While we wait, a joke I heard from my friend Alex:
Mukmuk! Who's there? Miga. Miga who? Mukmuk! Who's there? Quatchi. Quatchi who? Mukmuk!Who's there? Sumi VANOC, it's just a jokeA song for this post.
Showing posts with label olympics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label olympics. Show all posts
Monday, March 01, 2010
Kinda over (day 185)
I wonder why the Para-Olympics are treated so differently than the Olympics. I also wonder why women are not allowed to ski jump in the Olympics. Those two things seem like they belong in the same category. It didn't seem right to me that the closing ceremonies should be held, and the flame extinguished only to be lit again. I'm not sure of all the complexities of having the Para-Olympics but perhaps one solution is to fully integrate the two so they take place simultaneously. The whole party lasts a bit longer and both get the recognition they deserve. As it is, we're in a no man's land of Olympics. Closing ceremonies have happened but some Pavilions are still up and the Live sites are still there (at least the Yaletown one is). We have to wait for a couple weeks before the Para-Olympics start. The good thing is, we have a second chance at the closing ceremonies. Maybe theirs will have good music.
While we wait, a joke I heard from my friend Alex:
While we wait, a joke I heard from my friend Alex:
Sunday, February 21, 2010
party culture (day 177)
It was great having family visit for the weekend. They came for the olympics and in so doing gave us the closest thing to olympic fever we'll experience. We went downtown, visited some of the houses, cheered with strangers, and bought noisemakers. And there was lots of food and drink. An exhausting but perfect weekend.
Taking a bit of a social break, we saw Robert Lepage's "The Blue Dragon" this afternoon. It was an amazing production with a surprisingly delightful ending. The pace was flawless and the sets and effects breathtaking. I enjoyed myself immensely. The story was real. Nothing glamorous or saturated. Just people struggling to be happy and trying to find home. There were only three actors but the setting felt full nonetheless. Impressive.
By far the best part of the weekend though was being surrounded by the sound of birds in the morning. They were loving the sun and so were we.
A song for this post.
Taking a bit of a social break, we saw Robert Lepage's "The Blue Dragon" this afternoon. It was an amazing production with a surprisingly delightful ending. The pace was flawless and the sets and effects breathtaking. I enjoyed myself immensely. The story was real. Nothing glamorous or saturated. Just people struggling to be happy and trying to find home. There were only three actors but the setting felt full nonetheless. Impressive.
By far the best part of the weekend though was being surrounded by the sound of birds in the morning. They were loving the sun and so were we.
A song for this post.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Blue jackets and red scarves (day 171)
bacterial update: I bottled the Pu-Erh Kombucha last night. It tastes really good, like a nice sweet wine. I'm still amazed that this transformation can happen. I mean I love Pu-Erh tea on its own, but its transformation to kombucha is nothing short of a marvel. I'm wanting it to carbonate a bit so I'm leaving it at room temperature for a while. I'm a little nervous about bottles shattering or the tea shooting up to the ceiling after I open a bottle. I might chicken out and open one tonight to test the level of carbonation and see how much longer I have before the gamble of one more day is just foolish.
I was part of a group strategic planning session today. Interaction in a group is not my favourite dynamic but the facilitator was exceptional and I feel we got a lot done. Still the day was long. I left the school late and entered the GI zone. Being hit by the Olympics group dynamic just about put me over the edge of normal social behaviour. Suddenly everyone around me was wearing 'the colours', were on vacation, quite likely buzzed, and caught up in their small group universe. Under normal circumstances I might have just weaved in and out of such groups but today I just wanted to pop everyone's bubble. Bah hum bug.
I just ate. I feel better.
I've never been one for team spirit. I am committed to the groups I belong to but always lurking is a skepticism about mob behaviour. I even have an aversion to Facebook groups. We do silly things if enough unreasonable people are making it normal. I wonder though, are the people that easily lose themselves in the team happier? Do they feel like they belong? Like they are surfing with the waves of the tribe? What differentiates the people that can lose themselves in the team and those that can't? I can't even picture myself cheering a hockey team genuinely. Doesn't seem to be something that can be taught. Yet I've heard that we are all subject to mob mentality given the right conditions. Maybe I have an instinctive aversion to the likely conditions. Not yet curious enough to experiment with this.
A song for this post.
