ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jim Andrews does http://vispo.com . He is a poet-programmer and audio guy. His work explores the new media possibilities of poetry, and seeks to synthesize the poetical with other arts and media.
'the Southern strategy'
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Southern-strategy ... here's an
interesting article on 'the Southern strategy', a concept no doubt familiar
to most people from the usa but it is new to me... came across it while
looking for stats on opinions about abortion in the South (which I didn't
find)...
"In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the focus of the
Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the
electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states. It is also used in a more
general sense, in which cultural (especially racial) themes are used in an
election in the American South. The use of the term, and its meaning and
implication, are still hotly disputed."
ja
interesting article on 'the Southern strategy', a concept no doubt familiar
to most people from the usa but it is new to me... came across it while
looking for stats on opinions about abortion in the South (which I didn't
find)...
"In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the focus of the
Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the
electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states. It is also used in a more
general sense, in which cultural (especially racial) themes are used in an
election in the American South. The use of the term, and its meaning and
implication, are still hotly disputed."
ja
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Charles Simic:
as t.whid pointed out, curt, the anti-abortionist logic is widely understood
by abortionists and anti-abortionists alike, and has been for a long time.
it seems that support for the republicans comes mainly from large majorities
of a few groups: the religious right, those involved in military industry,
the wealthy, and those who believe that the current republican methods for
eradicating anti-usa terrorism are the way to do it. the first three groups
won't change much before the election. it's the size of the last group that
will determine the election.
listening to rudy giuliani speak during the republican convention last night
was very disturbing. he is convinced that the usa cannot count on support
from europe and other countries, that many of the traditional allies of the
usa are "appeasers" of terrorism and the usa is both morally and
pragmatically obliged to pursue the sort of unilateral military actions it
has engaged in since 9/11 until all anti-usa terrorist groups are destroyed.
but such organizations cannot be destroyed by unilateral military actions.
anti-usa feeling has increased dramatically in the world, particularly in
the arab world, since the republicans went on the rampage. unilateral
military action fuels anti-usa sentiment and the consequent anti-usa
terrorist organizations rather than destroying them. now and well into the
future. such actions poison the future.
what is required is real international cooperation. but that is not possible
under the republicans. four more years of bush will mean further reshaping
of the usa to support perpetual warfare on the arab world. it must be
perpetual because the unilateral nature of it increases anti-usa sentiment
rather than diminishing it.
the republicans will also further reshape the usa to empower the religious
right in running all manner of organizations in the usa. i suspect that even
a lot of people from the religious right value the separation of church and
state that has traditionally nurtured both.
listening to giuliani last night, i got an indication of the way the fear
mongering is going to be turned up very high now until the election.
i'm hoping t.whid's and francis's 'cautious optimism' is warranted.
ja
by abortionists and anti-abortionists alike, and has been for a long time.
it seems that support for the republicans comes mainly from large majorities
of a few groups: the religious right, those involved in military industry,
the wealthy, and those who believe that the current republican methods for
eradicating anti-usa terrorism are the way to do it. the first three groups
won't change much before the election. it's the size of the last group that
will determine the election.
listening to rudy giuliani speak during the republican convention last night
was very disturbing. he is convinced that the usa cannot count on support
from europe and other countries, that many of the traditional allies of the
usa are "appeasers" of terrorism and the usa is both morally and
pragmatically obliged to pursue the sort of unilateral military actions it
has engaged in since 9/11 until all anti-usa terrorist groups are destroyed.
but such organizations cannot be destroyed by unilateral military actions.
anti-usa feeling has increased dramatically in the world, particularly in
the arab world, since the republicans went on the rampage. unilateral
military action fuels anti-usa sentiment and the consequent anti-usa
terrorist organizations rather than destroying them. now and well into the
future. such actions poison the future.
what is required is real international cooperation. but that is not possible
under the republicans. four more years of bush will mean further reshaping
of the usa to support perpetual warfare on the arab world. it must be
perpetual because the unilateral nature of it increases anti-usa sentiment
rather than diminishing it.
the republicans will also further reshape the usa to empower the religious
right in running all manner of organizations in the usa. i suspect that even
a lot of people from the religious right value the separation of church and
state that has traditionally nurtured both.
listening to giuliani last night, i got an indication of the way the fear
mongering is going to be turned up very high now until the election.
i'm hoping t.whid's and francis's 'cautious optimism' is warranted.
ja
Re: Re: Re: Charles Simic:
Hi Curt,
I grew up in Vernon, British Columbia, Canada, in the interior well away
from Vancouver or Victoria on the coast. The Native Indians were--probably
still are--treated with general contempt by much of the white populace and
East Indians and Chinese were mostly relegated to marginal status in the
society. One of the reasons why land-claims negotiations with the Native
Indians are so prominent here is because there often never were treaties of
any kind. They were simply shunted onto 'reservations' and, often, the
children were taken from the parents and placed in 'residential schools'
maintained by churches, which weren't big on Native culture or, as it turns
out, the welfare of the kids. The Asians were not given the vote until the
fifties. They were not 'slaves' but were not far from it.
