"An Insane Idiot And His Collection Of Descending-Size Deer Heads"

Also related to this museum/weird stuff collection business. . . but much, much funnier, is this transcript from an old SNL sketch written by none other than Jack Handy. Again, the fact that I have seen this and enjoyed it is because of Jesse Thorn and his wonderful podcasts. :)

An Insane Idiot And His Collection Of Descending-Size Deer Heads

"The Museum of Jurassic Technology"

At the end of our seminar class the other night, we watched a "cheesy" video (Ryan Griffis' description) about the Museum of Jurassic Technology in California.

The film we watched is called "Inhaling the Spore" and focuses on David Wilson, the museum creator, and the magic of his creation. I was thoroughly delighted, overjoyed, and enchanted by the whole film and the people in it, and frantically wrote notes in the dark as we watched.

I wrote:
This guy is the embodiment of it! So curious - accordion-playing on the street, such a wonderful, magical sort of man. Like a wizard.

Old museums are related to a "cabinet of curiosity" and made no distinctions between god-made or man-made, beauty or grotesque. Somehow they were just "out of the realm of ordinary experience."

(Example, the carved fruit stone who's caption card told of the myriad of impossibly complex animals carved into it. It "Plays with your credulity when it comes to those side captions" but there really IS one of those fruit stones to those exact specifications somewhere else.) Its amazing what you will believe because the side caption tells you to.

"We don't know exactly why they laugh, but we think its wonderful." David Wilson says

The book written about this museum is called "Mr. Wilson's Cabinet Of Wonder: Pronged Ants, Horned Humans, Mice on Toast, and Other Marvels of Jurassic Technology" by Lawrence Weschler. And I very much want to read it.

on "Travels in Hyperreality"

After listening to one of my absolute favorite episodes of This American Life, called Simulated Worlds for the millionth time, I decided I would actually read Umberto Eco's essay that Ira Glass references in the beginning of the show. I actually read almost all his essays in the collection of them, combined under the aforementioned title. (The other really wonderful one is about blue jeans.) What follows are my notes.

Travels in Hyperreality
Umberto Eco
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers. San Diego, New York, London c. 1983.
Umberto Eco is a novelist, professor of semiotics . .

P. 34
“In an excellent essay on Disneyland as “degenerate utopia” (“a degenerate utopia is an ideology realized in the form of a myth”), Louis Marin analyzed the structure of that 19th century frontier city street that receives entering visitors and distributes them through the various sectors of the magic city.”

This is interesting for this “degenerate utopia” idea and I think I should concentrate more on what that means.

Futher on that,

“In this sense, Disneyland is more hyperrealistic than the wax museum, precisely because the latter still tries to make us believe that what we are seeing reproduces reality absolutely, whereas Disneyland makes it clear that within its magic enclosure it is fantasy that is absolutely reproduced. The Palace of the Living Arts presents its Venus de Milo as almost real, whereas Disneyland can permit itself to present its reconstructions as masterpieces of falsification, for what it sells, indeed, goods, but genuine merchandise, not reproductions. What is falsified is our will to buy, which we take as real, and in this sense Disneyland is really the quintessence of consumer ideology.”

p. 46
“The pleasure of imitation, as the ancients knew, is one of the most innate in the human spirit; but here we not only enjoy a perfect imitation, we also enjoy the conviction that imitation has reached its apex and afterwards reality will always we inferior to it.”
(this is referring to the “Audio-Animatronic” technique in Disneyland like the pirates of the carribean and how “humans could do no better and would cost more” and so these fakes are better than reality.)

p. 53
“For the distance between Los Angeles and New Orleans is equal to that between Rome and Khartoum, and it is the spatial, as well as the temporal, distance that drives this country to construct not only imitations of the past and of exotic lands but also imitations of itself.”

