Dear Los Angeles,
I have a simple vision for LA that I think everyone should love; it involves bicycles. It begins with re-imagining as the bicycle paths along the rivers as bicycle highways. Then rezone the areas at along these highways and at their intersection to create "car-less" bike communities; allow for small shops restaurants and bars that serve the bikers that use the bike highway. Also necessary is the creation of easy on/off access ramps from these bike highways to these economic business zones and other intersecting bike highways.
One of the primary difficulties of creating a bike infrastructure on city streets is that it displaces lanes and parking spaces and people who depend upon cars and use those lanes and parking spaces understandably freak out. The police also freak out because they say it will increase emergency response times which freaks out old people who are worried about falling and not being able to get up, and it freaks out people who are worried about crime in their neighborhoods. All of this is completely and 100% understandable. But this is also why all these same groups should be interested in the idea of developing the bike paths along the river and developing bike communities along those paths because it's what requires the least amount of road displacement, and it also gets bikers off roads that drivers and emergency vehicles use. It's a win win win for all groups involved who move about the city.
It's also a win for the city itself. Yes it's good to get people to bike more rather than drive, but the real benefits comes to a city when people don't own cars. It's not just about filling up spaces in the roads, but it's also about filling the parking spaces. If people don't have cars, those spaces can be used by other cars or other things. By creating communities that support car-less life styles, the city can be more efficient with it's space. And by developing the areas along the bike highways and at their intersections, the city can be more economically productive.
It is also a win for the city because it is the most efficient in economic terms because most of the infrastructure already exists and is already being developed. There has been a significant amount of work to develop and improve and extend the bike paths along the river, but the designers aren't imagining these paths as bike highways. They only seem to think of them as "quality of life" improvements because wouldn't it be nice if people could leave the polluted congested dirt car worlds and bike along a river. The biggest cost would be construction the on/off ramps at the intersections, the bridges. But bridges designed for bikes are very different from bridged designed for cars and very large trucks. The bridges represent more of an opportunity, because it is very easy to design cool looking bridges that don't have to support massive amounts of weight. Bridges designed for bikes can be light, elegant and beautiful, and are easy to build. I suggest Los Angeles look to the Netherlands for inspiration on what is possible.
What's wrong with this idea? What prevents it from happening.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Francis Watts General Theory/Philosophy
I have to differentiate between the micro and macro; the particle and the field; object and context.
On the large scale, I'm pretty troubled by the state of things; politically economically, and philosophically. In the same manner that materials act differently at different scales, systems and organization cannot be scaled up either. And the systems of aggregation of power and control within our society are collapsing under their own weight. There is a vicious cycle occuring. The more things collapse, the more the systems seek power/control, hastening their collapse. Things seem to be speeding up. Frankly, the sooner the collapse, the better we all are. The sooner we can go back to more community based systems.
I just hope people wake up soon enough to prevent the psychopaths that run the military industrial complex from carrying out their plan to start world war 3 - something I think a lot of powerful people are working towards. Its basically the same script from WW1 with some ingredients from WW2 thrown in for good measure.
On the micro, I think of myself as a bit of an anarchist - although if any real anarchist met me, they would probably think of me as a pussy. I'm against institutions of power. I'm even against art museums - because they seek to dictate meaning. Meaning is personal. Also such institutions create an artificial separation of society between those who exist in the world of art, and those that don't.
But the institution I really have a beef with is violence - violence and fear. These are the tools used to control us as a population. Violence produces fear, fear shuts down or impairs our capacity for critical reasoning. We then fall back on emotional reactions which is easily predicted easily controlled.
I've been reading Einstein lately, and here is an appropriate quote from him: "In two weeks the sheeplike masses of any country can be worked up by the newspapers into such a state of excited fury that men are prepared to put on uniforms and kill and be killed, for the sake of the sordid ends of a few interested parties"
The way to fight this violence and fear is through the creation of Joy. The way to fight those that seek to be the arbiters of meaning is through having the ability to create personal meaning in the every day; the little things, as well as the big.
So on the micro scale - that of the individual, and that individual being me, the strategy is to disconnect and divest from these larger systems, become independent.
"Paint what you want and die happy" wrote Henry Miller. And another from Einstein; "A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy?"
At least thats the theory. Implementation is a work in progress...
some practical things; I currently live in Echo Park, but that changes soon. My bicycle is my primary mode of transportation. I enjoy dive bars in the afternoon. quiet mornings with a coffee, and a book or sketchbook. I tend to stay in on weekends. I don't generally enjoy participating in larger herd-like activities. Being a spectator in life is boring.
I want to become a better cook. I want to start playing the guitar and piano again. I want to start a band. I've started to learn how to sow. I bought a machine recently. I even started to learn how to knit this past weekend. I want to make things out of wood. I want to make things out of metal. I want to make small things and big things. I want to make things with motors. I want to make things that defy gravity.
On the large scale, I'm pretty troubled by the state of things; politically economically, and philosophically. In the same manner that materials act differently at different scales, systems and organization cannot be scaled up either. And the systems of aggregation of power and control within our society are collapsing under their own weight. There is a vicious cycle occuring. The more things collapse, the more the systems seek power/control, hastening their collapse. Things seem to be speeding up. Frankly, the sooner the collapse, the better we all are. The sooner we can go back to more community based systems.
I just hope people wake up soon enough to prevent the psychopaths that run the military industrial complex from carrying out their plan to start world war 3 - something I think a lot of powerful people are working towards. Its basically the same script from WW1 with some ingredients from WW2 thrown in for good measure.
On the micro, I think of myself as a bit of an anarchist - although if any real anarchist met me, they would probably think of me as a pussy. I'm against institutions of power. I'm even against art museums - because they seek to dictate meaning. Meaning is personal. Also such institutions create an artificial separation of society between those who exist in the world of art, and those that don't.
But the institution I really have a beef with is violence - violence and fear. These are the tools used to control us as a population. Violence produces fear, fear shuts down or impairs our capacity for critical reasoning. We then fall back on emotional reactions which is easily predicted easily controlled.
I've been reading Einstein lately, and here is an appropriate quote from him: "In two weeks the sheeplike masses of any country can be worked up by the newspapers into such a state of excited fury that men are prepared to put on uniforms and kill and be killed, for the sake of the sordid ends of a few interested parties"
The way to fight this violence and fear is through the creation of Joy. The way to fight those that seek to be the arbiters of meaning is through having the ability to create personal meaning in the every day; the little things, as well as the big.
So on the micro scale - that of the individual, and that individual being me, the strategy is to disconnect and divest from these larger systems, become independent.