I was part of a group strategic planning session today. Interaction in a group is not my favourite dynamic but the facilitator was exceptional and I feel we got a lot done. Still the day was long. I left the school late and entered the GI zone. Being hit by the Olympics group dynamic just about put me over the edge of normal social behaviour. Suddenly everyone around me was wearing 'the colours', were on vacation, quite likely buzzed, and caught up in their small group universe. Under normal circumstances I might have just weaved in and out of such groups but today I just wanted to pop everyone's bubble. Bah hum bug.
I just ate. I feel better.
I've never been one for team spirit. I am committed to the groups I belong to but always lurking is a skepticism about mob behaviour. I even have an aversion to Facebook groups. We do silly things if enough unreasonable people are making it normal. I wonder though, are the people that easily lose themselves in the team happier? Do they feel like they belong? Like they are surfing with the waves of the tribe? What differentiates the people that can lose themselves in the team and those that can't? I can't even picture myself cheering a hockey team genuinely. Doesn't seem to be something that can be taught. Yet I've heard that we are all subject to mob mentality given the right conditions. Maybe I have an instinctive aversion to the likely conditions. Not yet curious enough to experiment with this.
A song for this post.
Friday, February 12, 2010
And so it begins (day 168)
Well that was that. I joined the millions (?) who streamed the opening ceremonies. I wasn't going to. There was an event at the Candahar Bar that I wanted to go to but my exhausted self won the argument and voted for a retreat homeward. Once home, the pull of the stream was irresistible. I had heard from Rob who attended the dress rehearsal for the ceremonies that it was amazing and I was curious. The best part of streaming were the simultaneous tweets coming in from others who were watching. Now I understand the push for TVs to have twitter feeds as a feature. Especially because the ceremonies were something I could watch while doing other things and twitters were a reminder that something interesting might be happening.
I enjoyed parts of the ceremony like the athlete entrance, the fiddle players and tap dancers, spoken word by Shane Koyczan, and k.d. lang. I know this will sound a bit strange but I thought there was way too much use of projections and lights. If there was any controversy about the power used for Vectorial Elevation, it should now have found another target. The stream ended abruptly before the cauldron arrived on the scene so I actually have no idea what the malfunction was all about and how it all ended. Who knew the word cauldron would become so searchable on Twitter.
One of the odd things about television is how they have to keep moving. Even during the minute of silence for the Georgian Luge athlete who died, they just kept on showing images every few seconds. It was a very unfortunate choice. Shouldn't the images have observed a moment of silence too? And after the minute of silence, there was no closure. No 'thank you'. No 'you may sit down'. Just a continuation of the show. Sometimes I think we add these moments of silence without actually understanding what they're for.
I was very happy to see all the athletes march in. They seemed so happy. I was happy for them. I felt my mood lift. I didn't get national pride. I just put out a wish that one day we'll do this without an overhang of inequality and war.
A song for this post.
I enjoyed parts of the ceremony like the athlete entrance, the fiddle players and tap dancers, spoken word by Shane Koyczan, and k.d. lang. I know this will sound a bit strange but I thought there was way too much use of projections and lights. If there was any controversy about the power used for Vectorial Elevation, it should now have found another target. The stream ended abruptly before the cauldron arrived on the scene so I actually have no idea what the malfunction was all about and how it all ended. Who knew the word cauldron would become so searchable on Twitter.
One of the odd things about television is how they have to keep moving. Even during the minute of silence for the Georgian Luge athlete who died, they just kept on showing images every few seconds. It was a very unfortunate choice. Shouldn't the images have observed a moment of silence too? And after the minute of silence, there was no closure. No 'thank you'. No 'you may sit down'. Just a continuation of the show. Sometimes I think we add these moments of silence without actually understanding what they're for.
I was very happy to see all the athletes march in. They seemed so happy. I was happy for them. I felt my mood lift. I didn't get national pride. I just put out a wish that one day we'll do this without an overhang of inequality and war.
A song for this post.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Engaging in dialogue (day 163)
CODE Dialogues happened yesterday. I didn't blog about it because I needed a break to get clear on what stood out for me about the event.
Bruce Ferguson started the day with a pretty heavy talk on the responsibilities of being an artist working with technology in the context of a world where many things are not working optimally. There is still a tech divide. The disparity of, say, access to the web, is pretty glaring when you see it on a map. He was basically pointing out that artists have a role in working with technology in a way that highlights the inflection points of tech as creative and destructive. He was pointing out that culturally we are still pretty clumsy at discerning what we should do with tech, and how we should do it.
