Gertrude Stein Sends a “Review” of The Great Gatsby to F. Scott Fitzgerald (1925)

SteinFitzgerald

“Here we are and have read your book and it is a good book.” That sen­tence about The Great Gats­by may read, in iso­la­tion, like one out of a par­tic­u­lar­ly unmo­ti­vat­ed high school stu­den­t’s sum­mer-read­ing report. But it actu­al­ly comes from astute woman of let­ters Gertrude Stein in a let­ter — and, in its way, a review of the then-new nov­el — to F. Scott Fitzger­ald him­self. This mis­sive from one dis­tin­guished lit­er­ary mem­ber of Amer­i­ca’s “Lost Gen­er­a­tion” to anoth­er con­tin­ues as fol­lows:

I like the melody of your ded­i­ca­tion and it shows that you have a back­ground of beau­ty and ten­der­ness and that is a com­fort. The next good thing is that you write nat­u­ral­ly in sen­tences and that too is a com­fort. You write nat­u­ral­ly in sen­tences and one can read all of them and that among oth­er things is a com­fort. You are cre­at­ing the con­tem­po­rary world much as Thack­er­ay did his in Pen­den­nis and Van­i­ty Fair and this isn’t a bad com­pli­ment. You make a mod­ern world and a mod­ern orgy strange­ly enough it was nev­er done until you did it in This Side of Par­adise. My belief in This Side of Par­adise was alright. This is as good a book and dif­fer­ent and old­er and that is what one does, one does not get bet­ter but dif­fer­ent and old­er and that is always a plea­sure. Best of good luck to you always, and thanks so much for the very gen­uine plea­sure you have giv­en me. We are look­ing for­ward to see­ing you and Mrs. Fitzger­ald when we get back in the Fall. Do please remem­ber me to her and to you always

Gtde Stein

Stein’s words, come to think of it, might make just the tick­et for the afore­men­tioned Eng­lish-class slack­er who may have actu­al­ly read The Great Gats­by, and might even have enjoyed it, but can’t pin down what every­one expects him to respect about it. “You write nat­u­ral­ly in sen­tences and one can read all of them” tells you every­thing you need to about why so many oth­er skilled writ­ers have made a habit of re-read­ing the nov­el every decade, every year, even every few months. “You are cre­at­ing the con­tem­po­rary world” sums up much of Fitzger­ald’s the­mat­ic accom­plish­ment, and that bit about “a mod­ern orgy” makes the point much more vivid indeed. And think­ing in the longer term, this hypo­thet­i­cal teenag­er might well ben­e­fit from the piece of all-pur­pose wis­dom that “one does not get bet­ter but dif­fer­ent and old­er and that is always a plea­sure.”

You can find much more plea­sure of the lit­er­ary-his­tor­i­cal vari­ety at Let­ters of Note, which orig­i­nal­ly post­ed this one. While there, do con­sid­er tak­ing a look at what Fitzger­ald’s edi­tor said about an ear­ly Gats­by draft, and a rejec­tion of Stein’s The Mak­ing of Amer­i­cans.

via Let­ters of Note

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Gertrude Stein Gets a Snarky Rejec­tion Let­ter from Pub­lish­er (1912)

The Wire Breaks Down The Great Gats­by, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Clas­sic Crit­i­cism of Amer­i­ca (NSFW)

Haru­ki Muraka­mi Trans­lates The Great Gats­by, the Nov­el That Influ­enced Him Most

83 Years of Great Gats­by Book Cov­er Designs: A Pho­to Gallery

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on lit­er­a­ture, film, cities, Asia, and aes­thet­ics. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­lesA Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Charles Mingus Explains in His Grammy-Winning Essay “What is a Jazz Composer?”

I remem­ber the first time I heard Charles Min­gus. My senior year of high school, a friend who, at the time, was study­ing elec­tric bass at Boston’s Berklee Col­lege of Music, intro­duced me by putting on 1956’s Pithecan­thro­pus Erec­tus and say­ing “you have to hear this.” I knew jazz in a pass­ing way—some Elling­ton, some Miles Davis… not enough to make many dis­tinc­tions. But I knew right away Min­gus was some­thing spe­cial. His com­po­si­tions were so cool, so dynam­ic and angu­lar and thought­ful, with the push-pull of his mea­sured dou­ble bass against the occa­sion­al cacoph­o­ny of piano and sax. Entranced, I sought out more, and dis­cov­ered favorites like the bluesy “Good­bye Pork Pie Hat”—live at Mon­treux in 1975 above—from Mingus’s 1959 water­shed Min­gus Ah Um, a record that shared the spot­light with oth­er instant clas­sics that year, includ­ing Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue, John Coltrane’s Giant Steps, and Ornette Coleman’s The Shape of Jazz to Come. (On that note, don’t miss the doc­u­men­tary, 1959: The Year That Changed Jazz.)

