Knitnut.net. Watch my life unravel...
|
Posted by zoom! on April 12, 2007, at 7:12 pm |
Today was one of those depressing cold wet days in which Winter eats Spring and Kurt Vonnegut Jr. dies.
I was a voracious Vonnegut fan in my teens and twenties. I loved how he chose his words so carefully and ended up with brilliant skinny books full of succint and cynical wit. Breakfast of Champions was my favourite: the illustrations still crack me up.
Vonnegut was a contemporary philosopher of few – but precisely chosen – words. Despite his cynicism, he was a passionate man. He cared about the planet, and about the future of humanity. He was not optimistic, but he still cared enough to hope.
Here are a few Vonnegut quotes:
“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be.”
“Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.”
“Like so many Americans, she was trying to construct a life that made sense from things she found in gift shops.”
“Here we are, trapped in the amber of the moment. There is no why.”
“We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap.”
That last one is a kicker, eh?
His website today is classic Vonnegut.
Posted by Zoom! on April 9, 2007, at 9:48 pm |
I have immature blood. Seriously. We all have our little oddities. Megan, for example, has a freakishly small head. Me, I have immature blood.
A few years ago, after my annual checkup, my doctor called to tell me there was a problem with my routine bloodwork. She didn’t know what was causing it, but I have these great big funny-shaped red blood cells.
Contrary to the way most things work, red blood cells start out big and get smaller as they age. Mine are all big.
Being the positive ray of sunshine I am, I just figured I had nice big blood. Being the doctor she is, she figured something was killing off my red blood cells before they could mature.
So she sent me for tests – a bunch of blood tests, an abdominal ultrasound, an EKG – and they all came back fine.
Phew, I thought, I’m healthy and I have refreshingly young blood.
That’s not what she thought. She thought she should refer me to a hematologist.
So I’ve been seeing this hematolgist for about two years now. Every few months he takes a whack of blood out of me and runs a bunch of tests and tries to solve my medical mystery, but so far it continues to elude him.
Two weeks ago he decided it was time to escalate my immature blood to more invasive kinds of tests. Tomorrow I have to go to the hospital for a bone marrow aspiration and biopsy. He says this test will give him more information. A complete CT scan has been ordered too. Just so he can have more information.
I like him, I really do. But we do this crazy dance around information-and-theory-sharing. He does NOT like to tell me what he’s looking for. If I ask, he says “Oh, don’t worry, I’m just ruling things out.”
But as the owner of the body, blood and marrow, I feel I have a right to know what he’s thinking, what he’s suspecting, and what he’s testing for. I tell him that. He says he doesn’t want to freak me out by mentioning disorders that might sound alarming, especially since he’s just ruling them out.
Well yeah, but one of the unfortunate consequences of having unexplained immature blood was that – based on a letter from my hematologist – I was permanently kicked off the Unrelated Bone Marrow Donor list AFTER they found someone who needed my marrow. The odds of finding an unrelated bone marrow donor are not good, so that poor person may well have died because of my immature blood. This makes me think I probably should be worried.
Anyway, at one point I threatened to take the blood requisition forms home and google every test on them to find out what he’s up to. He looked stricken and urged me not to do that. He said he’ll tell me what’s wrong once he knows, but there’s no point in me worrying about every possibility along the way.
We’ve been doing this for two years now. He keeps trying to keep me from knowing, and I keep trying to know. (And I have taken the forms home and googled all the tests, but dammit, you’d have to be a hematologist or something to understand all that stuff.)
So. What do you think? Do I have a right to know what he’s speculating, or does he have a right to keep it to himself until it’s not just speculation? And if I do have a right to know, how do I get him to tell me?
Posted by Zoom! on April 9, 2007, at 7:10 am |
These are my Artist Trading Cards (ATCs) from the past couple of weeks. The more I use Photoshop, the more I like it. The feature I use the most is the Un-Do button. If only life were like that.
Plenty of fish:
Two of hearts (this one uses a scan of a daguerreotype):
The Owl Woman (this one incorporates the Two of Hearts card):
Sam:
I feel sorry for clowns:
Recharging:
Sepia Time:
Sepia Time in Blue:
Nun Too Soon (incorporates a scan of a daguerreotype):
Butterfly Garden:
Oh, and then there’s this one: it’s not digital – it’s hand-drawn using a pencil, eraser and sharpies. (As you can see, I haven’t been exaggerating about my utter lack of natural talent.)
