I’m not a sports fan, but…

this is pretty damn rad.

yeah, follow your fucking dreams

Weekly Steve Vai

If you don’t like this song

you are a faggy little bitch.

It was a simpler time

Hard hitting journalism, Geraldo. Big ups.

Please make a pledge

I defy any of you to sit through this:

Don’t miss it

Subject

I was looking for recent talks on atheism

Sam Harris shares a name with this magical creation:

Somebody put a dart in my neck

I just had a good name for a band: Legion of Jeff.
These would be the lyrics to their hit single:

“The other approach, which could be called vanitas, emphasizes content, and throws obstacles in the way of pure aesthetic enjoyment by the inclusion of objects laden with meaning and interest, objects which cannot be easily aestheticized. The significance of the skull, for example, it’s meaning for us as mortals, cannot be easily ignored. Like many other classic vanitas symbols (the dead animal, over-ripe fruit, crucifix, etc.), it is essentially an object of fascination and distaste. Thus, instead of the calm, unimpeachable good taste of formal still life, vanitas tends to be dramatic, conflicted, anxious, morbid, ironic and even (deliberately) tasteless.

I think the fact that I attempt both strategies may confound; most still life painters tend to stay on one or other side of this divide, and this often reflects differences of temperament and belief. I know my audience is similarly divided; those who admire, above all, my grapes or ‘classical’ still lives tend to be vexed by the vanitas works. I regard vanitas and formal still life almost as independent sub-genres with their own rules and standards, and, like tragedy and comedy, see no reason why one cannot practice both.

Formal still life is perhaps the more difficult to practice, partly because of the technical discipline it requires, but also because its subject matter is more restricted; it tends to confine itself, not only to commonplace objects, but to objects with a neutral or low semantic charge. Though a mobile phone, for example, is certainly a commonplace object these days, placing one in a formal still life would be a highly unorthodox and dangerous move, because it would tend to disrupt any classic effect of timeless serenity. Nokia or Siemens? Makes and models replace each other so fast that such a picture is bound to date quickly, and instead of inviting aesthetic contemplation, it may remind you to check your messages. Because of such issues, the subject matter of formal still life tends to revolve around a stock of simple, traditional objects: baskets, bowls and bottles, flowers and fruit; the sort of things one might have found on domestic tables at any point in the last few hundred years. Such easily familiar objects help feed a dream of peace, of domestic comfort and sufficiency, and perhaps a certain nostalgia for a simpler, more basic existence. I see nothing wrong with this, but it does mean that the formal approach can depend as much for its effect on what is suppressed and excluded as what is actually in the picture, and such strict canons of good taste do make it harder to avoid the cliché, harder to innovate. It may be possible to make a classic still life with, say, television sets and plastic packaging, but it is probably more difficult to do it well.”