Min­gus stood among giants, and was a giant him­self. But odd­ly enough, while all of the artists on this list won, often mul­ti­ple, Gram­my awards, Min­gus received no nods from the Record­ing Acad­e­my for any of his sev­er­al dozen orig­i­nal albums. The snubs—if that’s what they were—may have been due to his famous­ly iras­ci­ble per­son­al­i­ty, or to the fact that Min­gus elud­ed clas­si­fi­ca­tion. As his friend Nat Hentoff wrote of him in 1999, jazz crit­ics could not “find a cat­e­go­ry, a con­ve­nient term, to describe him.” Min­gus him­self told Hentoff, “I am try­ing to play the truth of what I am. The rea­son it’s dif­fi­cult is because I’m chang­ing all the time.” But while the bassist’s musi­cal com­po­si­tions were ignored, he did receive one nom­i­na­tion, in 1971, for anoth­er kind of writing—the lin­er notes to his 1971 album Let My Chil­dren Hear Music, a record he called “the best album I have ever made” (hear it in full below). Mingus’s lin­er-notes essay—a lost art these days—is titled “What is a Jazz Com­pos­er?,” and it’s an insight­ful explo­ration of the artist’s own his­to­ry and com­po­si­tion­al tech­nique.

Elo­quent, but loose, Mingus’s prose wan­ders from per­son­al anec­dotes to philo­soph­i­cal rumi­na­tions. On the role  of jazz soloists as com­posers, he writes,

Each jazz musi­cian when he takes a horn in his hand- trum­pet, bass, sax­o­phone, drums-what­ev­er instru­ment he plays—each soloist, that is, when he begins to ad lib on a giv­en com­po­si­tion with a title and impro­vise a new cre­ative melody, this man is tak­ing the place of a com­pos­er.

Lat­er, how­ev­er, Min­gus seems skep­ti­cal of this idea: “each jazz musi­cian is sup­posed to be a com­pos­er. Whether he is or not, I don’t know.” Although Min­gus strug­gled as a child to read music—and faced racial bar­ri­ers to a clas­si­cal career—he trained first on the cel­lo and incor­po­rat­ed many ele­ments of clas­si­cal music, as well as gospel and big band, into his com­po­si­tions. When the bop era of impro­vi­sa­tion came along, Min­gus rolled with it, but found him­self look­ing crit­i­cal­ly at the new wave rep­re­sent­ed by, for exam­ple, Ornette Coleman’s showy solos. The essay, even so many years after the bop rev­o­lu­tion, reflects his ambiva­lence. He writes:

Today, things are at the oth­er extreme. Every­thing is sup­posed to be invent­ed, the guys nev­er repeat any­thing at all and prob­a­bly couldn’t. They don’t even write down their own tunes, they just make them up as they sit on the band­stand. It’s all right, I don’t ques­tion it. I know and hear what they are doing. But the valid­i­ty remains to be seen—what comes, what is left, after you hear the melody and after you hear the solo. Unless you just want to hear the feel­ing, as they say.

Min­gus was an odd­i­ty in the post-bop world; he gen­er­al­ly eschewed the soloist approach. Instead, he seems to see him­self oper­at­ing in a clas­si­cal, or at least more for­mal, tra­di­tion, draw­ing as much from Stravin­sky as from Elling­ton. As one writer puts it, his music was “schiz­o­phrenic in that it both harked back to the New Orleans roots of jazz and looked for­ward to pro­gres­sive cham­ber jazz and ‘third stream’ jazz. His com­po­si­tions ranged wild­ly in mood and dynam­ics, from pun­til­lis­tic coun­ter­point to mas­sive Wag­n­er-ian explo­sions.” In his lin­er notes, he laments the lim­it­ed instru­men­ta­tion of jazz, which he finds “sti­fling.” Min­gus makes it clear that as a com­pos­er, he strives for high­brow respectabil­i­ty, while also stress­ing that he thinks the vir­tu­os­i­ty of jazz has pushed all forms for­ward, includ­ing clas­si­cal. Bequeath­ing his album to his suc­ces­sors, his musi­cal “chil­dren,” Min­gus urges future jazz com­posers to expand their range into sym­phon­ic ter­ri­to­ry:

I think it is time our chil­dren were raised to think they can play bas­soon, oboe, Eng­lish horn, French horn, lull per­cus­sion, vio­lin, cel­lo. The results would be-well the Phil­har­mon­ic would not be the only answer for us then. If we so-called jazz musi­cians who are the com­posers, the spon­ta­neous com­posers, start­ed includ­ing these instru­ments in our music, it would open every­thing up, it would get rid of prej­u­dice because the musi­cian­ship would be so high in cal­iber that the sym­pho­ny couldn’t refuse us.