"Paint what you want and die happy" wrote Henry Miller. And another from Einstein; "A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy?"
At least thats the theory. Implementation is a work in progress...
some practical things; I currently live in Echo Park, but that changes soon. My bicycle is my primary mode of transportation. I enjoy dive bars in the afternoon. quiet mornings with a coffee, and a book or sketchbook. I tend to stay in on weekends. I don't generally enjoy participating in larger herd-like activities. Being a spectator in life is boring.
I want to become a better cook. I want to start playing the guitar and piano again. I want to start a band. I've started to learn how to sow. I bought a machine recently. I even started to learn how to knit this past weekend. I want to make things out of wood. I want to make things out of metal. I want to make small things and big things. I want to make things with motors. I want to make things that defy gravity.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
NEWEST THOUGHTS on gravity
Its all very simple. What we first must understand is that there is very little difference between religion and science. both provide narratives that explain observation, how the world works.
Today physicts think that there is this stuff called "Dark matter." The reason they beleive such a thing exists is becuase Observation does not match with Theory. That theory, being Einstein's. So rather than saying, Einstein is wrong, physicists have invented this new idea - "Dark Matter"
I too beleive that Dark Matter exist. But lets delve further. Physicists explain that "dark matter" is this invisible stuff that fills the universe. while they cannot see it, they know its there because it has a gravitational effect on things that they can see. But lets do a quick thought experiment. Lets say it does exist, but instead of being only in certain areas, lets say there is an even distribution. Would we be able to "see" it? No. becuase the gravitational pull would be equal from all directions.
So what is the more logical conclusion, that dark matter exists ONLY where we can detect it? or is it EVERYWHERE, and it exerts a gravitational pull on objects when its distribution becomes non-uniform.
The idea that there is this "stuff" that fills the universe is not a new one. Maxwell, as part of his unification of electricity, magnetism, and light proposed an idea that there was this stuff called "eather" that filled the universe. His logic was simple. Energy needs a medium through wich to propogate.
But this idea was tossed aside for 3 big reasons. One, it didn't work with Newtons theory of the universe. If the planets rotating around the sun were moving through eather, it would produce drag, and the planets would slowly decrease momentum until they fell into the sun.
Two, it didn't work with observation. An experiment performed measuring the speed of light in different directions did not show any difference. Its called the michealson-Morely experiment. The idea behind the experiment was that the light moving along the path of the earth's velocity, and the light moving perpendicular would result in a difference in speed. they actually FOUND a difference, but it was not anything near what theory predicted. This confused scientists for 20 years.
Then came Einstein. He provided a narrative that did not require this stuff called eather. Space was empty.
But what if Dark matter is Eather? It seems if it is matter, we should start with the assumption that it behaves as matter does. So would it also not rotate? just as the planets? Einstein theory asks us to image that the underlying fabric of the universe is space/time. we visualize this by imagining a surface that is elastic like a trampoline. The larger the mass of an object, the more depression it makes. The sun is like a big bowling ball sitting on this surface. the earth is rolling around it, continually "falling" towards the sun. But its only a way of "visualizing" the idea, its not ACTUALLY how it works. because if it was, the planets would be rolling. And they are not. they rotate.
but If dark matter exists, and its EVERYWHERE. and it acts like matter, could the analogy of a whirlpool be better? after all, this would also explain the ROTATION of the planets. But this still doesn't totally explain things. Why does matter rotate around the sun?
Physicists beleive that there is a protective energy sheild that surrounds our solar system and protects it. This sheild is called the heliosphere. But What if we think of the heliosphere not as a protective sheild, but as a container...a container of dark matter.
If we take a bucket of water and rotate it, the rotation creates a whirlpool. If the heliosphere containing dark matter is rotating like the bucket, this would explain the whirlpool effect.
Of course, if the dark matter is spinning because of the container its counterintuitive that the center would be moving at the the greatest speed, and this is true. but a couple things are happening, but a little harder to explain. the outer dark matter is moving faster becuase it is being dragged by the container. and as it gets closer to the center, it actually slows down. BUT the density is increasing. the individual particles are being pressed together, and like an ice skater that brings his/her arms in, it they begin to spin faster. momentum in space is transfered to angular momentum. Its like using a mixer when baking, the batter gets sucked into the spinning blades.
this system also explains dark energy, or what we perceive to be the force causing the outer galaxies in our universe to speed up. We can't see it, but angular momentum is being transfered to momentum in space.
I think the better way to understand dark matter is to call it atmosphere. After all, NASA now talks about Space weather in regards to the sun's activity. they talk about solar wind. If this is the case, then we can start talking about BERNOILLI.
After all Einstein talked about Pressure as well. He discovered that E=mc^2, and understood that energy contributes to gravity. If the velocity of the dark matter is whirling faster the closer to the center, According to bernoulli, this creates a lower pressure, causing things to "fall" towards the lower pressure.
Whirlpools look like galaxies look like hurricains. This doesn't just happen. But these are all physical representations of the same underlying system that we cannot see. the magnetic field of a magnet looks like the magnetic field of the earth. what if the heliosphere "looks the same?" what if our galaxy has a field that looks the same. what if the universe has a field that "looks the same." what if an atom's energy field looks the same.
more to come...I'm in a public library (computer down for repairs), and my time is up...
Today physicts think that there is this stuff called "Dark matter." The reason they beleive such a thing exists is becuase Observation does not match with Theory. That theory, being Einstein's. So rather than saying, Einstein is wrong, physicists have invented this new idea - "Dark Matter"
I too beleive that Dark Matter exist. But lets delve further. Physicists explain that "dark matter" is this invisible stuff that fills the universe. while they cannot see it, they know its there because it has a gravitational effect on things that they can see. But lets do a quick thought experiment. Lets say it does exist, but instead of being only in certain areas, lets say there is an even distribution. Would we be able to "see" it? No. becuase the gravitational pull would be equal from all directions.
So what is the more logical conclusion, that dark matter exists ONLY where we can detect it? or is it EVERYWHERE, and it exerts a gravitational pull on objects when its distribution becomes non-uniform.
The idea that there is this "stuff" that fills the universe is not a new one. Maxwell, as part of his unification of electricity, magnetism, and light proposed an idea that there was this stuff called "eather" that filled the universe. His logic was simple. Energy needs a medium through wich to propogate.
But this idea was tossed aside for 3 big reasons. One, it didn't work with Newtons theory of the universe. If the planets rotating around the sun were moving through eather, it would produce drag, and the planets would slowly decrease momentum until they fell into the sun.
