Tuesday 6 July 2010

Brion Gysin: Dream Machine New Museum of Contemporary Art. July 7 to October 3.


The New Museum’s “Brion Gysin: Dream Machine” is intended as New York’s reintroduction to this painter, poet, innovator, and total subversive, and that it will be. Gysin was the artist’s artist among the Beats, the man who invented William S. Burroughs’s favorite writing technique—the cut-up, in which newspapers or other printed materials are sliced and reassembled to make unexpected new connections—and is a key figure in the development of postmodern literature, Kinetic art, street art, spoken-word poetry, and experimental punk, rock, and pop. Yet outside the art world, he’s been almost totally unknown, at least until now.
The building itself is a sturdy-looking brick chunk, built in 1884, that would blend into nearly any downtown block. In its early decades, it was home to the first modern YMCA. During and after World War II, the artists started to move in. First came the French Cubist Fernand Léger; painters James Brooks and Wynn Chamberlain arrived soon after. In 1958, Mark Rothko leased the building’s huge gymnasium to work on his murals for The Four Seasons, the ones whose story is told in the Broadway show Red. Rothko handed down his space to the second-generation Abstract Expressionist Michael Goldberg in 1962. Lynda Benglis, whose own retrospective opens at the New Museum in February, secured her loft in 1974; the sculptor and painter Lynn Umlauf, who later married Goldberg, came in 1977. (Both women still live and work there.)
The real social butterfly of 222, though, was Gysin’s former lover, the poet and artist John Giorno, who followed Chamberlain there in 1966. Giorno remembers one of Gysin’s long-ago visits vividly. It was 1978, and their affair had long since fizzled. Gysin was in town for the Nova Convention, a poetry festival co-produced by Giorno and dedicated to Gysin and Burroughs—who had moved into his own loft at 222, which he famously called “the Bunker.” Gysin was used to Parisian garrets, and loft life, with its high ceilings and few walls, was a revelation. He took one look at Giorno’s space, cluttered with Oriental rugs and piles of poems, and remarked, in his particular British-Canadian cadence, “You all live like bohemians!” Which they did.
What followed was typical of Giorno and Burroughs’s interlaced lifestyle. They escorted Gysin (and others, like Burroughs’s longtime companion James Grauerholz) down to the Bunker, where Burroughs drank (vodka) and Giorno cooked (bacon-wrapped chicken was a Burroughs favorite). Guests were always high and liquored up by the time dinner was served, at a conference table surrounded by orange vinyl chairs. Drinking and smoking would continue until 10 p.m. or so, when Burroughs would retreat to bed, after engaging his guests in some convivial target practice with his blowgun.
Things were always a little more intense when Gysin was in town. There were visits with Allen Ginsberg and Blondie. Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat were always around, stopping by with their expensive pot after dinner, getting Gysin high, and hanging on his every word. But it was Burroughs who was most affected by Gysin’s presence. The two had known each other for decades, going back to their time as expats in Tangier in the fifties, and “Brion brought out a very somber, self-conscious Burroughs,” says Stewart Meyer, a novelist and Bunker habitué. Giorno agrees: “When William was asked, ‘Did you ever love somebody?,’ he always said, ‘I’ve never respected anybody more than Brion Gysin in my life.’ That was his word for love. He had lovers, but somehow Brion was on another level. They were gay and never had sex together, but in a certain way Brion was William’s lover.” Meyer says Burroughs was painfully concerned with Gysin’s perception of him. “William could not paint while Brion was alive, though he had wanted to. He did not want to overshadow Brion in that area, because he had already overshadowed him in every other area.”
That continued up to Gysin’s death at 70, in 1986. He’d never become well known and never saw full publication of The Third Mind, the instructional tome (created with Burroughs) that meant to introduce the world to the cut-up. (Burroughs’s own cut-ups, the “Nova” trilogy, were not only published but are still in print.) “Brion knew it wasn’t William’s fault. But in terms of the general popular culture not recognizing the importance of his contribution, there was a little bitterness,” says the artist Genesis Breyer P-Orridge, who befriended Gysin in the late seventies and credits him with inspiring the project he undertook with his late wife, Lady Jaye. (The two literally cut themselves up via plastic surgery to form the “third being,” with matching lips, eyes, beauty marks, and breasts. Gysin’s methods taken to the extreme.)
The building at 222 retains vestiges of that era. Burroughs returned yearly until his death in 1997, and since then, Giorno has preserved the Bunker, adding a Buddhist meditation shrine opposite the kitchen. Burroughs’s typewriter is still here, as are the Gysin paintings he prized. Giorno accumulated three apartments in the building, and he and his partner, the artist Ugo Rondinone (whose HELL, YES! sculpture hangs on the New Museum’s façade), still hold eccentric, intimate dinners. But their world is vanishing fast. The top two floors have been bought and are rented out at market rate. Green Depot, an ecofriendly home-goods chain, occupies the storefront, and Goldberg’s (and thus Rothko’s) old space is changing hands at year’s end, its hardwood floor still caked with traces of both artists’ paint.
Rachel Wolff @'NY Mag'

