2 dreams

So I had 2 dreams the other night that I remembered. (I usually don’t remember them at all, so it’s sort of extra odd.)

Dream 1:

I was traveling around with a group of people, and we were fighting these creatures. I don’t think we ever had a name for the creatures. I guess they were mostly like vampires—the creatures, not my group—although, they didn’t seem like vampires to me: no vampire cheesiness. I don’t think they had fangs; they didn’t fly nor turn into bats and fog; and I don’t think they were nocturnal. And they just seemed to want to go around infecting other people. In that sense, they were more like zombies. The infection or whatever when the creatures bite someone turns the person’s skin black. I don’t mean black like African; I mean a dull, solid, non-shiny, coal-like blackness. So even “black” people turned really black.

Anyway, my group was pretty good at “vampire”-slaying. Like I said, we were travelling around fighting these things. We ended up in a church, where there was a service going on. We were suspicious at first, because everyone there seemed to be acting like there weren’t vampire-zombie-creatures everywhere. But there also seemed to be no infected anywhere. When you were infected, you immediately turned—no waiting period. Just BOOM!—your skin turns black and you’re a creature.

So we took a break, sat there in the chapel while the church-folk were doing their thing.

And then there were suddenly creatures everywhere, and we suddenly kinda sucked at fighting them. And the church-folk weren’t any good either. So we were overcome, or at least I was, by the creatures. One of them bit me, and I turned.

I didn’t really feel any different. Usually the creatures were very aggressive and mean, but I didn’t feel that at all. I was just sort of there. Actually once I was turned, I think everyone else was turned too. Not like I was the last human standing, but they just overwhelmed us all at once, I suppose. So I guess there was no one to be aggressive towards. In fact, we creatures were all very “loving” toward each other. And by that, I mean there was suddenly an orgy. Yep, lots of charcoal-black vampire-zombie-creatures, all doin’ their thing. Yee-haw! (Actually there was no “Yee-haw”.  I don’t recall much sound at all at that point.)

And then suddenly that dream was over. That was disappointing, as it was just getting to the good part.

I don’t know if I woke up between the dreams. But they did seem to be distinctly separate dreams, not one dream that morphed into another.

-    -    -    -    -

Dream 2:

This one was set in a post-cataclysmic world, which is rough, but not quite as bad as a post-apocalyptic situation. It was a bit like that TV show Jericho, which I really liked and was sorry to see it end—cancelled. Boo!

Well, in the post-cataclysm, I was with some group trying to defend our town or neighborhood or territory, and there was another group—not sure if they were neighbors or more of a nomadic group—trying to get in and take our stuff. So that went on for a bit—you know, fighting at our make-shift battlements.

Then, toward the end of the fighting—we were definitely winning—I saw someone I know. She’s a singer who was in one show I did the last time I lived in Mississippi. I think she wasn’t actually with the main group we were fighting off. It seemed like she was just trying to get inside, maybe for protection or to join us. But we had strict rules that we couldn’t let anyone in. So, I ended up trying to keep her out and eventually fighting her.

And that was it...

Okay, yes, the fighting did lead to making out. (If that person is reading this...sorry. I didn’t mention that part.) And then I woke up before it went any further than that. I promise.

-    -    -    -    -

Well.

The clear implication of these two dreams is that I want to do some fighting and then I want to get it on. And yes, those two things are certainly missing from my life, and have been for a while. 

One Year Old

Happy Birthday!

...or Anniversary!

My first post on this blog was one year ago today. And I’ve been posting every day since then.

Okay, I did cheat a couple of times. One time I forgot and another time I fell asleep before posting a blog for the day. Both those times I posted within half an hour or maybe an hour at most of midnight. And then I back dated the blog an hour or so.

Last month I was on the road for several days, and I wasn’t sure I’d be able to get online to post. So before I left, I did posts for those several days and set them to post automatically on those days I’d be gone. But I don’t consider that cheating.

Anyway, with those exceptions, I’ve posted something every day for a year, some days more than one post. And I have to say, it’s not always been easy. There’ve been several times when I doubted I’d be able to keep up the daily posting rate. And there’ve certainly been days when I was lazy and posted something that took relatively little effort. But I’d challenge anyone to do a daily blog that dealt with a specific subject matter and was not just a re-blogging thing, like tumblr can be.

