something small to make you smile.

the internet is full of crap. i think, we can all generally agree with this statement. we fill a vast majority of our time with complete trash. not that it isn't highly entertaining or interesting, but still not exactly plumbing the depths of human achievement. having the most friends on facebook may get you interviewed by some vacuous morning show host, but probably not a nobel prize or even a job.

this brings me to this photo. i found this yesterday and am inclined to believe that it is easily the shining peak of my internet surfing. a golden ray of light, through the otherwise dark intellectual vacuum of online content. the picture of elisebeth and dave mitchel, in kings cross circa 1965, is just so lovely to me. it speaks of a seemingly more exciting time in history. a time when people tried, or maybe just pretended, to care about the sucky world they lived in and endeavoured to fix its problems.

now, i know this is an incredibly idealised view of australia in the 60s. still, it made me genuinely smile at the two people (presumably married) and the way they seem to just casually 'fit' the world at that time.

wine wine wine.

there are many things in this world that me and my father do not agree on, but thankfully wine is not one of them. there really is nothing wrong with wine. i actually think sometimes that homeless wineos have the right idea.... ok so maybe not, but they do get to drink an inordinate amount of wine, the amount of wine i wish i could drink were it not for the sheer fact that my uni grades would plummet and i would probably get fired from my job from either being pissed or recently pissed.

however, i digress. red wine is the best wine. there really are no down sides, aside from the yumminess and being drunk the only thing that could even approach being more exciting is the lack of stress when buying a bottle. if you have stress about picking a bottle to consume then, well you are an idiot. there is no other perishable good that has such a simple code for its scale of shit to awesome. THE PRICE. its right there, on the bottle following the $ sign.

don't worry, i'll explain. you walk into a bottle shop, its full of sluts in ugly shoes (oh so yes, maybe i am retelling my recent trip into wollongong for alcohol) and you stand in front of the 'shiraz' section. a few hundred bottles stair back at you. which to choose, which to choose? hmmmmm. now here, is where my stress just fades away. a cheap bottle of wine, lets say under $10 in australia is RUBBISH. but if you want to marinate some brain cells, a good choice because you can get 2. now above $10 is my price range. i like a $13 to $15 bottle. affordable, red, and most importantly will not taste like lighter fluid. from here up i'm not really interested, but they get even better.

the more expensive the better the wine. it really is that simple. all this fetishisation of wine is bourgeoisie wank. i blame the french! i also love the french for this. they do pleasure well and have inserted a handy system for wine goodness.... so thank you france.

stay tuned to my next thrilling blogpost regarding my love of cheese.

twitter validates my existence!

a few weeks back i posted on my facebook, 'omg john larrouquette is now following me on twitter.... the same day he decided to follow leonard nimoy! omg!' and SHOCK HORROR no one cared! heathens! so, i felt the need to repeat myself with a melodic tune from the master comedian and actor from the hilarious, boston legal.

check it here. cue applause!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

also, obviously quitting twitter didn't take.... gillard began her run world domination and twitter became essential. sue me!

i've got sunshine, on a cloudy day.

as i was trolling the internet yesterday for something to occupy me.... as you do, i found this! POPTISIMS! we all remember the motivational posters of yore, you know the ones with pictures and stupid phrases underneath that do not in anyway promote motivation but in actual fact, make you feel slightly depressed about the creative spirit of the douche bags that come up with them. anyway, poptisms, have decided to reinvigorate the idea and they are doing it with passion and a clever up-to-date attitude.

they remind me of a funny, romantic, completely lame movie i watched last week, 'music and lyrics'. drew barrymore and hugh grant, the reigning king and queen of the rom-com, have this cool mini conversation about how pop songs really are like poetry for the modern man and woman. they are equally poetic to the great poems of yeats and shakespeare or lord nelson's love letters except, they make you feel more in the first line of lyrics and harmony than could be conveyed in an entire sonnet.

for instance, i dare you not to feel happy when listening to the the song 'my girl' by the temptations. seriously, i dare you!

the point of all this, is that i have always believed that pop music is fairly trivial and unimportant. it isn't and it is. when pop music is done well, and it rarely is, it can make you feel all pretty and happy. nothing wrong with that.

suicide's easy, what happened to the revolution?

