Everything means something, of course, and I am starting to think that Avatar gives us a very interesting window onto where we are, and what it is we believe. (and like all art, it does have a particular political and emotional starting point- for the most part, one I agree with, so keep that in mind as you read)

At the heart of the experience of Avatar is a very interesting contradiction, one that doesn't necessarily seem out of place in this day and space. For the most part, the good guys are organic: natural. So much so that they even reject fire. The Navi are perfectly in sync with their beautiful natural world, and are connected to it in much the same way you and I are connected right now through the internet.

The Bad guys use technology, and for as awesome (and as overwhelmingly kick ass) as some of it is, it is understood that is some evil evil shit.

Nature is Good, right, beautifull. The artificial is dumb, mean, evil.

The funny thing about this is that Avatar is HIGH HIGH Tech- perhaps the most complicated thing that I have seen in my lifetime. It is insane how wonderful and enrapturing the damn effects are, and how physically and emotionally affected by it I was. (Not in an art-film sort of way mind you, but like in a heart pounding sort of adrenaline way.)

This inherent contradiction reminds me of those Prius adds from last year which are trying to sell you the car as a beautiful object which is perfectly in Harmony with nature, though the nature it is in harmony with is entirely artificial, and perhaps a bit too saccharine.

Which is not to disparage the Prius or Avatar; I am a fan of both. But both are offering us a new, somewhat strange idea:
We will find our harmony with nature through advanced technology.

It strikes me that one of the main conflicts of the movie is also one of our cultures' biggest conflicts. This amazing thrill ride of a world that Cameron so beautifully creates is entirely artificial and cerebral. It is a world of great physical joy and physical beauty- lusty adventure after lusty adventure beckons us...

but we are just sitting here, watching math projected. We are not unlike the wheelchair bound Jake: We want a deeply physical terrestrial experience of life, but we are bound by our sedentary life, and it is through technology that we explore our wildest dreams.

My old friend Alex wrote me yesterday with this succinct series of thoughts:

I agree that the audience *is* Jake -- the real thrill of the movie I think is waking up with him in that new body and flying around Pandora (that we're chair-bound in the movie theater doesn't hurt either) More than anything else I think the film points to where virtual reality will be a few decades hence. (Speaking of which --they just created a sex robot -- evidently the engineer who did it lost a friend in 9/11, so created this in honor of her, I guess, so he could, um, keep fucking her memory? Who knows)

But I also like that the Na Vi have there own technology (wired into the mother tree) so while it can be read a noble-savage back-to-nature parable, it also points to a technology that would be completely organic (and that might also be just round the corner).

In any case, what I think the movie gives the audience is "Longing" and "Awesome" - which is all I ask out of art.

I was reminded of his letter when I read an article on CNN.com today which starts with:

James Cameron's completely immersive spectacle "Avatar" may have been a little too real for some fans who say they have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts after seeing the film because they long to enjoy the beauty of the alien world Pandora.

The entire article can be found here. Obviously, it's a article which is sensationalizing the thoughts of a few select individuals, but it is interesting to me that it would affect people so strongly. I did find it a bit funny though, that this picture was used to illustrate the article:

Susannah told me this once, and by saying so she placed herself firmly in the camp of Freud, countless conspiracy theorists, most religious nuts, and most of the modern academy of Art History professors. In this essay, which is a written version of a presentation I gave at Denver's Tattered Cover book store, I will be playing the part of an art history professor as I discuss the allegorical resonance of Robots in these modern times. I may also end up sounding like a conspiracy theorist, a Freudian and possibly even a religious nut.

,

I think most everyone agrees that The David is a symbol of the ideals and aspirations of the Late Italian Renaissance and that period's regard for classicism, strength, ingenuity and ideals. Similarly, The Statue of Liberty, shown here under construction, hearkens back to both the Renaissance and Classical Antiquity in its form, and in allegory symbolizes the destruction of burdens, the hope for a young America and a firm statement of belief in the power of illumination and enlightenment.

So what the hell does this mean?

and more broadly: What does a robot mean?

We ascribe certain symbolic meaning to things: In architecture and literature, Light can mean understanding, clarity, hope ; In Film, Zombies often stand in for the great unthinking masses; Doves for the grace of god; Axe murderers for the fear of transgressing societal norms, especially if you are a teenage girl who sleeps around too much.