Two, it didn't work with observation. An experiment performed measuring the speed of light in different directions did not show any difference. Its called the michealson-Morely experiment. The idea behind the experiment was that the light moving along the path of the earth's velocity, and the light moving perpendicular would result in a difference in speed. they actually FOUND a difference, but it was not anything near what theory predicted. This confused scientists for 20 years.
Then came Einstein. He provided a narrative that did not require this stuff called eather. Space was empty.
But what if Dark matter is Eather? It seems if it is matter, we should start with the assumption that it behaves as matter does. So would it also not rotate? just as the planets? Einstein theory asks us to image that the underlying fabric of the universe is space/time. we visualize this by imagining a surface that is elastic like a trampoline. The larger the mass of an object, the more depression it makes. The sun is like a big bowling ball sitting on this surface. the earth is rolling around it, continually "falling" towards the sun. But its only a way of "visualizing" the idea, its not ACTUALLY how it works. because if it was, the planets would be rolling. And they are not. they rotate.
but If dark matter exists, and its EVERYWHERE. and it acts like matter, could the analogy of a whirlpool be better? after all, this would also explain the ROTATION of the planets. But this still doesn't totally explain things. Why does matter rotate around the sun?
Physicists beleive that there is a protective energy sheild that surrounds our solar system and protects it. This sheild is called the heliosphere. But What if we think of the heliosphere not as a protective sheild, but as a container...a container of dark matter.
If we take a bucket of water and rotate it, the rotation creates a whirlpool. If the heliosphere containing dark matter is rotating like the bucket, this would explain the whirlpool effect.
Of course, if the dark matter is spinning because of the container its counterintuitive that the center would be moving at the the greatest speed, and this is true. but a couple things are happening, but a little harder to explain. the outer dark matter is moving faster becuase it is being dragged by the container. and as it gets closer to the center, it actually slows down. BUT the density is increasing. the individual particles are being pressed together, and like an ice skater that brings his/her arms in, it they begin to spin faster. momentum in space is transfered to angular momentum. Its like using a mixer when baking, the batter gets sucked into the spinning blades.
this system also explains dark energy, or what we perceive to be the force causing the outer galaxies in our universe to speed up. We can't see it, but angular momentum is being transfered to momentum in space.
I think the better way to understand dark matter is to call it atmosphere. After all, NASA now talks about Space weather in regards to the sun's activity. they talk about solar wind. If this is the case, then we can start talking about BERNOILLI.
After all Einstein talked about Pressure as well. He discovered that E=mc^2, and understood that energy contributes to gravity. If the velocity of the dark matter is whirling faster the closer to the center, According to bernoulli, this creates a lower pressure, causing things to "fall" towards the lower pressure.
Whirlpools look like galaxies look like hurricains. This doesn't just happen. But these are all physical representations of the same underlying system that we cannot see. the magnetic field of a magnet looks like the magnetic field of the earth. what if the heliosphere "looks the same?" what if our galaxy has a field that looks the same. what if the universe has a field that "looks the same." what if an atom's energy field looks the same.
more to come...I'm in a public library (computer down for repairs), and my time is up...
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Open Letter to Albert Einstein
Uhm... excuse me Albert...professor Einstein, may I speak with you? I have the utmost respect for you as the artist and scienctist that you were, but I must now respectfully inform you that you were wrong. Your standard model does indeed predict the physical world around us, but so did ptolemy's system of planetary rotation.
If you will, sir, I would like to present an alternative model. one that is simpler to explain, and actually, quite like the old one. If I may I would like to begin with your ideas on the fabric of space/time. Its wrong. According to you, it is the gravitational forces that curve the fabric of space/time. and objects are rolling along a surface, suspended between the gravitational forces and centripital forces.
We beleive this curvature of space/time to be true because we can see its effect on light from distant stars as it passes very large objects. An effect called gravitational lensing bends the lights, creationg distorition. hmm...okay makes sense.
But Albert, have you ever heard of this stuff called "dark matter?" Physisict tioday tell us there is this stuff that neither emits, or reflects light. We know it exists because of its gravitational effects on objects. Specficially - it's effect shows up in the bullet cluster, which is 2 galaxies colliding, or rather 2 galaxies collided. And when these two galaxies collided the large objects passed by/through with little resistent, while the gasses all got mixed up in the middle. But it turns out densities of gravity do not match up with your theories. Your theory states that the distribution of gravitational forces should be centered in the center of these two colleded galaxies. But it shows up on the edges, where the larger objects are. So the assumption is that there is this additional matter that we cannot see that is responsible for the additional gravitational effects. But we think we know it accumulates around large objects, and is everywhere in the universe...in fact 80% of the matter is made up of this stuff.
But what is dark matter? Atmosphere. or in your day it was referred to as aether. Now hear me out. Its the physisit who say there is this stuff, not me. Its the physist who say that we cannot see it, and that we only know of its existence through its gravitation effects. But what if there is an atmosphere of this stuff that is evenly distributed throughout the universe? if that were the case, we would not be able to see its gravitational effects. Of course it is matter, or lets just assume that for the time being - so it too is attracted to large objects. As a result, what we see as the gravitational effects of dark matter, is the variation of atmospheric density.
See where I am going with this? So if it is the case that the atmosphere has a higher density, you don't need some new crazy idea of curvature of space/time. Its simply the same effect of early morning sun-light passing through a glass of water sitting on your kitchen table. Variations in density effect how light moves. Whats thought of as this crazy idea of gravitation lensing isn't.
I know right? well there is more. Can we talk about time? because you kind of are wrong about that too. On some level, I'm sure time as some crazy shit going on. but really, what we are talking about is our perception of time. If we take a ruler and stretch it, that doesn't mean we've distorted space. and just because a clock goes slower, doesn't mean we have distorted time.
I would like to begin with a discussion on angular momentum. Take a bicycle wheel and spin it while holding it with both hands (on both sides) sitting on a swivel chair. Holding it parallele to the ground will produce a rotation of you on the chair in the opposite direction of the spinning wheel. flip the wheel 180 degress (referse the rotation) and your rotation reverses.
I'm not sure how physisicts explain this phenomenon. If you ask me its pretty strange behavior. And if you probe beyond the basic explanation of the transfer of angular mometum from the wheel to you, physisict will look down their noses and say that it has to do with stuff in quantum mechanics that you are too fucking stupid to understand.
