Henri Le Sidaner
You painted a naked woman because you enjoyed looking at her, put a mirror in her hand and you called the painting “Vanity,” thus morally condemning the woman whose nakedness you had depicted for you own pleasure.
John Berger, Ways of Seeing (via ii-sm)
this reminds me–on occasion i will post a female nude painted by a woman and tag it #women paint the best nudes. an opinion i have some conviction on. invariably this will fill my dash with some nice nudes painted by men. i’m not saying male painters can’t paint. i’m saying that often the female nude as painted from the male gaze presents the subject like a sandwich. *something* for eating an object not a subject. female nudes where the subject is seen with a compassionate eye, having self-posession and strength are almost invariably painted by women.
Rockets and Revenge (Dispatch 7)
For a few years, a young radical group of Israeli settlers in the West Bank have committed random acts of violence and vandalization against Palestinians and their property to make them pay the price for affronting their way of life. They call themselves “Pricetaggers,” and they’ve largely avoided prosecution by Israeli authorities.
VICE News gets rare access to the young members of the Price Tag movement — at the homecoming of Moriah Goldberg, 20, who just finished a three-month sentence for throwing stones at Palestinians. She and her family remain proud of the act, even as the current conflict in Gaza was sparked after an all-too-familiar round of retributive violence.
Charity by George Frederic Watts, 1898.
Science Not Fear - Drug Policy and Medical Research: Virginia Wright at TEDxSantaCruz
Director for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelics Studies (MAPS) Virginia Wright makes the case for legislating drug policy based on science, rather than fear.
THE DAILY PIC: I came across this Warhol portrait of Robert Rauschenberg the other week in Andrea Caratsch’s gallery in Zurich. I was shocked to find that one of the most significant works of the 20th century was selling for less than $2 million – maybe five per cent of what less important, later Warhols can fetch. Last I checked, it still had not been bought. (Caratsch wouldn’t take my Sam’s Club card.)
Made in 1962, this is, as far as I can tell, the earliest portrait of a living sitter in Warhol’s mature career, and one of his very earliest silkscreens. (I don’t count his movie-star images as portraits: They are closer to Rembrandt’s “heads” of Aristotle or Jesus.) That means this work is a first experiment in the genre that filled the final two-thirds of Warhol’s career.
The 1962 portrait features one of the cutting-edge artists that Warhol was most keen on emulating, and whose friendship he had only just managed to win. Average museumgoers, and even experts, don’t always realize how deeply committed Warhol was to the classic, egghead avant-garde, and how deeply immersed he was in it at this point in his career; this portrait stands as his declaration of that commitment. It also comes at just the moment when Warhol was able to turn the tables on Rauschenberg, by offering to help his elder learn the new photo-silkscreen technique. (Although the tale’s also told that Rauschenberg taught him.)
Rauschenberg was also some kind of model for Warhol of what it was to be a successful gay artist, even if he had once rejected Warhol as too “swish” for his tastes. I think you can read Rauschenberg’s un-swish-ness from the way Warhol depicts him here, in an image that has none of the camp playfulness of Warhol’s Pop works from this era. Drowning in a deep-blue sea, Rauschenberg has stronger echoes in this portrait of his own Black Paintings, or of Warhol’s later “Disasters”, than of Warhol’s “Troy Donohue” or “Marilyn” silkscreens. You could almost read this dour, barely-there portrait as being in mourning for, or at least a token of, Rauschenberg’s closeted life. With its figure small and lost, gazing up into the heavens, this is one of the most wistful images Warhol ever made. All that blackness, and the filmic stutters running down the surface of the work, remind me most of Warhol’s dark and cryptic “Shadow” silkscreens from 1978.
The painting also comes close to being a direct quote from the all-blue monochromes of Yves Klein. Warhol cannot have missed the Frenchman’s 1961 New York show with Leo Castelli, who became Warhol’s own dealer not long after. (A couple of years later, Warhol was asking a lover, the art historian Robert Pincus-Witten, to tell him what Klein was like.) Klein is one of the few artists of this era who can rival Warhol for his mix of brainy profundity and absurdist play, and this portrait almost proves the connection. Within a year or two, Warhol was including Kleinian monochromes in his silkscreened diptychs; this earlier “Rauschenberg” can almost be thought of as a collapsed diptych, with a silkscreen portrait sandwiched on top of a blue monochrome. Which means there’s also cancelling-out going on – a deliberate attempt to make a portrait that conceals more than it shows. Warhol may have admired and envied Bob Rauschenberg, but more than anything he wanted to cast the shadow of his own art over his new friend’s. This darkling portrait casts that shadow, symbolically, before Warhol had made a whole lot of art that could actually outshine Rauschenberg’s. (Image courtesy Andrea Caratsch, © The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.)
"Your circulatory system, from the aorta to arteries to arterioles to capillaries and back up the venous side form a similar continuum. They start off massive and branch and branch again, becoming smaller with each branching until they become so narrow in your capillaries that the red blood cells slowly flow through them single file just in order to fit. The mechanism of how your blood vessels branch is fractal in nature. Physiologically speaking your cells depend on oxygen, without it they die and if enough of them die, you die. In order to effectively oxygenate your tissues your circulatory system has to perform an impressive feat of dimensional architecture. Like the Koch Curve, packing infinite surface area into a finite space, your circulatory system utilizes fractal geometry through branching so that no cell in your body is never more than 3 or 4 cells away from a blood cell. And the amazing thing about this feat is that your blood vessels and blood take up very little space: no more than around 5% of your body!"
For more fractal physiology and chaos theory in medicine check out these past posts.