Posted by Zoom! on April 8, 2007, at 8:05 am |
Given the unseasonably wintry weather in Ottawa this weekend, I’ve chosen this snowy portrait from a local photographic studio as the Antique Photograph of the Week.
The photographer, Alfred G. Pittaway, operated a portrait studio at 58 Sparks St. from 1890 to 1925. (He also had a studio with Jarvis at 117 Sparks St. before that. Sparks Street was the photographic pulse of Ottawa back then.)
I don’t know who the woman in the portrait is. The only markings, front or back, say “Portraitly Pittaway Ottawa Can.” But don’t you just love her winter hat and coat and muff, and all that fake snow blowing around the studio? That was cutting-edge special effects at the turn of the century.
I can’t leave you stuck in winter, so I’m throwing in a bonus image this week. Maybe this will remind you of summer. It’s a tintype.
Tintypes were invented in the mid-1850s, became more common by the 1870s, and stuck around through the 1920s, overlapping with ambrotypes, cartes de visite and cabinet cards. I think I picked this one up at an antique shop in Nova Scotia about seven years ago. It says 1890 on the back, but that just might be an educated guess by the dealer.
This image – to me at least – represents a turning point in photography. People gradually stopped taking it so seriously, and started to loosen up a little and have some fun with it. Maybe that’s because, with the advent of tintypes, photography was now accessible to the working class. For less than a quarter, you could have a picture of yourself. (A daguerreotype cost about twice that in the 1800s. Today the average dag sells for many times more than the average tintype.)
The tintype era is also known as the carnival period. Traveling photographers set up studio tents at public gatherings, such as fairs and carnivals. They provided painted backdrops of Niagara Falls, beaches, boats and other novelty props for comic portraits like this one.
Posted by Zoom! on April 7, 2007, at 7:20 am |
What: mixed media art using wood, mirror, paper and screws
Where: on the wall of the old now-defunct Ritz Hotel at Bank and Somerset, right beside the Dollar-It formerly known as Big Bud’s
When: March 22, 2007
Who: This looks suspiciously like the work of a serial artist.
We should have a blogging community contest to see who can find the next piece in the series.
Posted by Zoom! on April 6, 2007, at 7:32 pm |
After six weeks of being intimidated by my new paint supplies, blank canvases, and utter lack of natural talent, I decided to paint something today. I re-read Nik’s comment about just doing it – just dive right in, splotch the paint all over the canvas and don’t worry about making mistakes. I also read the instructions for the first technique – paint glazes – in Claudine Hellmuth’s book, Collage Discovery Workshop. Paint glazing, it seems, is very simple, requires no talent, and is practically idiot-proof. You can see why I might be drawn to it.
And then I dove right in, splotched paint all over the canvas, and tried not to worry about making mistakes.
Here are the two canvases I painted today. (They’re not finished. I don’t know how they’re going to end up, but they’re not finished.)
Works in Progress:
This is my first-ever acrylic painting. I actually like it. I painted the base coat, the border, and two layers of glazes. I need to put something in the middle. I have a skeleton earring that would look pretty trippy in there – I could glue it in. I also have an old photograph of a nun that I’m thinking about using. I could make a copy (I’d never use the original) and attempt an image transfer. So far my experiments with image transfers have all failed, but I read about The Great White Transfer Technique today, and it sounds promising.
This is my second-ever acrylic painting. I started with a garish layer of primary yellow, and then did a full glaze of yellow ochre, and partial glazes of burnt sienna and burnt umber. I like it except for that clumpy dark bit in the bottom-right quadrant. I wonder what would happen if I tried to do something about the clumpy dark bit, like glaze another colour over it? Maybe the more I mess with it, the more I’ll draw attention to it. I’m not sure what to do with it next. Something belongs in the highlighted area, but I’m waiting for an inspired idea. (Feel free to share your inspired ideas, by the way.)
This is what my art table looks like after a day of being messy and creative. (As an added bonus to the day, I started using my camera again, after avoiding it for a week. I’m happy about that.)
Posted by Zoom! on April 5, 2007, at 6:26 pm |
It’s been a week now since Sam died, and I’m slowly getting less obsessed with it. But I don’t have much to blog about, because blogging – for me, anyway – requires a bit of an outward focus. I need to be observant in order to have anything to say. Otherwise, I’d be writing about my own internal landscape all the time – my feelings, my thoughts, my dreams, what I had for lunch – and I know there’s only so much you can take.
