space.

Rothko’s canvases appear empty but are writhing with life under the monochromes, which cover the whole canvas.

Elder's fast-paced editing allows for very little "down" time, forcing on us an incessant cacophony of disorienting images.

In my assessment of Islamic art, I said that these methods were an attempt to find god and the transcendent, which seem ever-elusive. But an astute commentator at VFR said:

I suspect, contra Miss Asrat, that they [the tiling patterns] represent less an attempt to "barge in on Allah" than a psychological device for triggering an inescapable sense of "Allah barging in" on the observer, particularly for an infidel.

I think, after these few days of figuring out these mesmerizing artworks, it is a mixture of both. It is a fervent attempt by these artists (and Muslims) to find a god through these "occult" means. But this god remains elusive and the artists (and Muslims) never cease in searching, and wailing, for him. And secondly, as the VFR commentator says and I have written these past couple of days, there is some force that is twisting our perceptions (via the artists and designers) to lure us into his unholy kingdom.

In any case, the force and power of art cannot be undermined where the transcendent is concerned.

The Constructed Transcendence of Mark Rothko

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:16:00 +0000

Spirits in the shadows and lights

Mark Rothko, No. 9 (Dark over light Earth/violet
and yellow in Rose), 1954

I posted earlier how experimental filmmaker Bruce Elder has carefully constructed a passage for his audience to travel through “to the other side.” He has chosen strange and unusual images, juxtaposed them in incoherent (he calls it random) sequences with the help of his software, and edited them together in a relentlessly fast-paced pulse to help him achieve this. I wrote:

[E]xperimental films are always disturbing. They don’t attempt to guide the person through a path of coherence, but through a path of incoherence.

I concluded that such artists are discontent with the world around them, and unable to represent it authentically. They also strain for the transcendent, not to reach God, but a god of their own making. Through their creative acts, they themselves also become gods, guiding and pulling their audience through to their netherworld.

Experimental filmmakers are an obscure group and few see their films, mostly a clique of other filmmakers. But, other artists aim for the same goals, and have much larger audiences, and are much more famous. One such is Mark Rothko.

The first time I saw a Rothko, I was mesmerized and at the same time detachedly intrigued at how an artist could have me stand in front of his "monochromatic" canvas for twenty minutes. I was not fooled. I realized something big and strange was in front of me.

Rothko’s paintings are as painstakingly constructed as Elder’s films. What looks like a plain canvas is actually a subtle play of shadow and light behind the color, almost as though there were invisible shapes hiding underneath the bright monochrome.

There is also a luminescence to Rothko’s paintings. It's within the canvas, and also at the edges of the large rectangular shapes, with this light (these spirits?) leaking out of the canvas across to us.

Finally, Rothko achieves his "path of incoherence" through his huge paintings, strangely so because there appears to be nothing in them. But, as I said, on closer investigation, there is a heaving of matter going on; invisible shapes with their own light and shadow.

Like Elder, Rothko has created his own closed world, separate and different from the one we live in. Elder uses fast editing, random juxtaposition of images, and strange and unusual (often manipulated) images to achieve his effect. Rothko paints huge, seemingly empty pieces, into which we are invited (enticed). And he uses painterly techniques of subtle shadows and highlights to suggest an invisibly seething life in this vast emptiness. He also gives a luminescence to his paintings like some kind of exalted space – Elder also makes use of light in such a manner, although film has the element of light already built into it.

Still from Bruce Elder's The Young Prince.
Colour film, 16 mm, 125 min. 2007.

Artists in the modern age are at a loss on how to include the transcendent into their works. The only solution they seem to find is to create their own transcendence, making their own god (or devil) as they continue to create.

Rothko finally committed suicide. When I read of his method, I had the same intrigued, yet strangely detached and unimpressed, response. He cut his wrist in his white handbasin. I can only imagine the bright red against the stark white. Surely that was the effect he wanted.

Mark Rothko, White over Red, 1957

Harmony And Dissent

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:41:00 +0000

And a descent into the netherworlds

Front cover of Bruce Elder's new book
Harmony and Dissent: Film and Avant-garde
Art Movements in the Early Twentieth Century

There are many things to decipher about Bruce Elder's fascinating presentation on his film, which I attended this past summer. I have seen his latest 2 1/2 hour film The Young Prince, which was a visceral cacophony of images, with some recurring themes. It was a kind of ode to modernism with many recognizable modern paintings (Mondrian, Braque), it used occult and alchemic imagery as some kind of symbolism, and many images were computer manipulated. It is in that way an erudite film, encompassing the arts and sciences (one obvious theme was in squaring the circle, which is an impossibility, but I saw it as the ultimate attempt for perfection - a kind of utopia - and an aim at infinity, all impossible), and modern technology was an important theme. In the realm of experimental films, you could call it a magnum opus.

