A Spring Update on the New York City Subway Stories Project

My Latest Book
In between teaching, being a philosophy graduate student, and making ends meet, I've been spending lots and lots of time writing about the New York City Subway. If you don't know about my project, read about it here - where I collected all of my writings into one book about riding the subway, living in the city, and how it feels like to be a New Orleanian wherever I am.

Why I Write
I write like a flanêur. What this means is I write as if I am collecting stories. What this means is that my entries on the subway are impressionistic rather than expository pieces. I am allowing the stations that make up the subway system to be points of creative entry for me. I try to draw philosophical and creative energy from the stations, the neighborhood surrounding the station, the people, and my own neurotic life to portray a pastiche for each entry.

I have no idea what the final product will look like or whether or not it will it have a completeness to it.

The coolest thing will be that I will have written my way through the system. It's my motivation.

But, I'm going at a snail's pace.

I think the reason for this is that I first thought the project would be simpler. But as I go from station to station the immensity of the system makes my project seem more immense. I feel like I am trying to pull a particularity out of a vastness that cannot be particularized.

I Write Non-Fiction Fiction (because it's all I know)
So, I make stuff up. Some of the stuff I write about is real while other are condensed (like in a dream) and other stuff is literally the way it happened.

The thesis of the subway project is as follows: by writing about individual stations and individual stories I will end up having a literary representation of a subway system that has only been thought of in terms of anything but Benjamin's flanêur.

I hope you enjoy this collecting project.

Peace,
Greig

PDF copy for printing

Book Review - Pursuits of Happiness: A Short Response

Stanley Cavell in his book Pursuits of Happiness writes about remarriage comedies in movies made after the advent of talkies (1934-1949). Cavell's list is as follows: The Lady Eve (1941), It Happened One Night (1934), Bringing Up Baby (1938), The Philadelphia Story (1940), His Girl Friday (1940), Adam’s Rib (1949), and The Awful Truth (1937).

Movie Review: "Desert of Forbidden Art" (2010)

At Cinema Village in Manhattan, 
Desert of Forbidden Art (2010) 
is screening: 
      The documentary, filmed on location in Karapalpakistan (in Uzbekistan) a formerly held area of the Soviet Union, unveils the mystery behind why in Nukus, an otherwise barren town in the desert, is home to thousands of pieces of Soviet Avant-Garde art. 
The answer lies in the life of artist Igor Savitsky. 
      Igor Savitsky was born from aristocratic Bolshevik roots; he became a worker to convince the new Soviet government that he had shed his aristocratic past. Desirous of the artist's life, he got a job drawing desert landscapes. He tried to become an artist but failed. Dispirited he moved to the desert city of Nukus. Unable to make it as an artist, Savitsky conjures up an idea to start a museum in the desert of Karapalpakistan to save revolutionary art from the censoring eyes of Soviet control. Artists who escape the gulag, or who come out of the gulag scarred, sought refuge in the desert to continue their work in secret. 
Savitsky Created a Secret Museum of Art in the Desert
      Savitsky is the collector who saves their pieces in his museum. Using state money, fooling officials about the content of the art, Savitsky was able to save pieces of art that spoke of the torture of the gulags and a pointing finger at the state-approved art that depicted the Soviet regime as growing and prosperous. The film is visually stunning. The filmmakers carefully construct the story about one man's fight against fascism but the film is also a document of the works themselves. The best part was the art itself, stunningly recaptured on film, the colors used by the artists is far from daubery. When I saw the film last weekend the film makes were there to speak about the movie. They spoke about the remote village of Nukus. It seems Uzbekistan does not care about the preservation of its Avant-Garde art. 
The Future of the Museum's Avant-Garde Art Collection
      The museum does not want to sell its collection, nor does the state government seem interested in persevering the art. In fact, as of this writing, the pieces are not displayed and seem to be destined for the trash heap if people do not stand up against the annihilation of art that Stavistky fought so hard to prevent. The documentary is timely because it speaks about a past censorship but seems to also be a call to action that art matters. 

Check out the trailer:
Desert of Forbidden Art

Directors: 

Tchavdar Georgiev, Amanda Pope

Writers: 

Amanda Pope, Tchavdar Georgiev

Stars:

 Edward Asner, Sally Field, and Ben Kingsley

More info from imdb.com

PDF Copy for Printing

Philosophy With Friends: Chat Transcript On What Constitutes the Good Life

On Facebook, a friend posted on her wall, “wouldn't mind a little more certainty in an inherently uncertain world.” She then asked me on Gchat (Gmail’s in-chat messaging service) “will life ever become clear, or will it just continue onwards until the end in an unsettled state?”
Here is the rest of our chat conversation which ran like this:
Greig (9:14:50 PM): I think life has the potential to become clearer. But, most events, including life, are a combination of good luck, and good decisions. I'm not sure clarity is a given.