But what is it that Robots represent? They have been an ever increasing component in our cultural language over the last century. In this essay, I will offer some theories on how we might read and understand these clockwork characters as important signifiers of our times and in some cases even ourselves.

Let's begin with that amazing structure shown above.Though it looks like it came out of a better version of the latest Michael Bay movie, it is an actual moving statue that was erected in Tokyo over the last year. Many more excellent pictures and movies can be found here.

It is a Gundam, which is a device in the long standing children's Anime Mobile Suit Gundam. The Gundam are not robots exactly: their drivers sit in the chest cavity- the suits themselves are more like giant suits of mechanized and weapanized armor. It is a much more realized and complicated world than the popular show "The Tranformers", though I think that the basic impulse and function of the two shows are the same.

Like many shows aimed primarily at young boys, Transformers and MSG offer a variety of costumes for the young mind to try on and a variety of imaginary stages to wear them on. I suppose "Role modeling" or "role playing" is another term for it, and I am sure there are fancier, more evocative words out there- but from my own personal experience, the viewer imagines themselves as the Hero, sometimes as the villain, sometimes as the omnipotent god who controls all fates. From these games, and similar games such as "guns", a boy learns the rules of society, the ins and outs of teamwork, and several strategies which, though they originate in play, are essential for future interactions.

The characters in the show are often exemplars of certain traits: Optimus Prime is the pleasant combination of strength and wisdom that we all hope for, Megatron is shrill hatred, lust for power and paranoia, BumbleBee is adolescent energy, untamed and somewhat helpless and dependent on his superiors for survival, etc etce . I imagine that what these characters (and that these types of characterizations) do for the young mind is to help develop words for identifying behaviors and the framework for learning the desired one.

Obviously the difference between the Transformers and previous hero stories like The Three Musketeers and the Illiad is that the transformers are machines. They are animate- they have something like a soul so they are not simple machines, and they are given very definitive characters, very Human characteristics in fact. The child is directed to imagine themselves with all the power and strength that these machines possess.

So is it fair then to say that these two guys are sorta doing the same thing?

Obviously, we can go ahead and imagine that they occupy different strata within their society. And I certainly mean no disrespect for either- But in essence aren't they doing the same thing with their costumes? That is- aren't they both dressing as entities which are more powerful, more magical then their own naked selves?

Our fascination with robots then is in part due to the way we romanticize and glamourize the power that our machines have.

For the last several hundred years we have given more and more importance to machines. It's whats allowed us to fly, travel to the moon, watch Criminal Intent all Sunday night and of course, write little blogedy blogs. And sure, we all love all that stuff, and it's especially nice being able to watch porn on your phone- But there is a lingering feeling that our culture seems to harbor that perhaps we are not fully in control:

And not only are we not entirely in control, but we are inherently less powerful than our devices. It seems that this plays a big part in our cultures anxieties about out ability to control our machines:

Perhaps our anxiety is not just about our ability to control our machines: perhaps this anxiety is about the very nature of machines themselves. A trope in Robot sci-fi is the thought that Robots are inherenetly evil. They are products of mankind's hubristic attempt to play God, and , the logic does, because we lack the perfection of God, our machines will always turn against us. (note the pentagram in the background here in a still from Metropolis)

This negative feeling is recurrent through the last century of sci-fi, but there are several examples of the friendly robot, perhaps none more famous than these two lovelies:

When I gave this presentation last summer, an astute point was raised by my friend Mike King which I want to incorporate here. He speculates that the reason we do see more friendly robots in current sci-fi is because we have been incorporating technology and machines into our daily lives with good consequences now for at least a century... We may feel ambivalent about how much our landscapes have changed, or may dislike he noise and business of the modern cities, but by gum, the internet is wonderful, as is cable and modern medicine...

more to come.

more photos here, but no supporting text.

There was no talk of the other side of the Dubai construction industry, and in the week that I have been in school I haven't heard any talk that even comes close to talking about the issues that are presented in the article I will link to after a lengthy quote:

Once they arrive in the United Arab Emirates, migrant workers are treated little better than cattle, with no access to healthcare and many other basic rights. The company that sponsors them holds on to their passports - and often a month or two of their wages to make sure that they keep working. And for this some will earn just 400 dirhams (£62) a month.