But, as I wrote earlier, experimental films are always disturbing. They don’t attempt to guide the person through a path of coherence, but through a path of incoherence.

These are not naïve or haphazard films. There is much thought, strategy and filmic manipulation that goes on to get these effects. And there are a couple of strategies Elder uses in his filmmaking system for The Young Prince.

- Juxtaposing different or contrary images together, to arrive at a new synthesis.

- Allowing chance (or randomness) into the process.

At this presentation, he talked about a software he developed which “randomly” placed strips of images (or single images) together that were similar.

My question to him at the end of the presentation was two-fold:

1. If his aim is to put unconnected images together to build a new synthesis, then his software is not doing the trick, since it is randomly putting together images that are similar.

2. His software is not really random, because he has already picked the images that are to be used and has programmed them into his software. More precisely, his software is working within a non-random system of his own chosen images.

His answers were not satisfactory since he dwelt on the random process of choosing images, and not on the closed system he had already built for that randomness.

And about similar images being at the core of the software, unlike his stated goal of bringing different images together, he said that since there is such a variety of images in the database, eventually a juxtaposition differences will occur in the overall film to give that new synthesis.

I am writing this long piece to show the cracks and faults in experimental filmmakers. I am surprised that they never catch themselves out.

1. His strategy of juxtaposing differences to make a coherent whole failed because of the software.

2. He may be using chance, but his film is really a piecing of his very carefully chosen images – of modern paintings, alchemic and occult signs, computer graphic manipulations, and of course sound which is as “experimental” as the images.

What do experimental filmmakers want, for us and for them?

First, I think they want to forfeit responsibility over the image. I think that is why Elder is insisting on “chance” and randomness, all the time. Whereas in fact, he controls very carefully what images are subjected to this “chance.”

Secondly, they want the unusual, the unexpected, the uncanny and in their eyes, the new. Hence the title “experimental.” Elder thinks he can achieve it with his (failed) juxtaposition of unexpected and unconnected images. But, like he said, the overall film does focus on strangeness and difference, simply because the images he chose were different and often strange. It wasn't in the impersonal software, but in his own personal choices that this strangeness comes out.

What they want from the us in the audience is to be perturbed and disconcerted. They want to take us out of our ordinary world and into their own constructed ones. Carefully constructed, as I have shown. Despite all claims of non-responsibility toward the images (i.e. emphasis on chance), Elder is actually making very conscious decisions about his images. But he doesn't want the responsibility of their weirdness, and would rather attribute them to chance, or a computer software, or his unconscious self, or some other force.

Why this alienation from this world? Well, they are unhappy with it. Elder unabashedly used the occult and alchemic symbols in his film, and he quoted from the apocryphal Acts of St. John at the end of the film. Their quest is ultimately a spiritual one, to take us out of this world and into another. My final thoughts before I left that discipline was that they were trying to take us down into some strange abyss. And this became more evident with this last film.

Elder is saying: “I have no responsibility over the images, they are being generated by a force other than my own (e.g. chance, a god, the devil)." And with his editing system and his choice of strange images and effects, he is disjoining our thought processes, making them incoherent and out of our control, so it becomes easier for us to enter, or be coerced into, this other world.

I hate to conclude it like this, but I have finally come to a decisive conclusion that such filmmakers, and Elder in particular, have nowhere positive to take us.

Here are short reviews I did of Elder’s latest book Harmony and Dissent: Film and Avant-garde Art Movements in the Early Twentieth Century, and on his film The Young Prince.

New Books on Art: Beauty, Dissent and Wreckage

The Destruction of Art by Artists: Comment on Bruce Elder's film "The Young Prince"

The Law of Nature and the Demise of Liberalism

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:31:00 +0000

Jim Kalb's calm assessment

Jim Kalb has a great article up of his speech at the recent conservative convention, the H.L. Mencken Club 2009 Conference. I mention the conference briefly here. Noteworthy was the title of the conference "We Are Doomed!" with an exclamation mark, no less.

Kalb's presentation was about the global ambitions of liberalism, and how that is moving forward in this century with the ascension of the European Union. I won't go into more details. I recommend reading the clear and concise article and also getting a hold of Kalb's recent book The Tyranny of Liberalism.

But this is what set Kalb apart from the rest. He writes of the horrendous power the EU is amassing, and predicts that all this will inevitably collapse since the principles that liberalism abides by are built in to cause that collapse.

His final statement is a matter-of-fact

So if you don't like it [liberalism], you should feel free to oppose it. It is not a law of nature that you lose. In fact, in the long run it's a law of nature that they lose.

