How Leonardo da Vinci’s Procrastination Contributed to His Creativity

At the height of their pro­duc­tiv­i­ty as Bea­t­les, nei­ther Paul McCart­ney nor John Lennon could read or write music nota­tion. Clear­ly it did­n’t keep them from mak­ing a cul­tur­al impact, and as with so much else in life, they regard­ed it humor­ous­ly. As McCart­ney has said, they used to liken them­selves to ancient Egypt­ian pharaohs, who relied on scribes rather than being lit­er­ate them­selves. It’s worth con­sid­er­ing whether, all things con­sid­ered, this inabil­i­ty was real­ly a defi­cien­cy: not being rig­or­ous­ly schooled in the tra­di­tions and con­ven­tions of music could have giv­en them just the free­dom they need­ed to cre­ate fresh songs. And if you’ve strug­gled with pro­cras­ti­na­tion, have you con­sid­ered liken­ing your­self to Leonar­do da Vin­ci?

“Leonar­do’s dif­fi­cul­ties with stick­ing to tasks were per­va­sive from child­hood,” says a Sci­enceDai­ly sum­ma­ry of a 2019 paper by clin­i­cal neu­ro­sci­en­tist Mar­co Catani. “Accounts from biog­ra­phers and con­tem­po­raries show Leonar­do was con­stant­ly on the go, often jump­ing from task to task.” Regard­ing his life at a dis­tance of half a mil­len­ni­um, we may con­sid­er Leonar­do not just a genius but a high­ly pro­duc­tive one, with a body of work includ­ing numer­ous inven­tions built and unbuilt as well as paint­ings like Lady with an Ermine, The Last Sup­per, and the Mona Lisa — which near­ly joined the man’s pile of aban­doned projects. As Nico­las Cole writes at Inc., schol­ar­ship sug­gests that Leonar­do “paint­ed the Mona Lisa on and off for a few years start­ing in 1503, left it unfin­ished, and didn’t com­plete it until close to his death in 1519.”

“While paint­ing The Last Sup­per, Leonar­do would some­times stare at the work for an hour, final­ly make one small stroke, and then leave,” writes Wal­ter Isaac­son in his biog­ra­phy Leonar­do da Vin­ci. His expla­na­tion: “Men of lofty genius some­times accom­plish the most when they work least, for their minds are occu­pied with their ideas and the per­fec­tion of their con­cep­tions, to which they after­wards give form.” When the non-Renais­sance men of the world say things like that, it comes off as self-aggran­diz­ing excuse-mak­ing. Many, per­haps most of us have spent so much time telling our­selves we’re prepar­ing for a task that it just became anoth­er means of pro­cras­ti­na­tion. But “pro­cras­ti­nat­ing like Leonar­do requires work: it involves gath­er­ing all the pos­si­ble facts and ideas, and only after that allow­ing the col­lec­tion to sim­mer,” notes Isaac­son.

Not that the patrons frus­trat­ed by Leonar­do’s fail­ures to deliv­er could always keep that in mind. After he worked at the Vat­i­can for three years, Pope Leo X dis­missed him with the judg­ment that he would nev­er accom­plish any­thing, “for he begins by think­ing of the end of the work, before the begin­ning.” Even Leonar­do him­self made a deathbed apol­o­gy “to God and Man for leav­ing so much undone.” Hav­ing exam­ined the nature of both Leonar­do’s chal­lenges and his bril­liance, Catani comes to the con­clu­sion that he exhib­it­ed traits con­sis­tent with a con­di­tion only giv­en a name well with­in liv­ing mem­o­ry, Atten­tion Deficit Hyper­ac­tiv­i­ty Dis­or­der (ADHD). When we find our­selves com­pul­sive­ly flee­ing from the incom­plete work at hand, we’d do well to bear in mind not just Leonar­do’s exam­ple, but also the words of apho­rist Aaron Haspel: “We all suf­fer from a clus­ter of psy­cho­log­i­cal dis­or­ders; it used to be known as per­son­al­i­ty.”

Relat­ed con­tent:

The Neu­ro­science & Psy­chol­o­gy of Pro­cras­ti­na­tion, and How to Over­come It

What Is Pro­cras­ti­na­tion & How Can We Solve It? An Intro­duc­tion by One of the World’s Lead­ing Pro­cras­ti­na­tion Experts

The Art of Struc­tured Pro­cras­ti­na­tion

Miran­da July Teach­es You How to Avoid Pro­cras­ti­na­tion

Leonar­do da Vinci’s To-Do List from 1490: The Plan of a Renais­sance Man

Medieval Monks Com­plained About Con­stant Dis­trac­tions: Learn How They Worked to Over­come Them

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Watch the Completely Unsafe, Vertigo-Inducing Footage of Workers Building New York’s Iconic Skyscrapers

Would any­one in their right mind sign up for a job that had a high risk of mortality/disability? Or a job where red hot met­al is being hurled direct­ly at your face? Back in the 1920s this was the lot of the men who built New York’s sky­line, the men who con­struct­ed the Chrysler Build­ing and the Empire State, giant phal­lic sym­bols of America’s bur­geon­ing wealth and pow­er.

In this short clip (remas­tered and quite decent­ly col­orized) from the Smith­son­ian Chan­nel, we get a brief glimpse of the per­ils encoun­tered dai­ly on the build­ing site. Nick­named “rough­necks,” the nar­ra­tor points out that they work with­out har­ness­es, safe­ty ropes, or hard hats. Red hot riv­ets are thrown at men on the met­al beams high­er up and they are meant to catch them with what looks like a tin fun­nel. You can see the thinnest of ropes used to lift the now-icon­ic stain­less steel art-deco eagles into place by men wear­ing felt hats and no gloves.