I think the chief difficulty is that I’ve generally wanted to do something worth posting, something different than previous posts, and something as good or better than previous posts. I don’t think I’ve always succeeded in that. But I accept that always doing something different and better isn’t possible. I think that’s just part of the nature of such frequent output: it’s probably inevitable that quality will vary at times.

I was chatting with a new friend recently about the blog. She was looking at it for the first time and was telling me posts that she liked, and a favorite so far. I’ve done so many posts that I’d have a hard time selecting a favorite. Then again, in life I’ve often been reluctant to pick favorites, unless it’s something with a small number of options—like seasons. (I think my favorite season is fall.)

But I’d love to know what posts are other people’s favorites, and why. Or least favorites—also instructive.

-    -    -    -    -

Earlier this year, in the spring or early summer, I decided that I would keep up the daily posting until today—you know, assuming that I made it this far. I did, so yay me! From here on, I will not be posting every day. But I am not ending the blog, nor taking it down. I’ll keep posting whenever I have something to post.

-    -    -    -    -

One big thing that’s come out of this blog is an increased interest in photography in general. I’ve been taking lots of pictures of various things. But mostly that’s been a solitary endeavor. And I’d really like to make it less solitary—work with people, take pictures of people (naked or not), and share pictures with people. I don’t know where I’ll end up in the future, but if I’m near you, get in touch and maybe I’ll take your picture.

-    -    -    -    -

So...Happy Cake Day! 

Now, send me presents. You know, submissions and suggestions and, of course, comments. 

Naked Opera 9 (a miscellaneous threesome)

So, I’m spring cleaning, in the fall. Well, almost fall, so last-day-of-summer cleaning.

Also, I’m not sure I have enough to say about these three clips to make them separate entries.

Wagner’s Parsifal at Teatro La Fenice in Venice, 2005:

I don’t know what’s going on here. I don’t know why there’s a mix of clothed and naked people. But it does conform to an often-seen approach to nudity in opera—that is, the singers are clothed, and it’s non-singing extras or dancers who are naked.

Gounod’s Faust (I don’t know the production info. Anyone?):

Another not-unpopular choice—one or two naked people, again, not singing, surrounded by clothed principals and clothed chorus.

Verdi’s Rigolettoat the Royal Opera House in London, 2012:

Ah...what every opera needs—an orgy. 

Aftermath

So, to briefly continue from yesterday’s blog...what now?

I’d planned to move, I’d already turned down a little bit of fall work where I had been living. Well, I wasn’t gonna move to Mississippi without the job at that school. But the reasons for wanting to leave are still true: not enough work, and the “rut” of my personal life. There’s just not much there for me, nothing really keeping me there where I was living. And I’d mentally prepared to leave. So, I still feel that I should leave.

I moved out of my apartment at the end of last month, and I’ve been staying with a friend in another town for several weeks. I’m going to visit some other friends this weekend and visit my parents for a few days. Then, I’m going back to where I was before, mainly to house-sit and pet-feed while some folks I know are gone for a couple of weeks. But after that, I have no idea where I’ll go.

I had looked into another accompanying job at another university, but they hired someone else. And, honestly, I’m not even sure if I want that sort of job right now. I think I need to find a place where I want to live and then look for some work that I can stand to do. I’m not exactly sure how to go about doing that. I really can’t afford to go try out a bunch of cities to see which I like.

Bleh.

Yesterday I watched a TED talk in which the speaker (Stefan Sagmeister) was recommending that people take sabbaticals from their jobs. They increase productivity, etc. 

Maybe I’ll do that—just go away for a few months...again. I did that several years ago; I went to the beach for part of the winter, after having met this incredible woman by whom I was “undone”.

The idea is appealing. But I will need to find some work, some kind of income before too long.

If only I could get someone to pay me to be naked.

Hmm...art class modeling? I should look into that. 

So, what happened to Mississippi?

Okay, this is gonna be a long one. Take your time.

I’ve put off writing about it for a while, as I knew it would be quite a lengthy entry, and the thought of typing it up and trying to put it into some order that makes sense was a little daunting. 

So, I may ramble a bit. Sorry.

-   -   -   -   - 

I was planning to move to Mississippi a month ago, on August 20th. Later that week I would’ve been starting work at a public state university there. It was the school where I went to college, and I had worked there before, most recently 2½ years ago.