That was what I was really trying to say in a previous post that conservatives should continue to be conservatives, since they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. I wrote:

But, one important thing is to DO things...where small steps a movement make. This is where each individual behaves like a conservative, and not just talks about it.

Later on, I write how the traditional world is actually more innovative and more progressive than the modern one:

The funny thing about tradition is that it changes subtly through time. Innovations happen by building the new from the old; by adapting the past into our own present environments. This is what modern artists just don’t get. They are stuck in a rut with their experimentations and self-expression. The true inspiration and, paradoxically, change comes by pursuing tradition.

So while liberals stay "stuck in a rut," true conservatives are actually able to build a better future, which the conservative system allows, and which the liberal system doesn't, to its ultimate demise.

By Giving Up the Burdensome and the False

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:34:00 +0000

We end up with the true and the beautiful

I wrote in my previous post how doing things (being active, constructive) and pursuing excellence are the sure things to combat the liberal hegemony step-by-step. Each little step has exponential repercussions down the road, is my firm belief.

By pursuing true and good things, I think we reach unexpectedly (since we often cannot predict them) the right goals.

Please excuse reverting to my story, which I told a little of in the past post.

It is tempting to be with the "in" artsy crowd. A tiny, two minute film is watched and inspected with awe and admiration - irrespective of what it means or even if it is any good artistically. Reasonably artistic people can make such films, they are inexpensive, and totally idiosyncratic. You can make them mean whatever you wish.

I have had classmates who got sucked into this world. And when I watch what they do now (at the few occasions), I wonder and say: all that effort, all that posing, for this! Do they not realize how empty it is?

When I ask them what their purpose is, what it is they think they’re doing in this discipline, what they want the rest of the world to know, they always come up either with a nihilistic answer like: “well, we just want to fight against the system,”or a cop-out one of “we are only interested in art, and that is hard to explain.” One woman actually said that she wanted people to make sloppy, badly constructed, non-Hollywood films to show the individual artist’s mark against the “capitalist” hegemony of Hollywood.

So, it is with some wonder, and great pleasure that by consciously abandoning a nihilistic and dark discipline, I have entered into a light and open field, a field which gives me contact with true humanity (home, family, beauty, patterns), and where creativity is not a heavy burden (like my former film colleagues always complain) but a new shape and form to capture.

By giving up the burdensome and the false, we will always end up with the true and the beautiful. That is the faith people should have.

Doing Things

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:50:00 +0000

And finding excellence

Hardy Geranium [Click image to see larger version]

I post this with some trepidation, since I don't want it to be misconstrued as an unnecessary focus on myself. But, I have no one else that I can use for this particular kind of example, so here goes.

I've talked extensively about various conservative groups and individuals in the past few months. I've also become aware that some who call themselves conservative are only so in a few (of their favorite) points. Some are outright libertarians, others have crossed the other side to liberalism

I think we spend an inordinate amount of time talking about, berating, criticising and moaning about liberals. Many conservatives have made this their mission (see Michelle Malkin here, who has a new book out on Obama).

I've always refrained from using my blogs as my sounding boards against liberals. I think it is far more important to put conservatives on track, or to point out their errors. This way, a real conservative body can be built. If we blatantly follow every conservative, just because he is not a liberal, then we have short-changed ourselves and the movement too.

But, one important thing is to DO things, as I wrote in a previous post on traditionalism, where small steps a movement make. This is where each individual behaves like a conservative, and not just talks about it. And since this world is a liberal world, that becomes much more difficult than it sounds. But, therein lies the challenge, and not only that, our very survival.

If I can use myself as an example:

I started out in experimental film. I loved handling celluloid. I would shoot, process and edit all my (very short) films myself. But, I found "art" film to be a dead-end. Rather than glorify art, it has become a hotbed for self-expression of the worst sort. Many (the majority) of the films I watched were, well, unwatchable. Aggressively so.

So, I left, rather than fight the failing system. I found textile design, which ironically attracted me because of the same hands-on, textural effect that I liked about film. Then I encountered another problem. I had very little drawing and painting background, and to my great surprise, our design instructors were just not willing (or able) to teach us those fundamentals. I started taking courses at various school boards, where I discovered a hidden gem of true artists, who I believe have been pushed out of the non-art culture prevalent in colleges and universities.

But what about design? Again, I found a vindictive hate of non-weird, non-edgy designs. Also, anything that looked like it had not been done using the much-touted photocopier or computer graphics, was frowned upon. It is too “old-fashioned” was the phrase. And all we want to be is modern, no?