It was a nice segue into the next talk about urbanism, technology and participation. Alexandra Samuel did a great job moderating a fairly difficult group of panelists. The discussion found its legs I think on the discussion about interaction vs. participation. My feeling was participation in this case was perhaps meant in the sense of 'engagement'. The difference between interaction and participation then centres on commitment to a larger dialogue for which the artwork or technology becomes an entry point. Many interactive artworks are still very much about entertainment and spectacle. And in some ways, people expect that. As it becomes more mainstream I think we'll see a shift in emphasis to work that provides deeper ways to engage.
As I was getting ready for Rafael Lozano-Hemmer's talk during the break, the discussion in the morning started to worry me. His work is so much about play and grand gestures. It can be hard to relate his work to social responsibility. There was some controversy about 'Vectorial Elevation' being enacted in Vancouver both because of the cost of installation and the amount of power needed for the lights. Especially in the context of the Olympics where the cost/benefit analysis continues to trigger a lot of anger. Rafael himself is not one to emphasize political issues in discussion about his work. I was super nervous.
In good form, he started his talk with Mexican music to lighten the mood. He went on to describe a series of recent work from his relational architecture, shadow box, and sub-sculpture series. I was really glad that he finished his talk with Voz Alta, a work to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Tlatelolco student massacre in Mexico in 1968. It is by far his most political work and I think highlights the potential of participation at a visually grand scale. It was about owning a space and speaking out, involving the memory of the buidings and geography directly. It was not about 'alien memory' as he often states of his relational architecture work.
I started with a question about the tension between large scale public installations and political overt work. Creating large public installations often requires official permission and sanction so may limit the range of expression possible, yet the potential for impact is high. He spoke about the fact that the work in Mexico was commissioned by the students at the University. They were able to mount the work independent of government control. It made me wonder if this would even be possible here. He spoke about needing to compromise but not giving in on crucial points of the work.
I followed up with a question about Vancouver and why Vectorial Elevation, if he could have done a Vancouver-specific work what would it have been. He didn't answer the second part of the question but talked about Vectorial Elevation as being ideal for the Olympics because of its possibility for cross-country and international participation. Hard not to agree with that.
I then addressed the controversy more directly and asked about the need for such large scale work. Why spend such large sums when there are more pressing social issues to be solved. He spoke about the power issues with his work and said that people usually felt more comfortable once he told them that the power needed to run his piece for the entire duration of the exhibition was equivalent to three hockey games. He also mentioned that the controversy noticeably quieted down once the piece went up. He ended it with support for the fight to re-establish arts funding in BC. People clapped. Thinking about it now I think I would have rephrased my question. I framed it in the context of the Olympics and NASA, things that are expensive but appeal to a hopeful sense of unity, exploration, out of the reach of the practical grittiness of life. I think I would have asked his opinion more directly about how such endeavours help or hinder the possibilities or motivation of solving some of the more gritty issues of living in society. Because that is the tension. When I experience a work like Vectorial Elevation, am I suddenly more optimistic about world unity, world peace? By highlighting the best of human nature, do we give ourselves a push to work all the more harder to solve the problems? Or is it a distraction, a diversion? I suppose anything can become a way to hide from responsibility. When the question is framed about money I think it hides a category mistake. Many of the social issues we face are about process, not money. It apparently takes 75K per year for the government to take care of one homeless person. Clearly, money is not the issue. Still if we devoted all the energy and human resources that was devoted to the Olympics towards alleviating suffering in the Downtown Eastside, I'm sure we'd see progress. Where people are willing to devote energy is the real issue. It also helps that the Olympics has a definite end point, a goal.
Anyway, that is the real discussion that I would have liked to have with Rafael. I still don't know what he thinks about it. I sensed he wasn't going to go there with me. He spoke eloquently about his work and process but stayed pretty clear of its potential impact.
I'm sad I didn't get to ask him about the question about Augmented Reality. But I think he would have been against the personal and commercial nature of it. Over the time I spent with the documentation of his work, and at the dialogue, it became clear that he is very much about people physically engaging with each other and the space. He's a very social person and fun is very much part of his motivation.
Ok enough with the blow by blow. I felt terribly uncomfortable up there. Even though it was supposed to be a dialogue the nature of the setup made that difficult. I think I would rather do radio.
A song for this post.
Bruce Ferguson started the day with a pretty heavy talk on the responsibilities of being an artist working with technology in the context of a world where many things are not working optimally. There is still a tech divide. The disparity of, say, access to the web, is pretty glaring when you see it on a map. He was basically pointing out that artists have a role in working with technology in a way that highlights the inflection points of tech as creative and destructive. He was pointing out that culturally we are still pretty clumsy at discerning what we should do with tech, and how we should do it.