But, then, neither is the "liberal" party that is in power, currently,
liberal. It is a reincarnation of the 'social credit' party that was thrown
out of office years ago, but they didn't want that bad name or the
conservative name, which also was in disfavor at the time. State/Provincial
politics here has usually been conservative, as it is currently, only it is
called 'liberal' now. Federal politics here has usually been inclined toward
whatever party makes enough noise claiming to recognize the existence of
British Columbia; it's far away from the eastern federal government and so
many find they have more affinities on a north-south axis than a west-east
one. So I suspect that there are various parallels between parts of the
South and where I am from.
The most prominent art here is the west coast Native art, which is known
around the world.
Unlike the South, apparently, there is a strong history of organized labour.
The economy is not particularly entrepreneurial. British Columbia has vast
resources in timber, water, and minerals. So the economy, away from the two
urban centres Vancouver and Victoria, has always been centered around the
extraction of resources which we ship abroad raw and buy back refined at a
higher price. Hewers of wood and carriers of water, as they say.
The literary art is usually either provincial or canadiana. there is little
distribution of the writing outside of canada when it is published in
canada.
educational standards have fallen, certainly, both in the public schools and
the universities and colleges. tuition is much higher. the standard of
living supported by a teacher's or professor's wage has certainly slipped.
the tuition is forever going up and the resources are forever being cut
back. higher student/teacher ratios. less emphasis on learning and more on
getting a job.
the rich stay rich, for the most part, and the poor stay poor, though the
standards of what it means to be rich or poor are not as dramatic at each
end as they are in the USA.
still, as elsewhere, people from bc are proud of where they are from, are
proud of things like socialized medicine, organized labour, social programs
of various kinds, the public schools and universities/colleges we have, not
a lot of homicidal mayhem, the natural beauty of the land, the place of
native art in the world, and so on. as they should be.
it is by no means a perfect arrangement and, the closer you look, the less
shining it is. but i imagine this is not unusual. part of the value of
literature is that it usually does take such a closer look at things, and a
closer look at people and their struggles and victories of the spirit, which
tend to be the most important victories, arrived at usually despite more
than because of the surrounding 'cultures'. what makes art so improbable in
a particular place is usually strongly related to what makes it possible,
the rub, the edge, what is to be resisted and overcome.
so of course we have our own problems and problems shared by people
elsewhere. mostly i was interested in the simic article for what light it
might shed on how bush and cronies stand a good chance of re-election. sorry
if you're offended by my bringing up such an article. i realize Southerners
must be sick of excursions from the north into the South and their finding
it dark.
ja
> Hi Jim,
>
> I actually grew up around Fairhope, Alabama, and have a bumper
> sticker that reads, "I brake for boiled peanuts." It's funny
> when the shoe fits. And yet in the next few months I'm lecturing
> on net art/design in Calgary, Sao Paulo, and Tel Aviv. So maybe
> the shoe doesn't fit. Because maybe the shoe is so multifaceted
> and cryptic that it's more like a labyrinth than a shoe. No
> cultural anthropologist worth her salt would presume to take a
> vacation to Bali, write up her initial subjective observations,
> and expect to be taken with anything other than a grain of salt;
> and yet Yankee pundits (and Holywood producers) continue in vain
> to search for that elusively discernible insight into the heart
> of "the South." After all, it's just "the South." How
> complicated can it be? Perhaps it's this presumptive
> condescentsion that causes most such pundits to come away
> thinking they've hit paydirt when they've only begun to scratch
> the surface.
>
> cf: http://www.pifmagazine.com/2000/05/m_clon.php3
>
> In a more "defensive" vein, there are two environments in which I
> get a heavily creepy, clubby, assumptive,
> we-all-know-what-the-true-perspective-is-wink-wink vibe. One is
> around trailer park racists who assume that because you're white
> you share their views. The other is around "tolerant" liberals
> who assume that because you're educated you share their views.
> Both groups are prone to speak with a lazy conviction about
> things of which they have limited experiential knowledge.
>
> peace,
> curt
I grew up in Vernon, British Columbia, Canada, in the interior well away
from Vancouver or Victoria on the coast. The Native Indians were--probably
still are--treated with general contempt by much of the white populace and
East Indians and Chinese were mostly relegated to marginal status in the
society. One of the reasons why land-claims negotiations with the Native
Indians are so prominent here is because there often never were treaties of
any kind. They were simply shunted onto 'reservations' and, often, the
children were taken from the parents and placed in 'residential schools'
maintained by churches, which weren't big on Native culture or, as it turns
out, the welfare of the kids. The Asians were not given the vote until the
fifties. They were not 'slaves' but were not far from it.