I think I found this interesting because it talks about kinds of distance ? And I think that distance (temporal, spatial, and cognitive) is . . . interesting.

p. 57
“Where Good, Art, Fairytale, and History, unable to become flesh, must at least become Plastic.” (talking about America, a place where. . .)

p. 275
“The comic seems to belong to the people, liberating, subversive, because it gives license to violate the rule. But it gives such license precisely to those who have so absorbed the rule that they also presume it inviolable. The rule violated by the comic is so acknowledged that there is no need to reaffirm it. That is why carnival can take place only once a year. It takes a year of ritual observance for the violation of the ritual precepts to be enjoyed. . . “

I wonder what Eco would say about the Museum of Jurassic Technology? New thing I learned the other day: Ira Glass' degree is in Semiotics. No wonder he reads from Umberto Eco for like half of that episode! It all makes so much more sense now. :)

Ira Glass on narrative

So obviously someone credited with bringing narrative and literary non-fiction to the fore of radio is going to talk a lot about narrative. :) And this means there is a wonderful selection of resources out there regarding narrative and narrative construction.

One of my favorites is that short series that Ira Glass did for current TV that you can watch on youtube.

• Ira Glass on Storytelling #1
• Ira Glass on Storytelling #2
• Ira Glass on Storytelling #3
• Ira Glass on Storytelling #4

Also, in Jesse Thorn's interview with Ira Glass, they discuss narrative a little. Jesse asks him a great question about whether or not he sees the narrative bias in the media is problematic, to which Ira admits that it can be in a news setting (creates this "horse race" story rather than a presentation of more factual information). I always hear so much praise for narrative, its natural and basically universal presence in human thought and conversation, and its benefits in remembering, relating, and learning information, so it hadn't occurred to me that narrative is not always the best or most effective structure.

They also talked about the Improv everywhere story and Jesse mentioned that he was upset by the fact that the story told on This American Life was not accurate or representative of what Improv Everywhere does or even the spirit of Improv Everywhere. Ira responds, "I have no interest in Improv everywhere" not the straight news story that is representative but rather a story that is compelling b/c it has a plot and characters (in this case, the time when they messed up.) It's not "representative" of the group but it is a good story, the time it didn't work, the time something went wrong. This is a good point about narrative too - the conflict is what makes it interesting.

So it seems that narrative can be problematic in the sense that it demands certain qualities in order to be compelling, and sometimes the reality or truth of the situation doesn't offer those qualities. It reminds me of the psychology studies we were reading in my Developmental Cultural Psychology class about didactic narratives in European-American homes vs. Chinese homes. In the American situation, parents downplay children's wrongdoings and instead highlight what is funny or enjoyable about the child's transgression. And they also love to tell "hell-raising" stories about themselves when they were kids. This is puzzling and maybe even appalling to the Chinese parents, who emphasize respect for elders. My thought while reading these articles was a curiosity about the role that our entertainment-heavy culture has in our own interpersonal storytelling. Do Americans feel the need to make humorous, entertaining stories, casting ourselves as interesting characters and manipulating the narrative to be more compelling than it perhaps really is? How does this compare to other cultures general storytelling practices?

On the merits of Dogs

As a young person, recently graduated from college, full of knowledge and the hope of change and progress, the world seems to be a place of opportunity. It feels as if whatever we have been waiting for has finally arrived - freedom, adulthood. . . It seems to be full of essentially good people, some of which sucumb to terrible vices, but on the whole the net worth of creation is good. This is also an awkward time where we begin to awaken to the reality of beuracracy, selfishness, politics, and falseness. We are beginning to experience disolutionment, disenfranchisement, and disapointment in the greater things we used to admire - our country, religion, the institution of marriage, even the working world.

Dogs, on the otherhand, represent a sweet spirit. An inherently loving, accepting, being. If you ignore them for a week and come home, they are not angry at you for leaving, but thrilled that you are back again. They forgive endlessly. They are the opposition to this criticism and disappointment because they fill their lives with seeking and joy in the simple pursuits of food, attention, play, and sleep. There is no striving, so advancement, just the here and now. They are not so much hedonistic as they are appreciative, grateful, and completely lost in the moment in which they are alive.

Another thing that appeals to me about the dogs - dogs are not capable of irony. I guess there is nothing ironic or affected or cynical about a dog. They simply can't be. And it's wonderful.

There is something honest and straightforward about them, and this appeals to me, but is this enough? [to make them the subject of artwork?] They seem like a refreshing antidote to . . . um . . . everything :)

They offer uncomplicated social interaction - no pretenses. They are happy to see you, you are happy to see them, their tail wags. You can do nothing wrong. You can't talk too much or too little, you , there is no such thing as being akward.

