Building The Eiffel Tower: Three Google Exhibitions Revisit the Birth of the Great Parisian Monument

eiffeltower

One of the most stun­ning views a trav­el­er can have in Paris is to round a cor­ner and see the mas­sive four-legged base of the Eif­fel Tow­er. One of the beau­ti­ful things about Eiffel’s tow­er is that it is so colos­sal and yet so airy and del­i­cate.

The view from the top is also amaz­ing (though truth be told the views from Notre Dame and Sacré-Coeur may be bet­ter because they include the Eif­fel Tow­er too)—so much so that Google pho­tog­ra­phers hoist­ed their panoram­ic Street View cam­era into the tow­er and record­ed breath­tak­ing views from the three main lev­els.

The day Google showed up was a typ­i­cal­ly over­cast Paris day. The sky is even a lit­tle threat­en­ing. After so much gaz­ing out at the city, you might want to dip into a café for un petit café crème.

But keep your lap­top with you. The Street View exhib­it is one of three that Google now offers about the tow­er. Google’s Cul­tur­al Insti­tute col­lab­o­rat­ed with the Eif­fel Tow­er Oper­at­ing Com­pa­ny to cre­ate three addi­tion­al exhibits: The Birth of the Eif­fel Tow­er, the tower’s con­struc­tion, and anoth­er about its inau­gu­ra­tion and ear­ly vis­i­tors.

One of the coolest pieces of archival mate­r­i­al is a record­ing of tow­er engi­neer Gus­tave Eiffel’s voice made by Thomas Edi­son, who was a big fan of the tow­er.

Built to dis­play France’s engi­neer­ing prowess at the cen­te­nary of the French Rev­o­lu­tion, the tower’s con­struc­tion is amaz­ing to con­tem­plate. Four men were need­ed to install one riv­et: one to heat it up, anoth­er to hold it in place, a third to shape the head and a fourth to beat it with a sledge­ham­mer. A total of 2,500,000 riv­ets were used to hold the tow­er togeth­er.

For a much old­er view of the ride up the tower’s ele­va­tor, check out this film by the Lumière broth­ers, made the year the tow­er opened in 1898.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Climb Three of the World’s High­est Peaks on Google Street View

Google Street View Takes You on a Panoram­ic Tour of the Grand Canyon

Google Street View Opens Up a Look at Shackleton’s Antarc­tic

Kate Rix writes about dig­i­tal media and edu­ca­tion. Fol­low her on Twit­ter @mskaterix. Learn more about her work by vis­it­ing .

Louis Armstrong Plays Trumpet at the Egyptian Pyramids; Dizzy Gillespie Charms a Snake in Pakistan

armstrong at the pyramids

Dur­ing the Cold War, the Unit­ed States made the case for the Amer­i­can way of life by send­ing its best ambas­sadors abroad — jazz musi­cians. “Music that was unique to Amer­i­ca and rep­re­sent­ed a fusion of African and African-Amer­i­can cul­tures with oth­er tra­di­tions was a demo­c­ra­t­ic art form that helped oth­ers to under­stand the open-mind­ed and cre­ative sen­si­bil­i­ty of our coun­try,” writes the Jam Ses­sion web site. There, you can see pho­tos of Duke Elling­ton, Dizzy Gille­spie and Dave Brubeck in coun­tries like Syr­ia, Jor­dan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, Sin­ga­pore, South Korea, and Hong Kong. As part of this cul­tur­al diplo­ma­cy, the great Louis Arm­strong went to Egypt in 1961 where, in this icon­ic pho­to, he played trum­pet for his wife, Lucille, at the foot of the Great Sphinx and the pyra­mids in Giza.

duke snake

A 2008 New York Times arti­cle high­lights oth­er images from these good­will tours — there’s Dizzy Gille­spie charm­ing a snake with his trum­pet in Karachi (1956), Ben­ny Good­man play­ing his clar­inet in the Red Square (1962) and Duke Elling­ton smok­ing a hookah in Iraq (1963). In a pre­vi­ous post, we also have Dave Brubeck talk­ing about his Cold War adven­tures in Poland. Watch here.

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:

The Nazis’ 10 Con­trol-Freak Rules for Jazz Per­form­ers: A Strange List from World War II

Louis Arm­strong Plays His­toric Cold War Con­certs in East Berlin & Budapest (1965)

Stan­ley Kubrick’s Jazz Pho­tog­ra­phy and The Film He Almost Made About Jazz Under Nazi Rule

Watch Lam­beth Walk—Nazi Style: The Ear­ly Pro­pa­gan­da Mash Up That Enraged Joseph Goebbels

Jazz ‘Hot’: The Rare 1938 Short Film With Jazz Leg­end Djan­go Rein­hardt

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

The Poetry of Leonard Cohen Illustrated by Two Short Films

Look­ing back on the lit­er­ary career of Leonard Cohen—in full flower in the mid-six­ties before his sec­ond life as a folk singer/songwriter—one encoun­ters many com­par­isons to Joyce. For exam­ple, in the Nation­al Film Board of Canada’s descrip­tion of Ladies and Gen­tle­men… Mr. Leonard Cohen, the 1965 doc­u­men­tary film about the 30-year-old Cana­di­an poet, we find: “it tru­ly is, after Joyce, a por­trait of the artist as a young man.” On the back cov­er of Cohen’s sec­ond and final nov­el, the hal­lu­ci­na­to­ry, post­mod­ernist Beau­ti­ful Losers, we find a blurb from the Boston Sun­day Her­ald: “James Joyce is not dead…. He lives in Mon­tre­al under the name of Cohen.”