Some of Min­gus’s con­tem­po­raries found his clas­si­cal aspi­ra­tions cold and off­putting. For exam­ple, Min­gus describes in an inter­view how Fats Navar­ro—who said he “always played with hate”—chided the bassist by say­ing, “Min­gus, you just played the the­o­ry. you did­n’t tell me how you felt. You did­n’t say, ‘Hel­lo, Fats, I love you.’ You did­n’t play noth­ing beau­ti­ful” (an obser­va­tion Min­gus says “woke him up”).

The lin­er notes essay is replete with oth­er rem­i­nisces of Min­gus’s musi­cal com­ing-of-age, from his love for Debussy, Stravin­sky, and Strauss, to his tute­lage under “mas­ter musi­cian” Lloyd Reese. You can read the whole thing here at the offi­cial Min­gus site, which fea­tures more of his writ­ing, such as “An Open Let­ter to Miles Davis,” orig­i­nal­ly pub­lished in Down Beat Mag­a­zine in 1955.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

1959: The Year that Changed Jazz

How to Pot­ty Train Your Cat: A Handy Man­u­al by Charles Min­gus

Rare Miles Davis Live Record­ings Cap­ture the Jazz Musi­cian at the Height of His Pow­ers

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

How the Tesla Model S is Made: A Behind-the-Scenes Tour

Ear­li­er today, we showed you what goes into mak­ing a Stein­way grand piano. Now we’re head­ing clear across the coun­try, from New York to Cal­i­for­nia, to the fac­to­ry where the Tes­la Mod­el S is made. The process could­n’t be more dif­fer­ent. Stein­way is all about wood and crafts­men; Tes­la about met­al and mind-blow­ing robot­ics. A piano takes a year to build; a Tes­la, 3–5 days. But what do they ulti­mate­ly have in com­mon? A price tag that can rise well north of $60,000.

Slavoj Žižek Responds to Noam Chomsky: ‘I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empirically Wrong’

Zizek_in_Liverpool_

Ear­li­er this month we post­ed an excerpt from an inter­view in which lin­guist Noam Chom­sky slams the Sloven­ian philoso­pher and cul­tur­al crit­ic Slavoj Žižek, along with the late French the­o­rists Jacques Lacan and Jacques Der­ri­da, for cloak­ing triv­ial ideas in obscure and inflat­ed lan­guage to make them seem pro­found.

“There’s no ‘the­o­ry’ in any of this stuff,” Chom­sky says to an inter­view­er who had asked him about the three con­ti­nen­tal thinkers, “not in the sense of the­o­ry that any­one is famil­iar with in the sci­ences or any oth­er seri­ous field. Try to find in all of the work you men­tioned some prin­ci­ples from which you can deduce con­clu­sions, empir­i­cal­ly testable propo­si­tions where it all goes beyond the lev­el of some­thing you can explain in five min­utes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fan­cy words are decod­ed. I can’t. So I’m not inter­est­ed in that kind of pos­tur­ing. Žižek is an extreme exam­ple of it.”

Chom­sky’s remarks sparked a heat­ed debate on Open Cul­ture and else­where. Many read­ers applaud­ed Chom­sky; oth­ers said he just did­n’t get it. On Fri­day, Žižek addressed some of Chom­sky’s crit­i­cisms dur­ing a pan­el dis­cus­sion with a group of col­leagues at the Birk­beck Insti­tute for the Human­i­ties in Lon­don:

Žižek’s remarks about Chom­sky don’t appear until about the one-hour, 30-minute mark, but Sam Bur­gum, a PhD stu­dent at the Uni­ver­si­ty of York, has tran­scribed the per­ti­nent state­ments and post­ed them on his site, EsJayBe. Here are the key pas­sages:

What is that about, again, the acad­e­my and Chom­sky and so on? Well with all deep respect that I do have for Chom­sky, my first point is that Chom­sky, who always empha­sizes how one has to be empir­i­cal, accu­rate, not just some crazy Lacan­ian spec­u­la­tions and so on… well I don’t think I know a guy who was so often empir­i­cal­ly wrong in his descrip­tions in his what­ev­er! Let’s look… I remem­ber when he defend­ed this demon­stra­tion of Khmer Rouge. And he wrote a cou­ple of texts claim­ing: No, this is West­ern pro­pa­gan­da. Khmer Rouge are not as hor­ri­ble as that.” And when lat­er he was com­pelled to admit that Khmer Rouge were not the nicest guys in the Uni­verse and so on, his defense was quite shock­ing for me. It was that “No, with the data that we had at that point, I was right. At that point we did­n’t yet know enough, so… you know.” But I total­ly reject this line of rea­son­ing.