Now, I wasn’t super-excited about Mississippi—I mean, it’s Mississippi. But I’d been feeling like I was in a rut where I was living the past few years, and there was work in Mississippi. Along with the “rut” of my personal life (or lack thereof) I’ve been significantly under-employed for a while. And they were “desperate for accompanists” to quote one of the voice teachers at the school there. So, I was going back there, with the idea that I may look into New Orleans as a possible place to live and work in the future.

I had been talking on and off during the summer with the faculty member who organizes and assigns accompanists at the school. (Accompanists are pianists who accompany other musicians. That’s part of what I do for a living).

I had given my notice to my landlord here in North Carolina that I was leaving, and I’d told people here that I was leaving and wouldn’t be around to accompany here, nor to do shows, etc. in the fall.

I’d gotten rid of a bunch of my stuff which I didn’t want to move.

I had gone down there a few weeks before and found an apartment, signed a lease and all that.

Everything was set.

Then on the Friday afternoon before I was supposed to leave I got an email from the director of the music department.

It said, in part, this:

I need to inform you that due to my knowledge of some recently discovered material on your social media site I am not comfortable hiring you in any capacity at this time.  If you have any questions or wish to discuss my decision you may call me at my office number next week.

Now, I had no intention of waiting around all weekend to get more info. I’d made plans. I’d made financial obligations securing an apartment and setting up cable, electricity, etc. So, I called the music department director’s office—no answer—and then his cell phone. I had his cell phone number from before when I was there.

He said that it wasn’t the best time for him, but I needed to know if there was any chance that this was something we could work out. I needed to know right then if this was a definite thing. Because if it was definite, I needed to get working right away on an alternate plan.

So we talked briefly.

I don’t remember everything exactly how he said it. My mind was spinning around with a sort of “what am I gonna do now!?” quality. But he did make it clear that I would not be working there. He also seemed to be clearly saying that someone in Human Resources had become aware of this, had contacted him, and that HR wouldn’t be willing to hire me—it wasn’t just him. He seemed unwilling to specify what it was that made him uncomfortable. I said something like “I assume this is about my blog”. He said yes.

Now, I do have more than one blog, and I didn’t specify, nor did he, anything about this blog, about nudity, etc. But it’s quite obvious to me that he meant this blog, and the subject matter one can find here.

I asked if there was some particular policy about this, and he replied with various comments to the effect that it was bad to post such things, etc. The clear impression I got was that he thought I should be ashamed of myself. He didn’t use those specific words. I really wish I’d taken notes, or recorded the conversation. But the things that I took from the conversation were that the decision was made and that wouldn’t change, that Human Resources was involved in the decision, and that he was personally disapproving of me.

Well, I called my landlord, arranged to stay a little longer, through the end of the month if needed.

So that Monday, instead of moving, I wrote the head of the music department this:

I have a couple of questions, or requests, perhaps.
Could you give me the name of the person in Human Resources who informed you of this situation, or who made the decision to not hire me based on materials I've published on the internet?
Also, in our phone conversation Friday afternoon, I believe you did not actually answer my question: is there some particular rule or policy at the university which I would be violating if I worked there and published such materials? And if there is such a policy, could you tell me exactly what it is and where I might find it listed?
Thank you.

His reply the next day:

Sorry for the delay, but school starts tomorrow and I am slammed.  When you called Friday... I wasn't prepared for the conversation and was definitely distracted.  So, with that said allow me to be clear.  The decision not to hire you was mine and mine alone.  I am responsible for all hirings in the School of Music.  As the person responsible for those hirings I have to use my best judgment, based on all the information available to me, to hire people that I feel reflect the values, character, good judgment and integrity I expect from all our faculty.  I also need to ensure that our students are in a safe learning environment.  The offer to hire you was rescinded and no further explanation is necessary.
You don't need a name in Human Resources, as they did not make this decision.  They only counseled me on my options.  As you were never an employee there were no policies to be violated.  This was my judgment call.

Well, I thought that was rather insulting to me. I mean, the obvious implication was that he feels I’m lacking in values, character and integrity, and that my being there would create an unsafe environment for the students. I really don’t know how he’d get that from this blog. I actually think this blog shows character and integrity, as well as an artistic frame of mind. The “integrity” thing I find especially insulting. I would challenge him to find anyone I’ve worked with in the past for any significant length of time who would say I was lacking in integrity. Or probably character, for that matter.

