Via 1+1=3, Peter Murphy’s VR panoramas. From Sydney New Year celebrations to the Dalai Lama tour. More. // Also, Japanese condom packaging. From monkeys and fish to mighty phallic robots. Something for every taste. // Implausible superhero origins and what would actually happen. Radiation mishaps, hair loss and sterility. // Comic cover browser. Over 77,000 covers, from Tales to Astonish to Howard the Duck. (H/T, 3:AM.) // Modesty Blaise. (1966) Espionage, shades, general fabulousness. (H/T, Coudal.) // Image Mosaic Generator. // Megunica. // The Electric Eel (1954) // The Pitfalls of Tele-Shopping. (1983) // The Large Hadron Collider, part 2, part 3. // World distribution of religious belief. (H/T, Stephen Hicks.) // Robert Spencer on toileting the Qur’an and unilateral “hate crime”. // Hitchens versus CAIR’s dissembler-in-chief, Ibrahim Hooper. // Links between CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. // Professor of linguistics calls nerds “hyperwhite”. And racist, naturally. // On horseplay, hysteria and lawsuit opportunism. 13-year-olds’ obnoxious prank equated with rape. Tearing of hair ensues. // Ancient Egyptian wig, circa 1550 BC. Human hair, resin and wax. // Via Coudal, bees. // What’s that bug? From Cyphoderris Monstrosa to the Silver Argiope. Know your bugs. // Millimetres Matter. Scaled-down slapstick. // How to make very small pancakes with a syringe, a spoon and a credit card. // Justinas Vinevicius’ promo for G&G Sindikatas’ Burning Snow. Lithuanian hip hop. // Or maybe a spot of Hank. Williams, not Marvin.
Thanks to Drawn!, I discovered Hans Bacher’s archive of Animation Treasures. Bacher collects, restores and annotates rare frame grabs and background paintings from classic animations. From What’s Opera Doc? to Max Fleischer’s Technicolor Superman cartoons. For anyone with an interest in animation, it’s a wonderful find. Even for mere mortals, it’s still rather lovely.
Head there now.
Fleischer’s Superman animations can be downloaded here and here. Magnetic telescopes, mechanical monsters, foreign people, Lois in a jam! Something for everyone. Related, and possibly NSFW, Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex.
I’ll be away tomorrow, but, please, dry your eyes; I’ll post fresh ephemera on Friday.
Via Mick Hartley, a collection of misshapen fruit and vegetables from Berlin farmers’ markets, photographed by Uli Westphal. Westphal describes his Mutatoes project as “documenting these last survivors of biological variety.” The peppers in particular are rather stunning; though I’m not sure I’d be quite so thrilled to eat them.
More.
Sam the Record Man, a Toronto landmark.
The phrase “tone it down” springs to mind, I know, but that wouldn’t be quite so much fun. More.
During recent discussions about postmodernism and its implications, a few readers have argued, implausibly, that as a loose set of ideas postmodernism has no single political bias. It’s true that postmodernism is remarkably ill-defined, not least by its devotees, and one might use the term ‘postmodern’ as a kind of shorthand to refer to any cultural product that’s conspicuously aware of its own history and conventions. One might, for instance, regard The Simpsons as postmodern without assigning any particular political leaning to its characters or creators.
But insofar as postmodernism refers to a range of claims regarding the relativism of knowledge and ethics – specifically the claim, expressed with varying degrees of emphasis and clarity, that all aspects of reality are socially constructed or meaningful only as social intercourse – then these claims are political in their implications. As are assertions that Western knowledge – regarding, say, cosmology, computing or medical treatments – is a de facto power grab, the aim of which is, allegedly, to bolster the ideological “hegemony” of Western capitalist societies. Indeed, the assertion of epistemic questions as political activism is a defining trait of much postmodern rhetoric. The leftwing theorist Frank Lentricchia happily told the world that the postmodern movement “seeks not to find the foundation and conditions of truth, but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.” Achieved, one might suppose, even at the cost of truth. This overt political emphasis has led to an error and a misplaced pluralism. Specifically, the conflation of knowledge and fairness, and typically expressed as a belief that no one epistemological position – at least not a “Western” one – can be “privileged” above another, ostensibly in the interests of resisting “cultural imperialism.”