For exam­ple, con­cern­ing Stal­in­ism. The point is not that you have to know, you have pho­to evi­dence of gulag or what­ev­er. My God you just have to lis­ten to the pub­lic dis­course of Stal­in­ism, of Khmer Rouge, to get it that some­thing ter­ri­fy­ing­ly patho­log­i­cal is going on there. For exam­ple, Khmer Rouge: Even if we have no data about their pris­ons and so on, isn’t it in a per­verse way almost fas­ci­nat­ing to have a regime which in the first two years (’75 to ’77) behaved towards itself, treat­ed itself, as ille­gal? You know the regime was name­less. It was called “Angka,” an orga­ni­za­tion — not com­mu­nist par­ty of Cam­bo­dia — an orga­ni­za­tion. Lead­ers were name­less. If you ask “Who is my leader?” your head was chopped off imme­di­ate­ly and so on.

Okay, next point about Chom­sky, you know the con­se­quence of this atti­tude of his empir­i­cal and so on — and that’s my basic dif­fer­ence with him — and pre­cise­ly Corey Robin­son and some oth­er peo­ple talk­ing with him recent­ly con­firmed this to me. His idea is today that cyn­i­cism of those in pow­er is so open that we don’t need any cri­tique of ide­ol­o­gy, you reach symp­to­mati­cal­ly between the lines, every­thing is cyn­i­cal­ly open­ly admit­ted. We just have to bring out the facts of peo­ple. Like “This com­pa­ny is prof­it­ing in Iraq” and so on and so on. Here I vio­lent­ly dis­agree.

First, more than ever today, our dai­ly life is ide­ol­o­gy. how can you doubt ide­ol­o­gy when rec­nt­ly I think Paul Krug­man pub­lished a rel­a­tive­ly good text where he demon­strat­ed how this idea of aus­ter­i­ty, this is not even good bour­geois eco­nom­ic the­o­ry! It’s a kind of a pri­mor­dial, com­mon-sense mag­i­cal think­ing when you con­front a cri­sis, “Oh, we must have done some­thing wrong, we spent too much so let’s econ­o­mize and so on and so on.”

My sec­ond point, cyn­i­cists are those who are most prone to fall into illu­sions. Cyn­i­cists are not peo­ple who see things the way they real­ly are and so on. Think about 2008 and the ongo­ing finan­cial cri­sis. It was not cooked up in some crazy wel­fare state; social democ­rats who are spend­ing too much. The cri­sis explod­ed because of activ­i­ty of those oth­er cyn­i­cists who pre­cise­ly thought “screw human rights, screw dig­ni­ty, all that maters is,” and so on and so on.

So as this “prob­lem” of are we study­ing the facts enough I claim emphat­i­cal­ly more than ever “no” today. And as to pop­u­lar­i­ty, I get a lit­tle bit annoyed with this idea that we with our deep sophisms are real­ly hege­mon­ic in the human­i­ties. Are peo­ple crazy? I mean we are always mar­gin­al. No, what is for me real aca­d­e­m­ic hege­mo­ny: it’s bru­tal. Who can get aca­d­e­m­ic posts? Who can get grants, foun­da­tions and so on? We are total­ly mar­gin­al­ized here. I mean look at my posi­tion: “Oh yeah, you are a mega-star in Unit­ed States.” Well, I would like to be because I would like pow­er to bru­tal­ly use it! But I am far from that. I react so like this because a cou­ple of days ago I got a let­ter from a friend in Unit­ed States for whom I wrote a let­ter of rec­om­men­da­tion, and he told me “I did­n’t get the job, not in spite of your let­ter but because of your let­ter!” He had a spy in the com­mit­tee and this spy told him “You almost got it, but then some­body says “Oh, if Žižek rec­om­mends him it must be some­thing ter­ri­bly wrong with him.”

So I claim that all these “how pop­u­lar we are” is real­ly a mask of… remem­ber the large major­i­ty of acad­e­mia are these gray either cog­ni­tivists or his­to­ri­ans blah blah… and you don’t see them but they are the pow­er. They are the pow­er. On the oth­er hand, why are they in pow­er wor­ried? Because you know… don’t exag­ger­ate this left­ist para­noia idea that  “we can all be recu­per­at­ed” and so on and so on. No! I still quite naive­ly believe in the effi­cien­cy of the­o­ret­i­cal think­ing. It’s not as sim­ple as to recu­per­ate every­thing in. But you know there are dif­fer­ent strate­gies of how to con­tain us. I must say that I maybe am not inno­cent in this, because peo­ple like to say about me, “Oh, go and lis­ten to him, he is an amus­ing clown blah blah blah.” This is anoth­er way to say “Don’t take it seri­ous­ly.”

via Par­tial­ly Exam­ined Life

Relat­ed con­tent:

Noam Chom­sky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Emp­ty ‘Pos­tur­ing’