Uncertainty (9:17:30 PM): =)

G (9:17:49 PM): That’s one answer. I call it my virtue/luck answer

U (9:19:08 PM): In that case, I guess I'll focus on making good decisions, and try to worry less about the clarity.  I guess - it's just sometimes difficult to know if the decisions you're making are good. Some are clear.  Like - meth is bad.

G (9:20:18 PM): The other answer would be to restate the question. It's not the end of life that's unsettling: to reach the end is a given. The real question is the beginning: how did I get here! I mean not birth. That's a given. But here: in this state of affairs. What is it to be here.

U (9:19:56 PM): But most things are more up in the air. I don't know; I don't think we can know.

G (9:21:21 PM): I think there are multiple ways to live a life.

U (9:21:22 PM): See my earlier comment about being unsettled =)

G (9:21:27 PM): Ok

U (9:21:28 PM): What ways?

G (9:22:05 PM): I'm straying from your original question. Wait. I'm going to write a blog post about this. Let me think about this

U (9:22:28 PM): Ok =)

G (9:22:58 PM): Your question about an unsettled life is a great question. It hits on a more fundamental question: What is the good (life). What makes life good (or not)? Is a good life possible?

U (9:24:25 PM): I like to think so. I suspect that a good life would be unstressful, but avoiding all stress might make the life I lead less good =) Maybe useful versus enjoyable?

G (9:25:45 PM): You're hitting on major aspects of the issue. 1. Useful 2. Pleasure (hedonism). The useful argument goes like this: the greatest good for the greatest number. That's utilitarianism. You get efficient subways but no art. The pleasure argument: eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die. But it dismisses the reality principle. The god argument is not an argument. [This last comment alludes to a fb post on U’s wall that read: “You don't need it because you only have to rely on God. TRUST!”]

U (9:29:40 PM): Are we very good at judging what's useful?

G (9:30:41 PM): Good question.

U (9:30:41 PM): Right.  Although it may help us to experience less personal stress by removing our sense of responsibility.

G (9:31:13 PM): Then then there's the Protestant argument: adversity breeds life. Without stress, there's no possibility for the possibility of something new If life is all vanilla

U (9:32:03 PM): Well, yeah, but too much is *stressful*.

G (9:32:04 PM): Is that the good?

U (9:32:16 PM): Probably not.

G (9:32:28 PM): The good is not easy to grasp. If it's not pleasure, it's not unstress. ??? Is it something like a combination of fulfillment and attaining the golden mean. Like take any virtue. Courage. We say the courageous man is a good. [And I am taking this from Aristotle. God I sound like a teacher in this chat]. But there's a spectrum

U (9:34:13 PM): And it depends on what he's up to when he's out being courageous.

G (9:34:25 PM): If I'm too courageous I'm foolhardy and if I'm not courageous enough I'm a coward. And if im only courageous once. I'm not a life long lived courageous. So it seem if the attainment of virtue Leads To the good It's a life long project of hits and misses. Aristotle once said no one can know the good unless he lived ir *it Which is a clever way of saying nothing  Lol

U (9:36:09 PM): =)

G (9:36:34 PM): So at the end of the day I'm not sure if there is a guarantee on happiness  Or the good Plato said the unexamined life is not worth living But I'm not sure if he knows Paris Hilton

U (9:37:25 PM): Well, how do you know she doesn't examine her life?

G (9:37:33 PM): Maybe I'm being sexist

U (9:37:34 PM): Ah. She's a pretty successful business woman.

G (9:37:42 PM): Strike against me. Bad example. You're right

U (9:38:08 PM): So, Plato is saying that there's no point if living if we don't worry about whether we're living well?

G (9:38:16 PM): Kinda lame huh?

U (9:38:28 PM): Lil' bit.

G (9:39:18 PM): Paris Hilton doesn't have to an examined life to be successful

U (9:39:30 PM): True.

G (9:39:38 PM): If that were true we'd all want to be philosophers

U (9:39:44 PM): =)

G (9:39:58 PM): Which is a profession made to support examiners

U (9:40:24 PM): Do you examine yourselves or mostly other people?

G (9:40:45 PM): I tend to examine ideas. But if I'm going to examine myself. I do it psychoanalytically. Gah.

U (9:41:33 PM): I'm just going to mention that I'm not sure that I have a technical understanding of that word.

G (9:41:34 PM): Gah!

G (9:41:47 PM): I go to Freud.

U (9:41:54 PM): Wasn't he kind of a jerk?

G (9:42:27 PM): Basically psychoanalytic thinking is trying to uncover unconscious motivation for why we do stuff. While Freud is truly not the paradigm of Christian virtue I think he is dead on about that. But anyway uncertainty.

U (9:44:25 PM): Is [it] just uncertain, and we all have to just learn to deal with it?

G (9:45:00 PM): Gah! Let me get back to you. Lol!