I agree - it is the transfer of angular moment, but how? Its internal, but how? well, the spinning wheel causes the atoms and/or any subatomic particles to spin - its a chain reaction throught the amrs, and finally works its way throught the whole, resulting the whole (you spinning). I can explain this in better detail, but for now the important idea to take from this is this idea of spinning. Everything spins. and whether its spinning clockwise or counterclockise is only relative to your position.
ughh...I tire. this is a rough draft. But the point I am trying to slowly lead to has to do with the indea of Force, and the difference between internal forces and external forces. We move through space because of a transfer of angular momentum of subatomic particles. Our subatomic particles are rotating, and the faster we move, the slower they rotate...until they don't rotate anymore....this is the speed of light. Our most accurate calculations of time are made through the use of an atomic clock. that clock is based on the rotation of the atom, which simply is transfering its interior angular momentum to the movment of the whole. and if we are moving with the clock our interior angular momentum slows down. and becuase our cognative perception is based on the rate at which these things spin, we don't notice if the clock speeds up or slows down, becuast it also adjust our perception.
Its not smart, its creative and I know you understand the difference between those two.
If you will, sir, I would like to present an alternative model. one that is simpler to explain, and actually, quite like the old one. If I may I would like to begin with your ideas on the fabric of space/time. Its wrong. According to you, it is the gravitational forces that curve the fabric of space/time. and objects are rolling along a surface, suspended between the gravitational forces and centripital forces.
We beleive this curvature of space/time to be true because we can see its effect on light from distant stars as it passes very large objects. An effect called gravitational lensing bends the lights, creationg distorition. hmm...okay makes sense.
But Albert, have you ever heard of this stuff called "dark matter?" Physisict tioday tell us there is this stuff that neither emits, or reflects light. We know it exists because of its gravitational effects on objects. Specficially - it's effect shows up in the bullet cluster, which is 2 galaxies colliding, or rather 2 galaxies collided. And when these two galaxies collided the large objects passed by/through with little resistent, while the gasses all got mixed up in the middle. But it turns out densities of gravity do not match up with your theories. Your theory states that the distribution of gravitational forces should be centered in the center of these two colleded galaxies. But it shows up on the edges, where the larger objects are. So the assumption is that there is this additional matter that we cannot see that is responsible for the additional gravitational effects. But we think we know it accumulates around large objects, and is everywhere in the universe...in fact 80% of the matter is made up of this stuff.
But what is dark matter? Atmosphere. or in your day it was referred to as aether. Now hear me out. Its the physisit who say there is this stuff, not me. Its the physist who say that we cannot see it, and that we only know of its existence through its gravitation effects. But what if there is an atmosphere of this stuff that is evenly distributed throughout the universe? if that were the case, we would not be able to see its gravitational effects. Of course it is matter, or lets just assume that for the time being - so it too is attracted to large objects. As a result, what we see as the gravitational effects of dark matter, is the variation of atmospheric density.
See where I am going with this? So if it is the case that the atmosphere has a higher density, you don't need some new crazy idea of curvature of space/time. Its simply the same effect of early morning sun-light passing through a glass of water sitting on your kitchen table. Variations in density effect how light moves. Whats thought of as this crazy idea of gravitation lensing isn't.
I know right? well there is more. Can we talk about time? because you kind of are wrong about that too. On some level, I'm sure time as some crazy shit going on. but really, what we are talking about is our perception of time. If we take a ruler and stretch it, that doesn't mean we've distorted space. and just because a clock goes slower, doesn't mean we have distorted time.
I would like to begin with a discussion on angular momentum. Take a bicycle wheel and spin it while holding it with both hands (on both sides) sitting on a swivel chair. Holding it parallele to the ground will produce a rotation of you on the chair in the opposite direction of the spinning wheel. flip the wheel 180 degress (referse the rotation) and your rotation reverses.
I'm not sure how physisicts explain this phenomenon. If you ask me its pretty strange behavior. And if you probe beyond the basic explanation of the transfer of angular mometum from the wheel to you, physisict will look down their noses and say that it has to do with stuff in quantum mechanics that you are too fucking stupid to understand.
I agree - it is the transfer of angular moment, but how? Its internal, but how? well, the spinning wheel causes the atoms and/or any subatomic particles to spin - its a chain reaction throught the amrs, and finally works its way throught the whole, resulting the whole (you spinning). I can explain this in better detail, but for now the important idea to take from this is this idea of spinning. Everything spins. and whether its spinning clockwise or counterclockise is only relative to your position.
ughh...I tire. this is a rough draft. But the point I am trying to slowly lead to has to do with the indea of Force, and the difference between internal forces and external forces. We move through space because of a transfer of angular momentum of subatomic particles. Our subatomic particles are rotating, and the faster we move, the slower they rotate...until they don't rotate anymore....this is the speed of light. Our most accurate calculations of time are made through the use of an atomic clock. that clock is based on the rotation of the atom, which simply is transfering its interior angular momentum to the movment of the whole. and if we are moving with the clock our interior angular momentum slows down. and becuase our cognative perception is based on the rate at which these things spin, we don't notice if the clock speeds up or slows down, becuast it also adjust our perception.
Its not smart, its creative and I know you understand the difference between those two.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM - or - GROUND CONTROL, ITS MAJOR TOM. THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG
One of the big problems is the speed at which society moves. For many, they have adapted. But there method of adaptment as been to eliminate the questioning portion of the process. They can merely act on instinct - stimulus/response.
Another problem is the media, and how it operates. In terms of news, it is only natural that because the speed of society is moving quickly, the speed of news would move quickly. Even if it wanted to, it would not have the resources to keep up. Of course that is not its intention. Those awake can see that the media simply acts as Public Relations for corporations. The Film industry is the same way.
Our education system is horrific. It is not about critical thinking, its not about creativity. Its about conditionig. Its about control. Its never so much about any specific ideology, but that it is because it is a specific ideology. It doesn't matter which one. But the opposing ideology is always swept under the rug. The result is simply conditioning to accept authority, a top down view of the world. And slowly over time on a generational scale we are loosing our ability to think critically, we are loosing our creativity, we are loosing our humanity.
Fear is a major driving force behind both the increased speed and shutting down of critical and creative thinking. Our human senses work through registering of change. Its not that we become acclimated, but that we are no longer registering change. This is true with objects that dissapear in your periferal vision if you stare at something. this is true with atmospheric temperature, this is true with smells, and even touch. Every sense. So we do not sense the Fear that permeates every aspect of our lives. but it is a subtle consistent force. Every time an event happens the fear level in the society shoots up. over reacting? probably. in most cases. But when the the event passes, the level of fear never drops to pre event level. And let us not forget the medias constant drum-beat of all things that can/will kill us. This atmosphere of fear permeates our daily lives like a thick layer of molassis that covers our experiences and emotions. the cracks are beginning to show. the cracks have been showing for quites some time now. Ironically this is the reason we are told not to pay attention to the cracks. Slowly...very slowly the world has been going insane.