And I’m not sure what values the job, any job at a public university, requires. Perhaps a decent work ethic? Showing up, doing your job well, etc.? And I certainly do that.

So. The unsafe environment issue: I feel certain that he is reacting to a relatively small amount of what’s on this blog, and that a more complete understanding of what the blog is would not cause someone to react that way. 

(I’ll address this a bit more later.)

That leaves “good judgment”. Okay, yes. I suppose that is a real issue. I concede that it’s not unreasonable to ask if my doing this blog, and posting links on facebook, reflects good judgment. However, I don’t post to everyone on facebook. I post to my “friends” with some exceptions, those exceptions including most of the people who I currently work with. And if someone meets me and googles my name, I don’t think they’ll actually find this blog with my name. Maybe I’m wrong there, but I’m fairly sure about that. My name isn’t actually on this blog. And I’m fairly sure that people have found my other blog (which does have my name) while trying to find this blog by searching for “naked blog” with my name.

Anyway...

Let’s see...where am I?

Ah.

Now, since this department director had never actually referred to this blog nor specified the material that he found problematic, I responded with:

I certainly understand about the beginning of the semester. And I thank you for the clarification.
One further clarification would be helpful and greatly appreciated.
I want to be sure that we're talking about the same thing and not just obliquely referring to it; I want to be sure that I am not making any assumptions here about what you're saying. In your email from Friday you referred to "material on your social media site". Well, I do post a lot of things online, and I can imagine various people taking issue with various things I've posted. And I do not know you especially well.
So, can you be specific about the material I have published online which you find problematic, which causes you to find fault in my character and integrity, and which you fear would create an unsafe environment for your students?
Again, I just want to be certain that there is no misunderstanding between us on this issue, as I consider openness, directness, and honesty to be very important.
Thank you for your time.

Now, I feel that was a reasonable question. He and I are both educated adults, who should be able to have an open conversation about this. He rescinded a job offer that I had been counting on, and because of which I had made plans and obligations.

He didn’t answer.

I wrote once more a week or two later, just saying basically the same thing.

He still hasn’t responded.

I don’t really expect him to respond. I think he’s made his decision and, from the end of his last email to me, doesn’t think anything more needs to be said about it.

I, however, don’t let go of some things easily. I want to actually hear him say (or read his writing) what he finds problematic, and how exactly this reflects so poorly on me, how exactly my being there would be a threat for the department.

Because I think he is reacting based on fear. So, I want him to actually explain that he sees open and honest nudity and discussion of nudity as a bad thing (perhaps a sin?), and that he is afraid that the person who is naked and putting that nakedness online has a sexual/predatory agenda.

Yes, those are assumptions, but he leaves me no choice but to make assumptions. I would gladly apologize for an incorrect assumption if he would actually have this conversation and convince me that I’m wrong about his motivations.

See, I think that anyone who is an artist and/or an educator (or even a reasonably well-educated person) should be able to look at this blog and understand what it is.

This blog is, in fact, many things. At times it’s a personal and artistic exploration; it’s sometimes political and social commentary. This blog sometimes talks about news or current events; it contains reviews or responses to books, film, theatre—arts and entertainment—that I’ve read or seen, etc.

I don’t require that everyone like it, or support it, or even approve of it. But I do ask that people try to understand what it is and appreciate it for that.

But this man—despite his being a musician and a teacher—is not acting in this situation as an artist, nor even an educator. He’s acting as an administrator. As “the man”. He’s filling a role that has historically often been at odds with the artist: the guy upholding and defending the status quo; the guy making sure that everything is squeaky clean and doesn’t challenge anyone; the guy who wants “art” to be comfortable. Well yes, sometimes art is nice and comfortable and non-threatening. But often it is not. Art can be ugly and uncomfortable and challenging. Art often needs to be those things.  

I simply think he is wrong in his response to the blog—I assume it’s the blog, the nakedness in the blog, anyway; because he won’t say it; like it’s a cursed word: naked or penis or whatever.

I honestly don’t know what else I might have “published” online that would elicit the comments that he did make, nor to speak to me in our phone conversation in a manner which made me feel that he was trying to shame me.

I’m sure it’s the blog.