The work­ers came from Europe, many who had trained on ships. Some came from Montreal’s Kah­nawake reser­va­tion. The lat­ter, known as Iron Walk­ers, were Mohawk, known for work­ing fear­less­ly at great heights.

“A lot of peo­ple think Mohawks aren’t afraid of heights; that’s not true,” Kyle Karon­hi­ak­tatie Beau­vais said in 2002. “We have as much fear as the next guy. The dif­fer­ence is that we deal with it bet­ter.”

Much of this work was doc­u­ment­ed by pho­tog­ra­ph­er Lewis Hine, who cap­tured a mix of brute strength and grav­i­ty-defy­ing courage along with pri­vate moments of rest, catch­ing a smoke or tak­ing lunch. You can see many of his famous pho­tos in this clip:

The Chrysler Build­ing was com­plet­ed in 1930, and reached a height of 1,046 feet (319 m), fea­tur­ing 77 floors. It held its fame as the world’s tallest build­ing for only 11 months. In 1931 work­ers com­plet­ed the Empire State Build­ing, stand­ing at 1,454 feet (443.2 m) and hous­ing 102 floors. (That’s dinky com­pared to the cur­rent record-hold­er: Dubai’s Burj Khal­i­fa, which stands at 2,722 feet (829.8 m)).

Heads up: The Smith­son­ian Chan­nel clip has some of the worst exam­ples of YouTube com­ments among the videos we’ve high­light­ed over the years, as if peo­ple still don’t work in ter­ri­ble and unsafe con­di­tions in order to feed their fam­i­lies and pay rent. And look! Here’s a guy who walks out onto the Chrysler eagle just for fun. Don’t say we didn’t warn you:

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2019.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Paris, New York & Havana Come to Life in Col­orized Films Shot Between 1890 and 1931

A Light Show on The Empire State Build­ing Gets Synced to the Dead’s Live Per­for­mance of “Touch of Grey” (6/24/2017)

Famous Archi­tects Dress as Their Famous New York City Build­ings (1931)

Ted Mills is a free­lance writer on the arts.

How Phone Addiction Keeps You from Achieving a Productive “Flow State”

If you have an iPhone, try push­ing its side but­ton three times in a row. Just like mag­ic, the screen should turn from col­or into black-and-white, or rather grayscale. (To do the same on an Android phone, you’ll have to dive into set­tings, then “acces­si­bil­i­ty,” “vision enhance­ments,” and “col­or cor­rec­tion.”) Why would you want that in the first place? As Har­vard Kennedy School and Har­vard Busi­ness School pro­fes­sor Arthur C. Brooks explains in the Big Think video above, “one of the ways that you can actu­al­ly get less hooked by social media, or any screen-based tech­nol­o­gy, is by turn­ing off the col­or.” When you get only black, white, and the shades of gray in between, “you will care less about your screen, and you will look at it less.”

This may ring true to those of us who remem­ber pure­ly mono­chro­mat­ic cell­phones, and how lit­tle time we spent star­ing at them. But no mat­ter your gen­er­a­tion, Brooks has plen­ty of use­ful advice about how to break the depen­den­cy on your phone from which, as a twen­ty-first-cen­tu­ry inter­net user, you almost cer­tain­ly suf­fer.

“You notice when some­body is addict­ed to hero­in, because it’s not that com­mon for ordi­nary peo­ple,” he says. “You don’t notice when some­body’s addict­ed to their phone, because lit­er­al­ly every­body is addict­ed to their phones.” There­fore, we could all ben­e­fit from turn­ing off noti­fi­ca­tions, set­ting defined “tech times,” exer­cis­ing with­out our devices, and going on mul­ti-day med­i­ta­tion retreats — though we may have to work up to that last one.

The func­tion­al phone addict may believe that all his dai­ly scrolling may not have that much of a neg­a­tive impact on his life, and even that it helps him unwind. What he does­n’t real­ize, in Brooks’ view, is the extent to which dig­i­tal dis­trac­tions keep him out of what psy­chol­o­gist Mihaly Csik­szent­mi­ha­lyi called “flow.” (These com­ments come around the 27:06 mark.) Flow hap­pens “when you’re involved immer­sive­ly in some­thing, and hours turn to min­utes. You lose track of time. It’s intense­ly plea­sur­able,” almost “like a state of Bud­dhist med­i­ta­tion.” Con­scious­ly or uncon­scious­ly, we use our phones and oth­er dig­i­tal devices in a way that pre­vents flow, “mul­ti­task­ing” between numer­ous tasks and dis­trac­tions, nev­er pay­ing sus­tained atten­tion to any one thing. At the root of this impulse is a fear of bore­dom, which must be endured in order to accom­plish any­thing mean­ing­ful. The irony of our new­found abil­i­ty to evade bore­dom every moment is that, if we do so, the whole of life turns out to be pret­ty bor­ing.

Relat­ed con­tent:

How to Enter a ‘Flow State’ on Com­mand: Peak Per­for­mance Mind Hack Explained in 7 Min­utes

The Sur­pris­ing Pow­er of Bore­dom: It Lets You Con­front Big Ques­tions & Give Life Mean­ing

How to Enter Flow State, Increase Your Abil­i­ty to Con­cen­trate, and Let Your Ego Fall Away : An Ani­mat­ed Primer

Why Smart Peo­ple Feel Like Frauds: The Psy­chol­o­gy of Impos­tor Syn­drome and Its Hid­den Ben­e­fits

How to Get into a Cre­ative “Flow State”: A Short Mas­ter­class

Lyn­da Bar­ry on How the Smart­phone Is Endan­ger­ing Three Ingre­di­ents of Cre­ativ­i­ty: Lone­li­ness, Uncer­tain­ty & Bore­dom

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Milton Glaser’s 10 Rules for Life & Work: The Celebrated Designer Dispenses Wisdom Gained Over His Long Life & Career

“None of us has real­ly the abil­i­ty to under­stand our path until it’s over,” the cel­e­brat­ed graph­ic design­er Mil­ton Glaser mused less than a minute into the above video.