In the end, I even left that group – psychologically, at least. Ordinary people seem to appreciate my efforts. Women like birds and flowers on their furniture fabric. Color and texture are always welcome. I hardly get a “what is that” when I show my work. I think that is the biggest compliment. My colleagues would beg to differ, of course.

My point is that all this is not a matter of perseverance; it is also a matter of pursuing excellence. If we give up on that, no matter how stubborn and persistent we may be, it will all come out wrong. We have to keep these traditions going strong, we have to learn them and learn how to use them. And then use them.

The funny thing about tradition is that it changes subtly through time. Innovations happen by building the new from the old; by adapting the past into our own present environments. This is what modern artists just don’t get. They are stuck in a rut with their experimentations and self-expression. The true inspiration and, paradoxically, change comes by pursuing tradition.

Photo-Op for the Obama Family

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:03:00 +0000

And the mother-daughter dynamics

Official Obama family photo taken by Annie Leibovitz

I have sworn off writing about the arrogant, ugly and unstylish sense of fashion Michelle Obama insists on displaying periodically (does the woman have no shame?). My most recent post on her clothing was on how she was using her daughter Malia to advance hers and her husband's leftist views.

I am here to point out another disrespectful (to Americans and to the rest of the world) behavior, again concerning her daughter.

Family snap shots show playful and informal poses, usually to elicit happy memories for later years. But, once in a photography studio, formal is the rule. In fact most photographers have a series of shots they propose for these sittings, which are anything but casual.

At the top is the latest official photo of the Obama family taken by Anne Leibovitz. It has an odd informal style to it and Malia's pose almost looks playful, but I think there's more to it than that.

Part of the problem is the photographer, who manages to get sixteen-year-old stars to pose like 35-year-old sluts. But, there is a strange dynamic between mother and daughter, which we should have been spared had this been an ordinary woman (i.e., we wouldn't have these photos to look at).

Why does Michelle allow her daughter to wrap herself around her like that? What kind of daughter anyway (except for these self-conscious "low-self-esteem" types, who are always looking for attention) behaves like that? I think that is where the problem lies. I think Michelle must be a distant, and not very affectionate mother, for all the talk she does about her daughters. And I think that Malia has to seek that affection.

Could it be that Michelle is jealous of her own daughter? Malia is clearly a smart and pretty girl (smarter and prettier than her mother, it seems to me) and possibley outshines her mother. I've already written about Michelle's self-conscious reaction to an attractive Latina pop star dancing with her husband, where she was clearly jealous - to use a direct description.

Below is another photo of Michelle Obama with her arm wrapped around Malia's neck (they're walking on the White House lawn), as though she's doing a stranglehold on her. It is an insidiously aggressive clasp, and Malia seems to be laughing to make a joke of it - maybe she's in pain, or mildy irritated by it. But, it doesn't look like a "fun" pose.

Michelle Obama and daughter Malia

I can't find the other example I was looking for, but it shows Michelle standing with a stunned look on her face, and Malia walking off, as though she'd just made a riposte. It didn't look good.

This family put itself (forced itself) onto our screens, and not only that, it keeps on insisting that we see its weirdness as well. In any case, other than feeling sorry for Malia, all I can say is that we have a strange one in the White House.

The Tyranny of Liberalism

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:09:00 +0000

And the pursuit of traditional conservatism

I just finished James Kalb's seminal book The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitional Tolerance, and Equality by Command.

It is an incredible whodunit unravelling the great liberal machine. There are many things that I knew instinctively about liberalism, but it was fascinating to read it so articulately and thoroughly written by someone who has spent much time and scholarship on the subject.

I'm not sure if non-conservatives would read it. And if they picked it up, I don't think they would see these machinations. It seems to me that one already has to be "converted" to conservatism to understand and appreciate this book. Also, I don't think it is for those border-line cases. The book is a little too dense and intricate for that. Perhaps someone like Dennis Prager, who is very good at putting things in concise list terms, might pick up where Kalb left off.

Kalb's proposes that traditional conservatism (traditionalism) is an organic entity that grows from local, particular efforts. He suggests that this is how people should tackle traditionalism:

Practice, with the help of observations and reflection makes perfect.