Noam Chom­sky Calls Post­mod­ern Cri­tiques of Sci­ence Over-Inflat­ed ‘Poly­syl­lab­ic Tru­isms’

John Sear­le on Fou­cault and the Obscu­ran­tism in French Phi­los­o­phy

Phi­los­o­phy with a South­ern Drawl: Rick Rod­er­ick Teach­es Der­ri­da, Fou­cault, Sartre and Oth­ers

Down­load 90 Free Phi­los­o­phy Cours­es and Start Liv­ing the Exam­ined Life

David Foster Wallace’s Love of Language Revealed by the Books in His Personal Library

PainlessEnglish

“I didn’t think much of Infi­nite Jest in the begin­ning,” writes Jacque­line Munoz, librar­i­an at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Texas at Austin’s Har­ry Ran­som Cen­ter. But as she read fur­ther into Wal­lace’s seem­ing­ly “wordy and unfo­cused” land­mark nov­el, the author’s mind, and how it dealt with “how unfor­giv­ing it is to be human” and how dif­fer­ent gen­er­a­tions “strug­gle inter­nal­ly with the same issues,” won her over: “I thought, this man is a genius; I want to know him bet­ter.” Many of us Wal­lace fans har­bor the same desire, and now that the Ran­som Cen­ter has acquired and made avail­able a con­sid­er­able chunk of the writer’s heav­i­ly anno­tat­ed library, a few more of us can. The books in Wal­lace’s library, as Munoz puts it, reveal “a philoso­pher, math­ophile, physics buff, gram­mar­i­an, pop-fic­tion read­er, lit pro­fes­sor, cre­ative writer, and spir­i­tu­al seek­er,” and Maria Bustil­los, writ­ing in The Awl back in 2011, traced Wal­lace’s seem­ing­ly strange but ulti­mate­ly mean­ing­ful pres­ence of titles like The Spir­i­tu­al­i­ty of Imper­fec­tion and The Dra­ma of the Gift­ed Child.

Garner_usage_cover

Bustil­los’ explo­ration of Wal­lace’s pro­cliv­i­ty for self-help brings in a vol­ume writ­ten by Sal­ly Fos­ter Wal­lace, David’s moth­er: a gram­mar text­book called Prac­ti­cal­ly Pain­less Eng­lish, “the only book of Eng­lish gram­mar I know of that can hold a can­dle to the works of the Fowler broth­ers.” Her book has a place in the Ran­som Cen­ter’s col­lec­tion, and any­one who’s read Wal­lace’s Harper’s arti­cle “Tense Present” may smile at its pres­ence, remem­ber­ing sto­ries of the songs about sole­cisms and oth­er lin­guis­tic mis­us­es his fam­i­ly would sing on car trips. Osten­si­bly a review of Bryan A. Gar­ner’s A Dic­tio­nary of Mod­ern Amer­i­can Usage, a copy of which also made it into the col­lec­tion, the piece reveals Wal­lace’s thor­ough­go­ing inter­est in the mechan­ics, well-func­tion­ing or oth­er­wise, of Eng­lish. You can fol­low the thread through sev­er­al oth­er titles in his pos­ses­sion, includ­ing Albert Baugh­’s A His­to­ry of the Eng­lish Lan­guage, John D. Ram­age’s Rhetoric: A User’s Guide, all the way to Peter Lade­foged’s Ele­ments of Acoustic Phoe­net­ics. And when you’re done, you will want to keep fol­low­ing the thread a lit­tle fur­ther by check­ing out our pre­vi­ous post: David Fos­ter Wal­lace Breaks Down Five Com­mon Word Usage Mis­takes in the Eng­lish Lan­guage.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

30 Free Essays & Sto­ries by David Fos­ter Wal­lace on the Web

David Fos­ter Wal­lace: The Big, Uncut Inter­view (2003)

David Fos­ter Wallace’s 1994 Syl­labus

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on lit­er­a­ture, film, cities, Asia, and aes­thet­ics. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­lesA Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

The Making of a Steinway Grand Piano, From Start to Finish

Hen­ry Engel­hard Stein­way, a Ger­man immi­grant, found­ed Stein­way & Sons in 1853, in a loft locat­ed at 85 Var­ick Street in New York City. With­in a decade, Stein­way pianos were win­ning major awards and find­ing them­selves in high demand. By 1900, fac­to­ries in New York and Ham­burg, Ger­many were pro­duc­ing 3,500 hand-craft­ed pianos per year, rough­ly the same num­ber being made today. Then, as now, each Stein­way grand piano took a year to build, and it involved the work of many skilled crafts­peo­ple.

Sev­er­al decades ago, John H. Stein­way (the great-grand­son of Hen­ry E. Stein­way) nar­rat­ed an audio tour of the New York fac­to­ry, where he described the gen­er­a­tions-old process of mak­ing a Stein­way grand piano.

