Batfort

Style reveals substance

Month: July 2017 (page 2 of 5)

On Fillers

Dearest Reader!

This week I have been thinking about the concept of “filler.”

You know, the stuff that we stick between the gaps of real things. Like snacks. Or grout. It exists, and has to exist, to tide you over between meals, or to prevent getting your pinky toe stuck in the gap between the tiles on your bathroom floor, but nobody has ever gone into a beautifully-tiled bathroom and said, “My God that is some fantastic grout!”

(Now, interior designers are doing some cool things with grout these days so it is possible that someone has actually said this. Interesting grout, coupled with tile set in an interesting way, could in fact exist. Inside of a larger context, grout is useful and even perhaps beautiful. But on its own, grout is nothing.)

Or take meat products, since I am writing to you as perhaps the only carnivore that you know. Delicious sausages and hamburgers require no extra ingredients: meat, fat, perhaps a little salt or other flavorings, that’s it. Cook those babies up and you have quite a satisfying meal. Or if you want to get REALLY fancy, smoke ’em. I am now tempted to drift away into fantasias of smoked sausages….

No fillers are needed to make a good meat product. Some fillers might be added to say, a sausage, to create extra delicious flavors. Chicken-apple sausage is a popular variety, in which the (cheap) apples stretch the (expensive) chicken farther, but also provide a refreshing counterpoint in both taste and texture.

However, some purveyors of meat use fillers to use less meat while charging the same price-per-pound. These fillers are usually starch-based, and add nothing but cost-savings to the burger. No added flavor or texture for the end consumer to enjoy other than extra starchy things to digest. These people are why you can’t trust any pre-made beef patties and have to read the ingredients every single time. Thanks, fillers!

The idea of fillers also exists in art and music, in the form of white space, or rests. Good use of white space in a graphic design, or negative space in a painting or sculpture, can add oodles of visual interest and breathing room to the piece. In fact, I would argue that negative space is essential to good visual presentation. (Bear in mind that you can’t have negative space without first having an object for that negative space to react around.)

In music, the space between the notes is often just as important as the notes themselves. There’s a vast difference between the short, clipped notes of a march, and the long drawn-out notes in something like a tone poem. A complex rhythm is the interplay between positive and negative, in they way that the filler interacts with the drumbeats. Any specialness in the silence is a byproduct of how that silence interacts with the musical notes.

If you try to treat the silence between the notes as Its Own Thing, you end up with such ridiculousness as John Cage’s 4’33”.

The point: fillers are not necessarily bad, and can be useful or even helpful as a part of a bigger picture. On their own, fillers are neutral. The problem comes when you try to substitute the filler for the real thing.

A day full of snacks is a day at the end of which you’ll (read: I will) be unsatisfied and cranky.

A bathroom full of grout is…well, unfinished.

A hamburger full of fillers is still a hamburger, I guess, but not one that I would want to eat.

A painting full of white space is…not a painting.

And let’s be real, a “musical composition” of silence is not a musical composition at all.

That leads me, dear reader, to the topic on which my mind lingers…mental filler.

I spend more time than I should on Twitter.

It’s is fun! It’s full of novel content that makes me (mildly) amused and makes me (shallowly) think. There’s always something new!

But social media is primarily a connector–grout, if you will. Some people are doing good work of providing premium content on social media (this tweetstorm by AJA Cortes is a good example), but for the most part, all the content on social channels is dependent upon the primary media that tweets link to. Or references, in the case of many of the parody or esoteric accounts.

Twitter is very good for connecting things, for discovering, for bridging from one content creator to another, but as a “meal” in itself? It’s ultimately unfulfilling.

It can be very easy to fall into the trap of wanting mental snack food all the time. It’s easy, it’s amusing, and it’s very readily available. (And often wrapped in brightly colored, single serving containers!)

But I have to remind myself that single-serving snacks, be they mental or food, won’t build a good body. Whether it’s a body of work or body of thought doesn’t matter.

One can’t build a solid, delicious hamburger out of starchy filler.

And if I (or you) don’t want to end up blown away like a pile of dried up starch on a tile counter made of actual tiles by people who Did The Work, can’t focus on the filler. We have to focus on the substantial things. Meals. Tiles. Meat. Good art and music. Solid thought: books.

We must relegate filler to its proper place–to fill in the gaps.

It can be a beautiful, delicious, or amusing way to fill in those gaps, but it must exist within the proper context of Real, Solid Work.

