martedì 27 luglio 2010

Venice is weird city that was building in a different way that rationalist for one simple reason it is built on water. Venice could not change either! It has remained entire, It has come down to us intact.
It will be the same since the water will not changed it.
I think this is cool but not so cool!

I'm going to explain my point:

Last week i was there with a friend.
Obviously it was not my 1st time, my eyes already knew that city, its labyrinthine structure, some about its history and the constraints with which it was built.
To visit Venice, we decided to walk lost as much as possible in every area making photos to take infos about we saw.
I think, it was like psychogeography and dérive, but in a more fun way than critical.

We did Venice's derive following flows of people so it's so easy to understand what happens there.
During the day Venice is like a huge museum that smell like mold and water pond..full of tourists that go around like zombies with appetite for ultravisible urban spectacle and every kind of shitty souvenir.

By night Venice is completly different...a kind of dark place "sinister", "depressing", and in some way "beautiful"...very very few people around..a place where you can go lost very very easy.
It happened to us.
We found a magical place where we made a video Venice has become other place where the city lost its formal value.

We gave to the city different value...our actions with the enviroment have become what maybe I think must be Venice and every city for all people that want to visit and live it...
...but It's sad 'cause is like to said that "art" can change the world where we live but i know that it's no true.
Surrealists was wrong...even situationists... what can i said?
LIFE IS NOW as said a TV spot!



lunedì 12 luglio 2010

DUEDENUM: lo-fi noise only for fun!
lo-fi noise only for fun!

It' my new duo band with Number 71 Monobanda. He's the best one man band that i know and first of all one of my best friend.
His way to play's my it's a good point to start a band
Now we live in the same city and we can make stuff.
Yesterday evning was 1st time that we played!
Was so funny!

Soon new songs!

sabato 10 luglio 2010

FUCK r'n'r dark band that take seriously his music! They suck!


Benjamin: “The Destructive Character”

The Destructive Character
Walter Benjamin (November 1931)

It could happen to someone looking back over his life that he realized that almost all the deeper obligations he had endured in its course originated in people who everyone agreed had the traits of a “destructive character.” He would stumble on this fact one day, perhaps by chance, and the heavier the shock dealt to him, the better his chances of representing the destructive character.

The destructive character knows only one watchword: make room. And only one activity: clearing away. His need for fresh air and open space is stronger than any hatred.

The destructive character is young and cheerful. For destroying rejuvenate, because it clears away the traces of our own age; it cheers, because everything cleared away means to the destroyer a complete reduction, indeed a rooting out, out of his own condition. Really, only the insight into how radically the world is simplified when tested for its worthiness for destruction leads to such an Apollonian image of the destroyer. This is the great bond embracing and unifying all that exists. It is a sight that affords the destructive character a spectacle of deepest harmony.

The destructive character is always blithely at work. It is Nature that dictates his tempo, indirectly at least, for he must forestall her. Otherwise she will take over the destruction herself.

The destructive character sees no image hovering before him. He has few needs, and the least of them is to know what will replace what has been destroyed. First of all, for a moment at least, empty space – the place where thing stood or the victim lived. Someone is sure to be found who needs this space without occupying it.

The destructive character does his work; the only work he avoids is creative. Just as the creator seeks solitude, the destroyer must be constantly surrounded by people, witnesses to his efficacy.

The destructive character is a signal. Just a trigonometric sign is exposed on all sides to the wind, so he is exposed to idle talk. To protect him from it is pointless.

The destructive character has no interest in being understood. Attempts in this direction he regards as superficial. Being misunderstood cannot harm him. On the contrary, he provokes it, just as oracles, those destructive institutions of the state, provoked it. The most petty bourgeois of all phenomena, gossip, comes about only because people do not wish to be misunderstood. The destructive character tolerates misunderstanding; he does not promote gossip.

The destructive character is the enemy of the étui-man. The étui-man looks for comfort, and the case is its quintessence. The inside of the case is the velvet-lined trace that he has imprinted on the world. The destructive character obliterates even the traces of destruction.

The destructive character stands in the front line of traditionalists. Some people pass things down to posterity, by making them untouchable and thus conserving them; others pass on situations, by making them practicable and thus liquidating them. The latter are called the destructive.

The destructive character has the consciousness of historical man, whose deepest emotion is an insuperable mistrust of the course of things and a readiness at all times to recognize that everything can go wrong. Therefore, the destructive character is reliability itself.

The destructive character sees nothing permanent. But for this very reason he sees ways everywhere. Where others encounter walls or mountains, there, too, he sees a way. But because he sees a way everywhere, he has to clear things from it everywhere. Not always by brute force; sometimes by the most refined. Because he sees ways everywhere, he always stands at a crossroads. No moment can know what the next will bring. What exists he reduces to rubble – not for the sake of rubble, but for that of the way leading through it.

The destructive character lives from the feeling not that life is worthing living, but that suicide is not worth the trouble.

mercoledì 7 luglio 2010

Petrified Woods much more and less than a band!

Petrified wood (from the Greek root petro meaning "rock" or "stone"; literally "wood turned into stone") is a type of fossil that consists of fossil wood in which all the organic materials have been replaced with minerals (most often a silicate, such as quartz), while retaining the original structure of the wood. The petrifaction process occurs underground, when wood becomes buried under sediment and is initially preserved due to a lack of oxygen. Mineral-rich water flowing through the sediment deposits minerals in the plant's cells and as the plant's lignin and cellulose decay away, a stone mould forms in its place.
In general, wood takes less than 100 years to petrify. The organic matter needs to become petrified before it decomposes completely.
A forest where the wood has petrified becomes known as a petrified forest.

I sing and play keyboard and percussion in a new duo band. You can listen it here:

martedì 6 luglio 2010


Stephen Shore about make photo in digital way and digital era

Stephen Shore is one of the best seminal revolutionary innovator photograper. His career began at the early age of fourteen, when he made the precocious move of presenting his photographs to Edward Steichen, then curator of photography at the Museum of Modern Art. Recognizing Shore's talent, Steichen bought three of his works. At age seventeen, Shore met Andy Warhol and began to frequent Warhol's studio, the Factory, photographing Warhol and the people that surrounded him. In 1971, at the age of 24, Shore became the second living photographer to have a solo exhibition at the MoMA.

The best stuff he did was a decade later, about changed position of colour photography in the cultural landscape se he went about documenting the physical and social landscape, by elevating it to a position formerly held only by black and white photography and its loftier subjects.

He saids:
"when I took these kind pictures, that was thirty years ago, it cost me maybe twenty dollars to take a picture, for film, processing and one contact sheet. So I'm not going to waste film, every time I go "click", it's thirty dollars... You do that all day long and that's a lot of money. So I wouldn't waste film, but that's trycky because I wouldn't want only to take picture that I knew were good because then I wind up only taking safe picture. I have to be free to fall on my face but, at the same time, I don't want to waste.
The benefit of digital is that you are free to make (and learn from) mistakes.

I'm sure agree with him, but i think that you have to use the benefit of digital to make old school warm photo in a situationist way like he did spontaneously 30th years ago.