So, looks like Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has won the election in the first round. Seems most are saying that this means a continuation of the current political and economic situation in Argentina. A cousin of mine, L, who I talked to last week, was afraid that Cristina would win and that things would continue or get worse. From what I’ve experienced during my visits since 2001, I see a slow but steady general improvement for the majority of poor and lower middle-class.

Though even for middle class folk, things are not great, I think she is not as badly off as many, many people in Argentina, She told me that her son, M, who according to her knows more about this sort of thing, predicts a collapse in 2008 or 2009.

Argentina is interesting in that everyone there complains about the current state of affairs, the corruption, the dog-eat-dog nature of day to day living, that everyone is working an angle. Just consider the lyrics of the famous Tango Cambalache. The basic philosophy is since everyone else is doing it, you better get good at doing it yourself. Only way to make your way in the world. So, if things are so bad, why vote for the same? I know too little about Argentine politics, but I suppose other choices may not be so great, the devil you know versus the devil you don’t, all that. Actually, that happens in the US too, no? With the illusion of choice we have in the US in all realms of life, from the supermarket aisles to our politicians, we “get to” choose between slightly left of center and slightly right of center. (Of course, there are periods in history, like Viet Nam and the current Bush regime, where things are ever so slightly more polarized, but considering the spectrum of all possibilities, its a small range). I digress.

We’ll see if M is right. Though Argentina can and will surprise, I’d be surprised.

Just saw this.

Bert Krages’ pamphlet on “The Photographer’s Right.

Very useful. Helpful when trying to document the corporate and government absurdities (and worse) of life.

Watched Silence of the Bees, on PBS’s Nature. Looks like there may be a virus involved in Colony Collape Disorder. As an ex- and probably future-beekeeper, people always ask me what I know about CCD. Not much of course, but I have never subscribed to the idea, even early on in the discovery of CCD, that there was one cause. “Death by a thousand cuts” is what one person interviewed on the program said.

Honeybees pollinate 1/3 of the US food crop. Without beekeepers, there would be essentially no honeybees. Imagine losing 1/3 of crops, whether they directly feed humans or livestock. And I’m not just talking about an increase in prices. One of the most striking parts of the program was the report on an area in China where, because of pesticide use in the 1960’s, there are no honeybees left. None. Asian Pears are now being pollinated by hand, by humans, one flower at a time. Imagine that in the US. Not a chance. And not for much longer in China, as people move to the cities for jobs that pay better than hand pollinating flowering trees.

Of course, my take is that the human race, by its own hand, is experiencing death by a thousand cuts. We will hit many walls at once this century. As we destroy wetlands, amphibians, who are at least one of the canaries in the ecological mine, are mutating, dying off. As we use antibiotics indiscriminately, we’ll hit the many walls of many resistant infections. As we use up fossil fuels, not only will we hit that wall, global warming is ramping up. Fresh water and the fights over it. Genetic engineering of crops and animals causing unknown ecological ramifications. Loss of diversity of human languages and cultures. And so on.

Back to the bees. A possible virus, the classic Nosema, the Varroa and tracheal mites, various fungi and bacterial infections, even domestication all weaken bees. After several of these, all you need then is another one to break the camel’s back. And of course, for better or worse, some peoples “solution” is to genetically engineer a stronger honeybee. Maybe. Maybe not.

Basically, we’re screwed. I just hope we don’t take too many other species along with us.

Opening last night at the Gallery Project of Signs, Symbols, Gestures.

The show, as always, was nicely hung in the open space, giving each piece room.

IMHO, best pieces: two photo portraits by Titus Heagins of North Carolina and a piece by Claudette Jocelyn Stern, a fun compilation of found objects; “not my favorites”: well, without giving names, see below.

Favorites:

The portraits by Mr. Heagins (Machette Fillé, Sodo 80 and Madam, Sodo 80) were what portraits should be, with the depth of the intimacy captured being as much a function of what the photo allows the viewer to bring as of the look and circumstances of the subject.

Baker’s Dozen: found objects in each of the cups in a table-like found object which itself looked like some industrial muffin tin. Fun with not a jot of the pretense in most of the other work in the show.

Not my favorites:

• 3 pieces, each made of 12 squares of old wood, each with a hobo marking. Next to the pieces, a legend of each symbol and and its meaning. With nothing open to any interpretation and not being what one would call “art of execution” either, the only thing left was the pattern in the grain of wood.
• A mixed media piece which, try as it might, seemed almost a forgery of what might be some real outsider art.

In between my faves and my not faves were the rest: large digital prints with no soul and pieces deconstructing symbols and signs, occasionally juxtaposing them in ways that tried very hard to be “unexpected”, which, if I’m not mistaken, has been done before.

No one has, IMHO, done signs and symbols better than Luigi Serafini in the Codex Seraphinianus. See its unofficial web site.

Yesterday, I sent the following letter to the Editor at the Observer.

Dear Editor:

I have to let you know just how appalled I was to see the October Observer cover.

To see the eviscerated remains of the historic and wonderful Frieze Building where usually one finds soft-focus views of an idyllic Ann Arbor we can only wish Ann Arbor were, was shocking enough. A photo in a feature, I can imagine. For someone to sit and paint this scene, like a medical illustrator working off a cadaver, and then, for someone to put it on the Observer’s cover for all to see, I strive, in my best mindset, to interpret as a protest against the taking down of the Frieze Building. From a more cynical point of view, it’s just tasteless. Perhaps you can tell me which was intended.

The October cover easily reminds one of the famous photograph of the infamous, domed building, the pathetic shell, intentionally left at ground zero in Hiroshima, as a monument to man’s destructive nature. Perhaps Ann Arbor should leave the last of the Frieze Building in its current state as a monument to the relentless, styleless, even mindless development of Ann Arbor in the form of yet more brick-and-glass monoliths and taller and taller flat-faced, soulless buildings.

Sincerely,
Alan Pagliere

Here’s the response from John Hilton. Not bad. Thanks to him. I still wish the commentary nature of the cover had been a bit more explicit. It would have obviated the need for my rant.

Hi Alan,

The artist, Richard Campanelli, was pained by the loss of the Frieze Building, and moved to capture what little remained. He didn’t consult us in advance, but when he brought the finished piece in, I thought it perfectly captured an important moment in the city’s history–it’s real history, not some soft-focus idyllic view.

We’ve done this a couple of times before, with John Copley’s watercolor of the demolition of the old Broadway Bridge, and Jon LaRose’s drawing of the university’s Old Main hospital coming down. I see doing this as part of our job as observers–but I am sorry that it caused you distress.

thanks
John

ps the U actually does plan to preserve that shell–the Carnegie Library that once stood alongside Ann Arbor High–but not as a standalone ruin. They’re going to incorporate the facade into their North Quad complex.