Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse. Like the credulous widow who wakes up one day to find the charming young man and all her savings gone, so the consenting subject of a piece of nonfiction writing learns—when the article or book appears—his hard lesson. Journalists justify their treachery in various ways according to their temperaments. The more pompous talk about freedom of speech and “the public’s right to know”; the least talented talk about Art; the seemliest murmur about earning a living.
Janet Malcolm, The Journalist and the Murderer
Parecidos razonables: Michael Chabon vs Gabriel García Márquez
In later years, holding forth to an interviewer or to an audience of aging fans at a comic book convention, Sam Clay liked to declare, apropos of his and Joe Kavalier's greatest creation, that back when he was a boy, sealed and hog-tied inside the airtight vessel known as Brooklyn, New York, he had been haunted by dreams of Harry Houdini.
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, Michael Chabon
Muchos años después, frente al pelotón de fusilamiento, el Coronel Aureliano Buendía habría de recordar aquella tarde remota en que su padre lo llevo a ver el hielo.
Cien años de soledad, Gabriel García Márquez
'Espanyistan: la burbuja exlicada a los niños españoles por Aleix Saló
In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship -- be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical principles -- is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.
If you worship money and things -- if they are where you tap real meaning in life -- then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already -- it's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up-front in daily consciousness. Worship power -- you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart -- you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.
(...) The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default-setting, the "rat race" -- the constant gnawing sense of having had and lost some infinite thing.
La semana pasada, esta foto de Cindy Sherman se vendió en subasta por 2.735 millones de euros, coronándose como la fotografía más cara de la historia del arte. Fríamente titulada 'Untitled #96', la foto es parte de una serie que le encargó la revista ArtForum en 1981, llamada Centerfold or Horizontals.
Sherman quería imitar el formato de página doble típico de las revistas (ese que corta la foto por la mitad), especialmente en las revistas para adultos. No se si tiene relación, pero 1981 es un año clave para la industria del porno, el año que Linda Lovelace se fue de gira con las feministas, John Holmes escapó con vida de la avenida Wonderland y empezó la era dorada del video. Cada uno sabe de lo que sabe. En la serie, Sherman encarna adolescentes cuya alma, como balaba Julio Iglesias, les está cambiando de niña a mujer. En la pieza #96, Sherman arruga una página de periódico con una expresión que oscila entre el deseo y el miedo. Si miramos la foto de cerca, vemos que ha estado leyendo anuncios clasificados para solteros. ¡Pillina!
La crítica acusó a Sherman de promocionar un estereotipo sexista y ArtForum rechazó la serie, "por temor a malentendidos", pero dio el campanazo en las galerías y fue publicada finalmente en formato libro por Skarstedt Fine Art (2004) con una introducción de Lisa Phillips, comisaria jefe del New Museum en Nueva York.
Es una introducción muy larga sobre algo que en realidad me importa muy poco. La pregunta que sí me interesa es: ¿cómo afecta su nuevo status a la obra de Yasumasa Morimura?
We need to concentrate this waves of citizen outrage. And it is urgent, because everybody is already trying to use them for their own purposes. So let's do it.
Spanish democracy is stranded, and this movement wants to deliver it back to the sea. Among us there are right-wings, left-wings, liberals, conservatives... people who will want to take different paths once the boat has sailed. But, for that to happen, we all have to make it sail.
This is exactly what all the branches of this movement agree upon: that the boat is the Spanish democratic system and the path are just ideologies. That is, what we all have in common is the fundamental first step: repairing the system.
This consists of:
1 – Reform of the Election laws, so all the votes from all Spanish citizens, independently of where they live, can have the same influence on the distribution of parliamentary seats.
2 – Real separation of powers; Total independence of Justice from the political power and a reform of the Senate so that it has a real role and stops being mere Congress bureaucracy.
3 – Political Regeneration: Open lists, abolishing public financing of political parties, everlasting banning from politics to holders of public office guilty of corruption charges, withdrawal of all the unjustified privileges attached to political posts, transparency of personal patrimony before and after their position as public administrators, etc.
