US Prohibits Photography Within 65 Feet of Spill's Effects

I'm kidding, right? But this isn't per The Onion, but CNN:



As Cooper explains, the rule seems to have no reasonable relation to safety. Guess we didn't realize the "Constitution-Free Zone" extends into surrounding waters.

Meanwhile, the AP just reported US Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's statement last Saturday that "[i]ntolerant governments across the globe are 'slowly crushing' activist and advocacy groups that play an essential role in the development of democracy . . . ." She cited Venezuela et al.; but see my previous post (and you can find the AP's story here.)

Nothing to Fear if You've Nothing to Hide?

"American Civil Liberties Union has issued a report chronicling government spying and the detention of groups and individuals 'for doing little more than peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.'"

"'Our review of these practices has found that Americans have been put under surveillance or harassed by the police just for deciding to organize, march, protest, espouse unusual viewpoints and engage in normal, innocuous behaviors such as writing notes or taking photographs in public,' Michael German, an ACLU attorney and former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, said . . . ." More at Wired.

And people haven't just been surveilled and harassed; they've been pre-emptively prevented from exercising their rights in such a way as to make their views heard.

Here's a tip for the authorities: I hear there might be some felonies going down in some board rooms. And the Gulf.

More Re- the Decline of the Middle Class

Great article at rationalrevolution.

And if you haven't already seen it, don't miss Elizabeth Warren's presentation, here.

UPDATE: Just came across this at Who Rules America (apparently based on a recent paper {here} by Edward N. Wolff at Bard's Levy Economics Institute):

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

and

So far there are only tentative projections -- based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 -- on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007.

B.t.w., happy 4th.

FURTHER UPDATE: Here are 22 statistics from FinanceMyMoney.com that "Prove the Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out of Existence in America" (via Business Insider).

In Honor of Sarah Jessica Parker's foray

. . . into the meta-irreality of a reality tv show set in the art world, Work of Art, below is the Bruce High Quality Foundation's audition for the show's ill-fated predecessor, Jeffrey Deitch's ArtStar. (If you're not already familiar with the BHQF, watch this first).

"There Should Be No Computer Art,"

by Frieder Nake, an early pioneer of the medium, here. The article, published in 1971, fits right into recent discussions re- the ART WORK newspaper. Nake wrote:

The discussion centers around the question "is it [computer art] or is it not art?" . . . I find it easy to admit that computer art did not contribute to the advancement of art if we judge "advancement" by comparing the computer products to all existing works of art. In other words, the repertoire of results of aesthetic behaviour has not been changed by the use of computers. (This point of view, namely that of art history, is shared and held against "computer art" by many art critics . . . .) There is no doubt in my mind, on the other hand, that interesting new methods have been found, which can be of some significance for the creative artist. And beyond methodology, but certainly influenced by it, we find that a thorough understanding of "computer art" includes an entirely new relationship between the creator(s) and the creation: [M. Bense] uses the term "art as a model for art" in this context.

[Goes on to say the art world is dominated by dealers, who invent new "styles," and how computer art is the latest fashion. Says we read complaints that "real" artists lack access to the expensive equipment required and that really interesting results could be obtained if that access were provided.]

At the same time, artists become aware of the role they play in providing an aesthetic justification of and for bourgeois society. Some reject the system of prizes and awards, disrupt big international exhibitions, organize themselves in cooperatives in order to be independent of the galleries, contribute to the building of an environment that people can live in.

I find it very strange that . . . outsiders from technology should . . . try to save [the world of art] with new methods of creation, old results, and by surrendering to the given "laws of the market" in a naive and ignorant matter. The fact that they use new methods makes them blind to notice that they actually perpetuate a situation which has become unbearable for many artists.

It just gets better from there. Follow-up here (the reference to the "Artist Placement Group, which injects artists into industry not for patronage but as agents of change" might interest you, Maureen) and here. I disagree with Nake's conclusion, but I like his observations.

Google

is f---ing with my blogger interface. They eliminated a lot of buttons and replaced part of the interface, and the new part no longer connects to the other parts I use most; plus there are other new glitches and limitations on what I can do. Extremely annoying, having put so much into this thing, only to have it degraded by a forced "upgrade" that doesn't work (welcome to the Cloud).

I'd been thinking about migrating to WordPress . . . I'll let you know.

ART WORK: Readings

A few photos here (thanks, Ben!) Again, a great turn-out. This was the last of the three events in the ART WORK in dallas series inspired by Temporary Services' ART WORK newspaper project.

Thanks again to Undermain Theater for their support for the actors' fees, to Mark Ridlen, a.k.a. DJ DeLuxe, for the "audio surprise," to my collaborators at S.M.U. and CentralTrak, and to everyone else who worked so hard to make this series a success.

(You can also see visuals of the symposium here, and of the exhibition here. You can download a complete copy of the ART WORK newspaper issue here. For more info about the ART WORK project, see here. For more info about the ART WORK in dallas series, see here.)

Why You Can Hear Me Now There But Not Here . . .

seems clear once you see the graphic images of radio wave reception created by The Bubbles of Radio. More images at the link (via Mutable Matter.)