#and i DO think he loves and cares for keeley very deeply i just don’t think those feelings are actually romantic

[berternies]

i think jamie is gay. nothing but love and respect to everyone who hcs him as bi (which i very much understand and enjoy) but he simply is a closeted gay man to me

#ted lasso #jamie tartt #speak again bright angel #it’s not even that i think his attraction to women Seems Fake #bc like he’s being written/played as being into women and he’s a well written character and phil is a good actor so it IS believable #i just personally think him being gay makes sense and is interesting and adds another layer to his character #like his attraction to women being performative just Makes Sense To Me y’know #and i DO think he loves and cares for keeley very deeply i just don’t think those feelings are actually romantic #they should be besties is the thing #anyway. i love him.

[lunar-years]

THESE TAGS YES.

i loooove jamiekeeley (whichever way u wanna read that) however i think jamie was firmly over her in a romantic way by then. also re roy i just think of that one post like “everything is about football except for jamie except jamie is actually about keeley. but keeley is also about jamie so.”

and then we kinda cement royjamie’s relationship as positive with roy forgiving jamie and by the end 100% they are friends. roy getting close to jamie and being vulnerable with him and then saying he’s proud of him only to follow with “btw back off from keeley”….. [jamie voice] ok! awesome! i feel so great about myself and whatever we have going on. which is fucking nothing. apparently. cuz u were just buttering me up

this is so poorly written and nothing no one hasn’t already said. i just needed to rant -_- and then roy comes out looking like the bad guy but he’s literally not. he’s just repressed & even with keeley being the one to choose she’s still just a prop. which ok tbf with rj i can see how that happens ngl,, but that doesn’t mean i have to like it LOL

Me forced to look at my own spelling /grammar errors because its so annoying to add tags on this damn tumblr app 🫣 *roy springS

Anyway YEAH!! The only thing I don’t agree with you about is that I do very much think Jamie is still in love with Keeley romantically in the finale and I think he was being genuine to Roy when he told him as such. I just also think he’s in love Roy!

To me that scene is entirely about royjamie rather than keeley at its core. The whole reason Roy arranges it is because he loves keeley and wants to get back with her but he also loves Jamie (and probably doesn’t realize it yet, but DOES know he can’t stand the thought of Jamie not being in his life). he’s downright terrified being with keeley is going to change his relationship with Jamie and he quite essentially Can’t Deal With That. So he’s trying to preemptively tell Jamie how it’s going to be, because it NEEDS to be that way in Roys head since he wants to have both Keeley AND jamie as part of his life and this is the only way he can see himself getting that. He’s not intentionally trying to hurt Jamie (well, up until Jamie rightfully pushes back and Roy gets egotistical and pissy about it!). I think he really thinks he’s doing the right thing and being the bigger person by asking Jamie to back off?? Which is obviously so absurd and misguided but also so very Roy. Of course it doesn’t go well because he’s a repressed AND entitled asshole about it and thereby hurts Jamie in the process. But like. I think the intentions were warped but coming from a good place?

Meanwhile from Jamie’s POV he thought he was having literally the best day of his life, where crush #1 Keeley agreed (and was extremely excited about) going to Brazil with him AND crush #2 Roy finally asked him to hang out outside of training!! On possibly a date!!! And then he’s telling Jamie he’s PROUD of him, which is like, literally what Jamie has been waiting to hear from him!! Jamie must fully think he’s dreaming because DAMN. But then Roy (seemingly randomly) pivots to talking about Keeley and acting like his relationship with her was so much more Important and Real than Jamie’s (which. It wasn’t. Not in Jamie’s mind, certainly). I think Jamie is SO hurt because he thought he and Roy were really friends on the verge of more and then Roy instead decided to like. Be a giant dick again! Out of nowhere! So Jamie says what he says to hurt him back just as much.

It’s about keeley but it’s not about keeley, if you will. And the lines are all crossed.

Which is to say, I don’t hate that scene as much as most people. I think it actually exemplifies (in the messiest way imaginable) how deeply royjamie care about each other and how goddamn terrible they are at successfully communicating it to each other, let alone learning how to navigate those feelings together.

I do hate that Keeley lacks onscreen agency in her big “choice,” because there really IS no choice with royjamie behaving like that (though I think she’d have turned them both down regardless). And her telling them as much happens offscreen with no follow up!! Which sucks!!

#royjamie #royjamiekeeley #ted lasso #I know people hate this scene and I simply don’t. #I get why others do though!! #keeley jones #Roy Kent #Jamie Tartt

[thetarttfuldickhead]

As much as I love Roy telling Jamie he’s proud of him (and then maybe not punching him in the face aftewards, idk, could be a thing) I’ve also grown partial to the idea of Jamie telling Roy that he’s proud of him, ‘cause well, Roy needs a bit of that too, I think.

I haven’t got the details figured, but maybe something vaguely along the lines of the ending to the “My Fallen Idol” episode of Scrubs, where Dr. Cox (having failed to save several of his patients) is depressed, drunk and not talking while unshaven and wrapped in a blanket on his couch. JD shows up, gives him a quiet but heartfelt peptalk and tells him he’s proud of him, because even after so long as a doctor Dr. Cox still cares enough to take it that hard when things go wrong.