stephen fry - the sydney opera house - 27th of july - 8pm

foals - manning bar - 28th of july - 8pm

the strokes - the hordern pavilion - 29th of july - 7pm

black rebel motor cycle club - the metro - 1st of august - 8pm

....going to be a big week of AWESOME! woop can't wait. now, i got to go practice my thrash dancing.

go to heaven for the climate, hell for the company.

so, on this cold winter morning i decided to re-aquatint myself with the wondrous show that is boston legal. funny thought provoking stuff that often quote the great works and idea of mark twain. i'm quite ashamed to admit that i do not own one book by this influential and prolific american author; anyone who knows my book collection understands how big a deal that is. still, i have, like many high school children, read 'the adventures of tom sawyer' and enjoyed it about as much as any kid does a book they are being forced to read.

still, this post isn't about twain's books per-se but, rather the idea that live behind his works. ideas that americans pride themselves. still, i'm not sure twain's countrymen today are living by his patriotic example and have even stopped listening. history teaches, why aren't these people listening? this is a nation, where one 5th of americans can't locate their own country on a map, a mere 13% of senior students in the state of mississippi can read at an adult level and one 3rd of students in california can't even find the pacific ocean. the pacific ocean! it's right there.

some of his quotes that could help these uneducated young adults to find some thirst for knowledge are:

- 'classic.' a book which people praise and don't read.

- whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's tome to pause and reflect.

- all you need is ignorance and confidence and the success is sure.

- get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

- i don't like to commit myself about heaven and hell - you see, i have friends in

both places.

- we have the best government money can buy.

- a man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation.

- don't let schooling interfere with your education.

- clothing make the man. naked people have little or no influence on society.

- all generalisations are false, including this one.

- fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. truth isn't.

- honesty is the best policy - when there is money in it.

- action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often.

- there is no distinctly american criminal class - except congress.

- loyalty to the country always. loyalty to the government when it deserves it.

- better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak out and remove all doubt.

- familiarity breeds contempt - and children.

- i can live for two months on a good compliment.

- laws control the lesser man... right conduct controls the greater one.

- good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.

- wit is the sudden marriage of ideas which before their union were not perceived to

have any relation.

- such is the human race, often it seems a pity that noah... didn't miss the boat.

- the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

- the lack of money is the root of all evil.

and finally, my personal favourite in today's australian political climate...

- when red-haired people are above a certain social grade their hair is auburn.

me + duchamp = a house on fire!

right, i'm back. sorry about that, life encroached on my blogging duties. but here we go, art is the topic of the day.

i have always found a great affinity with the works of the great franco-american dada and surrealist artist marcel duchamp. he was a playful man and his ideas about art and the way we perceive it are all fascinating to me. not to mention during a very successful career, he gave up paining and sculpting to become a chess master.

perhaps his most famous series of work were his 'readymades'. these are, specifically, what i want to tell you all about. ordinary manufactured objects that the artist selected and modified, as an antidote to what he called 'retinal art'. by simply choosing the object(s) and repositioning or joining, tilting and signing, the object becomes art. as this process involves the least amount of interaction between artist and art, it represents the most extreme (maybe even pure) form of minimalism.

he believed, quite strongly, in this, "....it was always the idea that came first, not the visual example. a form of denying the possibility of defining art". he only made 20 readymades, this was to avoid the trap of his own taste. meaning, that once you deemed a piece 'good' or 'bad', it became what he called, 'an enemy of art'. as a result, he never was able to define how he himself felt about the pieces in the series and even the style in general. the enigma that was duchamp is tied up in this fact, he was never able to define 'readymades' fully enough to satisfy him and moreover, felt that defining it wasn't essential to the series of work.

the 'fountain' is easily the most famous work in this series. this is because it took the idea of common place objects that are then defined as 'art' to its most conceptualised visceral extreme. this picture of the piece is the only one of the original, taken by photographer alfred stieglitz. it was lost in 1917 shortly after its installation. it is believed to have been thrown out with the garbage like other duchamp works of the time.

still, this doesn't reflect its worth or importance as a great artwork of the 20th century. in 2004, it was voted the most influential artwork of the century by 500 British art world professionals and the artist-authorised replica (1964) was sold in 1999 for $1.7 million. it is now housed in the tate modern, london. check it out an do what others have done, piss on it. if you love it or hate it....it was after all, what it was made for.