A group of construction engineers told me, with no apparent shame, that if a worker becomes too ill to work he will be sent home after a few days. "They are the cheapest commodity here. Steel, concrete, everything is up, but workers are the same."

----

One evening in Abu Dhabi, I have dinner with my friend Ali, a charming Iraqi engineer whom I have known for two decades. After the meal, as his wife serves saffron-flavoured tea, he pushes back his chair and lights a cigar. We talk about stock markets, investment and the Middle East, and then the issue of race comes up.

"We will never use the new metro if it's not segregated," he tells me, referring to the state-of-the-art underground system being built in neighbouring Dubai. "We will never sit next to Indians and Pakistanis with their smell," his wife explains.

Not for the first time, I am told that while the immigrant workers are living in appalling conditions, they would be even worse off back home - as if poverty in one place can justify exploitation in the other.

"We need slaves," my friend says. "We need slaves to build monuments. Look who built the pyramids - they were slaves."

Sharla Musabih, a human rights campaigner who runs the City of Hope shelter for abused women, is familiar with such sentiments. "Once you get rich on the back of the poor," she says, "it's not easy to let go of that lifestyle. "

The very well written-besides the horrible magazine intro- article can be found here:

----

I totally get and like sustainable green architecture, and it's defintatly a great idea, but there really doesn't seem to be much concern in the world of design for the ecology of society. Or perhaps there is a sort of inner analogy that is made that equates society with an eco-system, and as there prey species which are fed upon by the strong and large, there are the rich who prey upon the poor.

And it sucks, and it's not the only way we can live.

and besides, this is how I feel about nature:

Heres the first one- An old friend from Grade School has an adorable son with the great name of Bison, and so she asked me to come up with something for him; this is it:

and the second is a smaller painting a friend asked me to do- it is 12x16 and he asked for a pigeon and the words "Ramona Poloma" somewhere in the background. (paloma being spanish for dove of course) The colors of the photograph dont quite do the painting justice- the interaction between the blues and pinks is almost psychadelic in a pleasant sort of way:(also, the painting is both richer and darker than this, without being "dark")

If you would like me to make you a painting, please dont hesitate to ask- i work CHEAP!!

Its a big old thing- 6ft x 4ft, here are some details. The colors are a bit off, and i dont want to sound vain, but the painting does have a presence that the pics dont have.

and heres an updated painting which i am pretty fond of.

I am a little reminded of Renoir by these paintings- not that they are comparable in quality or whatever. Here's the story:

I sometimes liked Renoir's paintings, his use of color and stuff; but i always sort of hated the sacharin sweetness in his paintings. It was too much- didn't feel real or tangible at all. Was just a fantasy, and I thought his work was lame and sucky.

There was a pretty big retrospective on him at The Art Institute of Chicago while I studied there, and I learned some interesting stuff about the man. He was very sickly and fragile; his life was filled with sadness and decay. (The glass man in Amelie was sort of based on him, and of course he was constantly painting Renoirs' Le moulin de la Gallete) So anyway, it became apparent to me that his paitings were indeed fantasy- but were amazingly powerfull because of it. These paintings were where he experienced pleasure, and where he was able to make the life he wanted for himself.

Now as some of you may know, this has been a real skullfuck of a year for me, and I think I am painting these silly little truffles because they are fun for me to paint. Its nice, and painting the funny little birds makes me smile. I hope that they are fun to look at, and that you all buy them all for thousands of dollars each.

Merry Christmas yall- and have a good new year!

the one above doesnt seem like much at first, but if you look at it for a while, it gets real real interesting. Probably some of the best "space" I've ever drawn.

A fairly simple silly painting of two twinkies, and a apple and a ceramic thingy- but look at that motherfucking apple!!!

this one has always been one of my vey favorite paintings. I made it in Paris- so it might've been '99- geez, thats a long time ago.

This is a page out a sketchbook showing the work i am doing for a new comic; the young fellow in the glasses is my pop, the woman is my mom, and the little guy in the hat is me. :

Flea, not yet full grown, relaxing in a very teenage sort of way.

The Inimitable Mr. Mifune.

A sketch for a painting I made for a friend of mine. He and I really were digging on old French Bicycle posters at the time.

A page from "Angels of Kansas"- here we see Andrew Watson driving a moving van along a bumpy dirt road.

And lastly one of my very best drawings. I think this is a beautiful drawing of SWP.

keep reading below!