In 2011 Ben Niles, the pro­duc­er behind the doc­u­men­tary film Note by Note, synced the audio tour with present-day footage of the Stein­way fac­to­ry, giv­ing us a glimpse of what goes into mak­ing the piano played by Arthur Rubin­stein in the vin­tage footage below. Here Rubin­stein plays an excerpt from “Rhap­sody on a Theme of Pagani­ni” by Sergei Rach­mani­noff.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

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:

What Does the World’s Old­est Sur­viv­ing Piano Sound Like? Watch Pianist Give a Per­for­mance on a 1720 Cristo­fori Piano

Ital­ian Pianist Ludovi­co Ein­au­di Plays a Grand Piano While Float­ing in the Mid­dle of the Arc­tic Ocean

Acclaimed Japan­ese Jazz Pianist Yōsuke Yamashita Plays a Burn­ing Piano on the Beach

 

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

Pussy Riot Releases First Video in a Year, Taking on Russian Oil Profits and Other High-Profile Targets

Russ­ian punk per­for­mance art col­lec­tive Pussy Riot will not be deterred. Despite two of their mem­bers still lan­guish­ing in prison labor camps for a musi­cal protest in Moscow’s Cathe­dral of Christ the Sav­ior, the band con­tin­ues to rail against its country’s cor­rup­tion and abus­es. This time, in their first music video in almost a year, they take on the Russ­ian oil indus­try and oth­er tar­gets in the song above called “Like in a Red Prison.” The Wall Street Jour­nal writes:

The con­fus­ing and caus­tic lyrics to the hard-to-lis­ten-to song decry sex­ism, “homo­pho­bic ver­min,” actor Ger­ard Depar­dieu (a recent recip­i­ent of Russ­ian cit­i­zen­ship cour­tesy of Mr. Putin), and likens Russia’s pres­i­dent to the Aya­tol­lah of Iran.

I don’t find the song hard to lis­ten to at all—quite the contrary—and the video’s pret­ty exhil­a­rat­ing too, with the band mem­bers, in trade­mark mul­ti-col­ored bal­a­clavas, clam­ber­ing atop an oil der­rick and defac­ing a por­trait of oil exec­u­tive Igor Sechin and a head of the Inves­tiga­tive Com­mit­tee (Russia’s FBI). Def­i­nite­ly a lot going on here, but the cen­tral focus is the cri­tique of Russ­ian big oil. The band explains on their site that “Russia’s rev­enues from the oil indus­try amount­ed to 7 tril­lion rubles ($216 bil­lion), but only Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin and ‘sev­er­al of his friend see this’” [sic].  The new song’s lyrics were part­ly writ­ten by one of the still-impris­oned mem­bers, Nadezh­da Tolokon­niko­va.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Russ­ian Punk Band, Sen­tenced to Two Years in Prison for Derid­ing Putin, Releas­es New Sin­gle

Fear of a Female Plan­et: Kim Gor­don (Son­ic Youth) on Why Rus­sia and the US Need a Pussy Riot

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Read Ulysses Seen, A Graphic Novel Adaptation of James Joyce’s Ulysses

ulysses seen 2

You’ve start­ed read­ing Ulysses, James Joyce’s mod­ernist clas­sic, and nev­er quite made it the whole way through. Sound famil­iar? You’re in good com­pa­ny.

So here’s anoth­er approach. Start read­ing Ulysses Seen, the graph­ic nov­el adap­ta­tion of Joyce’s tome. The artist behind Ulysses Seen is Rob Berry, and he’s devot­ed to using “the visu­al aid of the graph­ic nov­el” to “fos­ter under­stand­ing of pub­lic domain lit­er­ary mas­ter­works.” He’s clear to point out that Ulysses Seen isn’t meant to replace Ulysses. Rather it’s meant to be a visu­al com­pan­ion to the orig­i­nal work. It uses the com­ic nar­ra­tive to “cut through jun­gles of unfa­mil­iar ref­er­ences” and to help read­ers “appre­ci­ate the sub­tle­ty and artistry” of Joyce’s text. So far Berry has com­plet­ed about 138 pages of Ulysses Seen, and more pages will be com­ing online at the Joyce Cen­ter web site in the near future. Accord­ing to Pub­lish­er’s Week­ly, the artist esti­mates that it will take rough­ly a decade to com­plete the full adap­ta­tion. (The orig­i­nal nov­el spans more than 700 pages after all.) In the mean­time, here are some more resources to help you get through Joyce’s great work:

James Joyce’s Ulysses: Down­load the Free Audio Book

Read Joyce’s Ulysses Line by Line, for the Next 22 Years, with Frank Delaney’s Pod­cast

James Joyce Man­u­scripts Online, Free Cour­tesy of The Nation­al Library of Ire­land