i heart you, maggie smith!

i also love that my uni degree (the fun one) allows me to watch movies as a requirement for assessment. anyway, the latest big assignment that i'm doing with alex is organising a film festival centred around a genre. hence 'hagsploitation' was born. well, we didn't invent it but we are bringing it out of obscurity for all to bask in its amazingness!

maggie smith is my favourite of all favourite actresses' of all time. in the movie 'keeping mum' she is a great modern example of hagsploitation or 'psyco-buddy'. in this movie, comedy is mixed into the genre well and proves that nana violence and laughs can go hand-in-hand.

maggie is a credit to her art and that fact that a grumpy cynical indie snob like me can fall for her charm and grace is inspiring. my first beagle puppy will be named in her honour!

what ever happened to famous last words?

yesterday i was re-watching the hbo series rome, that i cannot recommend enough btw, when SPOILER ALERT caesar is killed in the senate and finally dies at the hand of his pseudo (maybe actual) son brutus. his last words were, 'et tu, brute?' meaning, 'even you, brutus'. this got me thinking, you only ever hear about famous last words in history and also do they really even matter?

admiral lord horatio nelson's, who died after the battle of trafalgar, last words are heavily debated, 'kiss me hardy', 'fan fan....rub rub....drink drink', and 'thank god i have done my duty' are all posited as his final testament. i think the last is the most poetic, if it's true. the poet that lives in us all, yes i believe we all have one, is driven to say something ethereal in those final moments before the complete unknown. when asked by her husband how she felt on her death bed elizabeth barrett browning said simply, 'beautiful'. to feel and articulate such a thing when in pain and presumably shit scared is a testament to a persons mind, life and subsequent spirit.

still, on the flip side we have h.g. wells, who was another great writer. his final words reflected his life in another way. in his independence and willingness to buck conventions he said, 'go away. i'm alright!'. in more recent years our heros have decided to find the funny. humphry bogart famously said, 'i should never have switched from scotch to martinis.'. we are forced to laugh at the absurdity of death and how we treat it with kid gloves. maybe, it's all the life insurance ads on morning tv talking now but, everybody is going to die. you may as well go out in style.

my personal favourite has got to be oscar wilde, 'my wallpaper and i are fighting a duel to the death. one or the other of us has to go.'. he died how he lived with eloquence and humor. i guess that is what i want. not for my final words to sum up my life, because they simply can't. but to say something profane, to have the last thing you say to impact the people still alive is terribly precious and powerful.

karl marx must have had a similar idea, the man didn't want his final words recorded and as a result they were, 'go on, get out - last words are for fools who haven't said enough'. maybe that's true. but, the reason we feel the need to record and look back on them is because these were people who did have a lot to say. men and women who did the world a service (or disservice) and are celebrated or condemned accordingly. last words only seem to matter if the words of a life time are deemed to matter.

i suppose what it comes down to is having a legacy, having done something with your life that has left the world slightly better off. that and i'm terrified of going out without style. 'hey, everybody, watch this!' or 'don't worry, they don't usually swim backwards.' are terrible examples. my biggest fear isn't dying or even being locked in a cage. but, if i end up in the darwin awards then i will haunt the entire world until the end of time.

you know, it's all my mothers fault i'm this way!

as i contemplate my future winter fashion choices and what i will put with what, it dawns on me the obvious impact 1950s and 60s fashion icons have on me. in some subliminal way, twiggy, bridget bardot, marianne faithfull, lauren bacal, edie sedgwick and of course janet leigh with their unique brand of amazingness have snuck into my wardrobe dreams. yes i dream of clothes, what of it! it's a nice reprieve from the giant badger with his good friend the knife wielding clown! but i digress....

i'm not naive, i know that fashion goes in cycles and my love of these amazing women is a result of what is 'cool' at the moment. still, i think my love for these radtastic ladies ('cept ole edie, not sure how to reason her away. that's her there btw.) is perhaps a product of my upbringing. good looking, clever, independent but still with nice husbands, wealthy, blonde = my mum. doesn't really explain why i have their haircut, but i suppose it could shed some light on why i do seem to enjoy somewhat of a 60s lifestyle. i mean for god sake i just bought a bicycle from that decade!