Once we succeed, there will be elections. And in those elections parties will be able to make all the proposals that, today, are just noise in the process of regenerating the system: nationalizing the banks, reducing the number of government employees, give more, less or no competence to the Autonomous regions, stop funding the church...). Because the true enemies of this movement are those who want us to start discussing all those questions and forget about our common cause, so we disband before we succeed. We have to resist the impulse to follow our individual path and avoid asking or shouting things that cannot be asked or shouted together by all the indignant citizens from the right and from the left. Because this is the first time that the "two Spains" are not confronting each other, the left against the right. Do not allow the usual suspects (PP + PSOE) use us and turn or movement into that.
How will we succeed?
- Explain these three premises to everybody.
- Follow the #don'tvoteforthem instructions: find a party among tje 3.000 parties that has those three premises in their program and vote for them in the next election.
- Explain family, colleagues and friends who are you voting for and why.
And that is all there is. Together we can do it. Nothing more and nothing less.
Can't you see that when the language was new—as it was with Chaucer and Homer—the poet could use the name of a thing and the thing was really there. He could say 'O moon,' 'O sea,' 'O love,' and the moon and the sea and love were really there. And can't you see that after of years had gone by and thousands of poems had been written, he could call on those words and find that they were just worn out literary words. The excitingness of pure being had withdrawn from them; they were just rather stale literary words. Now the poet has to work in the excitingness of pure being; he has to get back that intensity into the language. We all know that it's hard to write poetry in a late age; and we know that you have to put some strangeness, as something unexpected, into the structure of the sentence in order to bring back vitality to the noun. Now it's not enough to be bizarre; the strangeness in the sentence structure has to come from the poetic gift, too. That's why it's doubly hard to be a poet in a late age. Now you all have seen hundreds of poems about roses and you know in your bones that the rose is not there. All those songs that sopranos sing as encores about 'I have a garden! oh, what a garden!'Now I don't want to put too much emphasis on that line, because it's just one linein a longer poem. But I notice that you all know it; you make fun of it, but you know it. Now listen! I'm no fool. I know that in daily life we don't go around saying '...is a...is a...is a...'. Yes, I'm no fool; but I think that in that line the rose is red for the first time in English poetry for a hundred years.
- Mantener opiniones contrarias a la Fé Católica y hablar en contra de ella y de sus ministros.
- Mantener opiniones erróneas acerca de la Trinidad, la Divinidad de Cristo y la Encarnación.
- Mantener opiniones erróneas acerca de Cristo.
- Mantener opiniones erróneas sobre la Transustanciación y la Misa.
- Defender la existencia de una pluralidad de mundos y de su eternidad.
- Creer en la Metempsicosis y en la transmigración del alma humana a los animales.
- Tratar con magia y adivinación.
- Negar la virginidad de la Vírgen María.
Después del salto se puede leer una traducción de la famosa carta del Secretario del Estado Vaticano, Cardenal Angelo Sodano, al decano de la Facultad Teológica, con motivo de su congreso "Giordano Bruno: más allá del mito y las opuestas pasiones. Una reconocimiento histórico-teológico", celebrado en el 400 aniversario de la ejecución del filósofo, el 14 febrero de 2000.