So do the work, dearest, and enjoy the fleeting space of filler in its own due time.

(If you thought I was giving you advice, my dear reader, you might be wrong. I am mostly giving myself a lecture here. This is a common failing on my part.)

With all my love,

rite????

The photographer on our side

Hey! It’s not a total hitpiece! Various digs aside, there’s a decent article this week in the Failing New York Times about Peter Duke, a photographer who is sympathetic to the alt-right and alt-lite.

Duke believes in the primacy of visual culture, and most right-wing figures, he says, don’t take enough care to make themselves look good. Newt Gingrich, he tells me, is “disheveled”; Steve Bannon is a “schlub”; Trump’s hair is “problematic.” At the same time, he thinks left-leaning media outlets — which is to say, just about anything other than Breitbart News and The Drudge Report — go out of their way to present the right in a negative way.

To prove his point, Duke edited a photo of the author in the same way that news outlets do to right-wing people. The NYT conveniently left it out of the final article, but Duke helpfully posted it to twitter. 

Personally I kinda like the edited version better. Apparently I like people to look “ghoulish and depleted,” but I think it has more depth, and therefore more interest. Frankly, the author looks more interesting in Duke’s edited photo, and more like a standard-issue beta male in the “normal” one.

It is true, though, that most right-wing political figures don’t present themselves in a visually compelling way. Milo and Ann Coulter aside, most talking heads seems to think that their ideas will stand on their own merit, with no assistance needed from the ethos of the speaker.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn’t work that way.

“There’s this kind of, I think, phony idea that things are objective — when you push the button, that’s the objective reality, and I just don’t think that’s true,” Duke told me, not long ago, on our early evening walk along the bluffs. Duke sees photography as a kind of weapon in the culture wars, and in a way, it may be the perfect medium for a movement like the alt-right, which wants to refashion reality on its own terms. Pictures are, after all, factually malleable vessels that do not present reality as it is but suggest an alternative one as the photographer sees it.

This is the second time in the article that the author insists that the alt-right is creating alternative versions of things (which is true) because the alt-right’s version of reality isn’t true. This is completely false. The alt-right is more aligned with objective reality than the NYC liberal bubble, but to those (like the author) inside that bubble, it doesn’t feel that way.

A photograph can be a “lie that tells the truth,” or it can be 100% deception. Without sympathetic photographers, who know how to wield angles, light, composition and photoshop to our best advantage, the right wing, in any of its forms, is at a severe disadvantage. I’m glad we have Duke on our side. There is much to learn from him.

I must disagree with Duke slightly, though. I think Trump’s hair is genius.

But that is another post for another day.

SHUT UP I’LL KEEP POSTING EXO IF I WANT TO
via Daily Exo

Water Only / No Shampoo

Excuse me, coming through, the most tantalizing of all hair ideals is about to plop in front of you:

Right? I, too, would like to be tan and blonde and Australian with perfect hair that keeps itself tied up.

Anyway, I’ve been trying out the “no-poo” method for a while now. Here’s a secret: there’s really no method. Some people use herbs, some use clay-based shampoos, some use oils, or baking soda and vinegar…and some just use water.

I’m currently on the soda/vinegar stage. My last attempt with clay was not successful–for whatever reason the clay just made my hair feel greasier. Then I would try to rinse with apple cider vinegar to feel a bit better, and it got worse not better. I’ll pass.

Because my diet is getting simpler–animal products–and will soon get even simpler than that–meat and water only, I see no reason not to make my haircare routine simple as well. I splurged on some products to make this “no-poo” thing work, but now I’m using cough-inducing amounts of dry shampoo in between washings to keep things looking clean, and adding all sorts of texture-adding products. Which, of course, require washing out.

I want something simple that makes my hair look the best.

Which leads us back to the perfect blonde hair in the video. I clicked on that one because she has a similar hair texture to me. I’ll never be blonde without a massive intervention of peroxide, but by gum maybe I can have perfect Australian hair.

I’m just going to dive right in to this crazy idea of washing my hair with water only. I’ve ordered a wooden comb to distribute the natural oils, and honestly I don’t want to look back.

Maybe by the time the NequalsMany study is over, my hair will have adapted!

EXO is so otherworldly that Xiumin can pull off yellow blush

The dark side of “systems not goals”

@fortelabs posted quite a good tweetstorm on twitter today.