art, film, music, the sexual revolution, the pill, BARBARELLA, more sex, pop art, easy rider, the free speech movement, the original star trek series, hippys, mick jagger before plastic surgery, minimalism, 2001: a space odyssey, CREAM (the band, you dirty birds), the civil rights movement, screen printing, the beatles, more drugs, oceans eleven (original NOT remake), beehives, more rock n' roll, mini-skirts, the mamas and the papas, goldfinger AND dr. no, warhol, the bikini, jimmy hendrix, nehru jackets, planet of the apes.

i could go on, but i really should stop now while i can. anywho, i know i have an incredibly idealised vision of this era but still assassinations, wars and prime minister swimming misshaps not with standing, if the tardis were to come by i'd definitely ask william hartnell for a lift back to a more revolutionary time.

a sweet present for you all!

to celebrate the mighty release of villa cola's debut album, 3 lucky readers get a hug from ME! yep that's right A HUG! 'score!', i hear you say? and if that doesn't wet your appetite, i also bring tidings of musical joy.

all the way from sexy london this super rad band gives you some fab fresh indie tunes. mewbox recently gave the band a rave review, 'villa cola has managed to fuse these sounds together creating music with deep punk roots, rockn' roll vocal stylings, and hitting synth beats.'. see the whole article here.

you will soon be able to buy their album on itunes (i'll keep you posted) or for now you can buy yourself a piece of cd history at their official website. intrigued? well, the bands first single 'seconds' also has a sweet vid. double click for fun fun fun!

the strokes....my precious.

now this is bit of a fluffy blogpost. just wanted to 'squee' over the strokes latest australian tour. i have seen this band play twice before and my love for them shows no signs of ebbing away. if you are now going, the strokes? who? what? then you deserve a slap! but let me give you a mini education before i resort to senseless violence.

the amazing american (but we won't hold that against them) rock band was formed initially in 1998 in new york. with julian casablancas (vocals), nick valensi (guitar), albert hammond jr. (guitar), nikolai fraiture (bass) and fabrizo moretti (drums). their very first studio album 'is this is' was released in 2001 and is a masterpiece of radiohead proportions. it could be the mix of old world money and new world american life, but the combo breeds an AMAZING sound.

they are scheduled to play at the byron bay festival, splendour in the grass, this year and have announced one sydney side show in july. it's for some reason at the shit hole horden pavilion. tickets go on sale next monday and for the low low price of $90 you can buy yourself a little bit of modern rock experience!

ALSO, the pic above is my current wallpaper.

damn attractive indie kids!

initially i was just going to post about the cool new band i have discovered this week (blood red shoes, check em out they are really easy to like) but after having a little wander through their film clips and finding the one below, i've decided to change direction a bit. if you watch the video clip below you will notice the insane attractiveness of not only the bands members but the other kids involved. this level of indie attractiveness is really starting to piss me off.

now i've not usually got anything against exceedingly hott people, the ones that are my friends are disgustingly nice. still, my problem is with this kind of frakin hottie is their invasion of my eye-line. ALL THE BLOODY TIME! i remember a time when cool musicians, that play(ed) songs that i love, were different and usually had a face like a smashed crab. mick jagger, cool dude, ugly as all hell. aretha franklin, now she needed a lot of room to eat her chicken wings. even matthew bellamy, is a scrawny old man.

but all that seems to have changed, even in the last 5 years. indie kids have now gone from being weirdos with jeans that are far too tight for polite society to cool fashion forward people in the eyes of normal surf shop wearing folk. i started to wonder if this was actually a good thing about 6 months ago. i mean, it is time to question things when big w starts selling $20 skinny jeans. it seems now that anyone with a slightly baggy shirt and a pair of cons (converse) is as indie as pete doherty. buy a $600 pair of shoes, develop a cocaine addiction and hang out with kate moss and then i might allow you entry into the indie cool club.

this all leads me back to the good duo, blood red shoes, they make great music and look fucking shit awesome doing it so props to them. BUT the flip side of this is vanessa amorosi. her latest venture into the indie rock side of video hits pissses me off to no end! this is the woman that not 10 years ago told us to 'shine, shine on shine on'. her songwriting capabilites im afraid have not improved much over the last decade and she has returned to us as her real self. her REAL 'self' is now heavily tattooed and sporting fashion looks ripped straight from 'the satorialist'. eeewwww. making money off looks started by poor university students who spend all their centre link money on designer shoes and smack is just so tacky!

