strangeattractor

you seem rather interesting...noticed that our birthdays are one day apart. and you liked pi & manu chao & zero7.

check out my erotic soap opera....it's posted in my journal.

L.

To answer you ending question, Kevin Smith photographed his wife, Jennifer Schwalback, for a spread in Playboy. From time to time Playboy has celebrities photograph models for inclusion in the magazine. Smith was one such celebrity and he chose to ask his wife to model; I thought that was very romantic. I'm often informed that my thoughts on romance are very strange.

I think perhaps we're using the word "fragmentary" in different ways. More than that, you seem to have ascribed a pejorative meaning to the word; that fragmentation is inherently bad. My view of fragmentation is more objective; it simply is what it is. Neither good nor bad, though uses to which it's put can certainly be either.

I'm using the word mainly in looking at structure; an example would be the way a linear narrative is "fragmented" and rearranged in the film Pulp Fiction; in that instance the fragmentation turns the fable into something else entirely; the riding off into the sunset occurs literally two thirds of the way into the film. When referring to jazz as fragmentary, I was thinking mostly of the more experimental jazz artists; those who deconstruct songs, quote others within songs, and create something different than a linear song. Improvisation itself is a way of fragmenting a song; changing it continually as it's played. Perhaps I should've said that some jazz is fragmentary in nature (Monk was on my mind). Certainly there is much jazz that does not overly fracture its structure. And, again, this might be merely out difference in our opinion of what constitutes fragmentation and whether or not that's a bad thing.

I find troublesome this quote: "i'm also not impressed with film and art that caters to the elite." There are basically two stances one can take in viewing entertainments (art, music, writing, film, etc): populist or elitist. It would seem that we're on opposite sides of the fence on this one; I'm firmly within the camp of the elitist. I consider it a greater triumph of art to speak intimately to two thousand people than to speak in a very cursory way to two million. Also, I find that entertainments that require the consumer to work are more satisfying and often have more to say than entertainments that are easy. Which is not to say that something that is easily consumed and understood cannot be enjoyable or worthwhile. Only saying that I've enjoyed and gotten more out of repeated rereadings of Infinite Jest and Absalom! Absalom! than I did out of the two or three times I'm read the Harry Potter books.

I was hoping that you could elaborate on this quote: "...which makes it inaccessible maybe to the people who need to see/hear it most, rendering the work useless at best, and harmful at worst in its elitism." I'm curious how something can be harmful in its elitism. I'm also puzzled by it being "inaccessible to the people who need to see/hear it most." Wouldn't only the intended audience need to access it? As said, I'm confused.

Your larger use of fragmentary was explicated in the quote: "what i think i was reaching at but was unable to communicate is that i see family values, civic values, religious ideals, societal ethics, faith in politics, and in general a sense of unity and obligation to the whole etc. fragmented." Hmm. I do agree that homogeny of all of those things does produce a culture that works extremely well (examples would be countries like Switzerland and Sweden where everyone is pretty much alike and things seem to run far smoother there, with almost nonexistent poverty levels, great healthcare, low crime, etc). On the other hand, I do rather like the option of having personal values that differ from those of the overall culture; the fragmentation of those things is largely through freedom and choice. Sure, I'd rather live in a world where everyone was sympathetic to my world view, but I know that i

I think that food shortages, infectious diseases, and energy are global concerns and great minds are ever trying to solve these concerns. The problem, as I'm sure you're aware, is that no one can come to a consensus as to what would be a good way to solve any of those problems. Get a bunch of really intelligent people together to solve a problem and you're more than likely going to get many solutions for the problem. The fragmentation of which you speak. Who decides which solution is most worthy? Each solution probably comes with a well reasoned argument for why it's the best. How best to get food to the starving? I'm sure every think tank in the world could get you a different solution. You mention education and there are education programs trying to stop the spread of diseases, as are there vast amounts of money (though never quite enough) put into trying to treat those infected and come up with vaccinations. But disease, as you're well aware, is neigh impossible to eradicate (hell, the plague is still in parts of India).

The energy problem seems impossible to solve. Solar and wind are nowhere near efficient enough to replace petroleum. Hydrogen fuel cells are swiftly approaching, but are still a few years off. Billions of dollars are being dumped into advancing alternative energy sciences, but they haven't reached a solution yet. Not to mention that when they finally do come about they'll have to contend with the legacy system problem. Since oil based systems are so integral to many things, it's virtually impossible to replace them. Converting to an alternative en mass is going to be a long and expensive process. And then there's the issue of converting to an alternative throwing more than a few countries' economies into abject poverty. I personally am really worried about when China starts to become an industrial power. Just imagine what another billion people driving is going to do to the planet.

It's not as though people don't see the problems or don't feel that it is worth helping (though, yes, many do feel that way), it's that there is no good idea of how to go about solving the problems.

"i look to art, and movies, and music to rise beyond merely reflecting and portraying, but to provide coherence and order and maybe, if the piece is truly prodigial, provide solutions in that order." I'd say that the best post-modern (though really we're in the post-post-post-modern period that is without a name) art provides coherence in its fragmentary nature. It just takes a little work to glean the coherence out of it. And in working for the coherence, the order, one usually comes to the conclusions and solutions that the author intended.