Lessons learnt via moving 14 July 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Modern culture, Personal reflection.3 comments
One thing packing up and moving an American household causes a person to realize is the inordinate amount of schtuff we collect. I personally abhor clutter, and thankfully my wife even feels the urge to purge from time to time.
Really though, do we need to keep around tablecloths we never use (and that don’t fit our table), the five surplus and ordinary glass vases that came with flowers for the wife, the three extra sets of drinking glasses that we probably won’t have cabinet space for in our next home. You get the point. What’s more is that we didn’t pay for most of these things I’ve mentioned. They were gifts or hand-me-downs; are we obliged to keep such things; will we hurt people’s feelings if we don’t?
The process seems to reaffirm the fact that we live in a materialistic, consumerist culture.
LinkLuv: On beauty and art 30 June 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Abstract art, Beauty, Modern culture.4 comments
I’m pretty caught up in the logistics of moving/selling the house and don’t have much time to be blogging right now, but a few things in an article titled Beauty and Desecration: We must rescue art from the modern intoxication with ugliness seemed to be worth excerpting.
At any time between 1750 and 1930, if you had asked an educated person to describe the goal of poetry, art, or music, “beauty” would have been the answer. And if you had asked what the point of that was, you would have learned that beauty is a value, as important in its way as truth and goodness, and indeed hardly distinguishable from them. Philosophers of the Enlightenment saw beauty as a way in which lasting moral and spiritual values acquire sensuous form.
At some time during the aftermath of modernism, beauty ceased to receive those tributes. Art increasingly aimed to disturb, subvert, or transgress moral certainties, and it was not beauty but originality—however achieved and at whatever moral cost—that won the prizes.
In a seminal essay—“Avant-Garde and Kitsch,” published in Partisan Review in 1939—critic Clement Greenberg starkly contrasted the avant-garde of his day with the figurative painting that competed with it, dismissing the latter (not just Norman Rockwell, but greats like Edward Hopper) as derivative and without lasting significance. The avant-garde, for Greenberg, promoted the disturbing and the provocative over the soothing and the decorative, and that was why we should admire it.
This last quote is interesting to me mainly on account of many previous bloggy discussions with friend and artist Timothy Jones, who finds abstract (or, more specifically, non-objective or non-representational) art to be decorative. Read the article in it’s entirety via this link.
I haven’t finished the article, but printed it off in hopes of doing so later this week.
The value of working with your hands 25 June 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Handmade, Modern culture.3 comments
(external link) Stephen Colbert interviews Matthew Crawford. Crawford, a philosopher and a mechanic, holds a PHD in political philosophy and recently wrote a book titled Shop class as soulcraft.
Along similar lines, I shared an article with my wife earlier in the week titled The Manly Art of Knitting. From that post:
My wife, LeAnna and I have been thinking a lot lately about work. We’ve been wondering if perhaps we’ve been mis-educated to believe that avoidance of manual labor is the pinnacle of education and evolution — that to prove that we’ve arrived in the world, we should work with our heads and not our hands. What we’re wondering is whether that system has steered us wrong, disconnecting us not even so much from our heritage, but from some essential part of who we are as people. That as people, we were made to create. That on some level people were meant to work for their food. And that, similarly, part of our care not just for ourselves but for each other involves a physical act of creating.
Of course we were made to create! “In the beginning, God created . . . so God created man in His own image . . . “
Where people are relocating to 23 June 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Living incarnationally, Modern culture.1 comment so far
MSN hosts an interesting article from Business Week calculating the ten best places to relocate to in this sour economy. This doesn’t seem to easily fit any of The Aesthetic Elevator’s established categories, but the story caught my eye since my wife and I are in the throes of relocation (even though it’s not directly related to the economy).
No state is totally buffered from the downturn, but several have gotten a boost from the energy, military and agricultural sectors. The healthiest states include Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. In the Washington, D.C., area, federal government and defense jobs have given the economy a boost. And Iowa, which has seen its economy somewhat deteriorate, has also benefited from agricultural and alternative-energy jobs.
The top ten list is as follows:
1. Anchorage, Alaska
2. Provo-Orem, Utah
3. Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, Wash.
4. Yakima, Wash.
5. Omaha, Neb.,-Council Bluffs, Iowa
6. Richmond, Va.
7. Winston-Salem, N.C.
8. Colorado Springs, Colo.
9. Amarillo, Texas
10. Washington, D.C., Arlington-Alexandria, Va., plus areas in Maryland and West Virginia
The article on Business Week actually lists the top twenty if you’re interested. To a degree lists like this are usually pretty subjective, but still interesting.
Downtown Omaha, Nebraska. Image from Wikipedia.
What Men Want: Barbie doll or fertile goddess? 15 June 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Beauty, Feminine aesthetics, Modern culture.5 comments
Here’s a very interesting article, So do men REALLY prefer miss average, from the Daily Mail about a study of college males in Australia who are apparently more attracted to an average female figure than a stick-thin supermodel. “According to this week’s New Scientist, 100 men taking part in an Australian study were asked to rate the attractiveness of 200 drawings of female torsos of different sizes.” The results suggest a [British] size 14 — “5ft 4in tall, a size 14 with a waist that hovers around 30in, rounded hips and a 36DD bust” — is the most desirable.
The article also includes commentary from an assenting woman and dissenting man. From Anne Shooter: “The only people ever to have made unpleasant comments about my size are other women . . . Thin women are skinny for other women – not for men.” Tom Sykes counters by suggesting that while men might want to settle down with the average woman, the girls they fantasize about look more like Pamela Anderson.
It’s a good read. I won’t elaborate, except to reiterate what I’ve said in previous posts on the topic by saying that 1) “healthy” is the best figure and 2) I’ve never been attracted to supermodels.
Image from Post Secret.
Adding: Another post on beauty and the female form recently past 5,000 views, the most of any among The Aesthetic Elevator’s repertoire: Beauty: Female aesthetics through the years
Shoeboxes, spec homes creating ignorant Americans??? 11 June 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Aesthetics, Affluenza, Architecture, Entitlement, Living incarnationally, Modern culture.6 comments
The wife and I talked last night about real estate, newer homes versus older homes, realtors and so forth. And it got me wondering:
Has the glut of poorly designed spec homes thrown up in the U.S. from, roughly, 1960 on created a cultural deficit in that Americans look for the wrong things when choosing a place to live?
Since we’ve started looking for houses, actually since our friends began buying [mortgages for] houses five-plus years back, it’s been interesting to observe their choices and listen to their reasoning for said choices. There are some who, like my wife and I, crave the character (details), craftsmanship and environs found in many older homes in established parts of a city, but many people seem to be exclusively interested in newer homes.
From what I’ve been able to deduce, this usually stems from a desire for a maintenance free home (which, by the way, does not exist). Buyers want newer appliances and utilities and roofs. What they often fail to realize is that you’ll end up in the same boat as if you’d bought an older place that’s been cared for after just a few years. Appliances and utilities aren’t built as well as they used to be and, unless you plan on living in a house for only five years (give or take) you will probably end up needing to repair and/or replace the heating element in an oven, install a new water heater or buy a new air conditioner. I finally replaced the shiny stainless steel fan/light/heater in our bathroom last year which was likely original to our 1955 bungalow; the new one will probably die in less than ten years and is hideous in comparison to its predecessor.
Some men don’t want anything to do with painting the outside of a house as the sun and snow take their tole on soffits and siding . . . which reminds me that I need to post this picture,
a stunning example of why vinyl siding is not really better than wood. This was on the garage of one of the houses we looked at in Nebraska. It was shaded, as I recall, and on the East side of a house — not exposed to hot afternoon sun. I’ve also seen the stuff pop, warp, fade and crack and it’s just beyond me why it gets used so much. Painting every ten or fifteen years (assuming you use good paint, not the Walmart brand) is a lot easier than replacing siding every twenty-five years in my opinion. Further, slapping vinyl over existing finishes seems likely to encourage mold.
Does cultural wealth factor into this equation, where newer homes in the suburbs are representative of a certain affluence that some older neighborhoods don’t allow an owner to brag about? Perhaps young mothers are under the impression that the ‘burbs are safer for the kiddos. Maybe the entitlement some of us feel after growing up surrounded by such an affluent culture leads us to believe we deserve shiny new houses.
Regardless, I have to wonder if the suburban architecture perpetuated over the past five plus decades has resulted in a more ignorant culture. Is it possible that we don’t know what good design looks like anymore? We don’t realize what wasted space or good traffic flow is? And that we’re (somewhat intentionally) losing the ability to care for our own property under the guise of the “maintenance free?”
Older homes, by contrast, often excel in design and craftsmanship over new ones. Lumber used to build them was straighter and drier, and sometimes above and beyond what was required for the job. The 830 square foot house I was drawn to on our recent house-hunting trip employed 2 x 10s for floor joists. No wonder the place was so marvelously square after 75 years! Less space is wasted in homes of that age, generally, and built-in storage was more abundant. Sure, closets might be smaller, but are walk-in closets really all that great? Luxurious, yes, but they also encourage clutter in our consumerist culture.