The late Mil­ton Glaser’s many con­tri­bu­tions to pop culture—the I ❤ NY logo, the psy­che­del­ic por­trait of a rain­bow-haired Bob Dylan, DC Comics’ clas­sic bul­let logo—con­ferred unde­ni­able author­i­ty. To the out­side eye, he seemed to have a pret­ty firm han­dle on the path he trav­eled for lo those many decades. Aspi­rant design­ers would do well to give extra con­sid­er­a­tion to any advice he might have shared.

As would the rest of us.

His “Ten Things I Have Learned,” orig­i­nal­ly deliv­ered as part of a talk to the AIGA—a ven­er­a­ble mem­ber­ship orga­ni­za­tion for design professionals—qualifies as sol­id life advice of gen­er­al inter­est.

Yes, the Inter­net spawns bul­let-point­ed tips for bet­ter liv­ing the way spring rains yield mush­rooms, but Glaser, a self-described “child of mod­ernism,” did not truck in pithy Insta­gram-friend­ly apho­risms. Instead, his list was born of reflec­tion on the var­i­ous turns of a long and most­ly sat­is­fy­ing cre­ative career.

We’ve excerpt­ed some of his most essen­tial points below, and sug­gest that those read­ers who are still in train­ing give spe­cial empha­sis to num­ber sev­en. Don’t place too much weight on num­ber nine until you’ve estab­lished a sol­id work eth­ic. (See num­ber four for more on that.)

MILTON GLASER”S TEN RULES FOR WORK AND LIFE (& A BONUS JOKE ABOUT A RABBIT).

1. YOU CAN ONLY WORK FOR PEOPLE THAT YOU LIKE

Some years ago I real­ized that… all the work I had done that was mean­ing­ful and sig­nif­i­cant came out of an affec­tion­ate rela­tion­ship with a client.

2. IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE NEVER HAVE A JOB

Here, Glaser quotes com­pos­er John CageNev­er have a job, because if you have a job some­day some­one will take it away from you and then you will be unpre­pared for your old age. 

3. SOME PEOPLE ARE TOXIC AVOID THEM.

Glaser rec­om­mends putting a ques­tion­able com­pan­ion to a gestalt ther­a­py test. If, after spend­ing time with that per­son “you are more tired, then you have been poi­soned. If you have more ener­gy, you have been nour­ished. The test is almost infal­li­ble and I sug­gest that you use it for the rest of your life.”

4. PROFESSIONALISM IS NOT ENOUGH (or THE GOOD IS THE ENEMY OF THE GREAT)

Glaser con­cedes that a record of depend­able excel­lence is some­thing to look for in a brain sur­geon or auto mechan­ic, but for those in the arts, “con­tin­u­ous trans­gres­sion” is the qual­i­ty to cul­ti­vate. Pro­fes­sion­al­ism does not allow for that because trans­gres­sion has to encom­pass the pos­si­bil­i­ty of fail­ure and if you are pro­fes­sion­al your instinct is not to fail, it is to repeat suc­cess. 

5. LESS IS NOT NECESSARILY MORE

I have an alter­na­tive to the propo­si­tion that I believe is more appro­pri­ate. ‘Just enough is more.’

6. STYLE IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED

Style change is usu­al­ly linked to eco­nom­ic fac­tors, as all of you know who have read Marx. Also fatigue occurs when peo­ple see too much of the same thing too often.

7. HOW YOU LIVE CHANGES YOUR BRAIN

The brain is the most respon­sive organ of the body…. Thought changes our life and our behav­ior. I also believe that draw­ing works in the same way…. Draw­ing also makes you atten­tive. It makes you pay atten­tion to what you are look­ing at, which is not so easy.

8. DOUBT IS BETTER THAN CERTAINTY

One of the signs of a dam­aged ego is absolute cer­tain­ty. Schools encour­age the idea of not com­pro­mis­ing and defend­ing your work at all costs. Well, the issue at work is usu­al­ly all about the nature of com­pro­mise…. Ide­al­ly, mak­ing every­one win through acts of accom­mo­da­tion is desir­able.

9. IT DOESN’T MATTER

Glaser cred­its essay­ist Roger Rosenblatt’s Rules for Aging (misiden­ti­fy­ing the title as Aging Grace­ful­ly) with help­ing him artic­u­late his phi­los­o­phy here.  It doesn’t mat­ter what you think. It does not mat­ter if you are late or ear­ly, if you are here or there, if you said it or didn’t say it, if you are clever or if you were stu­pid. If you were hav­ing a bad hair day or a no hair day or if your boss looks at you cock­eyed or your boyfriend or girl­friend looks at you cock­eyed, if you are cock­eyed. If you don’t get that pro­mo­tion or prize or house or if you do – it doesn’t mat­ter.

10. TELL THE TRUTH

It’s inter­est­ing to observe that in the new AIGA’s code of ethics there is a sig­nif­i­cant amount of use­ful infor­ma­tion about appro­pri­ate behav­ior towards clients and oth­er design­ers, but not a word about a designer’s rela­tion­ship to the pub­lic. If we were licensed, telling the truth might become more cen­tral to what we do.