That step-by-step process is the way in which tradition develops, and it gives it its coherence and reliability. Tradition starts with basic functional patterns that establish themselves because they work. Those patterns grow and extend themselves through the strengthening and development of what is helpful and through the rejection of what leads to conflict and failure. Beliefs, attitudes, and practices that work are extended and refined. Those that do not wither and die.[p. 197]

The most difficult thing is to get the organically-growing patterns to start in the first place. He outlines his ideas for a traditionalist movement:

Traditionalists cannot choose withdrawal. They must take part in public life at least in self-defense…[p. 262]

The immediate practical function of a traditionalist movement would be to make life in accordance with traditions easier and more practical for those inclined to it…[p. 263]

Tradition is never far away. It does not invent but secures and fosters the good everywhere present…[p. 267]

Every man who starts his own business, every family that adds to its independence by reducing its expenses, every woman who stays home to run the household and educate her children, every local congregation that takes on more demanding standard of conduct, every independently minded scholar who writes a book, gives a speech, contributes to a little magazine, or sets up a website, establishes a zone of ordered freedom within the anarchic tyranny that is advanced liberalism…Eventually, we may reach a tipping point and social life begin to take on a different form.[p. 268]

Kalb spends the second half of his book trying to define traditionalism, as well as give guides as to how that can be achieved. But, I think this is the least successful part of his book, and is more sketchy than his dismantling of liberalism in the first half. Perhaps that is his next project, both a philosophical/political delineation of modern (or contemporary) traditionalism and a much-needed practical guide of how to concretely implement this traditionalist movement. That looks like two more books to me.

Why Can't Conservatives Get It Together?

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:22:00 +0000

Some passing thoughts

Peter Brimelow, founder and editor of Vdare.com, has written a blog on his website about a lingerie company using the word Christmas on their catalog. Not only that, Brimelow graces his blog post with a photo of a woman in Christmas-red underwear.

A group of conservatives (I hate to use that word, because I'm convinced that many of them are variations of libertarians) are attending the The HL Mencken Club 2009 conference. And the conference is titled...

"We are Doomed!" with an exclamation mark, no less. It is of course after John Derbyshire new book (with exclamation mark in tact): "We are Doomed! Rediscovering Conservative Pessimism."

It is hard to imagine how anyone can accept to speak at such a conference. But James Kalb will be there to speak on "The EU Globalized--The Ends of Liberal Internationalism," so perhaps it isn't all that odd. Although, these days, I think Kalb is trying to be the great reconciler of conservatives.

Design and Home

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:31:00 +0000

More design discussion at The Thinking Housewife.

My "Chicken or Egg" Question on Design Gets an Answer

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:09:00 +0000

From two traditional conservative writers

An example of an abstracted textile print,
often of unidentifiable flora and foliage,
popular at Kravitz, a NYDC showroom.

I had asked in my previous blog post "From MAD Designers to the Public's Desires" who sets contemporary design trends: the designer or the public?

Here is insightful commentary about the sorry state of design by Laura Wood of the Thinking Housewife, who posted some of my post at her blog:

Possibly when people get more instant gratification, especially in sex and popular culture, they don’t care as much about their surroundings. When desire is sublimated, it creates more beauty in life, more craftsmanship and studied effects. Women are highly sexualized today, but less sensual in their approach to home.

Her comment is later quoted by Lawrence Auster from the View From the Right, which he explains further in terms of liberalism:

The remark goes to the heart of the traditionalist critique of liberalism. Liberalism gives people what it thinks they want, which is unimpeded satisfaction of their desires and impulses. But in doing so, it closes them off from what they really want, which is beauty, truth, and goodness, and membership in an enduring human community that embodies those things.

I am seeing a trend where people are looking for some sort of "beauty, truth, and goodness, and membership in an enduring human community that embodies those things." I mean, how long is the Emperor not going to get called at for not having any clothes? How long are people going to live in dreary grey homes? Craftsmanship is still sitting on the sidelines, and designers for the most part are not willing to follow the public’s under-the-radar demands - it costs them too much in terms of their independence, having to acquire new skills, and having to learn whole new ways of looking at things.

But, I've always said "one step at a time." It is incredible the forces that are against beauty, goodness and truth. But each little repeat pattern that defies that monumental force is, in my humble opinion, one good step away from its bottomless pit.

Heather MacDonald's Secular Anger

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:49:00 +0000

And her vindictive quest to discredit Christianity

I was recently browsing through Secular Right, to which I was directed from Taki's Magazine, where I linked to from this article (it's not called a web for nothing). As I looked at the bottom of Taki's, the website's list of blogs and sites has been categorized into "Right," "Left," "Libertarian," "International" and "God." Looking under "God", I was surprised the atheist "conservative" Secular Right was not listed there. It is apparently more appropriate to put it under "Right." I disagree, but it's not my website.

Anyway, Heather MacDonald, who's a contributor at Secular Right, and whose strange discourse on morality set off my (mild) anger here, is now at it again.

She writes at this post:

Conservative pundits occasionally imply that other-directed human virtues, such as charity, compassion, and mercy, came on the scene only thanks to Christianity. No one has ever shown hospitality to a stranger or helped survivors of an earthquake in other cultures, it would seem.