But, then, neither is the "liberal" party that is in power, currently,
liberal. It is a reincarnation of the 'social credit' party that was thrown
out of office years ago, but they didn't want that bad name or the
conservative name, which also was in disfavor at the time. State/Provincial
politics here has usually been conservative, as it is currently, only it is
called 'liberal' now. Federal politics here has usually been inclined toward
whatever party makes enough noise claiming to recognize the existence of
British Columbia; it's far away from the eastern federal government and so
many find they have more affinities on a north-south axis than a west-east
one. So I suspect that there are various parallels between parts of the
South and where I am from.
The most prominent art here is the west coast Native art, which is known
around the world.
Unlike the South, apparently, there is a strong history of organized labour.
The economy is not particularly entrepreneurial. British Columbia has vast
resources in timber, water, and minerals. So the economy, away from the two
urban centres Vancouver and Victoria, has always been centered around the
extraction of resources which we ship abroad raw and buy back refined at a
higher price. Hewers of wood and carriers of water, as they say.
The literary art is usually either provincial or canadiana. there is little
distribution of the writing outside of canada when it is published in
canada.
educational standards have fallen, certainly, both in the public schools and
the universities and colleges. tuition is much higher. the standard of
living supported by a teacher's or professor's wage has certainly slipped.
the tuition is forever going up and the resources are forever being cut
back. higher student/teacher ratios. less emphasis on learning and more on
getting a job.
the rich stay rich, for the most part, and the poor stay poor, though the
standards of what it means to be rich or poor are not as dramatic at each
end as they are in the USA.
still, as elsewhere, people from bc are proud of where they are from, are
proud of things like socialized medicine, organized labour, social programs
of various kinds, the public schools and universities/colleges we have, not
a lot of homicidal mayhem, the natural beauty of the land, the place of
native art in the world, and so on. as they should be.
it is by no means a perfect arrangement and, the closer you look, the less
shining it is. but i imagine this is not unusual. part of the value of
literature is that it usually does take such a closer look at things, and a
closer look at people and their struggles and victories of the spirit, which
tend to be the most important victories, arrived at usually despite more
than because of the surrounding 'cultures'. what makes art so improbable in
a particular place is usually strongly related to what makes it possible,
the rub, the edge, what is to be resisted and overcome.
so of course we have our own problems and problems shared by people
elsewhere. mostly i was interested in the simic article for what light it
might shed on how bush and cronies stand a good chance of re-election. sorry
if you're offended by my bringing up such an article. i realize Southerners
must be sick of excursions from the north into the South and their finding
it dark.
ja
> Hi Jim,
>
> I actually grew up around Fairhope, Alabama, and have a bumper
> sticker that reads, "I brake for boiled peanuts." It's funny
> when the shoe fits. And yet in the next few months I'm lecturing
> on net art/design in Calgary, Sao Paulo, and Tel Aviv. So maybe
> the shoe doesn't fit. Because maybe the shoe is so multifaceted
> and cryptic that it's more like a labyrinth than a shoe. No
> cultural anthropologist worth her salt would presume to take a
> vacation to Bali, write up her initial subjective observations,
> and expect to be taken with anything other than a grain of salt;
> and yet Yankee pundits (and Holywood producers) continue in vain
> to search for that elusively discernible insight into the heart
> of "the South." After all, it's just "the South." How
> complicated can it be? Perhaps it's this presumptive
> condescentsion that causes most such pundits to come away
> thinking they've hit paydirt when they've only begun to scratch
> the surface.
>
> cf: http://www.pifmagazine.com/2000/05/m_clon.php3
>
> In a more "defensive" vein, there are two environments in which I
> get a heavily creepy, clubby, assumptive,
> we-all-know-what-the-true-perspective-is-wink-wink vibe. One is
> around trailer park racists who assume that because you're white
> you share their views. The other is around "tolerant" liberals
> who assume that because you're educated you share their views.
> Both groups are prone to speak with a lazy conviction about
> things of which they have limited experiential knowledge.
