I am sitting here, reading the earliest television reviews I can find from Variety... articles with titles that read: Vast Television Expansion After the War, and NBC Interupts Test Patterns to Bring 9 Minutes of Times Sq. Celebration, (post WWII) and thinking about what television is as a cultural force, implying intelligence and control? The sort of doubling of the societal event, as TV, and then letting those who analyze it, less as a participant and more as a knowledgeable expert, become the controller of such a technology....
What side of the media should we be on? Should we make it? Understand it? Believe it? Ignore it?... Television, and its sponsors made a conscious effort to drive women from the workplace after WWII and back into the homes, so they portrayed women only as 'mothers' and 'ladies'.... is this something we want to support... we know how television is used to force groups of people into marketable block of potential money spenders... do we want to support this activity, knowing what we know, that 75 year olds would be better served to chill with 12 years and vice versa for the goal of age-reversal???...
and then I just got in an argument over ideas of 'art' --- whether it was necessary anymore for the human to come along and take notice of what was already beautiful in nature; grab, hold it, take its picture, write it down, and show it off to others.... I claimed that any individual who felt compelled to grab beauty out of nature and claim it their own, was suffering from some lack and needed to fill it - through associating their ego with their view of natural beauty - ... it seems to me that this way of viewing art has not helped anyone and we need to switch over to a "sustainable" definition of art, one that would allow beauty to remain as it is, separate from greedy human egos....nature as nature...and art as human striving.... the agrasping of lonley togetherness need only rub itself, and leave the sylolog of nature alone. we are ourselves. let's admit it....
anyway -- love you all.