BONUS JOKE

A butch­er was open­ing his mar­ket one morn­ing and as he did a rab­bit popped his head through the door. The butch­er was sur­prised when the rab­bit inquired ‘Got any cab­bage?’ The butch­er said ‘This is a meat mar­ket – we sell meat, not veg­eta­bles.’ The rab­bit hopped off. The next day the butch­er is open­ing the shop and sure enough the rab­bit pops his head round and says ‘You got any cab­bage?’ The butch­er now irri­tat­ed says ‘Lis­ten you lit­tle rodent, I told you yes­ter­day we sell meat, we do not sell veg­eta­bles and the next time you come here I am going to grab you by the throat and nail those flop­py ears to the floor.’ The rab­bit dis­ap­peared hasti­ly and noth­ing hap­pened for a week. Then one morn­ing the rab­bit popped his head around the cor­ner and said ‘Got any nails?’ The butch­er said ‘No.’ The rab­bit said ‘Ok. Got any cab­bage?’’

Read Mil­ton Glaser’s “Ten Things I Have Learned” in its entire­ty here.

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2017.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Mil­ton Glaser Draws Shake­speare & Explains Why Draw­ing is the Key to Under­stand­ing Life

Mick­ey Mouse In Viet­nam: The Under­ground Anti-War Ani­ma­tion from 1968, Co-Cre­at­ed by Mil­ton Glaser

Mil­ton Glaser (RIP) Explains Why We Must Over­come the Fear of Fail­ure, Take Risks & Dis­cov­er Our True Poten­tial

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, illus­tra­tor, and the­ater mak­er in NYC.

Tim Curry (RIP) Breaks Down His Most Iconic Roles: Rocky Horror, Clue, Muppet Treasure Island & More

Upon hear­ing of Tim Cur­ry’s death last week, some of us could recall hav­ing seen him on stage: in Amadeus or Spa­malot on Broad­way, per­haps, though he also drew acclaim in the work of Stop­pard, Brecht, and Shake­speare. For many more of us — per­haps all of us — it was his most mem­o­rable film and tele­vi­sion per­for­mances that sprang to mind. To an extent, which ones are most mem­o­rable depends on the view­er. Some will for­ev­er remem­ber Cur­ry as DJ John­ny LaGuardia in Times Square, the deceit­ful Roman­ian phil­an­thropist in Con­go, the arch-neme­sis King Chick­en on Duck­man, or even as the Bard him­self in the series Will Shake­speare.

More will remem­ber him as Dr. Frank-N-Furter, the cross-dress­ing mad sci­en­tist from the plan­et Trans­sex­u­al at the cen­ter of the stage musi­cal The Rocky Hor­ror Show as well as its film adap­ta­tion The Rocky Hor­ror Pic­ture Show. The lat­ter end­ed up becom­ing the much larg­er-scale cul­tur­al phe­nom­e­non, still screened at mid­night to this day, more than half a cen­tu­ry after its the­atri­cal release.

In that time, the audi­ence-par­tic­i­pa­tion rit­u­als have grown elab­o­rate enough to over­shad­ow the con­tent. Still, if you real­ly try to focus on the action onscreen, you’ll notice the remark­able extent to which — even now that all the tropes of sci­ence-fic­tion B movies, nine­teen-fifties teen cul­ture, and delib­er­ate glam-rock excess have become bare­ly rec­og­niz­able — Cur­ry’s per­for­mance remains vital.

Just six months ago, the Acad­e­my of Motion Pic­ture Arts and Sci­ences put up a video in which Cur­ry looks back at his defin­ing roles. The list begins, nat­u­ral­ly, with Rocky Hor­ror, but also includes his turns as the Lord of Dark­ness in Leg­end (which he was offered after Rid­ley Scott saw him as Dr. Frank-N-Furter), Pen­ny­wise in Stephen King’s It (now regard­ed as the ne plus ultra of evil clown char­ac­ters), and Long John Sil­ver in Mup­pet Trea­sure Island (his per­son­al favorite of his movies). We’re also told of parts he did­n’t get, like Ian Mal­colm in Juras­sic Park, for which he was con­sid­ered, or — more tan­ta­liz­ing­ly — Han­ni­bal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs, whom he “des­per­ate­ly want­ed to play.” He also offhand­ed­ly men­tions that, in addi­tion to Clue’s three exist­ing end­ings, he also shot a fourth in which his but­ler is revealed to have com­mit­ted all the mur­ders. “Of course, that was my favorite,” he says. Alas, “they nev­er released that end­ing, because they thought it was too obvi­ous.”

via Laugh­ing Squid

Relat­ed con­tent:

How Rocky Hor­ror Became a Cult Phe­nom­e­non

Rare Inter­view: Tim Cur­ry Dis­cuss­es The Rocky Hor­ror Pic­ture Show, Dur­ing the Week of Its Release (1975)

1978 News Report on the Rocky Hor­ror Craze Cap­tures a Teenage Michael Stipe in Drag

The Rocky Hor­ror Pic­ture Show Is Now a Retro Video Game

Ray Liot­ta (RIP) Talks About His Most Mem­o­rable Per­for­mances: Some­thing Wild, Good­fel­las, Field of Dreams, and More

“I Saw the Future”: Rut­ger Hauer (RIP) Remem­bers His Most Mem­o­rable Role in Blade Run­ner

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

The Periodic Table of Endangered Elements: Visualizing the Chemical Elements That Could Vanish Before You Know It

The Peri­od­ic Table of Ele­ments lists the 118 chem­i­cal ele­ments that make up every­thing in our world. Some you’re famil­iar with—Hydrogen, Oxy­gen, Nitro­gen, etc. Oth­ers maybe less so—Vanadium, Ger­ma­ni­um, and Yttri­um.