Another problem is the media, and how it operates. In terms of news, it is only natural that because the speed of society is moving quickly, the speed of news would move quickly. Even if it wanted to, it would not have the resources to keep up. Of course that is not its intention. Those awake can see that the media simply acts as Public Relations for corporations. The Film industry is the same way.
Our education system is horrific. It is not about critical thinking, its not about creativity. Its about conditionig. Its about control. Its never so much about any specific ideology, but that it is because it is a specific ideology. It doesn't matter which one. But the opposing ideology is always swept under the rug. The result is simply conditioning to accept authority, a top down view of the world. And slowly over time on a generational scale we are loosing our ability to think critically, we are loosing our creativity, we are loosing our humanity.
Fear is a major driving force behind both the increased speed and shutting down of critical and creative thinking. Our human senses work through registering of change. Its not that we become acclimated, but that we are no longer registering change. This is true with objects that dissapear in your periferal vision if you stare at something. this is true with atmospheric temperature, this is true with smells, and even touch. Every sense. So we do not sense the Fear that permeates every aspect of our lives. but it is a subtle consistent force. Every time an event happens the fear level in the society shoots up. over reacting? probably. in most cases. But when the the event passes, the level of fear never drops to pre event level. And let us not forget the medias constant drum-beat of all things that can/will kill us. This atmosphere of fear permeates our daily lives like a thick layer of molassis that covers our experiences and emotions. the cracks are beginning to show. the cracks have been showing for quites some time now. Ironically this is the reason we are told not to pay attention to the cracks. Slowly...very slowly the world has been going insane.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
John Maynard
I go back and forth thinking about Economic Theory and other things. My major in college WAS Economics. And now that I write, I ponder the difference between "Economics" and "Economic Theory"
We were not taught "theories" we were taught facts...Economics. Curious. And when I think back to what we were taught, I recall we began with Keyens, then moved to neo-blablabla - and basically told this is what is believed to be true now. And not other possible realities were mentioned. The resulting effect was to produce a lack of critical thought. memorization and regurgitation.
But I have been going back as of late, and for obvious reasons. and analyzing that which I was asked to memorize and regurgitate. It may be needless to say, but I have become critical of the theories with which we used to "oversee" our economy. We all understand that trade is good...or maybe we don't - I do not wish to exclude anyone. It is the law of comparative advantage that explains it. If you (the reader)and I (the writer) both manufacture rubber balls, and breed cocks - we can both enjoy the amount of cock and balls we produce. However, if you are better at making balls (on a cost per unit basis), and I am better breeding cocks, it is the law of comparative advantage that suggests that if we both focus on our individual expertise, the result is more cock and balls for all.
I have come to understand this to be naive for several reasons - first of all, it assumes equanimity and magnanimity. In reality, our reliance of these things is not equal, if cocks are more important to you than balls are to me, this creates an unequal relationship. And while on the static page, written in black and white might still seem okay, it misses an understanding that over time this relationship of trading cock for balls is predicated on the relationship between you and I. And that relationship, no matter how strong at any particular moment in time, invariable changes over time - and when there is an unequal dependence on cock and balls between us, it is unrealistic to expect that exploitation will not occur as a result.
So in reality what is going on when we talk about this "law of comparative advantage" it is not "more for everyone" - it is simply an exchange - you are taking on added risk, in exchange for a lower price and more product. It may, in fact, be a zero sum game.
And this is not a case against trade, this is about specialization. It is risk. And risk itself is not bad either - in fact it is good, but only to a point. Risk is not meant to be avoided, it is meant to be accepted. Free markets are chaotic, free markets have risk. But risk is not mitigated by shoving it off to someone else. that encourages more risky behavior - although even to call it risky behavior is a gross mis-categorization. "Risk-less" behavior, is more like it, because the risk is not born by the perpetrator. It is for this reason, I question the very nature of INSURANCE - it encourages this "risk-less" behavior. If NO ONE had health insurance - if it did not exist at all, people would be more careful. they would take a more active role in their health. they would eat better, exercise more - not live under power lines, not accept fluoride in the water. (It is after all, a poising) and monsanto would not be getting away with what they are getting away with.
Of course if we had true free markets that were not regulated, companies the size of monsanto could not exist. It is the cheap supply of money that corporations get from our system of banking that allow them to grow so large. without that, companies of such scale would exist in much the same way as those newer elements on the periodic table - we bombarded this molecule with protons, and for a split second it became something else, but it was so unstable, it broke apart. Central banking encourages this "risk-less" behavior as well.
whatever, I think I've digressed. Risk is great, but it cannot be passed on. It can be mitigated, but the method of mitigation is that of awareness and preparedness. And you cannot enslave entire populations in order to reduce the risk of higher wages. you cannot force entire populations to be consumers of anything.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Figment Proposal
This is a proposal for figment. It is meant to be considered as a sketch. The gears are used to spin around a central axis. The theory is that this central rotational energy (???) will produce rotation of the the arms. You spin it manually, and then try and sink it into the hole without getting hit by the vortex. It is obviously dangerous, becuase I have no idea where the golf ball will fly off to.
I have no idea if this will work - I also plan on making a version that has lights and is not a golf hole.
Oh and PS - I must credit the Music. it is from the Akira soundtrack. The song is "Dollhouse Polyphony"
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
The Theory of Everything
My current art project
I will attempt to explain things simply. To begin with, forget everything you "think" you understand about science. Most of what you know is Ptolemaic in nature. There is no such thing as gravity. There are no such things as protons neutrons or electrons - no quarks - and no gravitons. Only "stuff" that is infinitely dividable into self similar parts. This "stuff" has spin - either clockwise, or counterclockwise. But the spin is a bit more complicated than it sounds. It is a system that involves the vortex. We understand fractals only in the context of shapes - and forget that it is the underlying systems that generate the shapes. It is the system of the vortex that is the fractal system explaining the universe.
I will attempt to explain things simply. To begin with, forget everything you "think" you understand about science. Most of what you know is Ptolemaic in nature. There is no such thing as gravity. There are no such things as protons neutrons or electrons - no quarks - and no gravitons. Only "stuff" that is infinitely dividable into self similar parts. This "stuff" has spin - either clockwise, or counterclockwise. But the spin is a bit more complicated than it sounds. It is a system that involves the vortex. We understand fractals only in the context of shapes - and forget that it is the underlying systems that generate the shapes. It is the system of the vortex that is the fractal system explaining the universe.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Goodbye Rome
Looking back, I was a dullard in collage. Actually I’ve been a dullard much of my life. But no more, so its okay now. and its this new perspective on life that allows me to understand how much of a dullard I was…of course, it is only a matter of perspective. Afterall, maybe now I am even more of a dullard that I was before – certainly less sane of course.