Beau­ti­ful Losers’ dense sys­tem of his­tor­i­cal ref­er­ences does put one in mind of Ulysses, but the lan­guage, the syn­tax, the eagle flights into the holy and dives into the pro­fane, remind me some­what of anoth­er Bud­dhist poet of Cana­di­an extrac­tion, Jack Ker­ouac. Cohen even sounds a bit like Ker­ouac, in the short 1967 film, “Poen” (above), an exper­i­men­tal piece that sets four read­ings of a prose-poem from Beau­ti­ful Losers to a mon­tage of stark­ly provoca­tive images from black-and-white film and pho­tog­ra­phy, Goya, and var­i­ous sur­re­al­ists. Made by Josef Reeve for the Nation­al Film Board, the short reels out four dif­fer­ent record­ed takes of Cohen read­ing the poem. At the end of each read­ing, he says, “cut,” and the film fades to black.

Tak­en from the novel’s con­text, the poem becomes a per­son­al med­i­ta­tion on med­i­ta­tion, or per­haps on writ­ing: “My mind seems to go out on a path, the width of a thread,” begins Cohen and unfolds an image of men­tal dis­cov­ery like that described by Don­ald Barthelme, who once said “writ­ing is a process of deal­ing with not-know­ing…. At best there’s a slen­der intu­ition, not much greater than an itch.”

In the ani­ma­tion above, from the NFB’s 1977 “Poets on Film No. 1,” Cana­di­an actor Paul Hecht reads Cohen’s poem “A Kite is a Vic­tim,” from his 1961 col­lec­tion The Spice-Box of Earth. Like the poem from Beau­ti­ful Losers, “A Kite is a Vic­tim” is also about process, but it’s a for­mal med­i­ta­tion, focused on the image of the kite, which flut­ters through each of the four stan­zas in metaphors of tam­ing, cap­tur­ing and nur­tur­ing lan­guage, then let­ting it go, hop­ing to be made “wor­thy and lyric and pure.” The pace of Hecht’s read­ing, the piano score behind his voice, and the vibrant col­or of the hand-drawn ani­ma­tion makes this a very dif­fer­ent expe­ri­ence of Cohen’s writ­ing than “Poen.”

To see Leonard Cohen read­ing his poems as a young man, make sure you vis­it: Young Leonard Cohen Reads His Poet­ry in 1966 (Before His Days as a Musi­cian Began)

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Ladies and Gen­tle­men… Mr. Leonard Cohen

Street Artist Plays Leonard Cohen’s “Hal­lelu­jah” With Crys­tal Glass­es

Leonard Cohen and U2 Per­form ‘Tow­er of Song,’ a Med­i­ta­tion on Aging, Loss & Sur­vival

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

Watch Out For the Flying Folding Chairs, It’s The Noam Chomsky Show!

The word “philoso­pher” tends to con­jure up the arche­typ­al image of an ascetic fig­ure stand­ing above the fol­lies of every­day life, absorbed in thought. Per­haps that’s why so many peo­ple have found it fas­ci­nat­ing to hear of the dis­agree­ments between Noam Chom­sky and Slavoj Žižek.

Sev­er­al weeks ago we post­ed an excerpt from an inter­view in which Chom­sky accus­es Žižek, along with Jacques Lacan and Jacques Der­ri­da, of emp­ty “pos­tur­ing.” Yes­ter­day we post­ed Žižek’s response to Chom­sky: “I don’t think I know a guy who was so often empir­i­cal­ly wrong.” Some of the respons­es have been amus­ing. “The gloves are off!” wrote one read­er on Twit­ter. “Fight! Fight! Fight!” said anoth­er.

Of course, we should bear in mind that the two celebri­ty intel­lec­tu­als are not real­ly at each oth­er’s throats. Chom­sky gave his brief assess­ment of Žižek and the oth­ers in response to a ques­tion dur­ing a long inter­view back in Decem­ber. Žižek’s remarks were a small part of a two-hour pan­el dis­cus­sion on var­i­ous top­ics. It’s hard to imag­ine either man seething over what the oth­er has said.

Still, the bois­ter­ous­ness of many of the respons­es remind­ed us of the stu­dio audi­ence in this 2009 sketch (above) from The Chaser’s War on Every­thing, an Aus­tralian com­e­dy show. The sketch is a par­o­dy of The Jer­ry Springer Show and the oth­er tabloid TV talk shows that mul­ti­plied like weeds in the 1990s. It’s extreme­ly sil­ly, but good for a laugh.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Noam Chom­sky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Emp­ty ‘Pos­tur­ing’

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

Noam Chom­sky Calls Post­mod­ern Cri­tiques of Sci­ence Over-Inflat­ed “Poly­syl­lab­ic Tru­isms”

Clash of the Titans: Noam Chom­sky & Michel Fou­cault Debate Human Nature & Pow­er on Dutch TV, 1971

 

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


  • 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