Accord­ing to the Amer­i­can Chem­i­cal Soci­ety, 44 of those 118 ele­ments might dis­ap­pear by cen­tu­ry’s end. Enter the Peri­od­ic Table of Endan­gered Ele­ments (shown above). The most endan­gered ones, high­light­ed in red, are Zinc, Gal­li­um, Ger­ma­ni­um, Arsenic (is this a good or very bad thing?), Sil­ver, Indi­um, Tel­luri­um, and Hafni­um. Made avail­able under a Cre­ative Com­mons license, the Peri­od­ic Table of Endan­gered Ele­ments can be viewed in a larg­er for­mat here.

The orig­i­nal image (top of the page), cre­at­ed in 2015, was updat­ed by EuChemS in 2023 (above). The updat­ed table fea­tures the cur­rent-day avail­abil­i­ty of all 90 ele­ments, rather than just the endan­gered 44 ele­ments, adds an axis for sus­tain­abil­i­ty, and flags ele­ments used in smart­phone pro­duc­tion.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Inter­ac­tive Peri­od­ic Table of Ele­ments Shows How the Ele­ments Actu­al­ly Get Used in Mak­ing Every­day Things

The Peri­od­ic Table of Ele­ments Scaled to Show The Ele­ments’ Actu­al Abun­dance on Earth

Peri­od­ic Table Bat­tle­ship!: A Fun Way To Learn the Ele­ments

“The Peri­od­ic Table Table” — All The Ele­ments in Hand-Carved Wood

World’s Small­est Peri­od­ic Table on a Human Hair

“The Peri­od­ic Table of Sto­ry­telling” Reveals the Ele­ments of Telling a Good Sto­ry

Chem­istry on YouTube: “Peri­od­ic Table of Videos” Wins SPORE Prize

Free Online Chem­istry Cours­es

Why AI Companies Are Buying—And Then Destroying—Old Books

We’ve long joked about delay­ing bed­time in order to read the entire inter­net, but the prospect of actu­al­ly doing so does­n’t sound as appeal­ing as it used to. An ever-grow­ing pro­por­tion of text online, we may sense, has­n’t been writ­ten by humans, but gen­er­at­ed by arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence. One solu­tion is to return to read­ing on paper, and beyond that, spend­ing our time only with books pub­lished before the advent — and thus uncor­rupt­ed by the out­put — of large lan­guage mod­els. Iron­i­cal­ly, that’s what large lan­guage mod­els them­selves have had to do, and in order to ensure them a steady diet of man­made text, their own­ers are resort­ing to con­tro­ver­sial­ly destruc­tive meth­ods.

Sus­pi­cions first arose when book deal­ers noticed a spike in their income due to large orders from mys­te­ri­ous buy­ers for titles they assumed they’d nev­er unload. Books on home oxy­gen treat­ment in Italy, mar­riage lit­i­ga­tion in medieval Eng­land, Texas civ­il pro­ce­dure in the twen­ty-tens, Swedish com­e­dy in the six­ties: these enti­ties bought them all, and for what­ev­er price the sell­er hap­pened to be ask­ing.

404 Media reporter Emanuel Maiberg tracked the path of one such book, which even­tu­al­ly wound up at a Las Vegas scan­ning facil­i­ty run by Ama­zon. Though under­gird­ed by advanced tech­nol­o­gy, the work done there is sim­ple: dig­i­tize as many books as pos­si­ble, then destroy them.

“In order to scan them real­ly fast, they cut the spines off the books and fed the pages to the scan­ner,” Maiberg explained to NPR. Many are tech­ni­cal­ly rare, albeit eso­teric obscu­ri­ties like van­i­ty pub­li­ca­tions and old instruc­tion man­u­als rather than first-edi­tion clas­sics. Humans may not val­ue them, but LLMs do: their con­sump­tion fore­stalls “a prob­lem called mod­el col­lapse, where if an AI trains on AI train­ing data, it gets worse.” Ama­zon and Anthrop­ic have both been found to use the book-sac­ri­fic­ing method to har­vest text, but every com­pa­ny with mod­els to train needs a solu­tion. All this makes for “an unusu­al­ly on-the-nose exam­ple of dig­i­tal tech­nol­o­gy devour­ing lit­er­ary cul­ture,” as the Wall Street Jour­nal’s Melis­sa Korn puts it. But when you real­ly have read the entire inter­net, per­haps extreme mea­sures are inevitable.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

How the Inter­net Archive Dig­i­tizes 3,500 Books a Day–the Hard Way, One Page at a Time

Libraries & Archivists Are Dig­i­tiz­ing 480,000 Books Pub­lished in 20th Cen­tu­ry That Are Secret­ly in the Pub­lic Domain

How Will AI Change the World?: A Cap­ti­vat­ing Ani­ma­tion Explores the Promise & Per­ils of Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence

How to Read Many More Books in a Year: Watch a Short Doc­u­men­tary Fea­tur­ing Some of the World’s Most Beau­ti­ful Book­stores

How 99% of Ancient Lit­er­a­ture Was Lost

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

The Art of Splendor Solis, the Most Glorious Illuminated Alchemical Manuscript of Them All

When it was pub­lished in the Unit­ed States in 1998, Har­ry Pot­ter and the Philoso­pher’s Stone was reti­tled Har­ry Pot­ter and the Sor­cer­er’s Stone. The jokes about the Amer­i­can read­ing pub­lic’s appar­ent aller­gy to the very word philoso­pher write them­selves, but the change was also unfor­tu­nate for more sub­stan­tial rea­sons. A “sor­cer­er’s stone” had no cul­tur­al res­o­nance at all, where­as the philoso­pher’s stone had been sought after since, at the very lat­est, the dawn of the fourth cen­tu­ry. Some sources claim that human knowl­edge of it goes all the way back to Adam, who got the word direct­ly from God. In any case, it’s no mys­tery why the philoso­pher’s stone has long cap­tured the col­lec­tive imag­i­na­tion of human­i­ty, giv­en that it’s reput­ed to turn lead into gold.

