I guess that during past one hundred years a lot of things had changed and thus maybe we, as a society, should change couple of "standards".
1) We are much taller as a species
- The beds and doors which are 2metres long feel like they should be a bit bigger
- the kitchen tables, where you prepare your food, should be higher than 85 cm, cause now you just bend like an asshole and your back starts to hurt during meal preparation
2) we are getting married much older
- all those anniversaries called after something precious should be changed a bit. Silver wedding is nowadays 25 yrs, pearl wedding is 30 yrs, golden wedding is 50 yrs, diamond wedding is 70 yrs. OK the trend is now that people are getting married and have kids around 30 yrs of age. Who the hell could celebrate the diamond wedding?? I dont know many 100yrs old people around here.
If I come across any other things that should be changed, I would write them down.
Saturday 5 December 2009
Thursday 12 November 2009
2220
OK so this was on my mind since I was a little kid. Take a calculator and:
123+369+987+741=2220
147+789+963+321=2220
159+357+753+951=2220
456+258+852+654=2220
Weird, huh? Circles and crosses (+ and x) on a numpad/calculator sum up as 2220.
123+369+987+741=2220
147+789+963+321=2220
159+357+753+951=2220
456+258+852+654=2220
Weird, huh? Circles and crosses (+ and x) on a numpad/calculator sum up as 2220.
Monday 25 May 2009
Stupid maddness about Susan Boyle
Message to all those millions of people who shit their pants for tremendous Susan Boyle.
In the 1960s and 1970s it was totally OK to look like your mother had you with a horse and have a bad hair and terrible teeth, and yet you could have been a music star!
It is just the last twenty years when we all suddenly started to look at the appearances first (mainly television caused this shift), so only in last decade most of the new singers look like supermodels, i.e. they are televisual first, any musical accomplishments are added later in post-production.
In this logic I totally do not get this maddness about Susan Boyle. OK, she sings good, no doubt about that. But narrate this story in a sense: "Look at her! She is uglier than monkey's shit, and yet (heureka!) she is able to sing! What a tremendous acomplishment for the lesser mind!"
This whole story is based on the stereotype, that if you are ugly as fuck, you cannot do anything in the world. But history, and mostly history of the music prove these people wrong. Look at the Beatles for instance - Ringo Starr is probably uglier than Susan Boyle and yet everybody loves Beatles!
In the 1960s and 1970s it was totally OK to look like your mother had you with a horse and have a bad hair and terrible teeth, and yet you could have been a music star!
It is just the last twenty years when we all suddenly started to look at the appearances first (mainly television caused this shift), so only in last decade most of the new singers look like supermodels, i.e. they are televisual first, any musical accomplishments are added later in post-production.
In this logic I totally do not get this maddness about Susan Boyle. OK, she sings good, no doubt about that. But narrate this story in a sense: "Look at her! She is uglier than monkey's shit, and yet (heureka!) she is able to sing! What a tremendous acomplishment for the lesser mind!"
This whole story is based on the stereotype, that if you are ugly as fuck, you cannot do anything in the world. But history, and mostly history of the music prove these people wrong. Look at the Beatles for instance - Ringo Starr is probably uglier than Susan Boyle and yet everybody loves Beatles!
Wednesday 20 May 2009
Mijn newe tee-シャツ (Part 2)
Actually I have a smile on my face, but is quite funny though blue colour would be better, haha. But I like it anyway. So nobody please dont give me this t-shirt as a wedding gifts, I have already one at home ;o).
Friday 1 May 2009
Greatest invention of humankind?
Probably cooperation. The first human being who had the idea that it is actually better if you cooperate and not kill each other, should be awarded for this very idea of cooperation.
Tuesday 13 January 2009
Wise man said...
The more you know and think about things, the more difficult it is to answer even the simplest and stupidest questions.
Oh. The wise man is me :o).
Oh. The wise man is me :o).
The Art of Politics, The Politics of Art
Well let us compare three historical political systems and their connection to art. It would be nazism, communism and democracy.
In nazism the politics is being aesthetizated (see Leni Riefenstahl and her Triump of the Will). In communism you have the politization of art. (Normally you have paintings of this genre during the history of art such as this:
but in communistic "social-realism" instead of the bottle of wine there would be sub-machine gun, instead of the jar there would be a hat of army officer, and instead of the eggs with the knife there would be a sweaty uniform of the army officer).
In democracy you can do anything you want, but if it does not produce enough revenues, you are fucked. So now the money is the crucial thing.
In nazism the politician is always standing there looking down on the people and looking like I am the boss here and he is never clapping the hands (again see the movie by Leni Riefenstahl).
In communism, the guy standing there on the platform is always clapping the hands with others even if he is the one who is speaking (you could say that he is clapping to himself, but the message is: "I am clapping WITH you, I am one of you..." even if he naturally is not one of us. He is just another form of horrible dictator).
In democracy you do not see such prefabricated images of politicians anymore (well you see bit of them during elections), but on the contrary you also see a massive amount of material about the politicians which would be impossible to see during nazism or communism. Such as that Clinton was being sucked off by Lewinski, Prince Charles having an affair and all of other nasty details you would probably do not want to see, because they are very intimate and people normally tend to keep em private, because that is where they belong, to privacy.
And all of this above is what was on my mind today.
In nazism the politics is being aesthetizated (see Leni Riefenstahl and her Triump of the Will). In communism you have the politization of art. (Normally you have paintings of this genre during the history of art such as this:
but in communistic "social-realism" instead of the bottle of wine there would be sub-machine gun, instead of the jar there would be a hat of army officer, and instead of the eggs with the knife there would be a sweaty uniform of the army officer).In democracy you can do anything you want, but if it does not produce enough revenues, you are fucked. So now the money is the crucial thing.
In nazism the politician is always standing there looking down on the people and looking like I am the boss here and he is never clapping the hands (again see the movie by Leni Riefenstahl).
In communism, the guy standing there on the platform is always clapping the hands with others even if he is the one who is speaking (you could say that he is clapping to himself, but the message is: "I am clapping WITH you, I am one of you..." even if he naturally is not one of us. He is just another form of horrible dictator).
In democracy you do not see such prefabricated images of politicians anymore (well you see bit of them during elections), but on the contrary you also see a massive amount of material about the politicians which would be impossible to see during nazism or communism. Such as that Clinton was being sucked off by Lewinski, Prince Charles having an affair and all of other nasty details you would probably do not want to see, because they are very intimate and people normally tend to keep em private, because that is where they belong, to privacy.
And all of this above is what was on my mind today.
Sunday 4 January 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)