Moscow’s 2010 International Film Festival Breaks Down Borders

Monday 5 July 2010

Lou Reed booed in Canada for free-improv set

Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music Trio
 
Walk on the wilder side ... Lou Reed performs Metal Machine Music in London. Photograph: Jim Dyson/Getty Images
Lou Reed, Laurie Anderson and John Zorn faced a furious crowd on Friday night, playing cacophonous music to a cacophony of boos at the Montreal International Jazz festival. Fans expecting Sweet Jane or Walk On the Wild Side were instead met by the skronk and skree of Reed's more recent free-jazz work, infuriating sections of the crowd. As audience members hollered their complaints, Zorn responded. "If you don't think it's music, then get the fuck outta here." Then the walk-outs began.
The nature of the concert shouldn't really have been a surprise. After all, Zorn is one of the world's leading avant-garde musicians and Anderson is preceded by a reputation for, er, eccentricity. Reed was once, yes, a wry urban troubadour – but that was decades ago. Recently he has been touring his controversial album, Metal Machine Music – a work so noisy and abrasive that for years many thought it was a joke.
However, there weren't any punch-lines at this gig, which attracted more than 1,000 fans – some paying almost $100 (£62) for tickets. The concert consisted of just four instrumentals plus encore, according to the Globe and Mail, with "no singing ... [and] no rhythm section". The only sounds were Anderson's violin and keyboard, Zorn's alto sax, and Reed's electric guitar. In an interview earlier that day, Reed had gleefully promised a "fearless night of non-rock", "100% improvised". But the jazz festival programme had been less clear in its description of the gig, hinting at Reed's Velvet Underground past.
Though Montreal is well-acquainted with "free" music, hosting one of North America's premier genre festivals, this was a headline performance at a middle-of-the-road jazz festival. What's more, it was at the festival's largest concert hall. So it didn't take long for the first boos to come. Initially, these complaints were misinterpreted as calls for "Louuuuu!" but soon the fans became more direct. "Play some real music!" one called.
But others loved it. "There were moments of stunning synchronicity," reflected Globe critic JD Considine. Montreal Gazette writer T'Cha Dunlevy was similarly moved. "Zorn's never-ending sax trills were mesmerising and Anderson's unexpected melodic offerings late in the show were like flowers in the rubble," he wrote. Another Gazette critic, Jordan Zivitz, called it "marvellous noise ... [with] numerous moments of telepathic playing".
"Yes, there were those who claimed to enjoy the cacophony of discordant noise lacking melody, style, beauty or skill," replied one Gazette reader. "[But] to label it correctly, it was pure elitist, pretentious rubbish." At least it wasn't recorded for dogs.
Sean Michaels @'The Guardian'