And this man’s apparent unwillingness to talk about it reminds me of a former friend who stopped talking to me and wouldn’t tell me why. And another former “friend” who, based on third-hand knowledge of something I did ranted on facebook about my actions and motivations, then unfriended me as soon as I got her to admit she was talking about me. And all the former facebook friends who silently unfriended me in the several months after I started posting links to this blog on facebook. It also reminds me of the feeling I’ve gotten that some people now think of me as only a naked person—as if now that I’m doing this blog, everything else about me, everything that we could’ve had a conversation about has now disappeared and I’m just “the naked blog guy”.

I’m still the same person.  

I have considerable integrity.

And the only danger I would pose to students is that I might encourage them to learn and think and question and be critical; to read and look and listen; to investigate; to not just blindly (or deafly) accept what they’re told.

Yes, I do actually recognize the danger in that.

I guess I’m an idealist in that I’d like to think the head of the music program at my alma mater, or at any school, would not be someone who can’t or won’t understand what I’m doing. But I suppose schools are not really in the business of encouraging open and honest discussion and exploration.

I find that sad.

Uh...what else?

Right.

On the legal issue...

Several people have suggested that I contact a lawyer about all this. But it’s not as if I want to force them to hire me. At this point, I don’t want to work for that guy. Maybe if I were already there in Mississippi might be more likely to look into those kind of avenues.

But I do see this as a clear First Amendment “free speech” issue. If I was already working there, and they fired me over this, I could probably win a lawsuit against them. 

I didn’t have an actual contract. But I never had a contract with them 2½ years ago. I don’t think they do “contracts” for accompanists. However, when I was applying for an apartment there, the woman I’d been in contact with at the school sent the realtor some kind of statement confirming that I would be working at the school. However, she, like her boss, has not replied to my messages asking about it, and the realtor won’t send me a copy of it either.

Ya know, If I were gay and this were a blog exploring and advocating homosexuality, or if I were a conservative Muslim and this were a blog discussing and advocating conservative Islam (but not violence or terrorism), then the school and this department head would be on much more precarious footing in withdrawing a job offer based on material I’d put online. 

-   -   -   -   - 

Okay, enough. 

See, it was long.

Feel free to comment or ask questions. (Or express outrage?)

Topless Duchess No More

(See yesterday’s blog “Topless Duchess” as this is an update to that story.)

The French court ruled today in favor of the Prince and Duchess against the French gossip magazine. The magazine is ordered to pay 2,000 euros in damages and face a possible fine of 10,000 euros per day for not turning over the pictures and files, etc. to the lawyers or representatives of the royal couple. The magazine is further banned from republishing or selling the photos at the risk of a 100,000 euro fine.

From The Telegraph today:

The ruling cited article 9 of the civil code that states that “any person, whatever his fame, his present or future functions, has the right to the respect of his private life and image.”
The photos were taken from a public road several hundred metres from the private residence where the couple were staying. The court agreed that the couple “could legitimately suppose (the residence) was sheltered from prying eyes” and that the violation of their privacy was “particularly intrusive”.
It described the magazine’s use of the photos as a “brutal exhibition” of their intimacy.

Meanwhile Prince William and Duchess Kate continue their Far East & South Pacific tour.

from The Huffington Post

from The London Evening Standard

Topless Duchess

British Prince William & his wife, Kate (Duchess of Cambridge) have gone to court—well, their lawyers have—in France to ask that recent topless pictures of the Duchess be prevented from further use. And they’re suing for damages, apparently calling the publication a “grotesque” invasion of privacy. 

The pictures were published in the French gossip magazine Closer, and can be found online. 

My feeling is this: she was sunbathing topless on a balcony which was viewable from some publically accessible place—granted, the photographer seems to have used a significantly high-power zoom lens—so they shouldn’t be so insanely outraged that these pictures have come out. If you’re that concerned about the public being aware that you do, in fact, have breasts and nipples, then you should always keep them securely covered up when near cameras and when outside or near any windows or mirrors that might be in line of sight of windows. 

Seriously, this is just about preserving the traditional, uptight, “proper” image of the British Royal family, which is an outdated institution in my opinion. To pretend that these are not people, but rather iconic demi-gods who’d never engage in any untoward behaviour is just craziness. It perpetuates an unrealistic ideal of behaviour which could, in time, contribute to unhealthy or perhaps more extreme behaviours by members of the royal family. Pushing down impulsive feelings, by saying “we can’t behave this way or that way, doesn’t make those impulses go away. They just get channeled into other areas, and it all comes out somehow, somewhere, at some time. 

