watching saint helens

The big news in my neck of the woods is the potential of another eruption by Mount St. Helens. The past few days have seen "near constant" earthquakes at the volcano, whose previous eruption in 1980 was a violent spectacle of the highest order. I can still recall staring in awe at the photos from National Geographic that documented nature's crazed rampage, and what interests me about this round of magma vs. mountain goes back to images.

Having grown up during the rise in popularity of both affordable home video cameras and the 24-hour news cycle, there were very few "news events" (tragedies, disasters, etc.) that weren't captured live. Although I didn't witness it as it happened, the billowing white smoke of the Challenger explosion was seen against a saturated blue sky over and over and over again on television news. More smoke and sky came into our homes on 9/11.

But the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens seems to just barely pre-date the era of cameras everywhere / all the time. The only live record of the event was a series of still photos taken from a ridge many miles away. Seeing the still photos always amazed me, but there was a tinge of regret that there had been no motion footage of the event.

Well, that era has passed.

This morning's local news featured a live view of the mountain, from a camera mounted to a helicopter. The US Forest Service now offers a 'round the clock webcam of the volcano. Will there ever be another event (predictable or not) that was not at least partially captured on video? Even an event such as a random kidnapping is now caught on the recorded feed of someone's home surveillance system. Weather events, traffic accidents, all sorts of simultaneously mundane and fascinating activity are being constantly caught on tape.

Will we ever again need to use our mind's eye to envision any aspect of our present existence? Or will their always be fresh footage for us to view? It's a bizarre, fascinating question - who would've thought, way back in 1980, that a volcanic eruption in the somewhat remote forest of the Pacific Northwest would be carried live on the net and the networks?

Film at 11...

File Under Self-Promotion

Hey! Look at me! Or rather - look at FILE , an online magazine of photography that "publishes images that treat subjects in unexpected ways." They've included a photo of mine in their "Monty Pylon's Flying Circus" project - an ongoing portfolio of images of traffic cones. While you're there, check out "Three Polaroids from Crete" from U.K. photographer Jim Green ... stellar.

An Open Letter to Cold K

To: Cold Killr, a.k.a Cold K
From: Touching Harms the Art
Re: The Increasingly Stale Look of Your Tags

I've been noticing your tagging around town for quite some time now and I must admit that, at first, I was impressed. Your 'Pac-Man ghost' motif was instantly recognizable and somehow both refreshing and familiar. I guess I'd have to attribute some of it to a childhood spent pumping quarters into Ms. Pac-Man machines in a mostly futile attempt to reach the little "interludes" between certain levels - you know the ones - with titles like "They Meet," "The Chase" and whatnot - all small slices of life from the romantic world of the famous Pac-Couple.

(As an aside ... Does anyone have any info on Ms. Pac-Man's past? What I mean is - she's addressed as "Miz." Does this mean that she was previously married? Or are we all just so polite/afraid to inquire about her marital status that we continue using "Miz"?)

Anyway ... whereas your tags began as these engaging/disconcerting ghosts, they've now devolved into extremely sloppy blobs - or, in the worst case scenarios, simple text reading "COLD K" that looks as if it were applied hastily
with a wide paint brush.

C'mon, K. You've got the skills. I've seen it - your tags have brought uneasy smiles to so many. Now they're just starting to become eyesores. Don't simply aspire to widespread saturation and name-recognition. Keep it interesting ... hand-crafted ... unique.

Special Additions

I saw the theatrical re-release of George Lucas' first film THX 1138 this weekend. Having grown up a huge Star Wars fan, I was kind of surprised that I'd never seen it - and I was completely impressed by the film. It was a simple Orwellian/dystopia story, but the mood that Lucas created was stunning. The aural experience (little dialogue, lots of digital voices which were disturbingly calm and soothing), the camera work (placing action in the extreme corners of the frame, intense close-ups of actors features), the sets (or complete absence of them - much of the middle part of the film takes place in an endless white expanse) - it was all enthralling.

Which, in a way, is depressing - for Lucas' career to go from THX 1138 to Jar Jar Binks is maddening.

Then there's the problem of the upcoming DVD release of the original Star Wars trilogy. They're not the original films released several decades ago, but the 'Special Editions' that came to theaters in 1997, plus still more of Lucas' tweaking. (I've read that he's done the same thing with THX 1138 - the new DVD/theatrical release includes a few digital 'enhancements' - but having never seen the original, I can't comment.)

Not to sound like a complete Star Wars dork/nerd, but this is wholly unacceptable. The digital additions Lucas made to these films were so totally unnecessary that I never expected Lucas would turn his back on the original versions and proclaim the 'Special Editions' more true to his vision - which is exactly what he did. At this time, there are no plans to release DVDs of the original trilogy as it was in the 70s/80s - but VHS and Laserdisc copies still exist - and there are, ahem, ways to acquire copies.

This whole George Lucas bit illuminates a strange new side-effect of the digital age - artists re-visiting and changing old works when new technologies are developed. For instance, many photographs that pre-date the digital age are now being re-printed with digital methods that offer more tones/colors than the original prints. Of course it is the right of the artist to do whatever he or she wants to their work - which is the argument Lucas uses to justify his actions.

My main problem with Lucas is the seeming lack of respect the unique aura of the original - the limitations of the technology (and, in some cases, the skill of the artist) at the time it was made are as much a part of the piece as any other aspect. The original, raw version is a sort of historical document of the time and circumstances in which it was made. But for him to completely disavow the original work as inferior is foolish and seems a slap in the face to both his fans and film history.

Godspeed All the Bakers at Dawn

"You gotta hear this one song it’ll change your life I promise." - Sam (Natalie Portman) on The Shins song New Slang, from the film Garden State.

So which is the life-changer - songs or albums? A song usually starts the ball rolling - you hear one track from a record and you immediately realize that this could be it. "If the rest of the album sounds like this ..."

But it often doesn't. So you're left with one song that cuts through to the core. You are changed.

Then there are the albums that you put on for the first time and are riveted from first song to last. Anywhere from 30 to 70 minutes or more of pure immersion.

Although "pop" music has always been single-driven, it seems like post-Smells Like Teen Spirit that the power of the single really began to balloon. More recently, consolidation in radio ownership has regimented playlists nationwide and new methods of delivery (iTunes) have further emphasized the necessity for an album to have that one, golden track if it's ever going to move any units. It's become what scholar/musician Bill Banfield refers to as a 'non-album culture.'

Will the younger music fans of today experience music as simply singles? Will they dig deeper?

Let's hope they see Garden State, hear the soundtrack, and follow the leads.