Blowhard, Esq. writes:
“Exposition internationale des art et techniques à Paris” (1937) by François Kollar.
Thanks for reading and dropping by.
Fenster writes:
The Uncanny Valley is a neat cognitive trick, occurring when “human features look and move almost, but not exactly, like natural human beings.” In that valley, what results is a “response of revulsion among human observers.”
So on the one side of the valley: lovable real humans.
On the other, lovable unreal cartoons
or robots.
and, in the valley, Beowulf.
OK, that’s the process when building up from non-human to human. What of the process of stripping away human features from real humans?
Well, for sure it is the case that if you strip away enough human features from real humans, you arrive at a different kind of abstract lovability. Take the Blue Man Group. Kids love ’em. They are obviously not cartoons or robots, but the overall idea is to strip away certain human cues. The all-blue color. Lack of ears. And the odd affect.
It is almost as though they are miming a reptilian way of moving and looking.
So we know that there is another side to the Uncanny Valley when removing human features from real humans. But is there a Valley there, too? A place where the removal of a slighter number of human cues produces a “response of revulsion”? Why, yes indeed.
Fenster writes:
It is awfully easy to make light of dust-ups like the one over Phil Robertson. Does it matter what a reality show celeb says and whether he stays on the air? Narrowly speaking, no. I didn’t know Robertson except for seeing him a while back on the cover of a People Magazine knock-off in a check out line, and I don’t give a rat’s ass about duck hunting. I’m urban.
But these kinds of escapades do present interesting morality tales for the people to chew on, me included. In a way, it is how the populi find their vox on important cultural questions. Some bread, some circus, some philosophizing about things that matter. And while I don’t care about Robertson, there are some interesting issues that underlie the fight he is in.
Paleo Retiree writes:
During a cross-country trip the other day I found myself killing time at the Dallas airport. I looked up from my book and found that I was sitting by the side of a kind of central courtyard that … Well, here’s a collage impression of what the area looked like:
I was mainly reminded of two things by this courtyard. One was the kiddie-play areas featured by some McDonald’s restaurants; the other was co-blogger Eddie Pensier’s recent posting about some awful contempo buildings in Melbourne. Corporate/governmental postmodernism … Zaniness and playfulness every which way you look … The blight of public art-style creativity … The “We’re being treated like children!” angle of it all really knocked me on the head.
Questions Du Jour: Is it a great thing that our elites supply distractions and amenities a-plenty to us to provide us with pep, calories and cheeriness? Or is it an outrage that our betters are as determined as they are to treat us like cranky babies? Is transforming our environment into a giant playpen making us happier by reinforcing our connection with the child within? Or is it an infantilizing force that needs to be resisted?
Related
Fenster writes:
Consider those six glasses at the top of the UR page.
One part The Odyssey
One part Memento
One part Twilight Zone (A Stop at Willoughby preferred)
One part Waiting for Godot
One part Groundhog Day (extra dry)
One part Dark Victory
Add to shaker. No ice.
Shake.
The result:
Memory, by Donald Westlake.
Written in the sixties and published just recently, posthumously. It is a different kind of Westlake. It’s got a little of the potboiler in it, as the cover image suggests. But it is a potboiler that slips in and out of profundity with ease. And it is pretty damn disquieting, too. What does it mean to go home? What is your identity, anyway?
No plot revealers here. I will say the book puts me in the mind of the tragic aspects of Spielberg (& Kubrick’s) A.I.
(W)e start by feeling the tragedy of David–that he feels from the inside out that his love is authentically his when it is “merely” a function of his program. But we then move on to the tragedy of us–that we are not much different.
And also a little of Andre Gregory’s last words in My Dinner With Andre:
(P)eople hold on to these images: father, mother, husband, wife, again for the same reason: ’cause they seem to provide some firm ground. But there’s no wife there. What does that mean, a wife? A husband? A son? A baby holds your hands and then suddenly there’s this huge man lifting you off the ground, and then he’s gone. Where’s that son?
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
Click on the image to enlarge.
“Three models dressed in Ladurée macaron colours” (1948) by Cecil Beaton
Fenster writes:
Another in the series.
Spotlighting The Spongetones, doing Beatles soundalike music for 25 years.
Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:
Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:
Edgar Rice Burroughs (1912):
To Jane the strange apparition of this god-like man was as wine to sick nerves.
From the description which Clayton and her father and Mr. Philander had given her, she knew that it must be the same wonderful creature who had saved them, and she saw in him only a protector and a friend.
But as Terkoz pushed her roughly aside to meet Tarzan’s charge, and she saw the great proportions of the ape and the mighty muscles and the fierce fangs, her heart quailed. How could any vanquish such a mighty antagonist?
Like two charging bulls they came together, and like two wolves sought each other’s throat. Against the long canines of the ape was pitted the thin blade of the man’s knife.
Jane–her lithe, young form flattened against the trunk of a great tree, her hands tight pressed against her rising and falling bosom, and her eyes wide with mingled horror, fascination, fear, and admiration–watched the primordial ape battle with the primeval man for possession of a woman–for her.
As the great muscles of the man’s back and shoulders knotted beneath the tension of his efforts, and the huge biceps and forearm held at bay those mighty tusks, the veil of centuries of civilization and culture was swept from the blurred vision of the Baltimore girl.
When the long knife drank deep a dozen times of Terkoz’ heart’s blood, and the great carcass rolled lifeless upon the ground, it was a primeval woman who sprang forward with outstretched arms toward the primeval man who had fought for her and won her.
And Tarzan?
He did what no red-blooded man needs lessons in doing. He took his woman in his arms and smothered her upturned, panting lips with kisses.
For a moment Jane lay there with half-closed eyes. For a moment–the first in her young life–she knew the meaning of love.
But as suddenly as the veil had been withdrawn it dropped again, and an outraged conscience suffused her face with its scarlet mantle, and a mortified woman thrust Tarzan of the Apes from her and buried her face in her hands.
Tarzan had been surprised when he had found the girl he had learned to love after a vague and abstract manner a willing prisoner in his arms. Now he was surprised that she repulsed him.
He came close to her once more and took hold of her arm. She turned upon him like a tigress, striking his great breast with her tiny hands.
Tarzan could not understand it.
A moment ago and it had been his intention to hasten Jane back to her people, but that little moment was lost now in the dim and distant past of things which were but can never be again, and with it the good intentions had gone to join the impossible.
Since then Tarzan of the Apes had felt a warm, lithe form close pressed to his. Hot, sweet breath against his cheek and mouth had fanned a new flame to life within his breast, and perfect lips had clung to his in burning kisses that had seared a deep brand into his soul–a brand which marked a new Tarzan.
Again he laid his hand upon her arm. Again she repulsed him. And then Tarzan of the Apes did just what his first ancestor would have done.
He took his woman in his arms and carried her into the jungle.
MGM (1934):
Frank Frazetta (c. 1970s):