Read Howard Reingold’s post on the Lowline Project under New York. As a New Yorker and a lover of things like abandoned subway stations, I love it!
I’ve finally gotten a portfolio together. It covers a long time slot – 1994* to yesterday.
To see it click here or on the page called Portfolio up above or in the column at right.
Let me know what you think!
*There’s only two from 1994 – but I’m particularly attached to them. One is the cover of the American Weekly that I did for the re-opening of the Lincoln Theater in DC and the other is a poster for Brian Harmer’s birthday. I’m proud of the newspaper cover because Cab Calloway the great jazz musician signed a copy. And I’m proud of the Brian poster because it was really the first computer art I did.
Just posted on the FOX news site – yes sometimes they actually have something to say.
One theory of Pleistocene extinctions – second order predation – resolves the pre-Clovis issue.
People entered the New World (pre-Clovis times) and, in addition to hunting herbivores, hunted carnivores and, of course, gathered vegetable food. Carnivore killing reduced carnivore populations below the level that they could control herbivore populations. This “unstuck” the balance of the ecosystem. Herbivore populations boomed. And, like algae blooms in lakes, herbivore populations would then crash – destruction of habitat. This me
ant a serious lack of plant food for both herbivores and humans. Humans turned exclusively to hunting – Clovis. Thus, Clovis is a result of the “boom” in herbivores and the “bust” in vegetation.
There would be many animals in a weakened condition during the herbivore boom since they didn't have enough vegetation. And naturally, humans like other predators would take the weak, the old, and the young – the easiest to hunt.
Paraphrased from the NY Times:
103 street artists from around the world, painted mostly big murals directly onto the walls of an abandoned, uncompleted subway station.
I love it!! When I lived in NY I was always fascinated by the abandoned stations that flashed by the window far downtown.
I would make a fantasy for myself that secret people lived in them. I always wanted to explore the stations but they just flew by the train windows. That speed protected the secret people who lived there. The train would make the awful screech they make on a turn and the people would have time to hide if they were out on the station. They lived in the hidden parts above that wer
e clean and fixed up but still recognizable as subway stations. They used the platforms to get from one place to another.
When I was a kid our line was the Flushing El (82nd St stop). At that time they still had largeish waiting rooms, with wooden benches, that adjoined the bathrooms. At our station they had pot bellied stoves so on cold days we would wait in the ladies waiting room until we could hear the train and then scurry up to the station. On the El the station master, the bathrooms and waiting rooms were under the station and the tracks. The windows of the waiting rooms looked out over the avenue and so it seemed like, if our station were abandoned you could be there and nobody would know but you would have heat and water and electricity.
I figured it was the same for the abandoned stations but, of course, the waiting rooms and all that were above the tracks. Now, once the art is finished, the secret people who live in the stations will have beautiful walls. Maybe they will make friends with some of the artists and the artists will make the walls of the secret parts beautiful as well.
I'll have to go to NY and take a subway ride.
Patrilocal/patriarchical societies are consequence of agriculture not a true reflection human past says Psychology Today in a guest post by Eric Michael Johnson.
The article reports that based on the DNA:
…the male vs. female “effective population size,” or the percentage of males compared to females who were effectively reproducing. If polygyny were indeed the norm it would mean that most men throughout human evolution never reproduced and, in strictly genetic terms, had mysteriously vanished without a trace.
The article uses evidence of bonobos (pygmy chimps – closest to us genetically) that females mate with many males during estrous.
They postulate that like bonobos early humans – and indeed humans up until the invention of agriculture lived in a multimale-multifemale mating system – both males and females having multiple partners. The discussion is on why this would be so.
- There is great sense in multiple mating for females, especially in a highly mobile group, since there is always the possibility that any male might be the father of any offspring then 1) the offspring becomes the concern of all members of the troop 2) females can call on all males with whom she has mated for assistance 3) to keep frustration in a troop at
a minimum and build group cohesion and 4) if it is a group with decided male dominance in the group, (generally not true of modern hunter/gatherers) then when male dominance changes the chances are that a female already has a relationship with the newly dominant male
We know that amongst baboons (not as genetically close to us as bonobos) newly dominant males will kill the offspring of the previously dominant male to 1) get rid of possible contenders early 2) to stop the female from nursing and thus bring her in to estrous.
The issue of paternity doesn't become as important until the invention of scarcity that proceeded the invention of agriculture. Hunter/gatherers tend to see the world as plentiful rather than scarce so everyone shares with everyone else. Once there is scarcity then those who are bigger can take things away from those who are smaller – males can take things, including sex and children away from women. Then it becomes important for a male to know that he is the father of his children.
Naturally this probably evolved over the couple of thousand years between the beginning of sedentary villages and the full adoption of agriculture.
“If you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all.”
From http://engagingpeace.com/ “prettying up” the language of war.
- “Friendly fire”
- “Collateral damage”
- “Servicing the Target”
Making the language pretty suggests that war it isn’t about killing people and breaking things.
I would suggest that it is equally true of other relationships and is toxic to all relationships in the long run.
The big news is above – I've decided to try my hand at regular blogging and have moved the book and any comments. I'm hoping that I don't loose any readers.
My reasoning is that posting chapters is
a slow slog and I find that I may want to say something more.
In case you are getting updates in e-mail the link for the book is http://information-revolutions.com