For moustache lovers...who also love type

The Heretic of Ether

Aust Post Punk radio doco - 18/27 July 2010

DO THAT DANCE! - AUSTRALIAN POST PUNK, 1977-1983
ABC Radio National, Hindsight audio-documentary 2 part series
Part 1: Sydney - broadcast & podcast ABC Radio National Sunday July 18th, 2pm
Part 2: Melbourne - broadcast & podcast ABC Radio National Sunday July 25th, 2pm
Produced by Sean O’Brien

Image of the only nuke ever detonated in space

What does it look like when you blow up a nuke in space? It's only happened once, in 1962, but newly declassified images shows exactly what happened.
Why, pray tell, did the government want to launch nukes into space? Well, apparently they wanted to test a few theories.
The plan was to send rockets hundreds of miles up, higher than the Earth's atmosphere, and then detonate nuclear weapons to see: a) If a bomb's radiation would make it harder to see what was up there (like incoming Russian missiles!); b) If an explosion would do any damage to objects nearby; c) If the Van Allen belts would move a blast down the bands to an earthly target (Moscow! for example); and — most peculiar — d) if a man-made explosion might "alter" the natural shape of the [Earth's magnetic] belts.
How crazy is that? Apparently none of their experiments really panned out, as that launch was the first and last space nuke ever detonated. But it's probably for the best that they didn't alter the planet's magnetic fields. NPR, via io9
@'dvice' 

The Bomb Watchers (NPR)
Download

Tricky teams up with Primal Scream's Bobby Gillespie on new album

Tricky has teamed up with Primal Scream frontman Bobby Gillespie on his forthcoming new album.
The trip-hop star's ninth studio LP - 'Mixed Race' is due for release on September 27 and the first single will be 'Murder Weapon' which is due out on August 30. Fans can hear the track on dominorecordco.com now.
"Every album is a learning experience and this is concentrated music, there’s no dilution," said Tricky of the new record, which was recorded in Paris. "I can experiment, I can be honest, and honestly, musically, I can’t be touched."
The tracklisting for 'Mixed Race' is:
'Every Day'
'Kingston Logic'
'Early Bird'
'Ghetto Stars'
'Hakim'
'Come To Me'
'Murder Weapon'
'Time To Dance'
'Really Real'
'Bristol To London'
"If copyright infringement is theft, is photographing someone kidnapping?"

Tommy's boy!


Sage Francis SageFrancisSFR   Tommy Hilfiger's son is now a rapper. It's as great as you'd think. Maybe greater. http://tinyurl.com/TommyStinkFinga
Mona Street exilestreet @SageFrancisSFR Dearohfugndear re Tommy's boy! Another vid going on about "home/alone/stoned!!! Nice use of beltbuckle w RAPE on it. Class! 

Police re-open investigation into Al Gore sex poodle claims (警察重啟高爾性侵害的調查)

Oily disasters: When will we ever learn?