He goes on:

It involves generating lots of “non-negotiable” requirements that you “must” do before you can do what you want to do. As in, “Before I do X everybody knows I have to do A, B,C,D, E, F, G, etc.” It’s clever because it sets up an unlosable game. If you fail, you can blame immediate steps for putting the goal out of reach. If you reach X but it took too long, you’re justified because you “followed the correct process.”

There’s more–and I highly recommend clicking through and reading the whole thing–but this sums up the basic premise.

I recognize myself in it. Like, way too much.

“Before I start writing Batfort I need to hone my writing skills and learn how to be disciplined to do something every day and get a real camera and sketch out a whole editorial and business plan and and and”

“Before I can get a car I need to get a new job that pays better and live in a place where parking doesn’t suck and and and”

“Before I can be healthy I need to stop eating carbs and sleep 8 hours a night and stop worrying so much and exercise more regularly and and and”

“Before I can date that attractive man, I need to get a car…”

You get the drill.

It is SO EASY to use the guise of “building a plan” and “doing your research” as an excuse to do nothing of consequence. Yes, plans and research are necessary, but they are not DOING THE WORK. It’s frittering away time and creative energy on small-potatoes things that feel just productive enough that we don’t realize that all of the sudden we ate an entire bag of chips for dinner.

Do that enough times in a row, and you’re going to feel sick.

With all respect to Scott Adams, I have a negative reaction to his “systems, not goals” approach to life. For the longest time I could never figure out why, exactly, but I think this is it.

If you bury yourself in systems, even good ones like going to the gym every day, without having a goal that you’re pushing yourself toward, it’s really easy to settle into the groove of the system. The system becomes your end product, instead of what you designed this system to move you toward.

You work your muscles, but don’t get stronger or build out some sweet pecs.

Sure, goals don’t always work out. There are things that are beyond our control. That’s life.

The resilient pick up, dust off, and keep going. The antifragile incorporate those lessons into their next attempt.

You set a new goal, and move on.

A system alone won’t work: you need something to work toward.

Goals alone won’t work either: you need daily practices to propel you toward them.

Get you a plan that can do both.

EXO – Kokobop

Melania in Paris Pt II

I wasn’t going to do another post on Melania in Paris because I don’t want this to become a blog that’s all Melania all the time, but look! Look at this! This magnificent deployment of a bright red, New Look-inspired suit. She completely BTFOs Madame Macron. Melania comes across as more chic than the actual French woman!

Next to her, Madame Macron looks like she’s a “cool mom” cosplaying as a nurse.

Notice also the differences in posture between the two women. Melania is standing tall, with one ankle slightly arched to create a more graceful line; Macron is slightly hunched, jutting her chin forward, with her hand plastered to the side of her thigh.

Melania’s suit has more surface area, which commands more attention. Since it’s also lots of RED surface area, which pulls the eye even more.

Plus Melania is wearing sunglasses, which add that air of mystery and glamour.

She is demure, glamourous, and patriotic.

And all eyes are on her.

***

In a recent YouTube video, Justine LeConte talked about color theory as applied to our wardrobes. Justine talks about Melania for always sending a clear message with her style. Specifically talking about color, she cited the pale blue coat at the inauguration and the white dress with a thin red belt at the inaugural ball. I wasn’t convinced with only two examples, but after yesterday’s post and the photo above, coupled with her bright pink pussy-bow blouse at one of the debates last year, I’m convinced. Melania knows what she’s doing.

For a First Lady, she conveys her solidarity with her husband in her actions, her words, and in the way she presents herself. Whether it’s  wearing the complementing blue to his red and white, or literally wearing the sartorial version of “pussy,” the word that the media was beating into the public consciousness in an attempt to stop him, Melania dresses in a way that ties her to Trump.

Melania always impeccably polished and appropriate, in a way that complements the Trump brand. Her clothes are never ostentatious, but they scream “I’m rich,” which strikes me as a balance between her quieter personality and his habit of flamboyance.

So while she visually ties herself to her husband in a show of solidarity, she clearly has her own point of view. This seems to bear out with the interviews I’ve watched of her, where she thoughtfully provides input behind the scenes.

At first, when I got the idea to write about Melania Trump’s fashion because certain other fashion bloggers refuse to, I wasn’t sure what I would write about. It’s becoming quite clear that Melania knows exactly what she’s doing, and I’m looking forward to chronicling it. I’m ready to decipher her style messages.

We have a professional fashion rhetorician in the house, ladies and gentlemen.

 

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 Batfort

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