In part, I think that I paint the dogs as a counter to this disapointment. I am trying desperately to ward off cynicism, and something in the sheer joy of these creatures seems to do that.

Benevolence

The following quotes are from Ira Glass in his introduction to the New Kings of Nonfiction.

10
"One thing i love about Weschler and Orlean (and, come to think of most of these writers) is their attitude toward the people they're writing about. Weschler is clearly skeptical of his protagonist, Akumal. Orlean is not in argument with her ten-year old. But they try to get inside their protagonist's heads with a degree of empathy that's unusual. Theirs is a ministry of love, in a way we don't usually discuss reporters feelings toward their subjects. Or at least, they're willing to see what is loveable about the people they're interviewing. (Weschler's an ineresting case when it comes to this, because he's mildly annoyed by his main character for the early part of his story, and then comes to have an ovious and real affection for him.)

14
In that environment, these stories are a kind of beacon. By making stories full of empathy and amusement and the sheer pleasure of discovering the world, these writers reassert the fact that we live in a world where joy and empathy and pleasure are all around us, there for the noticing. They make the world seem like an exciting place to live. I come out of them feeling like a better person -- more awake and more aware and more appreciative of everything around me. That's a hard thing for any kind of writing to accomplish. In times when the media can seem so clueless and beside the point, that's a great comfort in itself."

Storytelling and "intertexuality" from Barry Glassner

Here is a short piece of commentary from Barry Glassner's book The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things.

163
"Parallel reports from large numbers of ordinary peole do not necessarily add up to truth. People often tell similar stories that are not accurate descriptions of reality, as any anthropologist or police officer can testify. Like novelists or playwrights, regular folks adopt common images, plot lines, and themes--elements of what literary crtics call intertextuality-- in telling stories about themselves."

I think this is interesting because is goes back to this narrative thing. And it might be cool to explore visually what these common narratives (alien abductions sound the same, near death experiences, blah blah blah) or other examples of common narratives. . . what they look like. Also, what this term "intertexuality" means further.

Sincerity before I could articulate it. . .

I guess for me, this is the central conflict of my work and perhaps my own life - I am wedged squarely between two opposing ideas. That we should celebrate and be thankful for and enjoy the humor of the excesses and abundances and over-the-topness of our country, and meanwhile we should ashamed of it, disgusted by it.

On the one hand, I want to be serious about these issues, but on the other, I want to have a sense of humor. To laugh at something that is so blatantly too much . . . I mean, things that are grossly out of proportion are in and of themselves somewhat funy, aren't they? I really love that Jim Gaffigan joke about explaining dessert to someone in a starving country (actually mentioned in another posting). I think it his the nail on the head because there is something almost laughable about this fact when we put it into context. He navigates this line well because it is really a horrific thing and the guilt that would accompany actually explaining dessert to someone starving face to face is crushing, but it's told with a sense of humor, with an appreciation for what is unbeleivably funny about the situation. How does one do this visually?

Father Ted and Humor

So, listening to the interview with Graham Linehan and Arthur Matthews (I think on the DVD extras), they described how they took these stereotypes of Irish people (drunk priest, super-nice lady) and took them to ludacris dimensions, so that it was nearly impoosibble for it to be taken seriously. And that got me thinking how wonderfully complicated humor is. Aside from the people-falling-down humor, which is pretty basal and easy to understand, there is so much more sophistication involved in humor. Even in this case, where the joke of a priest being so drunk that he will literally drink anything, including floor polish, and who hasn't been sober in 2 years, which is not that complex of a joke in and of itself, is making a bigger, more complicated joke about Irish steretopes. And I realized that without that little explanation, I might not have understaood the bigger joke. I mean, when I first saw the show, I thought - aren't Irish people offended by all these stereotypes? It worries me that so much can be lost on me.

I also think that so often, I see images and I think "this is funny." but I can't explain why. And I think I'd prefer not to, but maybe if I could, then I can exploit or expand the joke to me to make the image more . . . like the Culver's man walking down the street after the parade. That is funny to me. It's just funny.