Photo: Oily disasters: When will we ever learn?
The Deepwater Horizon rig off the coast of Mexico where the current disaster is occuring. (Credit: ChvyGrl via Flickr)
The Gulf of Mexico oil disaster was the worst accidental spill in history. No, not the one getting the headlines today, but the one in 1979 — although the current spill may eventually prove to be larger. Those of us old enough to remember may be experiencing déjà vu.
On June 3, 1979, a blow-out preventer failed on the Ixtoc I drilling platform off the coast of Mexico. The well was owned by Mexico's state oil company, Pemex, but the drilling was being done by Sedco, which later became Transocean, owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig where the current disaster is unfolding.
As with today's crisis, the experts tried to control the 1979 spill with a number of methods, including booms, dispersants, placing a giant metal "top-kill" dome over it, and plugging it with garbage and cement. None of these techniques worked then, and they aren't working now. The Ixtoc spill went on for more than nine months, spewing between 477 million and 795 million litres of oil that washed up on the coasts of Mexico and the U.S. It wiped out fishing along the Mexican coast for years and harmed and killed sea turtles, dolphins, birds, and other animals.
In the end, the Ixtoc spill was stopped when Pemex drilled two relief wells and pumped mud and steel balls into the well. BP is drilling relief wells at the Deepwater Horizon site but expects to take up to three months to complete them.
The main differences between the two spills are that no one died in the Ixtoc disaster, whereas 11 people were killed in the Deepwater Horizon blow-out, and the Ixtoc well was being drilled in 49 metres of water, while the Deepwater Horizon was more than 1,500 metres deep.
It makes you wonder if we'll ever learn. In Canada, oil companies are drilling a well off the coast of Newfoundland that is even deeper than the BP well in the Gulf. Oil companies are also gearing up to drill in Arctic waters, and the B.C. government has been putting pressure on the federal government to lift bans on drilling and oil tanker traffic off the West Coast.
These spills are just a visual reminder of the damage that our fossil-fuel addiction wreaks on the environment every day. After all, if the oil weren't being spilled, it would eventually be burned, spewing carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
Environmental havoc is only one reason to conserve energy and switch to cleaner energy. Security is also a crucial issue when it comes to global oil supplies. From the costly war in Iraq to the instability of some of the main oil-producing countries, we're seeing increasing problems with our reliance on this ever-more-scarce energy resource.
Some people argue that's a reason to increase supplies from domestic sources by expanding production in the tar sands, extracting oil from shale, and drilling more off our own coasts — but that's an absurd argument. Any one of these leaves us open to more environmental damage from spills and pollution during drilling, extracting, and transporting. In fact, a study led by the University of Alberta's David Schindler and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that pollution from the Alberta tar sands into the Athabasca River and its tributaries is equivalent to a major oil spill every year.(my emphasis-beeden)
We don't seem to be good at learning from the past. No matter what the technology or energy source, whether it's fossil fuels or nuclear, we must be prepared for the worst-case scenario before we proceed. That's because, no matter how minimal the risk, the consequences of an accident, as we've seen from the Gulf of Mexico to Chernobyl, can be calamitous.
One thing we know for certain is that relying on diminishing supplies of fossil fuels for our energy needs has serious consequences for the environment, human health, the economy, and our security. And yet governments still continue to subsidize what U.S. TV host Rachel Maddow correctly referred to in a show comparing the two spills as "the most profitable industry the universe has ever seen."
Let's prove that we can learn. We need to conserve energy and we need to tell our governments that it's time to start the shift to a clean-energy economy and to keep the oil wells and tankers away from our waters.
 David Suzuki with Faisal Moola @'David Suzuki.org'

No fracking way New Brunswickers should ban the hazardous process of hydraulic fracturing.

In less than 60 days, using a process known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking, an oil and gas company will inject hundreds of tanker truckloads of freshwater laced with thousands of kilograms of toxic chemicals and sand beneath the ground. Their goal is to extract natural gas embedded in a shale rock formation near Elgin in southern New Brunswick.
At risk are the groundwater, surface water, human and non-human health.
A typical frack job requires between 11,400,000 to 15,200,000 litres of water, which returns to the surface highly toxic
Squeezing gas from a rock below ground involves unconventional drilling practices. A vertical well is dug vertically into the ground and then vertically across the shale formation (see attached figure). The fracking fluid is then injected into the well bore — under enough pressure to peel paint from a car — so that it causes the shale to fracture and release the gas from the billions of pockets found throughout this rock. The gas comes up the well, along with most of the fracking fluids.



Fracking is a relatively new technology that involves boring a  vertical well deep into the ground and then drilling a horizontal  pathway

Ultimately, the company sells the gas for a profit, and the province collects royalty payments. Private landowners may also lease their land to the gas company to supplement their income.
Controversy is growing, in Canada and the US, over the nature of the chemicals used in the fracking process, the sheer volume of water needed for the process, as well as the wastewater produced after the fracking fluid spews out of the well.
Scientists in the US report that 65 of the 300-odd compounds used in fracking are hazardous to both humans and non-humans. Some cause cancer. These chemicals are mixed with the water which comes from different sources: municipal water systems, rivers, ponds, and lakes.
A typical frack job requires between 11,400,000 to 15,200,000 litres of water — or enough water to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool five to seven times over. Most of the water that is pressurized into the well, spews out once the pressure is released. Each well can be fracked multiple times. Safe disposal is an issue, because the water returns laced with toxic chemicals.
In just one year, 2000, the world's oil and gas exploration industry produced 77 billion barrels of wastewater, according to an article by Z Khatib and P Verbeek, published in the Journal of Petroleum Technology. Based on current rates of water consumption, that amount is equivalent to the volume of water needed by the City of Fredericton for the next 20 years.(my emphasis)