Come on, that’s just PSYCH 101.

The Telegraph, the online version of The Daily Telegraph (a 150+ year old conservative British newspaper), published this video & article, in which the young royal couple visited the Solomon Islands...

...where topless native women in traditional dress greeted them:

Ursula Martinez, I love you

Ursula Martinez:

I love her.

Okay, not really. I don’t know Ursula Martinez. I imagine she’d be an interesting person to know—smart and funny and not uptight. Or maybe not.

Anyway, I do love this piece of hers called “Hanky Panky”. It’s a magic trick/striptease.

I first saw it online somewhere maybe a year ago or more, and have come across it a few times since then.

I thought it was hilarious.

Still do.

Now, despite dabbling a little as a kid, I am not a magician. But I would guess the magic trick involved in “Hanky Panky” is probably not all that complicated. It’s her performance that makes it great. The music choice, the choreography, her facial expressions, the nods and winks to the audience...they’re all perfect.

Well. She had always kept it as a live performance piece, and not put it online herself. But a video of “Hanky Panky” was apparently made and put online without her permission. Then she started getting creepy emails from men in response to it (along with some not-so-creepy emails from men & women.)

A few years later, in response to the whole thing, she created a show called “My Stories, Your Emails”.  

Here she is talking about it in an interview:

I was going to post that original “Hanky Panky” video. Buuuut...in light of what she has to say about it in the interview, I decided against it. (If you’re really interested, I’m sure you can find it online easily enough.)

Her website, ursulamartinez.com, describes some other pieces she’s done. 

I’d love to see any of those, really.

“A Family Outing”

“Viva Croydon!”

“Curing Homosexuality”

...Or to meet and actually get to know her. Then, who knows? Maybe one day I really could say “Ursula Martinez, I love you.”

fear of bridges

I was reminded yesterday, while walking around a trail at Hemlock Bluffs Nature Preserve, that there was a time when I was afraid of bridges.

(No, not that guy.)

(Yes, yes...very scary, right?)

At some point when I was a child I read or heard or saw some version of “The 3 Billy Goats Gruff”. 

So for some time after that I was afraid that if I crossed a bridge, a troll might grab me and try to eat me.

(Not that kind of troll.)

(Uh...no.)

(Okay sure, close enough.)

Anyway, I really don’t recall how old I was nor for how long this went on.

This fear applied to big bridges that you would drive over, or in my case, ride over, as I was clearly too young to drive. But smaller bridges that you’d walk over—those were scary.

I don’t remember it being a huge issue, like I don’t think I was scared enough to not go over a bridge, but I was very nervous about it. 

“Dawn Gets Naked”

I happened upon this last night, after posting yesterday’s entry:

“Dawn Gets Naked”

It’s a 1-hour BBC “special”...well, maybe it’s not all that special. It’s one of a series of shows in which Dawn Porter, a British TV “presenter”, explores various issues.

Anyway, it’s not bad. She does ask a few interesting questions.

But I’ve noticed more and more videos online that seem to be British TV programs exploring nudity. I wrote about another such show not long ago, “My Daughter, the Teenage Nudist”. I wonder if this general topic is just being used for the titillation effect and to boost ratings. Or does it reflect a broadening interest in nudity among the young (and no-so-young) folks watching the BBC? Maybe both.

The video above is part 1 of 4. Here are the other 3 parts:

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Sancta Susanna (naked opera 8)

Sancta Susanna by Paul Hindemith

I believe this is from a production at Opéra de Lyon with Agnes Selma Weiland as Susanna 

and Magdalena Anna Hofmann as Klementia.

I had never heard of this opera until this evening when I was looking for something to write about. 

And now, I only know what I’ve read on Wikipedia (see the link above, at the top).

It sounds interesting. Has anybody out there ever seen a production?

New Camera (4)

I got a “new” camera yesterday. It’s not new, it’s used. It’s a Canon PowerShot A40.

I saw it on craigslist for $20. I was thinking maaaaybe the memory card I have in my other camera might fit.

Yeah, not even close. Here’s the new one.

It new memory card cost $32. And I have yet another memory card in my phone. Why can’t they all use the same stuff? Bleh.

The main reason I got the camera is that it seems to be able to do the stuff my old camera-phone does—sepia, manual control of brightness, etc—and probably a lot of what my other camera does. That one is basically a “point and click” type thing.

The “new” one has an “auto” setting which means the camera decides what to do based on the conditions it’s sensing.  (That’s sort of what the “old” one does.) But the manual setting has a lot of options, which seem to use some photography-oriented terminology. That means I’ll have to learn what that stuff means, and that’s good.  

I’m hoping I can just use this one “new” camera instead of using both the other camera and the old phone. Plus it looks like a camera. Sure, I guess that’s a vanity issue—that it looks like a camera instead of a phone. But I do feel that if I’m using something that looks like a camera, people will take me more seriously. Obviously, that’s not so much for the naked self-portraits, but for taking pictures of other people and things, which I’ve been continuing to do some. (See my tumblr.) 

Oh yeah... I downloaded the manual, which is about 180 pages long, hoping it’d help me figure out some basic how-to stuff. But I don’t know if I have the patience to go through that whole thing. Maybe I’ll just experiment and try to figure out what works.

My using this camera will be dependent on whether I can get the pictures to leave the camera and go into my computer. I plugged it into my computer last night, and the driver failed to install, twice. So I looked for some help online, and eventually found a couple of people who’d had the same problem. And I submitted an email question at Canon’s website this morning. The solution is basically this: it’s a 10-year old camera and the current versions of windows aren’t gonna work directly with this camera; you’ll have to get a memory card reader, which should be relatively inexpensive.

So, I shall be looking for an inexpensive memory card reader while I’m out this afternoon. (I think I’m gonna see a movie.)

pornish

Here is the topic I was writing about a week or so ago when a rant about something else took over:

Why do so many male nudes seem pornish?

There exists a strong tradition in Western art of female nudes, but not so much of male nudes. Yes, there are male nudes in Western art, but if one thinks of a nude, I suppose it’s typical to imagine a female nude. That’s just sort of the standard.

There is, of course, a strong tradition of pornography and pornographic imagery. So, when making nude male images, maybe it’s just easy to sort of slip into that kind of imagery, the sorts of poses, etc, that one might find in pornography.

Or maybe it’s that a lot of male nude images have been incorporated into porn. Okay, I don’t feel so strongly about that point, or the possibility that it’s the real reason.

But here’s something I do feel much more strongly about:

Nudity tends to equal sex for a lot of people. It just does, even some people who like to see themselves as liberal-minded and enlightened folk. It’s just in there. (I’ve written before about this stuff: the way our culture sexualizes nudity and encourages guilt.) And in our culture, the masculine sexual identity seems so very focused on the penis. Sometimes one’s genitalia may be called one’s “sex”. Much like the cultural “ideal” of oversized breasts and tiny waists for women, there exists this sort of “ideal” of the large penis for men, along with various other masculine “ideals”. The easiest place to see an unapologetically uncovered penis is in porn and erotica, and of course in those settings, it’s generally an erect penis.

So I think there’s a certain kind of, maybe unspoken, pressure for a man to appear at his “largest”, i.e., his most fully erect, in nudes. Or at least a pressure to present his “sex” as indication of his sex.

This is, of course, in the “full-frontal”, non-obscured, not “implied” but fully revealed nude. (If you’re not familiar with “implied nudes”, the whole idea of the “implied nude” or, as I’ve seen it lately, simply “implied” is a sort of PG-13 version: no genitalia shown, and no female nipples; but showing enough to imply that the model is actually nude.)

This sort of not-really-nude nude seems to me like the non-nude sex scene in TV and movies. I don’t’ really get it. I’ve seen some hot, sweaty, intense sex being had by people who are just wearing too much clothing. Sure, I guess for some people that’s a thing. But if those people on the screen are anywhere near as hot as they look, why are they still wearing all those clothes? Every time I see that sort of thing, it takes me out of the moment, away from the story or scene or whatever, and makes me wonder why they’re so nearly-fully-clothed. Of course, then I’m out of the movie or show entirely, because I know the reason has something to do with ratings or censorship or maybe an actor’s discomfort with nudity. And that gets me going off on a little mini-rant in my head.

-   -   -   -   -

Well, I’ve sort of gotten off topic again. I did just watch a movie yesterday that had several of that sort of athletically intense sex scenes with fully clothed participants. The same movie had no problem at all showing people being shot: blood, guts, brains even, flying out of newly-made holes in people.

Rant. Rant, rant, rant.