Stephen Fry Explains His Love for James Joyce’s Ulysses

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

Better Living Through Buckminster Fuller’s Utopian Designs: Revisit the Dymaxion Car, House, and Map

To those who haven’t delved deeply into his con­sid­er­able body of work, twen­ti­eth-cen­tu­ry archi­tect, inven­tor, and futur­ist Buck­min­ster Fuller seems to have left behind a sin­gle last­ing con­tri­bu­tion to the built envi­ron­ment: the geo­des­ic dome. This I remem­ber when­ev­er I pass by the Cin­era­ma Dome on Sun­set Boule­vard, a famous movie the­ater built accord­ing to Fuller’s sphere-inten­sive archi­tec­tur­al prin­ci­ples. But the fact that you don’t see many oth­er geo­des­ic domes these days — you nev­er did see many, I sup­pose — belies the abun­dant fruits of Fuller’s imag­i­na­tion and know-how. Vig­i­lant­ly mind­ful of human­i­ty’s poten­tial for a bet­ter tomor­row, he also designed a suite of seem­ing­ly Utopi­an, sur­pris­ing­ly inno­v­a­tive, and ulti­mate­ly unpop­u­lar tools for bet­ter liv­ing. He brand­ed them with a port­man­teau of dynam­icmax­i­mum, and ten­sion: “Dymax­ion” came to stand, or at least Fuller seemed to want it to stand, for unceas­ing ded­i­ca­tion to improv­ing our pat­terns of life.

To that end, he con­ceived of the Dymax­ion House, or “Dymax­ion Dwelling Machine,” a cheap­ly mass-pro­ducible, nat­u­ral­ly heat­ed and cooled, near­ly main­te­nance-free, eas­i­ly mod­i­fi­able, and, of course, round hous­ing solu­tion. The sat­is­fied res­i­dent of Fuller’s future would dri­ve to and from his Dymax­ion House, along with ten pas­sen­gers, in his aero­dy­nam­ic Dymax­ion Car, capa­ble of reach­ing 90 miles per hour at 30 miles to the gal­lon. And no mat­ter where he drove, he could find his way with the Dymax­ion Map (also known as the “Fuller Pro­jec­tion map”), the only flat whole-earth map with no visu­al dis­tor­tions in its rep­re­sen­ta­tion of what Fuller called Space­ship Earth. You can see the Dymax­ion Car in action, and hear Fuller talk about its devel­op­ment, in the video just above. A 1946 news­reel tour of the Dymax­ion House appears at the top of the post. If you now find your­self eager to live accord­ing to Buck­min­ster Fuller’s ideals, try keep­ing his ultra-detailed form of a diary, the Dymax­ion Chronofile, or tak­ing his peri­od­ic 30 minute Dymax­ion naps. I know I’d like to get a Dymax­ion bath­room installed.

Dynamaxion_1933

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Every­thing I Know: 42 Hours of Buck­min­ster Fuller’s Vision­ary Lec­tures Free Online (1975)

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on lit­er­a­ture, film, cities, Asia, and aes­thet­ics. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­lesA Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Hannah Arendt Discusses Philosophy, Politics & Eichmann in Rare 1964 TV Interview

Han­nah Arendt’s work has come under some crit­i­cal fire late­ly, what with the release of the Mar­garethe Von Trot­ta-direct­ed biopic, star­ring Ger­man actress Bar­bara Sukowa as the con­tro­ver­sial polit­i­cal the­o­rist. At issue in the film and the sur­round­ing com­men­tary are Arendt’s (alleged­ly mis­lead­ing) char­ac­ter­i­za­tions of the sub­ject of her 1963 book Eich­mann in Jerusalem, as well as her ambivalent—some have said cal­lous, even “victim-blaming”—treatment of oth­er Jews. None of these con­tro­ver­sies are new, how­ev­er. As Arendt schol­ar Roger Berkowitz notes in a recent New York Times edi­to­r­i­al, at the time of her book’s pub­li­ca­tion, “Near­ly every major lit­er­ary and philo­soph­i­cal fig­ure in New York chose sides in what the writer Irv­ing Howe called a ‘civ­il war’ among New York intel­lec­tu­als.”

While acknowl­edg­ing Arendt’s flaws, Berkowitz seeks to exon­er­ate the best-known con­cept that emerged from her work on Eichmann’s tri­al, the “banal­i­ty of evil.” And while it can be com­fort­ing to have an inter­preter explain, and defend, the work of a major, con­tro­ver­sial, thinker, there is no intel­lec­tu­al sub­sti­tute for engag­ing with the work itself.

