This blog covers everything except sports and gardening, unless we find a really good link about using dead professional bowlers for mulch. The author is a StarTribune columnist, has been passing off fiction and hyperbole as insight since 1997, has run his own website since the Jurassic era of AOL, and was online when today’s college sophomores were a year away from being born. So get off his lawn.

More hair-pulling and retinal damage

Posted by: James Lileks under Technology Updated: September 30, 2013 - 12:35 PM

Stooges found in a Manly Shed. That’s Manly, Australia:

The only missing short film by The Three Stooges has been found in a Manly shed. Film collector Malcolm Smith, 78, was clearing out his old films when he came across Hello, Pop!, an 18-minute backstage musical from 1933 that he bought from another collector in the 1950s.

There was great rejoicing, according to Film historian Paul Brennan:

''Across America, there are probably 5 million hardcore Three Stooges fans,'' he said. ''On NitrateVille or any of the websites that search for lost vintage material, there is euphoria that the sole missing Three Stooges film has been found.''

Only five million? Of course, that’s the hardcore Stooge-fan contingent.

I really don’t want to google “hardcore Stooge fan,” so I’ll leave the definition up in the air. There are probably many more casual Stooge fans, although a lot of people say they’re Stooge fans because they remember the eye-pokes and Curly saying “woo-woo-woo.” When I was a kid I never liked the Stooges. They seemed unhappy, stupid, and mean to each other.

I know, I know, minority opinion. I’m sure they were really an anarchic protest against the economic deprivations of the 30s, in the meta-critical sense. Speaking of which:

ART Three hits:

1. The Brits are sniffing at an exhibition of Australian art. There’s a stunner. Well, sniffing isn't the right word, if you believe the URL.

2. Elsewhere, some people are upset that “Malevich, a committed communist revolutionary, is turning in his grave at this co-option by international capitalism.” One of his abstractions - sorry, his iconic abstraction - is being used as a logo for the G20 summit.

The article says Malevich provided “the most enraging examples of I-don’t-get-art for generations of Philistines to come.” Oh, I get it. The first few times you reduce painting down to a simple shape and two colors, well, yes, that’s different. In context it’s revolutionary. It’s also a dead end. Take, for example, Red Square: Painterly Realism of a Peasant Woman in Two Dimensions. Ready for some painterly realism of a woman? Go. It’s totally different than the black square series. It’s red! Brilliant!

3. I like Malevich’s Suprematist work, but he wasn’t any Norman Rockwell. “I’ll say,” the Rockwell haters say. “Thank heavens for that.”

Really? It’s okay to enjoy Rockwell. Not even ironically. The Smithsonian mag says:

By now, it seems a bit redundant to ask whether his paintings are art. Most of us no longer believe that an invisible red velvet rope separates museum art from illustration. No one could reasonably argue that every abstract painting in a museum collection is aesthetically superior to Rockwell’s illustrations, as if illustration were a lower, unevolved life- form without the intelligence of the more prestigious mediums.

The truth is that every genre produces its share of marvels and masterpieces, works that endure from one generation to the next, inviting attempts at explication and defeating them in short order. Rockwell's work has manifested far more staying power than that of countless abstract painters who were hailed in his lifetime, and one suspects it is here for the ages.

And that’s okay. Really, it is. Commercial art is where the visual traditions of Western Civ went to hide when abstraction took over, just as movie soundtracks were the refuge of the Classical tradition after the rise of atonalism. In both cases the products were mostly inferior to the work of the great masters, but there are pleasures to be found in a good score and a fine piece of illustration. There are Jell-O ads that almost look like Gaugin. If Gaugin could have drawn glistening translucent hoof-powder dessert.

INTERNET CHANGED Oh no, the Internet is over. Daily Dot:

The pair of engineers who've created a device CNN portends could "change the Internet" say they were inspired by the halcyon days of their Web-surfing youth, when the Internet was mostly ad-free.

To solve what is apparently a huge problem—people getting paid for producing content that others enjoy for free—Chad Russell and Charles Butkus have invented a device called "AdTrap." It's a white box that hooks up between your modem and wireless router and blocks data from ad networks before it can even reach your computer.

The result? You can load up YouTube without those obnoxious pre-roll advertisements. Same goes for Hulu, any video service, and any website that actually tries to pay its staff.  

And if your modem is your router? Or if the data is coming from the content provider directly? They want to sell the box for $139, of course, because they put a lot of hard work into it. Can’t wait for someone to pirate the specs and turn it out for $20.

Says someone in the comments:

This type of ad blocking will ultimately lead to a whole new monetization strategy for the internet that involves virtual currencies like bitcoin or peercoin. 

Remarks like that certainly help identify who spends too much time online, don’t they? Yes, that’s the future. Bitcoin. People who want to see cat videos will set aside some time to mine some Bitcoins so they can enjoy the internet without a six-second pre-roll. I wonder what the exchange rate will be for Flooz.

In the meantime, who wants to be Blinkwashed? Taxi says:

In this new digital campaign execution, people are required to connect to their webcam to view Virgin Mobile’s Blinkwashing ad.
The entire process starts out with first calibrating your eyes to the screen, and when the webcam has identified your eye blinking patterns, the ad lapses into a video where you are being told why you should switch to Virgin Mobile.

No. This: no.

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT