Thursday, May 08, 2003

[Colin Glassey] Art and Interaction A very interesting article in the Sunday New York Times magazine (May 4th). The author is complaining about DVDs and what the real movie is when DVDs are released with different cuts and extra scenes. That part of the essay was not interesting to me. However here is the most interesting idea: The more "interactive" we allow our experience of art - any art - to become, the less likely it is that future generations will appreciate the neccessity of art at all. Interactivity is an illusion of control; but understanding a work of art requires a suspension of that illusion, a provisional surrender to someone else's vision. To put it as simply as possible: If you have to be in total control of every experience, art is not for you. Life probably isn't for you either. I agree that art does invovle a surrender of your vision to someone else's vision. That is why I like art. But I also enjoy moving through alternate landscapes, exploring someone else's vision. I view interactivity like looking deeply into a painting and then becoming part of it. Is interactivity the enemy of art? I don't think so. Yes you only have an illusion of control, but how is that different from the illusion an artist creates when making a detailed painting of say Napoleon's Coronation. Its an illusion. Seeing it is like you were there yourself at the great moment. But you aren't. How would the experience be lessened if instead of a huge painting, David had created a 3-D environment so you could walk through Notre Dame and seen all the people there, dressed in the fantastic costumes of that day? 2:51:12 PM     [Colin Glassey] Blame Russia I can't resist the temptation to say something about the First World War (I've been studying it for the last two months for my Teaching Unit). I blame Russia. Now this is a fairly non-standard take on the cause of the First World War but here is my argument. Obviously when Serbian terrorists killed the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, Austria had to do something. Serbia had been actively working against Austria for more than a decade such as publishing anti-Austrian propaganda in Newspapers, supporting anti-Austrian Serbs within Bosnia, and more. By-the-way, Serbia had been a protectorate of Austria for some years but gained full independence from Austria some 35 years before 1914. Austria's response to the death of the Arch Duke was essentially to demand Serbia submit to being a protectorate of Austria again. Serbia knew that elements within its government were responsible for stirring up anti-Austrian feelings in Bosnia. Later it turned out that members of Serbia's Intelligence Organization actually organized and armed the assassins. Initially Serbia was willing to submit to Austrian demands. They were weak, they were in the wrong and they had gained their independence once before from Austria, likely they could do it again. Now Russia enters into the situation. Russia sent a telegram to the Serbian government after the Austrian demands were made public. The telegram said two things: 1) Russia considers the Austrian demands unacceptable and 2) The Russian army is going to mobilize. This was an amazing thing for Russia to do. Their security was not threatened in any way by a resumption of Austrian control over Serbia. Yet the Russian government was so wrapped up in its support for their Slavic cousins that they choose to mobilize their army before anyone else did anything. And I do mean anything. Russia issued mobilization orders, then Serbia, then Austria, then Germany! The mobilization orders are critical to understanding the situation. Russia in peace time had the largest army in Europe of some 1.5 million. But when fully mobilized Russia’s army was an enormous 6 million strong. Germany’s peace time army was 750,000 strong, divided between the French border and the Russian border. Germany was really in danger of being conquered if its peace-time army in Prussia were to come under attack from a fully mobilized Russian army. In other words, the Germans were OK being outnumbered 2 to 1 by the Russian army. But being outnumbered 6 to 1 or more was too dangerous. So, when Germany learned Russia was mobilizing its army, the Kaiser sent a critical telegram to the Czar saying essentially "if you don’t stop mobilizing, Germany has no choice but to mobilize as well". The Czar sent back a telegram saying “it is technically impossible for us to halt the mobilization.” As a result, Germany mobilized and declared war on Russia. And, as a result of fantastically detailed war plans, Germany attacked France. It makes some sense but I wouldn't have done that. So, why did Russia order a mobilization? Didn’t they know this would provoke Germany into going to war? Did they