Seasoned homes are normally, subjective as this may seem, more pleasing to the eye. It doesn’t take an inordinate number of complexities to make a house or community pleasing to the eye. Apparently a book titled A Pattern Language talks about how a house can be successful yet appear to be a fairly simple design (from the outside). I’ve been told many times by different people I need to read this book. It is on my Amazon wish list!
None of this is meant to imply that we should cease new home construction. Obviously, as populations increase and older homes that were not cared for (or weren’t built so well, or that highways or big-box stores are paving over etc etc) are torn down new dwellings will need to replace them. Why, though, should new homes perpetuate a bland, cheap, and unenduring suburban aesthetic? They shouldn’t, and they don’t have to. A friend of mine here in Siloam Springs hopes to found a residential construction company that will bring back the details and craftsmanship of the early 20th century. He started with his own home which includes such details as a breakfast nook and drawers built into the risers of the staircase.
Will my friend find enough of us who appreciate the details in a craftsman home to float his business? Americans seem to be dangerously content with lousy dwelling design. We’ve become afflicted as a culture with the Texas Syndrome, where as long as something is big or impressive it’s credible (Yes, I know that link isn’t precisely backing up my assertion, but it’s related and a good article.). We’d rather have a poorly designed 2,500 square foot house than a thought-through 1,200 square foot bungalow that functions just as well as it’s bigger brother. Shoeboxes with holes cut out for doors and windows litter new subdivisions and we eat them up. McMansions (and their smaller cousins in more modest subdivisions) flaunt ludicrously steep and wasteful rooflines, which wouldn’t be all that wasteful if the attic was actually used as living space. But it’s generally not.
My concern is that suburban design of the past fifty years has infiltrated our psyche, and that our aesthetic expectations have subsequently been wounded without our being aware of it. Some of this sentiment, thankfully, might be changing as Downtown, U.S.A., is revivified and younger generations move back into the heart of cities. But from where I sit, we have a long ways to go in many parts of the country, and a lot of people in the younger generations still aspire to a questionable suburban aesthetic.
Thoughts?
(As always, there are exceptions to the generalizations I’ve made in this post. Keep that in mind when commenting.)
On not being poor vs. doing what you love 31 May 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Affluenza, Business of art, Entitlement, Modern culture, Northwest Arkansas, Personal reflection, Siloam Springs.12 comments
“Screw cash. Do you know what it’s like to wake up knowing that you’re doing what you love?”
Over the course of the past ten years or so I’ve heard a few different people declare that they aren’t going to “be poor!” This is usually in the context of college majors, career choice or current job. I haven’t probed when it’s come up, but I’m guessing the sentiment is often the result of personal past impoverished experiences. If I recall correctly from a book of his I read five years ago, Dave Ramsey’s wife has a bit of this complex.
My wife and I are in a pickle, as I explained a week or so ago, and might be on the poor road very soon (if we’re not already). Just after moving to Arkansas in 2003 we were in a similar financial situation. Needless to say it’s not a fun place to be. We’ve given ourselves to the ministry we moved down here to serve with and making money, beyond what we need to live on, has not registered on the radar.
The question all of this is raising in my mind is as follows: Is American affluence driving people away from their gifts? In other words, does the cultural pressure in our consumerist culture keep people from pursuing careers they might enjoy and excel at, instead wooing them to pursue more secure and higher paying marginal careers?
It’s on my mind in a personal way as we think about what will come of the rest of this year, and the years to come. The hope is to move to a place with lower housing costs and more part-time work to supplement our continued service with the ministry. In theory, our living expenses would be cut to the point we wouldn’t have to maintain full-time employment, freeing up more time for both of us to work on our crafts.
It seems to us that our plans are pretty modest. We’re eager to pursue the things in life we’re passionate about — missions, sculpture, writing, the fiber arts. Despite these seemingly modest aspirations, though, I’m wondering if we’re actually going to be able to execute this plan. Learning the house isn’t worth as much as we figured and noticing yesterday that we haven’t paid off as much as I’d thought in the past four years were chinks in our armor.
I’ve never developed or cultivated an aversion to poverty, assuming we still have a roof over our head and food on the table. Regardless, our present circumstances have been testing our faith. I really like the so-called plan we’ve sketched out (on a napkin, so to speak) and hope it works out. If we can’t make it work, I have positively no idea what we’ll we be doing or where we’ll end up.
And while I won’t refer to that as “scary,” it’s certainly the kind of situation that makes most of us humans very uncomfortable.