Lately, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the underlying theory behind the purpose of running a national deficit. In collage, I majored in economics, of all things, and I recall the phrase “a debtor nation is a better nation,” and while I don’t recall the logic behind this rhyme, I remember there was one. The theory being running a deficit makes us a stronger country.
I realize now looking back that pretty much the whole of college involved very little critical thinking. It was about just getting the answers and hitting the marks. Conditioning. But that’s the system. There is no dissenting viewpoint presented, so what is presented as fact, and you are not asked to question anything. My Civil war History class was the only one that challenged me to think. At the time it made me a little uncomfortable, but I didn’t understand why. Now I do.
Like I said, at the time I was a dullard. Now I am not. But the larger point was that I wasn’t alone, in fact, EVERYONE was the same way. Mindless drones. Chomsky is right when he says the Educated are the most indoctrinated. And I state that as a previous member of the indoctrinated.
So looking back, I realize how ludicrous a proposition that was. The type of power that provided on the scale of society is similar to that of the sweaty balding guy at the strip club in order to get attention from the strippers. And as far as the individual is concerned within the context of the larger hole, it really is running up a bill and leaving it for your children to pay. Morpheus was fucking right when he said that we are borne into a cage that we cannot touch, see, or smell. We are born owing money, not to the government, but to banks, in the form of interest payments.
This isn’t about the recent federal bailout of the financial system; it only caused my awareness to spike. The very system is not only corrupt it is unsustainable. And it is because we have created a nation of dullards, and we are so far gone that for most, the inability to even consider this as a possible truth, in part or whole, is evidence. “America is Great!” - “Freedom!” blablabla. Can you be more indoctrinated? If you take a serious look at the history of the United (and not the one you were taught in high school. Don’t fucking kid yourself that what is going on in Texas right now is an isolated incident) you will find it hard to take such statements seriously/ But America is nothing special, this is the history of ALL nations, with the same story lines of the struggle for control between the individual and the institutions. The story is always the same.
Rome is burning my friends, and I don’t think there is anything I can do to stop it, so I am going to stock up on graham crackers, marshmallows, and chocolate bars and make smores and sing and dance and laugh and play while Rome burns. You did this. You did this.
Lately, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the underlying theory behind the purpose of running a national deficit. In collage, I majored in economics, of all things, and I recall the phrase “a debtor nation is a better nation,” and while I don’t recall the logic behind this rhyme, I remember there was one. The theory being running a deficit makes us a stronger country.
I realize now looking back that pretty much the whole of college involved very little critical thinking. It was about just getting the answers and hitting the marks. Conditioning. But that’s the system. There is no dissenting viewpoint presented, so what is presented as fact, and you are not asked to question anything. My Civil war History class was the only one that challenged me to think. At the time it made me a little uncomfortable, but I didn’t understand why. Now I do.
Like I said, at the time I was a dullard. Now I am not. But the larger point was that I wasn’t alone, in fact, EVERYONE was the same way. Mindless drones. Chomsky is right when he says the Educated are the most indoctrinated. And I state that as a previous member of the indoctrinated.
So looking back, I realize how ludicrous a proposition that was. The type of power that provided on the scale of society is similar to that of the sweaty balding guy at the strip club in order to get attention from the strippers. And as far as the individual is concerned within the context of the larger hole, it really is running up a bill and leaving it for your children to pay. Morpheus was fucking right when he said that we are borne into a cage that we cannot touch, see, or smell. We are born owing money, not to the government, but to banks, in the form of interest payments.
This isn’t about the recent federal bailout of the financial system; it only caused my awareness to spike. The very system is not only corrupt it is unsustainable. And it is because we have created a nation of dullards, and we are so far gone that for most, the inability to even consider this as a possible truth, in part or whole, is evidence. “America is Great!” - “Freedom!” blablabla. Can you be more indoctrinated? If you take a serious look at the history of the United (and not the one you were taught in high school. Don’t fucking kid yourself that what is going on in Texas right now is an isolated incident) you will find it hard to take such statements seriously/ But America is nothing special, this is the history of ALL nations, with the same story lines of the struggle for control between the individual and the institutions. The story is always the same.
Rome is burning my friends, and I don’t think there is anything I can do to stop it, so I am going to stock up on graham crackers, marshmallows, and chocolate bars and make smores and sing and dance and laugh and play while Rome burns. You did this. You did this.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Does Gravity Really Exist?
INTRODUCTION
I can't believe that I'm the only one out there that has this question...and I am completely serious. Now I'm not saying there is some grand illusion going on, and that we are being deceived into believing what goes up must come down. What I am saying that what we believe to be gravity, is actually something else entirely. And that something else is magnetism - and what holds us to the earth is not this thing called gravity, but magnetism.
GRAVITY
Let us first think about what we know about gravity. we know it exists because of its effect on large objects in space, that attract each other. but any physicist will tell you that we don't know anything beyond that. In fact, this is the purpose of the Hadron super collider that has recently begun on and off operations. This multi-billion dollar facility was constructed with a central goal in mind - to find evidence of "the gravaton," which, according to string theory is a vibrating string. By smashing high energy protons, together and measuring the release of energy, they hope that they will find a loss of energy. this loss of energy they will say is proof that the gravaton existed, and that it is now in another dimension.
MAGNETISM
Most of what we understand about magnetism comes from the standard 2 dimensional diagram of North/South poles showing field lines. Many of us can also understand and visualize the doughnut shaped magnetic field of earth. as well and this makes sense.
But its what is really going on at the subatomic level that creates larger magnetic fields. In 1910 the Einstein-de Haas effect was the observation of a relationship between angular momentum and the spin of elementary particles.
The diagram of the magnet showing "+" and "-" on either ends is wrong. the electrons don't group up at one end at all. What is happening, is all the elementary particles are rotating - and they aren't just rotating like a compass in a 2-dimensional way - they are rotating as spheres around multiple axis. and its the alignment of the spins that creates polarization. Its not a grouping of these two things at either end, its the same material, all facing the same way.
In addition to angular movement, linear movement creates a magnetic field - here we call it an electromagnetic field. It is this movement that makes electric motors possible.
One explanation for the earths magnetic field is know as the dynamo theory. It describes the process of convection of our outer core as the process behind the field.