It is admitted, on all sides, that the Metaphysical and Moral Sciences are falling into decay, while the Physical are engrossing, every day, more respect and attention. In most of the European nations there is now no such thing as a Science of Mind; only more or less advancement in the general science, or the special sciences, of matter. The French were the first to desert Metaphysics; and though they have lately affected to revive their school, it has yet no signs of vitality. The land of Malebranche, Pascal, Descartes Fenelon, has now only its Cousins and Villemains; while, in the department of Physics, it reckons far other names. Among ourselves, the Philosophy of Mind, after a rickety infancy, which never reached the vigour of manhood, fell suddenly into decay, languished and finally died out, with its last amiable cultivator, Professor Stewart. In no nation but Germany has any decisive effort been made in psychological science; not to speak of any decisive result. The science of the. age, in short, is physical, chemical, physiological; in all shapes mechanical. Our favourite Mathematics, the highly prized exponent of all these other sciences, has also become more and more mechanical. [103/104] Excellence in what is called its higher departments depends less on natural genius than on acquired expertness in wielding its machinery. Without undervaluing the wonderful results which a Lagrange or Laplace educes by means of it, we may remark, that their calculus, differential and integral, is little else than a more cunningly-constructed arithmetical mill; where the factors, being put in, are, as it were, ground into the true product, under cover, and without other effort on our part than steady turning of the handle. We have more Mathematics than ever; but less Mathesis. Archimedes and Plato could not have read the Mécanique Céleste; but neither would the whole French Institute see aught in that saying, "God geometrises!" but a sentimental rodomontade.
Paul uncovered his eyes, and looked around the room. Away from a few dazzling patches of direct sunshine, everything glowed softly in the diffuse light: the matte white brick walls, the imitation (imitation) mahogany furniture; even the posters — Bosch, Dali, Ernst, and Giger — looked harmless, domesticated. Wherever he turned his gaze (if nowhere else), the simulation was utterly convincing; the spotlight of his attention made it so. Hypothetical light rays were being traced backwards from individual rod and cone cells on his simulated retinas, and projected out into the virtual environment to determine exactly what needed to be computed: a lot of detail near the centre of his vision, much less towards the periphery. Objects out of sight didn't “vanish” entirely, if they influenced the ambient light, but Paul knew that the calculations would rarely be pursued beyond the crudest first-order approximations: Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights reduced to an average reflectance value, a single grey rectangle — because once his back was turned, any more detail would have been wasted. Everything in the room was as finely resolved, at any given moment, as it needed to be to fool him — no more, no less.
Si estamos, como parece, en pleno proceso de convertirnos en una sociedad totalitaria donde el aparato de estado es todo-poderoso; el codigo moral imprescindible para la supervivencia del individuo libre y verdadero será: engañar, mentir, ocultar, aparentar, escapar, falsificar documentos, construir aparatos electrónicos en tu garage capaces de superar los gadgets de las autoridades. Si la pantalla de tu televisor te está vigilando, revierte los cables de noche, cuando te permitan tenerlo apagado. Y hazlo de manera que el perro policía que vigilaba la transmisión de tu casa acaba viendo el contenido de su propio salón.
Repensando Newstweek como herramienta de insurreccion civil. Si quieren darle la vuelta a los cables, aqui esta el manual. Si solo quieren leer el texto de Philip K. Dick, jump!
Por usar una metáfora de la física cuántica, los medios muertos son como el gato de Schroedinger. Tu metes la historia en la caja. Sale en la siguiente edición. ¿La ha leído alguien? ¿Le ha importado a alguien? ¿O se han leído sólo las tiras cómicas y el crucigrama? No lo sabemos, porque la caja está cerrada. Los medios en vivo y en directo es física cuántica. Los que observan (lectores) interactúan con el observado (autor), cambiando el resultado final (el artículo). Es el toma y daca entre observador y observado lo que marca la diferencia.
Suena apropiado, pero es un espejismo. Alex parece decir que la vida de un articulo es directamente proporcional a los números que genera, como si cada persona que lo haya pinchado, enlazado, twiteado, diggeado o gustado en el facebook lo hubiera leído, eso sin entrar en los detalles de cómo llegaron al articulo en primer lugar. Más aún, Alex parece decir que esos números deberían ser el compás del periodista y no la premisa de su profesión: hacernos a todos cómplices de todo lo que pasa en el mundo, tanto si nos gusta como si no.
El periodismo no es una rama del entretenimiento y no se puede juzgar la relevancia de un articulo por su taquilla. Para muestra, 100 botones.