think they could mobilize without consequences? Bottom line: Russia caused Germany to go to war by a stupid mobilization order in support of a country that was of no strategic importance to Russia. Serbia was playing a dangerous game in supporting Serb terrorists in Bosnia. They went too far and needed to demonstrate they would no longer work to destabilize Austria. Austria is partly to blame for not getting Russia to agree with some sanctions against Serbia, but Russia is the real cause of the war. Russia made the key choice to support a minor country, one that supported terrorists operating against its large neighbor (Austria). Russia could easily have walked away from this conflict. But they choose to mobilize. They started World War One. 11:53:04 AM     [Colin Glassey] I'm Back Everything at school came due this week so I have been too busy to post for a couple of weeks. Its all done now. But enough about me. This essay by Rob Roy of the Orlando Sentinel is not to be missed. (Thanks to Command-Post.org for the link.) Here are some exerpts: Before the war, I'd never spent much time with the Marines, and I wasn't sure what to expect when I was assigned to them. I think I understand Marines better now, but I'm not sure I can explain them. They tend to do things the hardest way possible. They call each other "devil dog" and say "Hoo-rah." They are loud and rough. They have lots of tattoos. They'll ignore you or torment you if they think you're a fake. They'll do anything for you if they like you. They'll believe the wildest rumors. One told me, early in the war, that he'd heard the Army, rather than the Marines, would occupy Baghdad because the Marines "break too much stuff." Marines tend to think and travel in a straight line. ... I saw Marines who didn't have any extra food or water give what they had to Iraqi children begging on the roadside. But the same Marines laughed like crazy when they heard about a Marine who filled an empty MRE bag with sand, sealed it up and threw it to begging children. One Marine officer I knew liked to call his Marines "the most demented young people our society can produce." He wasn't really kidding, but he still admired them, and I did, too. ... One fascinated by their quirks was Maj. Jeff Eberwein, an oil-company executive in civilian life who has a degree in medieval literature from Boston College. The books he'd brought to read during the war included Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Eberwein liked to joke about how Marines did things the hardest way. Since they'd arrived at Camp Saipan in January, the Marines had to wear their full battle gear -- flak jackets and helmets and carrying their weapons -- even to the mess hall and latrine. I thought the conditions at Camp Saipan were bad, with tents that didn't keep out the dust storms and foul-smelling portable toilets. But it was luxury compared to conditions after the war started. And the Marines, who had assumed they would be using holes for toilets and eating standing up even in camp before the war, thought it was great they had toilets and a mess tent with chairs. Eberwein did a hilarious version of a sergeant's reaction to any Marine who complained about the mess hall food, which was actually awful. "Do you think they had strawberry jam on Tarawa, Marine?! Did they have orange juice at Iwo Jima?!" One day at the big Marine base south of Baghdad, Eberwein and I watched a Marine take a wrong turn with his LVS, a monster all-wheel drive truck, and come up to a ditch with a berm beyond it. The Marine could have backed up a little and turned to avoid the obstacle. But the shortest path was straight ahead, and after sizing it up the driver just gunned the motor and the big truck plowed over it, tires spinning and steel groaning. Eberwein liked to say that Marines think finesse is a French sports car. But the truth is he admired their single-mindedness to getting the job done. That day as the truck disappeared through the cloud of dust, he just shook his head and said, "Mission accomplished." People have argued that, as a whole, Marines are the best fighting force in the world. Obviously there is something to their training which takes somewhat unusual Americans and turns them into selfless, single-minded, obey-orders-at-all-costs, warriors. One thing is certain, when you train to do things the hard way, war itself becomes something you can live with. One thing I'd like to repeat, our forces did so well in Iraq because they train hard under nearly realistic combat conditions. Training is the key to performance in battle and we do it well. Traing must never be sacrificed to get the latest and greatest gadgets. 11:17:26 AM

© Copyright 2003 cglassey. Last update: 6/3/2003; 12:53:24 PM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.