Litkovska, Spring 2024
macklin celebrini has autism
Mike Driver

Origami Around
𓃗
One Nice Bug Per Day

bliss lane
EXPECTATIONS
Sweet Seals For You, Always
🪼
$LAYYYTER

gracie abrams
almost home

No title available
No title available

Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
★
Noah Kahan
Sade Olutola
ojovivo
art blog(derogatory)
seen from Ethiopia
seen from Türkiye
seen from Brazil
seen from Nepal

seen from Malaysia
seen from Brazil
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from Spain
seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
seen from Brazil

seen from United States
seen from Romania
seen from Ukraine
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
@pedestrianatbest
Litkovska, Spring 2024
a giant lamp / of light, it is voltage, / it is more like a lantern / than like a house poem excerpt, stephen ackerman source image
We live in a world of structures, institutions, and systems. These entities exercise authority over us by imposing rules that they also enforce. Often their authority is legitimized by the claim that we have granted it, and that it is only our endorsement that allows these rules to exist, even though we usually have not given our explicit endorsement to anything.
If we challenge the rules, we are told they are necessary to maintain an orderly society. And it is true that rules help to create order, which often convinces us that the authorities are acting in our best interest. But it is also often the case that these very same rules are used to further the interests of a select few to the detriment of all others.
To see what is truly in our best interest requires an almost impossible breadth of awareness. We must see not only what we personally need but also the needs of all others, as individuals and as a whole. But what frequently happens is that we do not consider need at all, and instead concentrate on our ability to satisfy our desires. We are told that it is by satisfying our freely-chosen desires that we will become more happy. Consequently, we allow the needs of the many to go unmet, while permitting the desires of the most privileged, lucky, and able to be fulfilled.
Read more...
Louise Bourgeois: Fabric Works
Lee Jeonglok, Iceland 29, 2019 C-Type Print 120 x 160 cm 47.2 x 63 in Edition of 7 plus 2 AP
“Now I seem to have a center, but did not before. More important, I see this as being ensouled. The work has reached its end, suddenly, by an act of God; the person has been searching for his missing parts (i.e., his soul) throughout all time and everywhere, with the possibility that the person may — on his own — never be complete. I consider this search for one’s soul as the modern way of viewing redemption from bondage to sin, enslavement, or as I speak of it, machine-level consciousness.”
— Philip K. Dick, The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick
“If I had to characterize this new state of affairs, I would call it ‘after the orgy.’ The orgy is in a way the whole explosive movement of modernity, with its various kinds of liberation — political liberation, sexual liberation, [etc.] If you want my opinion, today everything is liberated. The game is over, and we collectively confront the crucial question: ‘What are you doing after the orgy?’”
— Jean Baudrillard, “Beyond the Vanishing Point of Art”
“I can now discern — albeit dimly — the outline of a new theology, rooted in the epoch we are moving into. It is a Christian-Buddhist neo-pantheism very close to Pere Teilhard’s Christocentric Point Omega, but having specifically to do with the unitary ecosphere — and for me, closely related to Malebranche’s Cartesian pantheism, which of course goes back to Augustine and Pauline mysticism — and may also include the new physics and field theory, a merging of science and theology in defense of a palpably living universe.”
— Philip K. Dick, The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick
Iwasaki Tsuneo Grain de Riz
“Ah, but to reach muteness, what a great effort of voice. My voice is the way I go in search of reality; reality, before my language, exists like a thought that is not thought, but inescapably I was and am compelled to need to know what the thought thinks.”
— Clarice Lispector, The Passion According to G. H.
To write is to talk about yourself. Regardless of the form it takes, everything you write is an expression of yourself. It's your feelings, thoughts, ideas, memories, and imaginings that shape the texts you create.
Through the act of writing, you bring a part of your interior self into the world using language. You compose the contents of your mind in a way that makes sense on the page. The kind of sense it makes changes depending on what you're writing. A poem makes sense in a different way than an academic paper makes sense. This practice of sense-making through writing also develops your awareness. As you think and write, you come to understand yourself a little better.
To read your own writing is to talk to yourself. By reading yourself you gain a more distant perspective of yourself. The distance increases as the time between writing and reading increases. When you read a text you just finished, you might not see anything new in it. But when you read something you wrote years ago, there is the potential for insight. Not only are you no longer in the mindset of composition, you are no longer the same person who wrote the words. The self that was no longer exists, and the self that is has had new experiences in the meantime.
Read more...
“That he had felt this despair, this deepest nausea, and yet had not succumbed to it, that the bird, the happy fountainhead and voice within him, had remained alive after all — it was because of all these things that he now felt such joy, that he laughed, that his face was beaming beneath his gray hair.”
— Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha
Grasshopper (1987) by Peter Blegvad from Imagine, Observe, Remember
I just googled this and… yes, it’s absolutely real.
And there are so many articles and videos and discussions. Like, the scientific community is buzzing about this.
So much research will have to be redone because the data was absolutely compromised, off by orders of magnitude, by using standard lab gloves.
The world is probably not horrifically contaminated by microplastics. Sterile laboratories, however, are contaminated by latex and nitrile gloves.
Thank God someone bothered to check.
>I just googled this and… yes, it’s absolutely real.
Sources beyond dude just trust me, for the skeptics.
Scientists may have been unknowingly inflating microplastics pollution estimates, and the surprising source could be their own lab gloves. A
https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/scientists-lab-gloves-may-be-causing-an-overestimation-of-microplastics-411138
Nitrile and latex gloves that scientists wear while they are measuring microplastics may lead to a potential overestimation of the tiny poll
Nitrile and latex gloves may cause overestimation of microplastics - Phys.org (it’s a pdf)
Researchers discovered a standard piece of lab equipment has added thousands of microplastic ‘false positives’ per each square-millimeter un
Ordinary Lab Gloves May Have Skewed Microplastic Data: That doesn’t mean microplastics aren’t a problem, though
That should be enough
Rejoice Chuol at Loewe, Spring 2024
Mona Tougaard at Loewe, Spring 2024