It was a nice segue into the next talk about urbanism, technology and participation. Alexandra Samuel did a great job moderating a fairly difficult group of panelists. The discussion found its legs I think on the discussion about interaction vs. participation. My feeling was participation in this case was perhaps meant in the sense of 'engagement'. The difference between interaction and participation then centres on commitment to a larger dialogue for which the artwork or technology becomes an entry point. Many interactive artworks are still very much about entertainment and spectacle. And in some ways, people expect that. As it becomes more mainstream I think we'll see a shift in emphasis to work that provides deeper ways to engage.
As I was getting ready for Rafael Lozano-Hemmer's talk during the break, the discussion in the morning started to worry me. His work is so much about play and grand gestures. It can be hard to relate his work to social responsibility. There was some controversy about 'Vectorial Elevation' being enacted in Vancouver both because of the cost of installation and the amount of power needed for the lights. Especially in the context of the Olympics where the cost/benefit analysis continues to trigger a lot of anger. Rafael himself is not one to emphasize political issues in discussion about his work. I was super nervous.
In good form, he started his talk with Mexican music to lighten the mood. He went on to describe a series of recent work from his relational architecture, shadow box, and sub-sculpture series. I was really glad that he finished his talk with Voz Alta, a work to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Tlatelolco student massacre in Mexico in 1968. It is by far his most political work and I think highlights the potential of participation at a visually grand scale. It was about owning a space and speaking out, involving the memory of the buidings and geography directly. It was not about 'alien memory' as he often states of his relational architecture work.
I started with a question about the tension between large scale public installations and political overt work. Creating large public installations often requires official permission and sanction so may limit the range of expression possible, yet the potential for impact is high. He spoke about the fact that the work in Mexico was commissioned by the students at the University. They were able to mount the work independent of government control. It made me wonder if this would even be possible here. He spoke about needing to compromise but not giving in on crucial points of the work.
I followed up with a question about Vancouver and why Vectorial Elevation, if he could have done a Vancouver-specific work what would it have been. He didn't answer the second part of the question but talked about Vectorial Elevation as being ideal for the Olympics because of its possibility for cross-country and international participation. Hard not to agree with that.
I then addressed the controversy more directly and asked about the need for such large scale work. Why spend such large sums when there are more pressing social issues to be solved. He spoke about the power issues with his work and said that people usually felt more comfortable once he told them that the power needed to run his piece for the entire duration of the exhibition was equivalent to three hockey games. He also mentioned that the controversy noticeably quieted down once the piece went up. He ended it with support for the fight to re-establish arts funding in BC. People clapped. Thinking about it now I think I would have rephrased my question. I framed it in the context of the Olympics and NASA, things that are expensive but appeal to a hopeful sense of unity, exploration, out of the reach of the practical grittiness of life. I think I would have asked his opinion more directly about how such endeavours help or hinder the possibilities or motivation of solving some of the more gritty issues of living in society. Because that is the tension. When I experience a work like Vectorial Elevation, am I suddenly more optimistic about world unity, world peace? By highlighting the best of human nature, do we give ourselves a push to work all the more harder to solve the problems? Or is it a distraction, a diversion? I suppose anything can become a way to hide from responsibility. When the question is framed about money I think it hides a category mistake. Many of the social issues we face are about process, not money. It apparently takes 75K per year for the government to take care of one homeless person. Clearly, money is not the issue. Still if we devoted all the energy and human resources that was devoted to the Olympics towards alleviating suffering in the Downtown Eastside, I'm sure we'd see progress. Where people are willing to devote energy is the real issue. It also helps that the Olympics has a definite end point, a goal.
Anyway, that is the real discussion that I would have liked to have with Rafael. I still don't know what he thinks about it. I sensed he wasn't going to go there with me. He spoke eloquently about his work and process but stayed pretty clear of its potential impact.
I'm sad I didn't get to ask him about the question about Augmented Reality. But I think he would have been against the personal and commercial nature of it. Over the time I spent with the documentation of his work, and at the dialogue, it became clear that he is very much about people physically engaging with each other and the space. He's a very social person and fun is very much part of his motivation.
Ok enough with the blow by blow. I felt terribly uncomfortable up there. Even though it was supposed to be a dialogue the nature of the setup made that difficult. I think I would rather do radio.
A song for this post.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Anticipation (day 155)
I spent an hour this morning trying to plan my way through all the events at the Cultural Olympiad. So far I have tickets for Laurie Anderson, Robert Lepage, and K'NAAN. And plans for many openings including of course the CODE Live opening on February 4th. The painful part is that there are some overlaps where I have to miss something.