This is a vindictive piece of writing. I have never seen conservative writers imply this. In fact, many write about zakat or charity, one of the five pillars of Islam, with respect.

But, never mind that. For an esteemed journalist, who is a contributing editor at City Journal and is also a Manhattan Institute felow, this is a shoddy piece of writing.

She is saying that the moral codes that Christians adhere to started at the inception of Christianity, which is a mere 2,000 ago. So according to Christianity, there was no charity before that at all, period. Of course this is absurd. It is the whole Bible that Christians look to for moral codes, and not just the New and much more recent Testament. And since we say that the Bible starts from the beginning of time, then that is when our moral codes started. So yes, there was no "other-directed human virtues" before that, because there was no world before that.

Either MacDonald is so negative about Christianity that she cannot think straight, or she is willing to say anything that comes to her head to discredit the Christians and Christianity that she apparently hates so much.

From MAD Designers to the Public's Desires

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:48:00 +0000

There is hope yet for design

An example of an abstracted textile print,
often of unidentifiable flora and foliage,
popular at Kravitz, a NYDC showroom.

I visited the New York Design Center's trade showrooms while in NYC. They are the places to find the latest trends in fabric and interior design. But the question, which becomes a chicken or egg one, is: "Who sets the trends these days, the designers, or the clients and public at large?"

Until the 1970s, interior design has always paid respect to beauty (or mere prettiness) and craftsmanship. I was struck by this when I did my tour of the newly renovated American Wing's Period Rooms at the Metropolitan Museum. Here is what I had to say about that visit:

* Design, and fabric design, have always been about aesthetics, at times mere prettiness, at other times overwhelming luxury and sometimes just pure beauty.

* I felt going throughout the Period Rooms, which showcased about twenty rooms dating from the late seventeenth century to the early twentieth century, that people then had the confidence to design strong, beautiful pieces. Unlike our own period, whose gloomy designs I think begin around the 1970s - but more on that later.

* Craftsmanship was very important, but for the sake of constructing a harmonious, coherent piece.

* Color, intricate designs, patterns and other ornamentations were always present. There was hardly ever a "plain" chair, and if it existed, it was embellished by careful caning and weaving or luxurious materials like velvet.

* Looking at these rooms, there was nothing repellent about them, nothing "edgy." They were meant to be lived in, to be admired, and to be sources of pride for their owners.

While in New York, I also visited the Museum of Art and Design, which at that time had an exhibition of selected works from its permanent collections. This exhibition was called Permanently MAD – which was meant to be a pun, or something, but ended up truer than expected.

Permanantly MAD's displayed works included clay, glass, wood, metal, and fiber pieces. Although MAD has works in its collections from 1895 on, this exhibition showed pieces mostly from 1980-2008. These works are for the most part of inferior craftsmanship, without concern for aesthetics, and often non-functional. The whole purpose of design for MAD’s fabric designers is: a) self-expression - they consider themselves more artists than designers/craftsmen; b) innovation, since they want to discover that next, magical composition for the ideal thread. Therefore the public is of less importance.

So, if artist/designers don’t really care about their public and the real world, and they are much more interested in experimentation and self-expression, what happens to the products? As I’ve discovered, they suffer a great deal.

How does this tie in with the NYDC? Well, textile and interior design is created by…textile and interior designers. If designers are more interested in expressing themselves, which often results with ugly, idiosyncratic pieces, and in trying to invent the next magical golden thread, when do they find the time to design things?

The answer is: they don’t. And this was dismally visible at the display of material I found at the NYDC.

* There were very few intricately designed works, such as I saw plenty of in the Period Rooms at the Met.

* Although natural floral and plant designs were prominent, most of them were abstracted or extremely simplified and silhouetted forms.

* It was hard to distinguish what these plant and animal forms were. Unless they were distinct shapes like palm trees or roses, it was difficult to identify specific plants or flowers.

* Colors were often unimaginative and monotonous. There were whole ranges of grey/blues or brown/tans. But the more vigorous colors such as I found in the Period Rooms were rare.

* Where there was strong color, it was used as a single splash in the midst of greys, blacks, navies and whites. Strong colors were rarely used on their own.

* The lack of intricate design was often compensated for by size. Large empty flowers and leaves, often with a smattering of color, dominated both furniture upholstery and wall coverings.

* There were traditional designs, but they were almost exact replicas of past masters.

* Luxury materials such as silk and velvet often tried to make up for the lack of design.