On suburbia and sustainability 27 May 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Community planning, Disposable culture, Environmental stewardship, Furniture, Modern culture, Sustainable living.2 comments
The Passionately Alive entry I already cited this morning also contains two very interesting bits of media talking about suburbia and sustainability that are worth resposting. First, a trailer for The End of Suburbia:
And secondly, an excerpt from The Suburban Nation (pages 117-118):
The plight of the suburban housewife was powerfully conveyed in a letter we received in 1990 from a woman living outside of Tulsa:
Dear Architects:
I am a mother of four children who are not able to leave the yard because of our city’s design. Ever since we have moved here I have felt like a caged animal only let out for a ride in the car. It is impossible to walk even to the grocery store two blocks away. If our family wants to go for a ride we need to load two cars with four bikes and a baby cart and drive four miles to the only bike path in this city of over a quarter million people. I cannot exercise unless I drive to a health club that I had to pay $300 to, and that is four and a half miles away. There is no sense of community here on my street, either, because we all have to drive around in our own little worlds that take us fifty miles a day to every corner of the surrounding five miles.
I want to walk somewhere so badly that I could cry. I miss walking! I want the kids to walk to school. I want to walk to the store for a pound of butter. I want to take the kids on a neighborhood stroll or bike. My husband wants to walk to work because it is so close, but none of these things is possible…And if you saw my neighborhood, you would think that I had it all according to the great American dream.
Busyness hindering community in America 22 May 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Living incarnationally, Modern culture.add a comment
Quoted from my friend Tony’s blog, Rockstanding:
I read a book on stress a few years back, and the author made a side comment that I thought was so insightful. He said that the highest value of materialistic western culture is not possessing. It’s actually acquiring.
If you’re a go-getter you never stop. And so the guy who is lavishly successful doesn’t quit, because there are greater levels of success. “My house could be bigger, I could drive better cars, I could have more power, I could have more money.”
So our materialism, consumerism, affluenza is a result of our workaholism? New thought to me, definitely worth pondering. Personally I tend towards the go-getter end of the spectrum, which is talked about in the above quote. I am not — thankfully — of the mind that “My house could be bigger, I could drive better cars, I could have more power, I could have more money.” My goals and dreams in life, the way I measure success in life is not relative to status or material possessions. Regardless, the idea that busyness hinders community resonates with me.
Grab hold of your passion [and monetize it] 19 May 2009
Posted by pcNielsen in Art, Business of art, Christian art retreat, Modern culture.2 comments
This post is largely a follow-up to yesterday’s synopsis of Gary Vaynerchuck’s interview with CNN.
“If you [don't have a web presence] you’re not living in the society we’re living in anymore.”
— Gary Vaynerchuck at the Big Omaha conference in May 2009
I thought of heading up to the Big Omaha conference — dealing mainly with the internet — last month but ultimately decided against it. Today I caught up on some of what what I missed by listening to Gary Vaynerchuck’s keynote (be warned, he curses like a sailor in this speech).
The crux of the keynote is to grab your passion and monetize that passion using the internet. If you love dogs, talk about dogs and solicit advertisers. If baseball cards are your thing, set up a blog and dish out your two cents. He cites one such instance where Upper Deck approached such a blogger with a $40,000/year contract.
I write about what I love on The Aesthetic Elevator, and what I love generally has a pretty keen focus. However, I’m skeptical that I can turn the content on this particular website into beaucoup advertising dollars, as much as I’d love to. The ideas that I write about on this blog — becoming an artist, founding a faith-based artist colony — aren’t money-makers in this respect. Then again, I haven’t really ever entertained the idea of selling ads on this website. A certain amount of professionalism flourishes, in my opinion, on an ad-free website.
Garyvee might reply that I could make some money, and that I should still pursue what I love and attempt to monetize it. Would Dick Blick want to advertise on The Aesthetic Elevator? Or maybe a company selling sustainable goods such as solar panels. Although, according to Quantcast, this website attracts a “less affluent” audience in general (artists, perhaps!); maybe solar panels aren’t the ticket.
I’ve made a few new posts this year about my interest in an artist colony, and those posts have garnered some responses. In truth, that’s what I hope happens as a result of my Web presence. Like I said yesterday, “I believe in the Web as a tool — and have for a few years now — that connects people with like interests. It allows communities to be created, that formerly didn’t have a chance, as we’re able to find people with similar niche interests.” The Aesthetic Elevator exists to connect and mobilize.
Gary’s underlying desire is for people to be happy. This, he says in the the aforementioned keynote, is why he urges people to pursue what they love. Are some things easier to monetize online than others?