According to the United Nations, the world, including Canada, is heading towards a major water shortage crisis — due, in part, to water being used for industrial purposes like fracking.
Laying aside for a moment the moral and ethical questions concerning the industrial use of water in a world facing diminishing sources of good clean drinking water, the question remains as to what to do with the sheer magnitude of the wastewater produced in the fracking process. According to ProPublica, an independent newsroom that does investigative journalism for the public's benefit, it is still unclear as to whether or not we have the technology at our disposal to handle such vast quantities of wastewater.
In some jurisdictions, the wastewater is left in open pits. In other areas, it is emptied into sewage treatment plants, many of which are ill-equipped to handle this type of industrial waste. There are conflicting reports on how and where the fracking fluids are being disposed of here in New Brunswick.
There is no question these fracking fluids are highly toxic. ProPublica reported in 2008 that after treating a worker who got splashed with fracking fluid, an emergency nurse in Colorado ended up with multiple organ failure and nearly died.
Dr Theo Colborn, an independent scientist in Colorado who specializes in low-dosage effects of chemicals on human health, argues that even in very low doses, these chemicals can damage kidneys and immune systems and negatively impact reproduction. Among farm animals raised in close proximity to where the fracking wastewater was being misted in the air for evaporation in Garfield County, CO, a bull went sterile; sheep bred on an organic farm experienced a slew of inexplicable still births; and pigs as well as a herd of beef cows stopped going into heat.
The oil and gas industry, however, appears unmoved and undeterred by these concerns. In fact, a local newspaper published a story June 10th, 2010 in which a representative of the oil and gas industry was quoted in saying that fracking in New Brunswick "won't harm well water".
The fact is that nobody has done any research to see how the process actually works underground. No one knows for sure to what extent the fissures reach underground or whether cracks made in the rock create a passageway for these dangerous chemicals to contaminate the groundwater.
"What is needed now most," wrote ProPublica reporter Abraham Lustgarten in 2009, "according to scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency and elsewhere, is a rigorous scientific study that tracks the fracturing process and attempts to measure its reach into underground water supplies." The price tag for such a study would be around USD10 million.
In 2008, ProPublica reported that there were over 1000 cases documented by courts and local governments in Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where fracking is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination.
Filmmaker Josh Fox visited regular Americans across 24 US states to produce a documentary challenging and disproving the industry's contention that fracking is harmless. He found and filmed a shocking trail of people and their animals in rural communities getting sick. In one scene in his documentary film, Gasland, (which will air on HBO Canada August 1st, 2010), a local resident uses a cigaret lighter to light the gas that escapes when he tries to draw water from the kitchen sink tap.
Because of the controversies surrounding this process, fracking has been banned in New York State until proven safe. It is disappointing that New Brunswick has not introduced its own ban on this process in order to protect its citizens and our environment from such unnecessary risks.
For its part, in June 2010, the Conservation Council of New Brunswick hosted two public sessions to raise awareness on this issue. The first one happened on June 17th in Penobsquis, the second in Elgin on June 18th.
In Penobsquis, sauna-like temperatures in the meeting room did little to dampen the spirits of concerned citizens, packed like sardines, who came to hear Natural Resources Defence Council Attorney Kate Sinding and Catskills Mountainkeeper Program Director Wes Gillingham speak about their experiences and knowledge of this issue. The underlying message from this presentation was that the potential for contamination of surface and groundwater in New Brunswick is real. Yet despite these concerns, the process continues to occur unabated in New Brunswick.
Of the three companies currently exploring for shale gas in New Brunswick, one company has obtained the lease to conduct tests and see how much of the gas can be recovered from a million-hectare swath of land spreading from the Atlantic coast to the Maine border. It is difficult to predict how many shale gas wells might be constructed if this explorative venture proves to be commercially viable. Estimates range from 480 to 5000 wells.
Given that 29 wells have already disrupted the small community of Penobsquis, a minimum of 480 wells will have a significant impact on the landscape, freshwater supplies, air quality, and lifestyle of many more New Brunswickers. At the moment, New Brunswickers are facing the same situation faced by Pennsylvanians a few years back.
Like New Brunswick, Pennsylvania had no regulations in place to allow for a gradual and community based development of its shale gas industry. And like New Brunswick, it lacked regulations on fracking. Consequently, gas pads started appearing next to homes, hospitals, schools, and summer camps, transforming the countryside into an industrialized zone, with tractor trucks operating 24/7, gas burning flares affecting air quality, and citizens experiencing significant drops in their property values.
"As devastating as the experience is for those who have lost their fundamental right to have clean, safe, potable drinking water come out of their taps," wrote Kate Sanding on her blog April 15, 2010 after visiting Dimock, Pennsylvania, "what was perhaps most eye-opening was the utter transformation of the community." In other words, some of the prettiest and peaceful countryside became transformed into an industrialized zone.
Unless there are provisions in place, and soon, which would allow ordinary New Brunswickers to play an active and determinant role in how the gas industry may evolve in this province, there is no doubt in my mind that we will suffer the same consequences here in New Brunswick. It's too late for Pennsylvanians, but it's still not too late for us New Brunswickers. So, let's get involved.
Jean Louis Deveau has post-graduate degrees in both the natural and social sciences. He is the co-founder of the Friends of the Mount Carleton Provincial Park and an avid canoeist. Apart from proximity to family and friends, he and his wife chose to live and raise their two sons in New Brunswick because of its picturesque countryside, relatively clean air and water, and lack of heavy industrialization.
Jean Louis Deveau @'StraightGoods'