Among the rumored pos­ses­sors of the philoso­pher’s stone through­out his­to­ry is Salomon Tris­mosin, a six­teenth-cen­tu­ry Renais­sance alchemist who taught the influ­en­tial physi­cian Paracel­sus. He’s also cred­it­ed, at least in leg­ends, with writ­ing Splen­dor Solis, a book once no less desir­able than the next Har­ry Pot­ter vol­ume in that series’ hey­day.

Noth­ing so mun­dane as “a list of instruc­tions for whip­ping up a lit­tle alchem­i­cal soup in the hope of find­ing a nugget of arti­fi­cial gold in the pot at the end,” writes Jörg Völl­nagel at Medievalists.net, it rather “sets forth the phi­los­o­phy of alche­my, a world view accord­ing to which the human being (the alchemist) exists and acts in har­mo­ny with nature, respect­ing divine cre­ation and at the same time inter­ven­ing in the process­es under­ly­ing that cre­ation, all the while sup­port­ing its growth with the help of alche­my.”

As “a — or rather the – prime exam­ple of an illu­mi­nat­ed alchem­i­cal man­u­script,” Splen­dor Solis has drawn the fas­ci­na­tion of even such mod­ern fig­ures as William But­ler Yeats, James Joyce, and Umber­to Eco. It also became an impor­tant work in the sym­bol­ic-cul­tur­al uni­verse of Carl Jung, who, accord­ing to the Asso­ci­a­tion of Jun­gian Ana­lysts, “rec­og­nized the alchem­i­cal motifs and sym­bols as expres­sions of the indi­vid­u­a­tion process, the trans­for­ma­tion and inte­gra­tion of the psy­che. Splen­dor Solis, with its rich sym­bol­ism and pro­found alle­gories, res­onat­ed with Jung’s under­stand­ing of the arche­typ­al imagery and the trans­for­ma­tive nature of the human psy­che, con­tribut­ing to his the­o­ries on ana­lyt­i­cal psy­chol­o­gy.”

None of this is to say that Jung, or many oth­er esteemed intel­lec­tu­als of the past cou­ple of cen­turies, believed that base met­als real­ly could be trans­mut­ed to gold and sil­ver. But they did under­stand that the phe­nom­e­non of alche­my has much to reveal about the irre­solv­able exis­ten­tial nego­ti­a­tion between man and the world he inhab­its. It res­onates so deeply that it’s even worked in chil­dren’s lit­er­a­ture, and to great com­mer­cial suc­cess at that. You can even feel some of it just by gaz­ing upon Splen­dor Solis’ 22 gold-high­light­ed, book-of-hours-style illus­tra­tions at the web site of M. Moleiro, pub­lish­er of one fac­sim­i­le edi­tion. And who knows? If, as in the world of Har­ry Pot­ter, the philoso­pher’s stone also grants immor­tal­i­ty, per­haps Salomon Tris­mosin still walks some­where among us.

You can view pages of Splen­dor Solis on Wikipedia. Enter the image gallery here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

A Gallery of Fan­tas­ti­cal Alchem­i­cal Draw­ings

Isaac Newton’s Recipe for the Myth­i­cal ‘Philosopher’s Stone’ Is Being Dig­i­tized & Put Online (Along with His Oth­er Alche­my Man­u­scripts)

How the Bril­liant Col­ors of Medieval Illu­mi­nat­ed Man­u­scripts Were Made with Alche­my

Videos Recre­ate Isaac Newton’s Neat Alche­my Exper­i­ments: Watch Sil­ver Get Turned Into Gold

Hun­dreds of Medieval Med­ical Man­u­scripts with Strange Cures Get Dig­i­tized & Put Online: From Leech­es to Crushed Weasel Tes­ti­cles

The Vision­ary Mys­ti­cal Art of Carl Jung: See Illus­trat­ed Pages from the Red Book

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Isaac Asimov Explains His Three Laws of Robots: Do No Harm, Follow Orders, Survive, in That Order

A num­ber of futur­ists, philoso­phers, and technophiles believe we are approach­ing what they call the “sin­gu­lar­i­ty”: a point in time when smart machines become much smarter, stronger, and faster than their cre­ators, and then become self-con­scious. What­ev­er the chance of this occur­ring, it’s worth­while to pon­der the con­se­quences. But we do already, all the time—in exis­ten­tial­ly bleak sce­nar­ios like Blade Run­ner, the Ter­mi­na­tor series, the reboot­ed Bat­tlestar Galac­ti­ca (and its failed pre­quel Capri­ca).

The prospects are nev­er pleas­ant. Robot­ic engi­neers in these worlds hard­ly seem to both­er teach­ing their machines the kind of moral code that would keep them from turn­ing and destroy­ing us (that is, when they aren’t explic­it­ly designed to do so).

I won­der about this con­cep­tu­al gap—convenient as it may be in nar­ra­tive terms—given that Isaac Asi­mov, one of the fore­fa­thers of robot fic­tion invent­ed just such a moral code. In the video above, he out­lines it (with his odd pro­nun­ci­a­tion of “robot”). The code con­sists of three laws; in his fic­tion these are hard­wired into each robot’s “positron­ic brain,” a fic­tion­al com­put­er that gives robots some­thing of a human-like con­scious­ness.

First Law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inac­tion, allow a human being to come to harm.