I'm looking forward to seeing Rafael Lozano-Hemmer's work, Vectorial Elevation. He is starting to install and I saw the lights moving tonight, near my apartment. It looks like I'll be able to see some of the effects of the lights from my balcony! He's installing big search lights on either side of English Bay which will light up the sky and water in patterns input by people through a web interface. I hate to say this, but I think I'm getting Olympic fever.
I stopped by to see the David Hoffos work at 560 Seymour. His work is always interesting. He does 3D video without resorting to 3D glasses or any binocular tricks. It was the biggest installation I've seen of his but I think I prefer his smaller work, especially the ones that integrate the viewer in the scene. The feeling of this work was one of detachment, like someone filming a scene...everyone having a role but nothing being real. Because I already felt detached from the vantage point of the sidewalk, the subject felt really far away. A very lonely feel overall. Still, very much worth seeing.
I'm also looking forward to seeing Ed Pien's work in person. I've only see pictures of his intricate paper cut-outs. Bonus, his exhibit is only steps from my place.
I feel so lucky to be able to see all this work in the city.
A song for this post.
I'm looking forward to seeing Rafael Lozano-Hemmer's work, Vectorial Elevation. He is starting to install and I saw the lights moving tonight, near my apartment. It looks like I'll be able to see some of the effects of the lights from my balcony! He's installing big search lights on either side of English Bay which will light up the sky and water in patterns input by people through a web interface. I hate to say this, but I think I'm getting Olympic fever.
I stopped by to see the David Hoffos work at 560 Seymour. His work is always interesting. He does 3D video without resorting to 3D glasses or any binocular tricks. It was the biggest installation I've seen of his but I think I prefer his smaller work, especially the ones that integrate the viewer in the scene. The feeling of this work was one of detachment, like someone filming a scene...everyone having a role but nothing being real. Because I already felt detached from the vantage point of the sidewalk, the subject felt really far away. A very lonely feel overall. Still, very much worth seeing.
I'm also looking forward to seeing Ed Pien's work in person. I've only see pictures of his intricate paper cut-outs. Bonus, his exhibit is only steps from my place.
I feel so lucky to be able to see all this work in the city.
A song for this post.
Monday, January 04, 2010
The limpics (day 129)
I don't think I've blogged about the Olympics yet. It's kind of the elephant in the room. The limpics. That's what it starts to sound like after a while. There is one wonderful thing about the limpics: The Cultural Olympiad. It's a somewhat grand title for a pile of events that showcase art and culture with a focus on Canada. It's not that I don't care about sports, I do. I love the idea of peak performance but I'm impressed by peak performance whenever and wherever I see it. There are many more people operating at an impressive level than are chosen for the Olympics (even without taking into account the limited choices of sports for the big O). The world coming to town is the event. The show we're putting on is the event.
So I am staying in town (the most frequently asked question), and not just because I have to. I'm staying in town to catch the shows, formal and informal. I don't have tickets to any sporting event (the second most frequently asked question) but I've thought about it. I am involved (the third most frequently asked question). Emily Carr is hosting part of the CODE (Culture Olympiad Digital Edition) Live Exhibition. And part of the Emily Carr exhibition will be in the Intersections Digital Studios (IDS). It will be amazing to have such world class artists so close. IDS is also hosting CodeLab, an artist-in-residence project which features work in the public realm by local artists and students. Lastly I'll be participating in the CODE dialogues which are a series of talks/interviews with the artists. If all goes according to plan, I'll be one of the hosts.
It's hard to follow China but someone told me that we'll be the fun and eclectic second act. I believe it.
A song for this post.
So I am staying in town (the most frequently asked question), and not just because I have to. I'm staying in town to catch the shows, formal and informal. I don't have tickets to any sporting event (the second most frequently asked question) but I've thought about it. I am involved (the third most frequently asked question). Emily Carr is hosting part of the CODE (Culture Olympiad Digital Edition) Live Exhibition. And part of the Emily Carr exhibition will be in the Intersections Digital Studios (IDS). It will be amazing to have such world class artists so close. IDS is also hosting CodeLab, an artist-in-residence project which features work in the public realm by local artists and students. Lastly I'll be participating in the CODE dialogues which are a series of talks/interviews with the artists. If all goes according to plan, I'll be one of the hosts.
It's hard to follow China but someone told me that we'll be the fun and eclectic second act. I believe it.
A song for this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