For the past week I haven’t been very observant. I have been very internally focused, and feeling sorry for myself because my dog died.. Nor have I taken any photographs in the last week, because – and I know this is strange – the last photograph I took was of Sam’s dead body, and now I feel weird about my camera.
I had to go back to work on Monday (I took Thursday and Friday off), and oh my god I did not want to be there. My coworkers seemed to split into two groups: those who wanted to ackknowledge Sam’s death and say sympathetic things, and those who didn’t. It really didn’t have anything to do with how they feel about me or anything like that, it’s just that some people don’t know what to say and they don’t want to say the wrong thing so they say nothing. I understand that because I’ve been there and felt that.
And the fact was, I didn’t want to talk about it. I didn’t want them to talk about it. I wrote about Sam’s death and I took solace from everybody’s condolences online, but I didn’t want to talk about it in person because I knew I would cry and I didn’t want to cry in front of people.
So on Monday I went to work – against my will, I absolutely did NOT want to be there, and I felt surprisingly hostile about having to be there – and I was just short of rude to the people who said anything about Sam. “Thanks,” I said, “But I don’t want to talk about it,” and I turned and walked away from them. Okay, maybe that wasn’t just short of rude. But I knew they understood. One person waited until Tuesday and then brought it up, and I almost cried, so she stopped in time.
I put them in an awkward position, and I feel bad about that.
I was also in a weirdly angry mood on Monday. First thing in the morning I could hear one of my coworkers going on and on about the changes to the parking lot, and her voice seemed to be getting louder and shriller until it felt like it was sawing through my nerves. Within twenty minutes I was ready to plunge a fork into her throat just to make her voice stop. And I like her.
Tuesday was a little better. By Wednesday I was feeling more or less human again, almost fit to be out in civilized company. Still sad, still precariously balanced on the edge of tears, but no longer homicidal.
Dave X dropped by the office on Wednesday afternoon. He finally decided it was time to pick up his winnings from the Dave X Change Challenge, which ended on December 31st, and which he won by a landslide (something like $240 to $28). I ran into him at the library a couple of weeks ago and asked him when he would be picking up his $28. Now the thing about Dave X is that he really needs the money but he’s very shy. I had jokingly told him once that when he came by to pick up his winnings, we’d have a photographer and one of those giant cheques waiting for him, and we’d have a little presentation ceremony. The prospect terrified him: he abhors attention.
The last time I saw him he suggested that I carry the money around with me until I ran into him again.
“But Dave,” I said, “It’s a box of change. It’s heavy. I don’t want to carry it around all the time on the off-chance I might run into you.”
Well, he must have been desperate yesterday, because he finally came by the office to get it. I was in Louise’s cubicle, trying to help her solve some goofy Word template problem, and I was wearing her red fire marshall hard hat. I glanced up and there was Dave X standing on the sidewalk under a dripping umbrella, trying to get my attention. I scooped up the box of money and ducked out into the rain.
He’s up to $58 so far this year. “It’s getting tougher out there,” he said, “There are more and more people looking for change.”
Then he asked me if I’d seen Ken lately, because he hadn’t.
“No,” I said, “But I was talking to Kay and I mentioned running into you at the library; she wants you to drop by.”
“Have you seen her lately?” he asked.
“No, I was supposed to go to her son’s birthday party on Sunday, but I couldn’t because my dog Sam died.”
This put poor Dave X on the spot. He struggled to say the right thing, but he got a little flustered and he managed to blurt out the wrong thing.
“I’m sorry,” he said (and he could have stopped there), “But maybe you could get a better dog. I mean another dog, not a better one. You could get a better dog and maybe you could name him Charlie, after your dead dog.”
Even though one would be hard-pressed to think of something more inappropriate to say, I thought it was sweet. Good old Dave X. I didn’t tell him my dead dog’s name was Sam, and I didn’t cry.
Posted by Zoom! on April 3, 2007, at 5:24 pm |
I’m baking a cake and serving homemade desserts at the Almost-Annual PPRA Dessert Party!
I’m on the Board of the Plant Pool Recreation Association (PPRA), a grassroots community organization which raises money and provides recreational activities for low-income kids in my old neighbourhood. Even though I’ve moved, Chinatown/Little Italy is still my neighbourhood at heart. It has lots of kids, one of the highest rates of child poverty in the city*, and one of the lowest amounts of green space for kids to play in.