Sec­ond Law: A robot must obey the orders giv­en it by human beings except where such orders would con­flict with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot must pro­tect its own exis­tence as long as such pro­tec­tion does not con­flict with the First or Sec­ond Law.

Isaac Asi­mov devot­ed a good deal of his writ­ing career to the sub­ject of robots, so it’s safe to say, he’d done quite a bit of think­ing about how they would fit into the worlds he invent­ed. In doing so, Asi­mov had to solve the prob­lem of how robots would inter­act with humans once they had some degree of free will. But are his three laws suf­fi­cient? Many of Asimov’s sto­ries—I, Robot, for example—turn on some fail­ure or con­fu­sion between them. And even for their chase scenes, explo­sions, and melo­dra­ma, the three screen explo­rations of arti­fi­cial life men­tioned above thought­ful­ly exploit philo­soph­i­cal ambi­gu­i­ties and insuf­fi­cien­cies in Asimov’s sim­ple sys­tem.

For one thing, while Asimov’s robots were hunks of met­al, tak­ing only vague­ly humanoid form, the robots of our cur­rent imag­in­ings emerge from an uncan­ny val­ley with real­is­tic skin and hair or even a genet­ic code and cir­cu­la­to­ry sys­tem. They are pos­si­ble sex­u­al part­ners, friends and lovers, co-work­ers and supe­ri­ors. They can deceive us as to their nature (a fourth law by Bul­gar­i­an nov­el­ist Lyuben Dilov states that a robot “must estab­lish its iden­ti­ty as a robot in all cas­es”); they can con­ceive chil­dren or desires their cre­ators nev­er intend­ed. These dif­fer­ences beg impor­tant ques­tions: how eth­i­cal are these laws? How fea­si­ble? When the sin­gu­lar­i­ty occurs, will Skynet become aware of itself and destroy us?

Unlike Asi­mov, we now live in a time where the ques­tions have direct applic­a­bil­i­ty to robots liv­ing among us, out­side the pages of sci-fi. As Japan­ese and South Kore­an roboti­cists have found, the three laws can­not address what they call “open tex­ture risk”— unpre­dictable inter­ac­tions in unstruc­tured envi­ron­ments. Humans rely on nuanced and often pre­con­scious read­ings of com­plex social codes and the fine shades of mean­ing embed­ded in nat­ur­al lan­guage; despite many advances, machines are still catch­ing up. Whether or not they can suc­cess­ful­ly devel­op it is an open ques­tion, mak­ing humanoid robots with arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence an “open tex­ture risk.” But as you can see from the video below, we’re per­haps much clos­er to Blade Run­ner or, of course, arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence than to the clunky, inter­stel­lar min­ing machines in Asi­mov’s fic­tion.

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC.

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2012.

Relat­ed Con­tent

Isaac Asi­mov Laments the Cult of Igno­rance

200-Year-Old Robots That Play Music, Shoot Arrows & Even Write Poems: Watch Automa­tons in Action

Isaac Asi­mov Reviews George Orwell’s Nine­teen Eighty-Four and Calls It “Not Sci­ence Fic­tion, But a Dis­tort­ed Nos­tal­gia for a Past that Nev­er Was”

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

Why Reading Egyptian Hieroglyphics Is Easier Than You Think

We’ve fea­tured Egyp­tol­o­gist Ilona Regul­s­ki here on Open Cul­ture a few times before. Once, she explained how to read ancient Egypt­ian hiero­glyphs; anoth­er time, she told us what the Roset­ta Stone actu­al­ly says. It was, per­haps, inevitable that she would cross paths with Rob Watts, cre­ator of the YouTube chan­nel Rob­Words, whose videos we often post. When he made the jour­ney to Berlin’s Neues Muse­um, and specif­i­cal­ly to its Egypt­ian Muse­um, Regul­s­ki was the expert he sought out to tell him — and us — all about how hiero­glyphs, lit­er­al­ly “sacred carv­ings,” actu­al­ly make words.

Faced with a stone chis­eled full of hiero­glyphs, where do we start? Ancient Egypt­ian texts are all read from top to bot­tom, but some go left to right, and oth­ers right to left. To know which way, Regul­s­ki says, we must first look for sym­bols with a clear front and back, such as those in human or ani­mal shapes.

Some names are writ­ten in blocks, them­selves read from top to bot­tom — unless they con­tain a sign refer­ring to a god, which, of course, gets cus­tom­ar­i­ly ele­vat­ed to the top. But even if we under­stand the exact order in which we should read a giv­en string of hiero­glyphs, the ques­tion remains: how do we actu­al­ly do that read­ing?

Though many hiero­glyphs do appear to be fig­u­ra­tive, with their rec­og­niz­able forms of birds, bugs, arms, legs, and such, only some­times are they meant to rep­re­sent what they look like. Regul­s­ki explains that some of these signs are let­ters, and can be pro­nounced in much the same way as our own alpha­bet. What looks like a mouth sounds like an r; a high­ly abstract­ed bread loaf, t; a horned viper, ph; an owl, m. There is, of course, more to it. Signs can be com­bined not just to indi­cate sound, but also to dis­am­biguate mean­ing. As you may have noticed, hiero­glyph­ic writ­ing is also what Watts calls a “vow­el-free zone.” Exact­ly which of those sounds go where is, like cer­tain oth­er unre­solved aspects of hiero­glyphs, a mat­ter of ongo­ing expert inquiry. But Egyp­tol­o­gists, as see­ing Regul­s­ki in action reminds us, are a ded­i­cat­ed bunch.