In the age of the media interview—radio, tele­vi­sion, pod­cast and otherwise—one can usu­al­ly see and hear an author explain her views in per­son. And so we have the inter­view above (in Ger­man with Eng­lish sub­ti­tles), in which Arendt sits with tele­vi­sion pre­sen­ter and jour­nal­ist Gunter Gaus for a Ger­man pro­gram called Zur Per­son (The Per­son), a Char­lie Rose-like show that fea­tured celebri­ties, impor­tant thinkers, and politi­cians (includ­ing an appear­ance by Hen­ry Kissinger).

A blog­ger at Jew­ish Phi­los­o­phy Place writes that Arendt’s interview—a tran­script of which was lat­er pub­lished in The Portable Han­nah Arendt as “What Remains? Lan­guage Remains”—is “slow and delib­er­a­tive, not sharp and declar­a­tive, mov­ing in cir­cles, not straight lines.” The inter­view touch­es on a vari­ety of top­ics, draw­ing on ideas expressed in Arendt’s ear­li­er works, The Ori­gins of Total­i­tar­i­an­ism and The Human Con­di­tion. She is some­what cagey when it comes to the so-called “Eich­mann Con­tro­ver­sy,” and she may have had per­son­al as well as pro­fes­sion­al rea­sons for indi­rec­tion. Her affair with her for­mer pro­fes­sor, avowed and unre­pen­tant Nazi Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger, dogged her post-war career, and the afore­men­tioned intel­lec­tu­al “civ­il war” prob­a­bly increased her cir­cum­spec­tion.

Arendt’s crit­ics, then and now, often remark upon what the Jew­ish Phi­los­o­phy Place writer suc­cinct­ly calls her “dis­dain for oth­ers.” While the new biopic (trail­er above) may obscure much of this crit­i­cal controversy—unfilmable as such things are anyway—readers wish­ing to under­stand one of the Holocaust’s most famous inter­preters should read, and hear, her in her own words before mak­ing any judg­ments.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Han­nah Arendt’s Orig­i­nal Arti­cles on “the Banal­i­ty of Evil” in the New York­er Archive

Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger Talks About Lan­guage, Being, Marx & Reli­gion in Vin­tage 1960s Inter­views

Down­load 90 Free Phi­los­o­phy Cours­es and Start Liv­ing the Exam­ined Life

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Have I Told You Lately That I Love You?: A 1958 Look at How Modern Gadgets & Conveniences Lead to Existential Hell

Think grow­ing feel­ings of iso­la­tion in a world of mod­ern con­ve­niences is a new phe­nom­e­non? Slap a dial on that smart­phone, shove a col­lectible rock­et in your kid’s cere­al box, hop in a Cad­dy with fins and think again, pal!

Have I Told You Late­ly That I Love You, a cau­tion­ary tale cre­at­ed by Uni­ver­si­ty of South­ern Cal­i­for­nia stu­dents in 1958, is a far-from-silent film marked by a near-total absence of human speech. The lit­tle boy char­ac­ter seems hap­py enough with his pop­si­cle and tele­vi­sion West­erns, but his white-col­lar dad and house­wife mom are marooned in their indi­vid­ual exis­ten­tial hells, unable to con­nect. Could the new­fan­gled, labor sav­ing devices with which their home and dad’s work­place abound be to blame?

The newsy radio report play­ing inter­mit­tent­ly in the back­ground would cer­tain­ly have it so. Sto­ries of hair loss, headaches and a kid shoot­ing his father over a TV-relat­ed dis­pute sug­gest none too sub­tly that progress has long been a source of anx­i­ety.

I might sug­gest that the moth­er is suf­fer­ing more from the rigid gen­der roles of her era than the tyran­ny of an auto­mat­ic dish­wash­er. Per­haps the sub­urbs weren’t offer­ing them much in the way of com­mu­ni­ty. Isn’t it pos­si­ble that the rela­tion­ship has gone cold due to the father’s pen­chant for hop­ping in bed with the girls from the steno pool?

That’s pret­ty stan­dard behav­ior on Mad Men, no?

While this short film offers none of the afore­men­tioned’s sexy, booze-soaked highs, there’s quite a bit of black-and-white design porn on dis­play. Dic­ta­phones, gleam­ing kitchen appli­ances,  a music box that dis­pens­es cig­a­rettes…

Oth­er­wise it’s a vision of an aver­age Amer­i­can 1950’s fam­i­ly as con­ceived of by Ing­mar Bergman.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Before Mad Men: Famil­iar and For­got­ten Ads from 1950s to 1980s Now Online

How a Clean, Tidy Home Can Help You Sur­vive the Atom­ic Bomb: A Cold War Film from 1954

How the CIA Secret­ly Fund­ed Abstract Expres­sion­ism Dur­ing the Cold War

Ayun Hal­l­i­day has always pre­ferred the Roar­ing Twen­ties. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday


  • Great Lectures

  • Sign up for Newsletter

  • 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