anyway, rant over. check this vid and the band out.

just a quick fashion tip ->

my lovely friend josh, who is responsible for turning me into a knock off version of elly jackson about a month back, has a new plaything. he is a very talented lad and now the creator of peaches and luigi has a new shop. buy some very cool original things from his new store here.

he really is a fashion forward fella.

you know, it is ok to hate warhol

the fetishisation of art. art has gone from being important, in the way works reflect and speak to the nature of humanity and what that means during the time of the artworks birth to something to be owned. now though art, especially contemporary art, is nothing more than a commodity for profit or status or even both. for example, picasso’s painting entitled ‘garcon a la pipe’ was first bought by john whitney in 1950 for us$30, 000. in 2004 he sold this work for us$104 million! the art dealing industry is also an incredibly unregulated business due in part the the opaque nature of the fine arts world and private sales. currently the epicentre of the art dealing world is, the unquestionably fashionable new york city. last year the two largest art auctioneer houses (christie’s and sotheby’s) sold us$14.6 billion worth of art.

so what? well i guess my real problem with this is price. price is far too much of an issue when considering an artworks value. value is not price. yet, we as consumers and art lovers cant see beyond that. art has a use, what it does is important and when dealer and collectors tell people that a certain painting or sculpture is worth 20 million dollars culture is bought and sold as well.

art is meant to be confusing, it is supposed to challenge and force you to think for yourself. still, when you are told that the piece you are looking at is worth such a high amount you are given an easy way out. instead of looking at warhol’s later works (during the 80s) with a critical eye and deciding for yourself its merit, you are told it is a priceless masterpiece and deserves your reverence and respect. what if it doesn’t? what if its expensive screen printing or even trash? then and there culture is sold and we forget to think for ourselves.

through this passive way of consuming art, meaning is also lost. what the artist intended, believed and wanted to tell you disappears. i blame the mona lisa. she started all this. arguably the most famous painting in the world, her 1962-3 tour of the world started this whole ugly affair. as robert hughes put it, “the painting left the louvre but its meaning stayed behind”. the painting was treated like royalty, with its own bed in its own air-conditioned cabin aboard a luxury liner from france; only to be received by american royalty in the form of the kennedy's. locals lined up for a glimpse of the painting. the actual meaning of the painting was lost, it was no longer about her enigmatic smile or the artist himself, but rather just the opportunity to say they saw it. the experience is then hollow.

art collectors, calling art as their own is similar to this. the art they spend millions, if not billions, of dollars on does not actually belong to them. legally perhaps, but culturally and symbolically? hell no! in the same way the mona lisa doesnt belong to the louvre, the museum is merely a caretaker of the work. it belongs to the entire world. still, the difference is, if you wish, you can go see the mona lisa, she is on display for everyone. modern art is, for the most part not available to all. this right is reserved for the rich elite who scurry around like squirrels hoarding art shaped nuts for either a raining day when they need to sell it or to simply lord it over their other rich elite friends.

so what of the future? well artists are now a part of this business and as a result, if they wish to make a living now must produce works that appeal to such buyers and dealers. something is lost there i think. most significantly the ideals of great writers and artist of the romantic era. the philosophy and even mantra of, l’art pour l’art (‘art for the sake of art’) was important to men like theophile gautier, edgar allan poe and victor hugo. oscar wilde most famously wrote "a work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. it has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman. he has no further claim to be considered as an artist.".

andy warhol, realised this fact towards the end of his career; the art world had changed and he began creating art for that world (to be sold to the highest bidder) and no longer for himself, to say something about himself. perhaps he had just run out of things to say, all his past great ideas had run dry. damien hirst is warhol’s most ‘successful’ contemporary in this respect. his sculpture, ‘for the love of god’ is said to have sold for 50 million pounds. consisting of a platinum cast of a human skull it is incrusted with 8,601 diamonds and cost 14 million pounds just to produce. its actual meaning is never really discussed, rather critiques prefer to contemplate its financial mastery when what they should be doing is calling the whole thing vulgar and hirst a talented craftsman.

wilde must be turning in his grave, in another 50 years i expect i will be as well.