I’m a mere mortal volunteer myself, but there are some supremely dedicated volunteers on this board: they’re at the rink and in the soccer field several days a week, and they play a strong advocacy role on behalf of our neighbourhood.
The hundreds of desserts are all homemade by the dozen members of our Board. About four of them make about 80% of the desserts. (I’d feel guiltier, but I do redeem myself somewhat by making the tickets and flyers.)
So if you’re looking for something delicious to do on the 14th, come on down to the Plant Recreation Centre. It’s only $5; I think you get up to three desserts and a cup of coffee, plus the satisfaction of knowing you’ve done something good for the kids in Chinatown/Little Italy.
*The child poverty rate is 49% in my old neighbourhood, and 44% in my new one. If you’d like to see how your neighbourhood compares, check this out.
Posted by Zoom! on April 2, 2007, at 6:36 pm |
If you live in the Ottawa area, you won’t want to miss the Ron Mueck exhibit at the National Gallery. It’s the most interesting exhibit I’ve ever seen at the Gallery.
Mueck is a 48-year-old Australian hyper-realist sculptor. He’s had no professional art training: he used to be a cinematic special effects guy. His transformation took place ten years ago when his father died and he created a perfect replica of his father’s naked corpse, only in miniature. He called it Dear Dad, and it’s part of the exhibit. I’m not sure his father would have liked it.
The exhibit will be at the National Gallery until May 6th. Don’t miss the video at the end, so you can see what goes into making an eight-foot-tall pregnant woman. I’ve noticed that people usually watch the videos for a few minutes and then wander off: pretty much everybody stayed till the end of this one.
One last thing: When you’re looking at the sculptures, don’t just look at the sculptures: look at other people’s faces as they look at the sculptures.
Photographs were not permitted, so I had to scrounge some off the net for you. Here are some of the things you wil see if you go:
Posted by Zoom! on April 1, 2007, at 6:54 am |
Sometimes I think about the last traces that others leave behind when they leave our lives.
How long, for example, does a former lover take to fade completely, and the last flake of his skin is vacuumed away? How long before they are completely physically gone from our little corner of the world? Or are they ever? Do we carry traces of DNA from every person whose life was ever intertwined with our own, even as we move from home to home? Do we live with microscopic bits of them all? (This thought can be either comforting or disturbing, depending on who comes to mind…)
Flea was 19 years old when he died three years ago. I’ve moved twice since then, and gradually his presence has diminished over time, but I’m sure there’s still physical evidence that I used to have a cat.
And so it is with my dog. How long before I’ve swept up the last stray strand of Sam’s fur and wiped the last speck of his blood from the walls? How long before there’s no visible evidence that I loved a dog for all these years, and then how long after that before even the invisible evidence is gone?
At least I’ve got my memories and photographs. The Chinese have a saying that we all experience two deaths: The first death takes place when we stop breathing; the second death, the last time we are remembered.
But maybe the photographs will linger on beyond the limits of memory. Maybe 100 years from now, someone will see a photograph of Sam, tangible evidence that he lived, and wonder briefly about him.
This photograph is probably a hundred years old or more. We don’t know much about this dog, other than that he visited a photographer in Edinburgh and was probably good friends with that little girl. I wonder about him whenever I look at this photograph. I wonder what a dog’s life was like back in Victorian and Edwardian times. I think the fact that he was included in a photograph suggests that his life was unusually good for the times. I hope so. (I suppose it’s possible that he belonged to the photographer and was used as a prop for children’s portraits. Who knows?)
Cabinet cards were produced between c1866 and c1914, but were rare until the 1880s-90s. They measured 3.75″ by 5.5″ and were mounted on stiff cardboard backing. The back of the card usually had the photographer’s advertising imprint on it. Unlike daguerreotypes, cabinet cards were not necessarily unique: additional copies could be ordered.
Speaking of daguerreotypes, I’ve renamed that blog category to ‘Antique Photographs’, with the intention of expanding it and adding a daguerreotype, ambrotype, tintype, CDV or cabinet card each week. Warm thanks to Gilles for the loan of the scanner. (And heartfelt thanks to all of you who left comments, sent emails, or even just thought of Sam and me over the past few days – it helped.)
|
|
Popular Posts