EINSTEINS THEORY.
Einstein believed that there was this one fabric called space time, which acts like an elastic 2-dimensional surface. We are all familiar with animation of earth sitting on a trampoline and the moon rolling around on that same surface. And we can even visualize this idea within the context of our solar system, and maybe even galaxy. But when I look at the famous images of our universe taken by hubble, we see all these galaxies resting on these surfaces that are turned which way and that, breaks down for me.
Is there one continuous surface that is crumbled into a 3 dimensional space? According to Einstein, it is the mass that creates the warping of this 2-dimensional plane. But what causes the orientation of the plane itself? what creates the axis of rotation for that center of gravity.
Could it be that what is warping the space IS the rotation that causes the magnetic field? Its seems a much simpler explanation than einstein.
2D vs 3D
One of the main sources of confusion I think has to do with our understanding rooted in 2 dimensional diagrams. For example, when we talk about light waves, and sound waves, with think of of them 2-dimensionally, looking at it from the side - an elevation, as it were. this wavelenght has an amplitude and frequency.
However, if you begin to think of this wavelenght existing in the 3-dimensional world, you will get something quite different. Imagine, taking that 2-dimensional piece of paper, rotate it 90 degrees and look straight AT the light wave. What do you think it will look like? will it stay in the 2 dimensional world, and appear as a line going up and down?
or perhaps you will begin to see a rotating coil with a radius and a rate of rotation in place of amplitude and frequency. A very simple real world way of visualizing this by holding a string at either end and twirling it in such a way that you get multiple "bulges". If you are able to look at this directly from the side, it will look like a 2-dimensional understanding of a wave.
Another example would be dropping a stone into still water. Its the assumption that the resultant waves rippling out are concentric circles. But could it be something different entirely? Could the ripples be a spiral rotating outwards?
Take our earths magnetic field. its based mostly on a 2-dimensional model of a magnet with lines of force. Essentially, this is what is known as a section. we have sliced the world in half along the axis. But what would happen if we were to slice along the hemisphere. might we find a single continuous surface, spiraling outward?
FRACTALS + FIBBONOCCI + SACRED GEOMETRY
There does seem to be this organization of the physical world that follows our understanding of these concepts. We keep looking for the mathematical explanation of the universe - a single unified theory. E = mc^2. But why is it so strange that we would use geometry to help explain those laws. It seems as though a language of geometry (something 3-dimensional itself) could provide a much better representation of the world around us.
Perhaps if we at least start here. If we examine how these ideas manifest themselves in the world around us, we can then extrapolate into the unknown.
HISTORY
this is something I want to understand better, both in the formation of our understanding of gravity, and magnetic theory.
I can't believe that I'm the only one out there that has this question...and I am completely serious. Now I'm not saying there is some grand illusion going on, and that we are being deceived into believing what goes up must come down. What I am saying that what we believe to be gravity, is actually something else entirely. And that something else is magnetism - and what holds us to the earth is not this thing called gravity, but magnetism.
GRAVITY
Let us first think about what we know about gravity. we know it exists because of its effect on large objects in space, that attract each other. but any physicist will tell you that we don't know anything beyond that. In fact, this is the purpose of the Hadron super collider that has recently begun on and off operations. This multi-billion dollar facility was constructed with a central goal in mind - to find evidence of "the gravaton," which, according to string theory is a vibrating string. By smashing high energy protons, together and measuring the release of energy, they hope that they will find a loss of energy. this loss of energy they will say is proof that the gravaton existed, and that it is now in another dimension.
MAGNETISM
Most of what we understand about magnetism comes from the standard 2 dimensional diagram of North/South poles showing field lines. Many of us can also understand and visualize the doughnut shaped magnetic field of earth. as well and this makes sense.
But its what is really going on at the subatomic level that creates larger magnetic fields. In 1910 the Einstein-de Haas effect was the observation of a relationship between angular momentum and the spin of elementary particles.
The diagram of the magnet showing "+" and "-" on either ends is wrong. the electrons don't group up at one end at all. What is happening, is all the elementary particles are rotating - and they aren't just rotating like a compass in a 2-dimensional way - they are rotating as spheres around multiple axis. and its the alignment of the spins that creates polarization. Its not a grouping of these two things at either end, its the same material, all facing the same way.
In addition to angular movement, linear movement creates a magnetic field - here we call it an electromagnetic field. It is this movement that makes electric motors possible.
One explanation for the earths magnetic field is know as the dynamo theory. It describes the process of convection of our outer core as the process behind the field.
EINSTEINS THEORY.
Einstein believed that there was this one fabric called space time, which acts like an elastic 2-dimensional surface. We are all familiar with animation of earth sitting on a trampoline and the moon rolling around on that same surface. And we can even visualize this idea within the context of our solar system, and maybe even galaxy. But when I look at the famous images of our universe taken by hubble, we see all these galaxies resting on these surfaces that are turned which way and that, breaks down for me.
Is there one continuous surface that is crumbled into a 3 dimensional space? According to Einstein, it is the mass that creates the warping of this 2-dimensional plane. But what causes the orientation of the plane itself? what creates the axis of rotation for that center of gravity.
Could it be that what is warping the space IS the rotation that causes the magnetic field? Its seems a much simpler explanation than einstein.
2D vs 3D
One of the main sources of confusion I think has to do with our understanding rooted in 2 dimensional diagrams. For example, when we talk about light waves, and sound waves, with think of of them 2-dimensionally, looking at it from the side - an elevation, as it were. this wavelenght has an amplitude and frequency.
However, if you begin to think of this wavelenght existing in the 3-dimensional world, you will get something quite different. Imagine, taking that 2-dimensional piece of paper, rotate it 90 degrees and look straight AT the light wave. What do you think it will look like? will it stay in the 2 dimensional world, and appear as a line going up and down?
or perhaps you will begin to see a rotating coil with a radius and a rate of rotation in place of amplitude and frequency. A very simple real world way of visualizing this by holding a string at either end and twirling it in such a way that you get multiple "bulges". If you are able to look at this directly from the side, it will look like a 2-dimensional understanding of a wave.
Another example would be dropping a stone into still water. Its the assumption that the resultant waves rippling out are concentric circles. But could it be something different entirely? Could the ripples be a spiral rotating outwards?
Take our earths magnetic field. its based mostly on a 2-dimensional model of a magnet with lines of force. Essentially, this is what is known as a section. we have sliced the world in half along the axis. But what would happen if we were to slice along the hemisphere. might we find a single continuous surface, spiraling outward?