Sunday 4 July 2010

Quaint Towns, Deadly Poisons Welcome to Toxic Valley

Crossing the Ohio River into Indiana from Owensboro, Ky., travelers are greeted with an image far more symbolic of Hoosier life than an "Indiana Welcomes You" billboard or a drawing of Abraham Lincoln, who spent part of his childhood just a few miles to the west of the William H. Natcher Bridge.
Indeed, the Hoosier state's howdy dominates the horizon a couple hazy miles before the bridge, when fat plumes of opaque-white air pollution from the Rockport Power Plant first appear. The coal-fired plant's twin cooling towers greet passing motorists with a hearty, "Welcome to Indiana, Land of Pollution." Minutes up U.S. 231, the box-like AK Steel plant rises just off the roadway to the east, adding an exclamation point.
Between them, these two industrial facilities told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that they released nearly 26 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, water and land in 2008. In their Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports to EPA, AK Steel reported 19.1 million pounds, American Electric Power's Rockport plant 6.7 million.
As John Blair, president of the Evansville-based environmental group Valley Watch has calculated, that's more toxic releases from two Indiana industrial facilities than New York City, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Indianapolis, Seattle, Los Angeles and San Diego, combined.
Continue reading
Steven Higgs @'Counterpunch'

The list of "enterprises" daily destroying the planet continues, more horrific stories from Indiana, its time for the EPA to do its job, and its time for the shareholders and management to be held accountable. A thousand apologies to readers at Moana for going on about this, but the tide is becoming a Tidal Wave of Tsunami proportions, as business after business declines to meet its environmental responsibilities, as long after the deluge has broken only the ruined will remain, the quick-fix money addicts will have left the building with all its polluted walls and toxic cesspools, for others to clean-up. Contact your local government and ask them about any industries you have concerns about, these abuses will not stop unless our governments are aware of our concern and business is made accountable for its deliquency.........beeden