Relat­ed con­tent:

How to Read Ancient Egypt­ian Hiero­glyphs: A British Muse­um Cura­tor Explains

How to Carve Hiero­glyphs Just Like the Ancient Egyp­tians Did

You Could Soon Be Able to Text with 2,000 Ancient Egypt­ian Hiero­glyphs

An Ani­mat­ed Intro­duc­tion to the Roset­ta Stone, and How It Unlocked Our Under­stand­ing of Egypt­ian Hiero­glyphs

What the Roset­ta Stone Actu­al­ly Says

What Ancient Egypt­ian Sound­ed Like & How We Know It

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. He’s the author of the newslet­ter Books on Cities as well as the books 한국 요약 금지 (No Sum­ma­riz­ing Korea) and Kore­an Newtro. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Dolly Parton’s “Jolene” Slowed Down to 33 RPM Sounds Great and Takes on New, Unexpected Meanings (RIP)

Note: We were sad to see the news that Dol­ly Par­ton passed away. Today we are bring­ing back one of our favorite Dol­ly Par­ton posts. She will be missed.

The Wal­rus isDol­ly Par­ton?

Not every record yields gold when played back­wards or spun more slow­ly than rec­om­mend­ed, but a 45 of Parton’s 1973 hit “Jolene” played at 33 RPM not only sounds won­der­ful, it also man­ages to reframe the nar­ra­tive.

As Andrea Den­Hoed notes in The New York­er, “Slow Ass Jolene,” above, trans­forms Parton’s “baby-high sopra­no” into some­thing deep, soul­ful and seem­ing­ly, male.

In its orig­i­nal ver­sion, the much-cov­ered “Jolene” is a straight up woman-to-woman chest-bar­ing. Our nar­ra­tor knows her man is obsessed with the sexy, auburn-haired Jolene, to the point where he talks about her in his sleep.

Appar­ent­ly she also knows bet­ter than to raise the sub­ject with him. Instead, she appeals to Jolene’s sense of mer­cy:

You could have your choice of men

But I could nev­er love again

He’s the only one for me, Jolene

The song is some­what auto­bi­o­graph­i­cal, though the sit­u­a­tion was nowhere near as dire as lis­ten­ers might assume. In an inter­view with NPR, Par­ton recalled a red-haired bank teller who devel­oped a big crush on her hus­band when she was a young bride:

And he just loved going to the bank because she paid him so much atten­tion. It was kin­da like a run­ning joke between us — when I was say­ing, ‘Hell, you’re spend­ing a lot of time at the bank. I don’t believe we’ve got that kind of mon­ey.’ So it’s real­ly an inno­cent song all around, but sounds like a dread­ful one. 

For the record, the teller’s name wasn’t Jolene.

Jolene was a pret­ty lit­tle girl who attend­ed an ear­ly Par­ton con­cert. Par­ton was so tak­en with the child, and her unusu­al name, that she resolved to write a song about her.

Yes, the kid had red hair and green eyes.

Wouldn’t it be wild if she grew up to be a bank teller?

I digress…

In the orig­i­nal ver­sion, the irre­sistible cho­rus where­in the soon-to-be-spurned par­ty invokes Jolene’s name again and again is plain­tive and fierce.

In the slow ass ver­sion, it’s plain­tive and sad.

The pain is the same, but the sit­u­a­tion is much less straight­for­ward, thanks to blur­ri­er gen­der lines.

Par­ton told NPR that women are “always threat­ened by oth­er women, peri­od.”

Jolene’s prodi­gious fem­i­nine assets could also prove wor­ri­some to a gay man whose bisex­u­al lover’s eye is prone to wan­der.

Or maybe the singer and his man live in a place where same-sex unions are frowned on. Per­haps the singer’s man craves the com­fort of a more social­ly accept­able domes­tic sit­u­a­tion.

Or per­haps Jolene is one hot female-iden­ti­fied toma­to, and as far as the singer’s man’s con­cerned, his pas­tor and his granny can go to hell! Jolene’s the only one for him.

Or, as one wag­gish Youtube com­menter suc­cinct­ly put it, “Jolene bet­ter stay the hell away from Roy Orbi­son’s man!”

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene

I’m beg­ging of you please don’t take my man

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene

Please don’t take him just because you can

Your beau­ty is beyond com­pare

With flam­ing locks of auburn hair

With ivory skin and eyes of emer­ald green

Your smile is like a breath of spring

Your voice is soft like sum­mer rain

And I can­not com­pete with you, Jolene

He talks about you in his sleep

There’s noth­ing I can do to keep

From cry­ing when he calls your name, Jolene

And I can eas­i­ly under­stand

How you could eas­i­ly take my man

But you don’t know what he means to me, Jolene

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene

I’m beg­ging of you please don’t take my man

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene

Please don’t take him just because you can

You could have your choice of men

But I could nev­er love again

He’s the only one for me, Jolene

I had to have this talk with you

My hap­pi­ness depends on you

And what­ev­er you decide to do, Jolene

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene

I’m beg­ging of you please don’t take my man

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene

Please don’t take him even though you can

Jolene, Jolene

via @WFMU

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2018.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Feel Strange­ly Nos­tal­gic as You Hear Clas­sic Songs Reworked to Sound as If They’re Play­ing in an Emp­ty Shop­ping Mall: David Bowie, Toto, Ah-ha & More

Hear Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spir­it” Shift­ed from Minor to Major Key, and Radiohead’s “Creep” Moved from Major to Minor

R.E.M.’s “Los­ing My Reli­gion” Reworked from Minor to Major Scale

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, illus­tra­tor, and the­ater mak­er in NYC.

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |


  • Great Lectures

  • About Us

    Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.


    Advertise With Us

  • Archives

  • Search

  • Quantcast