FRACTALS + FIBBONOCCI + SACRED GEOMETRY
There does seem to be this organization of the physical world that follows our understanding of these concepts. We keep looking for the mathematical explanation of the universe - a single unified theory. E = mc^2. But why is it so strange that we would use geometry to help explain those laws. It seems as though a language of geometry (something 3-dimensional itself) could provide a much better representation of the world around us.
Perhaps if we at least start here. If we examine how these ideas manifest themselves in the world around us, we can then extrapolate into the unknown.
HISTORY
this is something I want to understand better, both in the formation of our understanding of gravity, and magnetic theory.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
INTRO
INTRO
“If this is going to be your chosen profession, you really should think about to subscribing to natural gas weekly.”
Whether the realization of the implications of such a statement hit like the subtle creeping of the rising tide, or the massive impact of an unforeseen meteor, striking the earth, I do not recall. But its resulting effect proved to be a catalyst – one of grand scale.
At the time, not only had I never heard of Henry Miller, but I was not even aware of his existence. But when I think back to that declarative statement now, I think about it in the context of something he wrote.
“Surely everyone realizes, at some point along the way, that he is capable of living a far better life than the one he has chosen.” At thee time I had not the benefit of the prodigious HM, but the realization that this was not the life I wished to lead was present like… like the elephant in the room – the white noise of frustration permeating my daily life.
While I can reflect back on my life to earlier moments, and their effects and future consequence governing the course of my life, it seems as though this was really the defining moment – this singular event in time that proved to be the catalyst that started it all. A quest, really before I realized that it was a quest. At the time I only looked upon this as the realization of future unhappiness, and not for what I now understanding to be – the beginning of the battle against fear, the search for courage, passion and joy, the quest for GREATNESS. This is the story of Francis Watts’ quest for GREATNESS.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
MY UTOPIAN COMPOUND
I am starting a Utopian Compound in LA. I will be arriving late-June/early-July to begin researching locations, finding like minded individuals interested in being a part of this, and investigating funding – here is an initial description of what it is, though nothing is written in stone. The intention is to make this an "our idea" and not a "my idea." but contact me if you are interested.
UTOPIAN COMPOUND
This is an idea for taking an empty shell and turning it into something wonderful – the rebirth of the Charlie brown Christmas tree, if you will. Fill the space with creativity, genius, and passion.
THE UTOPIA
There are 2 sides to the idea of “utopia” as it is used here. The first being a very traditional aspiration, and that is to create something
The other side is darker – its one of maximization. The optimization of pleasure, virtue, whatever the ideals of the utopia are. In this case it is the optimization of IDEAS, a factory that produces things. but its not really dark, necessarily – but take from it the idea where that there is continually SOMETHING going on, whether its people making things, people learning things, people get shit faced drunk – people are doing SOMETHING.
THE PHILOSOHPY
To live life simply, cheaply, but VERY
There is a certain ann rand philosophy percolating here. Just out of frustration I have the desire to disconnect from society. Those that have come before us have really fucked shit up, and I really see no reason to be listening to them, or doing anything that they say.
I am not so much an anarchist. The logic goes, if I need something, I can work for someone, and “earn” the money to buy it. Taxes are taken out, some of which goes to good things, but MOST of it goes to CRAP. Social security is the biggest fucking ponzie scheme EVER, and puts Madoff to shame. I am never going to see a dime of that money – so why contribute? Seriously, why contribute?
If I can make the thing myself, fix the thing myself, grow the thing myself, I don’t have to let any money go where I don’t want it to.
Green building, and none of this pussy “green” bullshit I see on tv. I’m talking about
THE ELEMENTS
The idea is to find an empty space – a BIG empty space and fill it up. Fill it up with people/ideas/energy. While the following may seem like a very specific roadmap, nothing is set in stone, and indeed it is very much the ideal, with the understanding that any physical form will be something less than imagined.
LIVING SPACE
Nothing too dramatic hear – thought the goal is to create a very efficient fun space that allows for extreme privacy and extreme socialization. Versatility is important, and a great kitchen too. Kitchens are the most important spaces in the home.
STUDIO SPACE
Ideally, all residents maintain and use a studio space, but outside artists will have space as well, coming and going as they please.
THE
Contains the tools for both working in wood and metal – and whatever other equipment is needed for any other method of production. A kiln would be great, perhaps a darkroom, a cnc machine (we could build one ourselves) would absolutely rock. Silk screening equipment – sewing equipment –whatever.
OUTDOOR SPACE
Of course there has to be a grill, and some sort of place to enjoy the outdoors.
GARDEN
Mostly for residents, but it could be for others as well. But nothing fancy here – though it would be great if this were on the roof – and some sort of grassy area for lounging, maybe even a tree or two? And there would also be the compost heap.
GALLERY/LECTURE/PARTY SPACE
A space where a lecture series can occur – where artwork can be exhibited, parties with bands can be held (maybe 2 different spaces – one large, and one small)
But as for the gallery, it would show works by people in the studio, a portion of the proceeds from any sale would be distributed in some fair manner across artists. (Providing the incentive to promote “the group”)
LECTURE SERIES
A series not meant to “show work” but to teach, and EDUCATIONAL lecture series by both people inside and outside the compound.
ARTIST IN RESIDENCE
An artist is invited from another country to come and live/work for free in a studio, with the idea that at the end of their time, there is a gallery show of the work produced.
PEOPLE
So the result is different groups of people – the live/work people, and the work people. Oh and then there are the party people. The number of people this involved is undetermined and is probably subject to how large a space is found. But 4-5 people living, 4-5 additional working seems like the low end of the spectrum, with double that being the high end of the spectrum – but I don’t want to limit more or less as a possibility.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Depending upon the community perhaps, there is an opportunity to help out the neighbors. A summer art class for local school children for example? Perhaps part of the “garden” becomes a community garden. But the idea is to be friends with the community, not try and change, and in fact, resist any hints at gentrification.
LOCATION
Somewhere where land/rent is cheap, but not far away – industrial areas seem like likely targets.
PURCHASE vs
Ideally, it would be great to be able to purchase the land. Ultimately, the “compound” would be run somewhat as a business, to allow the investors essentially to not have to work. Hopefully the investors would be the residents. This is the most underdeveloped aspect of the idea. But why put a lot of energy into something you don’t own – money is tight these days, but where is my tarp money? But yes, maybe buying is unrealistic (I have a little money, but not much), but it’s still the goal.
AGAIN WITH THE POINT
The point is to live really well, instead of going out, get everyone to come to us. Fill the space with genius and creativity. CRITICAL MASS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)