A Thought

Why do people pierce themselves, but not their pets?

MUSIC: Recommendation

I was reluctant to buy due to carping reviews, but I'm glad I ignored them and recently purchased Peter Gabriel's OVO: THE MILLENNIUM SHOW (REALWORLD RWPG01 2000—this is the British version, with superior packaging and, I think, song lineup).

Although this was music created to "The Story of OVO," a massive parable staged for London's Millennium Dome, this is not easy pop or show music; it's rich, layered and detailed and rewards repeated listening. There's both intellect and visceral joy in music making here. The sound is terrific, too.

Not to be missed: Tracks 1,2,3,9 and 12.

If you like Elisabeth Fraser's voice on Track 9, DOWNSIDE UP, don't miss her on Massive Attack's MEZZANINE album (CIRCA RECORDS 724384559922 1998), particularly the songs DISSOLVED GIRL and TEARDROP.

Don't listen to any of this music distractedly. Be brave: Sit and listen.

ARCHITECTURE: The Power of No

Terry Teachout, the great and eclectic arts critic, today posted on his blog a poignant portrait of unfamiliar idleness entitled Call me Bartleby.

His musings on the joys of saying no to obligation and doggedly pursued experience put me in mind of an observation shared with me about ten years ago by the photographer Fred Eberstadt. I was talking to him about my dream house and I mentioned the importance of a semi-sheltered place, half inside and half outside, from which to observe the passing world. Otherwise known as a porch.

"The most important component of a successful porch," he said, "is not the view. It's the ability to turn both your chair and back away from the view, if you choose."

Why would anyone want to do that? I thought at the time. Now I better know the power and importance of such a choice. Apparently, so does Terry.

Why We Distrust Journalists II

From a letter I sent to National Public Radio this morning:

It's 8:15 am in New York, I'm listening to WNYC, and a story just finished about the surprising win of Hamas over Fatah in the Palestinian elections.

The fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization was NOT ONCE mentioned in the story. The word terror was not mentioned ONCE. The implications for democratic systems that cannibalize themselves through the legitimate election of terrorists were likewise never mentioned.

Do NPR and its reporters not find these elements of the story important?

Instead, the election was reported as if it were a vote for a county freeholder in Iowa.

How do you explain this? How do you claim, as you do in your marketing efforts, that NPR is providing "deep contextual reporting" when the glaring omissions of this story, it seems to me, form a pretty incriminating Exhibit A?

Why We Distrust Journalists I

From today's CNN.com, this enticingly named link: "Watch as news of the [childrens'] deaths proved to be unbearable."

OVERHEARD

I just came from one of those common New York society occasions: The Fund Raising Get-Together at The Apartment of a Rich Person. I'm not a donor; I was there as a creative consultant to the organization.

After the formal presentation, the group of 50 or so was invited into a lavish living room where we chatted and mingled and chomped hors d’oeuvres. After about 15 minutes, our attention was called. A thin woman dressed in a black jumpsuit-type outfit, in her early forties, I'd guess, stood with the organization's founder in the middle of the room and pronounced she was going in full bore: she would donate $500,000 then and there. Who was committed enough, she asked, to join her in the cause?

I was standing in the next room, right at the doorway when this happened, on the outer ring of the gathering. Just ahead of me, on the inside, was a well groomed man in a blue blazer and striped pants. He leaned in conspiratorially toward his wife, both of them oblivious to my being within earshot.

"Next time you go anywhere without me...", he whispered to her, "don't do that."

ARCHITECTURE: Bigger isn't better, or even bigger

Take a look at this building...


It's 6 Times Square at 1466 Broadway. Do you see the magnificent structure I do—timeless, majestic, dignified...and big? This is a powerful structure aesthetically and physically.

But here's another, more contextual view of the same building...




This is how I first noticed it, across a temporary opening created by the new construction in the foreground. What is striking is how the newer buildings surrounding and towering over it seem bigger in only one way: physical size. They're just large. In every other way—aesthetically, spiritually, emotionally—they are diminutive in comparison, like out-of-scale toy models placed next to a real object. Bigger certainly isn't better, but what's suprising is that bigger also isn't necessarily...bigger.



Here's even more of the context. I would have thought that perception of size is relative, that we get used to "large" in one context until something bigger comes along, but that's not what's apparent to me here. Take another look at the first photograph. Can it really be described as "small?" Large for its own sake is not enough to create the sense of size that communicates true power, beauty, majesty and dignity. Big just isn't enough. Apparently, it also isn't much.