My conclusion is that it is the designers (or the lack thereof) that have guided the trends and tastes of the public so far. If there is nothing but greys and blacks to buy, well the public has no choice but to comply. And so much for innovation; creativity in design has nose-dived in the past four or five decades, and is incomparable to the turn of the century and even going back another four or five hundred years!

But, there is a positive note to all this. There is a creeping realization by some – I’m not sure if it is the public demanding so, or concerned designers – that beauty should indeed be part of home decor and design, and that good designs are worth the effort. There is a tendency to avoid chaotic, incomprehensible and disordered patterns. Floral and leaf designs are coming back. Old masterpieces (as in Toile de Jouy) are imitated with contemporary twists. And color is making a tentative reappearance. People cannot (will not) live in dark, ugly rooms for eternity.

The Sad Saga of the NYC Power Women

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:22:00 +0000

The true picture of Sex and the City

I admit that I saw the last Sex and the City movie. I even watched some of the TV show, although I did it after the show ended to see what all the hype was about.

I actually went to the movie to enjoy myself. There was a lot of talk about the costumes, and that the fashion designer had hundreds of shoes and dresses she had put together for the four actresses. Who doesn't want an hour or so of bright colors and fancy dresses?

But, the overall feeling I had during the movie was not of disappointment; there were some nice Manolo Blahnik shoes, and the designer didn't cut back on any extravagances. The feeling I had was of depression.

These women flaunt their clothes and supposedly fancy lives in one of the greatest cities in the world, yet they were all unhappy, or unhappily trying to make sense of their lives. One woman was almost ditched at her wedding by her fiancé, another had to deal with a distant husband while she's away at a full-time job, a third married too late to conceive her own child but got lucky thanks to modern technology, and the last was humiliated by her much younger boyfriend breaking up with her. I was surprised at the honesty of the writers. They wanted to infuse a bit of reality into the film, it seemed to me.

The "Sex and the City Part II" photo shoot

Here they are again, in part two of the movie. Their awkward and inelegant poses, their unattractive dresses exposing too much of themselves, their strange sense of color (blame it on the designer?) their listless hairstyles, and their forced smiles show the culmination of years of a TV show and a previous movie.

Their film lives also seems to spill over into their real ones.

Sarah Jessica Parker is undergoing tabloid-level scrutiny about the surrogate mother she and her husband (any longer?) decided to use. They already have a son, why not be happy with that?

Cynthia Dixon has become a lesbian, and is active in the California Proposition 8 scene.

Kim Cattrall, who is in her fifties, was dating a man decades younger than her, who also recently broke up with her.

Kristin Davies is perennially single, although she is pretty. But, her dark secret is that she is a recovering alcoholic.

So, needless to say, I won’t be watching Sex and the City Part II. I will probably buy a Vogue magazine if I want to look at pretty clothes and shoes.

"Fiesta Latina" in the Casa Blanca

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:02:00 +0000

And we all better learn Spanish

That was pretty much what the whole evening was like. Songs in Spanish, and hosts speaking English with Spanish added for effect. PBS replayed the "Fiesta Latina" that was hosted by the White House a few days ago in a special this evening.

Jennifer Lopez came out in a strange truncated dress to present her husband Mark Anthony. She talked in English, but added a few words in Spanish (with her Bronx Spanish accent), while Anthony sang in Spanish. Gloria Estefan sang "Mi Tierra," the song made famous when it was sent into space for the (Mexican) American crew member on the Discovery Shuttle. George Lopez made his customary jokes, which often deride his own ethnic group - the Mexicans. Obama danced with a gracious Latina star and Michelle was ungraciously miffed. Sotomayor was told she was loved, but no-one asked her to dance. And all this on PBS.

I watched the hour-long show to get a sense of this Hispanic presence in America. It is very large, and very deep. It really is a completely separate society. It was rather frightening.

If music and fiestas are the hallmark of Hispanics, then we're in for difficult times. I don't foresee any Frank Sinatras coming out of this group of Latino pop stars. But even Sinatra always sang in English, unlike the Bronx-born Anthony who, like his eccentric wife, would have us believe that he was born and raised in Puerto Rico. I bet Sinatra never gloated over his Italian roots, and if he did, he worked out a silent and dignified way to do it. Not so this group.

Job's Beauty

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:27:00 +0000

In Blake's watercolors

Job and His Family, William Blake

During my recent trip to New York City, I made a point of seeing William Blake's illustrations for The Book of Job at the Morgan Library. These are delicate, lovely watercolors which are nothing like the emptiness some would like to give that book. Perhaps that is the testament in Blake's watercolors, that Job's story is indeed one of beauty and redemption.

