I read a lot of time travel books. But I would make a lousy time traveler. I
traveler. I like the modern world. Dental care. Clean water! Gelato!
High speed trains!
Lately I've been in places that have had civilization for centuries
and they have the buildings and art work to prove it.
There is something about the physicality of the statues, paintings and
frescos that have traveled through time to us that makes the time
passage more real. I deal in ideas, words and language in a medium
that people say will be around forever, but I know these words will be
buried in time like the 1st century temple of Minerva covered over by
a Christian church.
The infrastructure to keep the internet going is not trivial. If I
want to push my ideas and thoughts down the ages I should be trying to
get it into a book. Not because the Internet will fail but because
with time each advance of technology and ideas will bury the next
unless they are constantly refreshed into new and diverse mediums (for
example I've got some brilliant posts on Prodigy...) But a book seems
like an egotistical gesture for my ideas which to me seem slight,
common sense and tied to a narrow scope. But the idea appeals to me if
only as a way to some how get out of the "invisible ghetto" of the
Internet. The rich Italians in places like Venice wanted others to see
their wealth expressed in buildings and art.
I think about how previous men and women went about transmitting their
ideas or the ideas of others. If you were a painter in a certain
century you painted religious figures, and to break away from that was
a big deal. How many people wanted to paint other things but didn't?
I'm sure some art history major can tell me of the hundreds who did
but were ignored because they didn't follow the wishes of the patrons.
So if you wanted to get paid and know that your works would be seen,
you worked with the people who had the money and could protect your
work over the ages.
I was famous on the Internet partly because I understood what "the
money" wanted and I pointed out to them the sick ideas they were
paying for in their quest for customers.
My natural inclinations are to help the Patrons achieve their goals by
offering them a better artist to patronize but first I had to let them
know what they were paying for. I think of so many companies that have
"brand police" who worry about colors and fonts yet let their brand be
tied to verbal violence, sexism and lies (Did medieval Kings have
brand police?)
I think one of the reasons people in companies let horrific violent,
racist or sexist comments pass is because they are so visually
oriented. Radio is "invisible" without the receiver but this
invisibility is very powerful because it activates the parts of the
brain not overloaded by visually processing images or text. The words
can become more emotional, like a parent talking to a child. Maybe
this is why right wing authoritarians respond so well to talk radio.
I wonder if we took the words and made them physical, if it would be
easier for people to grasp the horror the patrons are paying the
"artist" for. If you imagine the ideas carved in stone or painted, you
could see the moral depravity they represent. Hearing those words is
qualitatively different.
If I had a sculpture of "The slaughter of Innocents (Iraqi version)"
and put it in front of the Patron's building, say Autozone, and said,
"You paid for this image, this world view. You are the patron of the
"artists" who support this vision of the world. They aren't just
describing historical acts, but they are actively FOR the slaughter."
Would the words turned to statues seem real to them then? Talking
about wiping out millions of people means you are for the slaughter of
innocents.
When artists painted "The slaughter of Innocents" they weren't saying
"Lets do more of this!" Compare this to the "artists" who support war.
Although they should be funded by those who benefit (defense
contractors) they are instead funded by cancer charities.
-- This message was composed with PhatWare WritePad.