The assertion that reality is a matter of local consensus or social custom, with no existence independent of the claims made about it, seems to presuppose that there is nothing “outside” of social intercourse, and by extension that nothing much matters besides society. The default emphasis of such claims is on society, not the individual – who is, implicitly, reduced to an artefact of society, and whose character can presumably be reconstructed by society as is seen fit. Hence the preoccupation with social consensus as defining what reality is, whether or not the particulars of reality are known to human beings. A philosophy of this kind would appear to be a narcissistic cul-de-sac and metaphysically agoraphobic.
Several PoMo figures, among them Andrew Ross and Sandra Harding, have argued that rationality, coherence and standards of evidence are merely social artefacts coloured by white male patriarchy and other Western vices. Thus, it is argued, one cannot assert the primacy of the scientific method over, say, a belief in voodoo or Scientology. Defined in this way, epistemology becomes a matter of lifestyle choice or political preference. Hence Harding’s unveiling of “feminist empiricism”, a quasi-Marxist alternative to the kind that actually works.
Following recent discussions about contrarian posturing, the Rightwing Prof has steered me towards this piece by George F. Will. Here’s the opening paragraph:
“During the campus convulsions of the late 1960s, when rebellion against any authority was considered obedience to every virtue, the film ‘To Die in Madrid’, a documentary about the Spanish Civil War, was shown at a small liberal arts college famous for, and vain about, its dedication to all things progressive. When the film’s narrator intoned, ‘The rebels advanced on Madrid,’ the students, who adored rebels and were innocent of information, cheered. Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, had been so busy turning undergraduates into vessels of liberalism and apostles of social improvement that it had not found time for the tiresome task of teaching them tedious facts, such as that the rebels in Spain were Franco’s fascists…”
Of course, we live in more enlightened times and such a basic oversight could never happen now.
More rebellion at Zombietime. Related.
Further to my article on the stunningly fraudulent Carolyn Guertin, some readers have suggested that the “radical cyber-feminist” is merely an anomaly, albeit a vivid one, and not a reflection on her corner of academia. I’ve subsequently argued that one has to ask how Guertin’s “work” survived evaluation and peer review, and how she has come to find an audience “at conferences and events across Europe.” The fact that Guertin has been employed, and is still employed, by otherwise reputable institutions suggests a systemic dysfunction. Indeed, I’d suggest that Guertin is merely a symptom of a much broader malaise – one that has rendered large areas of academic study irretrievably tendentious and intellectually worthless.
Evidence to support this view can be found via Durham in Wonderland, where the estimable KC Johnson casts a gimlet eye over Duke University’s history department and its postmodern leanings. One faculty member, Professor Pete Sigal, will soon be shaping young minds with courses on colonial Latin American history and a seminar titled Sexual History around the Globe. A synopsis of the seminar asks, somewhat breathlessly:
“What does it mean to sexualize history? How does the historical narrative change as we use sexuality as our reading practice? What happens to the sign of history when confronted with the sign of sexuality? …When we read a military history, we will ask not just about sexuality as a topic within the military (Did soldiers have sex with other soldiers? Did soldiers impregnate prostitutes?), but also about sexuality as a reading process. What happens when we centre our entire analysis of the military by sexualizing the bodies of the soldiers?”
Heavens. Somebody hand that man a towel.
Professor Sigal is, clearly, eager to “confront” students with the question: “What happens when we focus a feminist and queer analysis on history?” To resolve this burning issue, Johnson turns to Sigal’s previous scholarship, most notably his book, From Moon Goddesses to Virgins: The Colonization of Yucatecan Maya Sexual Desire. The “historical” themes explored by Sigal include The Phallus Without a Body and Transsexuality and the Floating Phallus.
Blog Preservation Fund
Recent Comments