I have had many arguments about Job and his relationship to God. It is one of the most intriguing books in the Bible - more obscure and annoying (if I can say that of biblical stories) than the one about David's adultery and murder-by-proxy. Non-believers or quasi-believers, often rational and clever thinkers, will ultimately say that God was wrong. Of course, we as humans can question God's actions, and the hurt and anguish we suffer at times as His children. But, saying God is wrong is the easy way out. And that view ultimately helps these nominal/non Christians in their quest to distance themselves from God.

As I thought more about it, perhaps Job is the quintessential tale of our times. Every time I talk to a nominal (liberal?) Christian about some error I see in his approach to God's Word - not that I'm an expert, but there are a few times when I don't shirk criticizing - he is astonished at my criticism and says that he is a good person trying to do good things. Isn't that what Job was saying? But, of course being a biblical character, he seemed to understand this, and tried to correct whatever errors he thought he saw in his actions.

There are many phrases in the Bible that we can transform into our own self-serving sanctimonious interpretations: "love thy neighbour," "all things work together for good," "turn the other cheek." The piety can be endless. I think the final meaning in Job is to leave our relations with God in His hands, however obscure and paradoxical that may seem at times. Our freedom, and our ultimate joy, comes from this relinquishing. Even the too-holy can get condemned. That is the mystery of God.

Job found favor back with God. He accepted that favor. There are many these days whose disappointment and stubbornness alienate them further away God, who refuse to see the redemptive path in front of them, and who will forever say: "I was such a good person. Why has God forsaken me?"

Besides universalistic interpretations, there is as always a specific and historical context to all biblical stories, and surely with this story as well. I wonder what is the significance of having Job’s story at that particular time in the Bible. Was it then that men started to consider themselves on par with God and that they started taking themselves too seriously, thus undermining God? Is that the punishment God had to mete out in order for man (Job) to resume his reverence for God? What would (will) God do in our modern times? Just some points to ponder upon.

Hosta Repeats

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 03:11:00 +0000

From leaf to pattern

From this:

To this:

Why Does Oprah Cry On Air?

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:17:00 +0000

A little for the camera, and more for herself

Oprah seems to be going back to her sensationalism style of the 80s. This must mean that she's hard up for ratings. In fact, they have gone down since she disappointed all those women when she cast her support publicly and actively for Obama.

Well, I recently managed to catch the tail end of her interview with Mike Tyson, and thank God - who wants to go through a whole hour of the creepy man, with a tattoo across his face, no less. Tyson has just had a documentary about him, and supposedly was with Oprah to talk about this.

The part I caught has Oprah talking about hearing Mike Tyson say in the documentary how all he wanted was to live a better life, be a better person. Oprah said this made her cry.

Now, Oprah cries much more than expected. Ellen Degeneres, the Crown Princess of talk shows, hardly ever cries, except when it was to have a break down on air when her adopted dog was taken away from her. Martha Stewart never cries, but then her shows are sane, pleasant moments and often with beautiful things like her own flower arrangements.

As I've written in a previous post where she interviewed Whitney Housten, Oprah delves into the dark side of people, and has her moment when she makes them out to be weak and pathetic. This is something Whitney resisted during her time with Oprah.

Of course, the genuinely pathetic Tyson just loved all this, and the attention too, and broke down crying himself during Oprah's interview. I didn't get to watch this, but it is all over the internet.

Why does Oprah cry? I don't think she cries for the people she interviews. I really don't think she's an empathetic person. I actually think it is two layers of things going on: one is to make herself look good on T.V. – somewhat; and the other is that she's crying for herself. As I mentioned in the Whitney episode, I think these journeys and probings into the dark sides of people she interviews are really ways to understand her sad and violent childhood, something I think she has never gotten over, and something that she keeps returning to with her strange collection of guests. I think she cries to alleviate that pain. But she does so in this detached, unconnected manner, as though it is the little girl – distant and faded – who's crying. Hence, her crying looks a little forced, and disconnected from her guests or the stories she's portraying. Of course, being the narcissist she is, Oprah cries a little for the camera as well.

It is during these moments that I feel sorry for her, except that I resume my original view that she is the most dangerous woman in the media now, and needs to fight her own inner demons alone and away from the millions of impressionable viewers.

New Website in the Works

noreply@blogger.com (Camera Lucida) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 04:14:00 +0000

Update

I am remodeling my design website. Originally I had called it Kidist Designs, and it included graphic and other non-textile works. I am building up my portfolio, and this new website will feature just my textile and pattern work. Furthermore, I will change its name. Kidist Designs is too esoteric (although it has a lovely meaning, which is "blessed designs"). Still, I love the word "pattern" and the many meanings it holds, so I am working on a workable (and web-available) name that incorporates that word.

Kidist Designs in now non-functional.