>
> peace,
> curt
Re: Charles Simic: "The South: Down There on a Visit" (nyrb)
> i'd also challenge the originally quoted article's
> reference to religion and the US South... while there are certainly
> fundamentalist protestant ideologies there, religion is merely a
> superstructure for more complex practices - religion is just too easy a
> scapegoat to me. from living in the south most of my life, and having
> lived many other places in the US (including the west coast and mid
> west), i feel i can say that the South is no more "religious" than any
> other part of the country (many would say metropolitan/rural
> distinctions are more telling indicators). i would doubt that there are
> more church goers, or people who can quote from the bible. Southern
> California is extremely conservative, and highly conservative Christian
> (you should see the Trinity Broadcasting HQ!). i know, it is called
> "the Southland"... There are differences from the conservative
> catholicism more prevalent in the NE and the informal dogma of southern
> protestantism, but i'm not sure that they represent any kind of
> geographic dominance.
hi ryan,
your response is very different from the defensiveness of
http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/opinions/concerning_my_neighbors_the_
hicks.php , which is a response to simic's piece.
yours is more balanced, actually. the defensive reaction of the above url
leads him into untruths, such as saying that simic "gives short shrift to
mississippi's long and continuing literary tradition."
i am interested to read you say that "the South is no more "religious" than
any other part of the country." I heard on pbs a while ago that 2/5 of the
adults in the USA consider themselves "evangelicals" and that, of those, 2/3
are Bush/Republican supporters. that's 2/5*2/3=4/15 > 25% of the voting
population.
i myself remain rather curious about how bush and cronies might get enough
votes to even be in the race. tis a puzzlement to me. where are all these
people? as you say, southern california is extremely conservative. they may
well be highly conservative christian, as you say; i gather the area is also
deeply involved in military industry (which is another strong republican
area, is it not?).
> the historical opposition to union organizing is
> a more important/oppressive distinction for me in the South - just find
> a strong union in North Carolina - and one i don't think is based on
> religious foundations.
What is the basis of that opposition to union organizing?
> anyway, just some not very thought out comments on an important topic :)
> best,
> ryan
>
thanks, Ryan. it's great to hear from someone from the South on this.
ja
> reference to religion and the US South... while there are certainly
> fundamentalist protestant ideologies there, religion is merely a
> superstructure for more complex practices - religion is just too easy a
> scapegoat to me. from living in the south most of my life, and having
> lived many other places in the US (including the west coast and mid
> west), i feel i can say that the South is no more "religious" than any
> other part of the country (many would say metropolitan/rural
> distinctions are more telling indicators). i would doubt that there are
> more church goers, or people who can quote from the bible. Southern
> California is extremely conservative, and highly conservative Christian
> (you should see the Trinity Broadcasting HQ!). i know, it is called
> "the Southland"... There are differences from the conservative
> catholicism more prevalent in the NE and the informal dogma of southern
> protestantism, but i'm not sure that they represent any kind of
> geographic dominance.
hi ryan,
your response is very different from the defensiveness of
http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/opinions/concerning_my_neighbors_the_
hicks.php , which is a response to simic's piece.
yours is more balanced, actually. the defensive reaction of the above url
leads him into untruths, such as saying that simic "gives short shrift to
mississippi's long and continuing literary tradition."
i am interested to read you say that "the South is no more "religious" than
any other part of the country." I heard on pbs a while ago that 2/5 of the
adults in the USA consider themselves "evangelicals" and that, of those, 2/3
are Bush/Republican supporters. that's 2/5*2/3=4/15 > 25% of the voting
population.
i myself remain rather curious about how bush and cronies might get enough
votes to even be in the race. tis a puzzlement to me. where are all these
people? as you say, southern california is extremely conservative. they may
well be highly conservative christian, as you say; i gather the area is also
deeply involved in military industry (which is another strong republican
area, is it not?).
> the historical opposition to union organizing is
> a more important/oppressive distinction for me in the South - just find
> a strong union in North Carolina - and one i don't think is based on
> religious foundations.
What is the basis of that opposition to union organizing?
> anyway, just some not very thought out comments on an important topic :)
> best,
> ryan
>
thanks, Ryan. it's great to hear from someone from the South on this.
ja
Re: C-SPAN Karaoke
that's an interesting piece of work, barbara. great to see streaming video
brought into net.art this way, also.
are you going to make the source code public also?
ja
> Description:
>
> http://www.wildernesspuppets.net/yarns/annotate/cspankaraoke.html
>
> Software download page:
>
> http://www.wildernesspuppets.net/yarns/annotate/cspankaraokedownload.html
>
> Video demo of C-SPAN Karaoke software:
>
> http://www.wildernesspuppets.net/yarns/recordings/cspankaraoke.html
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Barbara Lattanzi
> www.wildernesspuppets.net
brought into net.art this way, also.
are you going to make the source code public also?
ja
> Description:
>
> http://www.wildernesspuppets.net/yarns/annotate/cspankaraoke.html
>
> Software download page:
>
> http://www.wildernesspuppets.net/yarns/annotate/cspankaraokedownload.html
>
> Video demo of C-SPAN Karaoke software:
>
> http://www.wildernesspuppets.net/yarns/recordings/cspankaraoke.html
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Barbara Lattanzi
> www.wildernesspuppets.net