U (9:45:19 PM): =) Ok.  I'm gonna get back to plotting [Marking plots of data for analysis purposes]. And less worrying about uncertainty in an unpredictable future. It's always nice talking to you, G.

G (9:46:21 PM): You too! Ttyl.

U (9:46:28 PM): Bye! =)

G (9:46:44 PM): Yah yah yah tah tah

PDF Copy for Printing

Book Review: The Broom of the System

Ornate Language / Simple Language

David Foster Wallace does a grand job of showing ornate language and its simple substitutes. Who is better, Mr. Bloemker, with his arcane, long, jargony way of speaking, or Lenore, with her simple quips phrasing what he meant to say in two or three words?
Lenore Beadsman's great-grandmother Lenore Beadsman goes missing in David Foster Wallace's novel The Broom of the System and this is the conversation between her and the nursing home director, Mr. Bloemker about her great-grandmother's whereabouts:

[Mr. Bloemker:] "What I have been able to determine is that at some point in the last, shall we say, sixteen hours some number of residents and staff here at the facility have become . . . unavailable to access."

[Lenore Beadsman:] "Meaning Missing."


[Mr. Bloemker:] "Yes."
. . .
Bloemker took a deep breath and rubbed a gold eye with a white finger. In the air around him a whirlpool of dust motes was created. It whirled. 


[Mr. Bloemker:] "There is in addition the fact that the resident whose temporary unavailability is relevant to you, that is to say Lenore, enjoyed a status here — with the facility administration, the staff, and, through the force of her personality and her evident gifts, especially with the other residents -- that leads one to believe that, were the mislocation a result of anything other than outright coercion on the part of some outside person or persons, which seems unlikely, it would not be improper to posit the location and retrieval of Lenore as near assurance of retrieving the other misplaced parties."


[Lenore Beadsman:] "I didn't understand any of that."


[Mr. Bloemker:] "Your great-grandmother was more or less the ringleader around here."


[Lenore Beadsman:] "Oh."
source: Wallace, David F. The Broom of the System. New York: Penguin Books, 2004, 34; 36. Print. Italics and brackets are my own.

PDF Copy for Printing

Aesthetic Thursdays: Perseus with the Head of Medusa

Perseus with the Head of the Medusa, Antonio Canova, The Metropolitan Museum of Art 

The Face of Perseus

Detail - The Head of Medusa, Metropolitan Museum

For several Fridays in a row, I've been dedicating at least an hour to the Metropolitan Museum of Art galleries. Proffering my student ID I pay as little as ten dollars to view a vast collection of priceless art. One more reason why I love New York City. I do not stay longer than an hour and I stick to one section, sometimes only one room. For my visit today I scurried over to the European Sculpture Court and sat with the sculptures. The Perseus statue with the head of the Medusa struck me because of the narrative embedded in the presentation. Perseus is stylistically graceful in this replica of Canova's Perseus which is now in the Vatican museums. The Met's profile on the piece mentions that Perseus's stance is modeled off the Apollo Belvedere. This seems right to me. It is as if Canova imagined what Apollo would have been holding if he were Perseus! The result is a stunning sculpture that projects grace in victory rather than priapic destruction. The medusa head in the Canova is hardly horrifying. The nest of vipers seems stilled and her face is cast in a dull mourning. Contrasted with Carravagio's Medusa's Head, which I mentioned on these pages, Canova has placed only a slight reference to snakes: two opposite facing serpents adorn the brow of the Medusa. Where Caravaggio favors priapism and glorious horror, Canova goes for subtle beauty and quiescent victory.

PDF Copy for Printing

Notes on an Idea: Cavell On The Star

For the American philosopher Stanley Cavell (The World Viewed, Pursuits of Happiness, Contesting Tears) actors on the silver screen are embodied representations of themselves thrown up on the movie screen, for all us to gaze.

Emerson's Star that Stands the Gaze of Millions
The star, to use Emerson's phrase, "stand the gaze of millions." We gaze on Cary Grant, for example, because we recognize him as Cary Grant who happens to naturally represent the roles he plays in the film. We appreciate Cary Grant (and Irene Dunne, or Elizabeth Taylor, or George Clooney) in the movie because they naturally “are themselves.” It is as if we treat the stars as persons we would encounter in everyday life. If the star does not appear to be himself we call his performance inauthentic. We judge the actor in the movies as authentic portrayals of themselves rather than as a convincing actor performing a role (as in the theater).
Questions of Authenticity and Inauthenticity
For Cavell, this propensity to view the film as authentic or inauthentic is characteristic of modern art. Would we ever call a performance of Chopin inauthentic? If we did we would be addressing our indictment to the performer and not to the piece itself. Art becomes treatable in the same way we treat persons. Are you authentic to the role you play? If not, you are not fit to stand the gaze of millions.
See my post on Cavell's other book about philosophy and movies: Pursuits of Happiness.

PDF Copy for Printing