So say Roy fucks something up. It’s not necessarily his fault; he does his best given the circumstances or acts unwittingly, but it goes tits up and he ends up making a mess of things. Not a “people died” mess, but still really quite bad. (I honestly don’t know what this could be. Maybe something slightly careless he says blowing up in the media and somehow really fucking over a young footballer? Maybe something else entirely. That’s not the important part.)

And this is Roy, who cares so very deeply but is so very unkind to himself, and the guilt and fucking shame of having fucked someone (especially a young someone!) over like that, particularly when he’s already struggling with the feeling that he can’t change for the better, that he’ll always be the same fucking idiot I’ve always been? Yeah, I don’t think he’d deal very well. He also, and obviously, wouldn’t want to talk about it.

And depending on how much hurt (and comfort) you want from this, you could either simply have Roy pull a Roy and retreat to an ice bath, and Jamie letting himself in like Ted once did, and giving a little (slightly clumsy but very earnest) speech about how fucking proud he is of Roy, and Roy has no fucking idea how to handle all the emotions that inspire, but, yeah. It helps.

Or you can drag it out a bit and have Roy stubbornly insisting he is fine and hiding behind his usually gruff exterior, only he’s not doing fine and eventually he shows up at training still drunk from trying to drown his self-loathing in way too much whisky, and Rebecca takes him home and tries to talk to him, and when that doesn’t work she calls Keeley, and Keeley’s a comfort, she always is, but this time it’s not enough (or just too early). Jamie shows up after training, bringing dinner, and he sits down next to Roy and, again, brings out the speech. It doesn’t magically make everything right, because how could it, but it’s enough to start from. Enough to give Roy the courage to begin anew.

Or if you really want to dial that angst right up, we can have Jamie – like JD in the Scrubs episode – put off visiting, making comments about how it was fucking unprofessional showing up to Nelson Road like that, Roy would have had their heads if they’d tried pulling anything like it, so why should the gaffer get special consideration? Beard and Rebecca and Nate and Isaac and his sister and Keeley all take turns sitting with Roy while he quietly stews in despair on his couch, but Jamie is inconspicuously absent.

Until he isn’t, because of course he relents in the end, and he shows up to tell Roy that yeah, he made it out like he was angry with Roy for showing up drunk, but really he was freaked out because Roy’s always been so fucking strong and Jamie’s always counted on and leaned on that strenght, back when he was a kid and they didn’t know each other and back when they were teammates and fighting all the time and most of all since Roy became his coach and his best friend. Like, Jamie knows Roy isn’t perfect – like, really man, you are not– but Roy’s strenght has been a constant and a comfort in Jamie’s life and having to face that fact Roy isn’t some sort of superhero… that scared him, yeah. But that’s Jamie’s problem, not Roy’s, and so he’s here to tell Roy how fucking proud he is of him, for how much he fucking cares and how hard he works at being there for all of them, even though he thinks he’s no good at it. But you are, yeah? Fucking good at it. But that’s not the really important bit, anyway. The important bit is that you’ve always kept trying, even when that meant doing stuff you fucking hated or were scary or hard. ‘Cause it isn’t easy for you, this shit, but you keep at it anyway, because you care, and that’s… Dead proud of you for that, Roy. Really am.  

#just #stuff i think roy both needs and deserves to hear #and i’ll pull out any contrived scenario i can think off to make it happen #and though roy would not admit it #jamie and jamie's opinion mean hell of a lot to him these days #and jamie is one of the very few people who would brave roy's ROYNESS #to not only see what he needs but to also feel confident enough to offer it #roy kent #jamie tartt #roy & jamie #my stuff

[the-pale-goddess]

Hello!

What other fictional couple (it can be tv, movies, books, or even another fanfic couple) or celebrity couple reminds you of your OTP?

If you have any other pairings, give us one for them too!

Elsa! This question is everything, you have no idea how excited I was when I saw it in my inbox 😍 Please, forgive me this very late and extremely long reply!

I can think of two fictional couples that remind me of Ethan and Tiffany in some ways:

Roy Kent and Keeley Jones from Ted Lasso (aka the most perfect depiction of the grumpy/sunshine trope that scratches my brain just right. They’re literally Ethan x MC in a Premier League/Football AU ksbdkbdkdbdkb)

Aragorn and Arwen from LOTR

Some explanation below! Warning: spoilers included

Roy and Keeley are two charismatic individuals who are seemingly different, but end up being the ultimate OTP—two wholes that compliment one other.

He’s the type of guy whose happy face and mad face seem to be the same and people are both frightened of and impressed by him. She’s a huge flirt with a heart of gold and everyone loves her—as they should. He’s a football legend on the verge of retirement (don’t remember the exact age gap between them, but the internet says 8 years and I gladly accept jdhdkhdkb). She’s ambitious, capable and desperate to carve her own path.

From their very first interaction you just know that you’re in for a scrumptious slow burn; their chemistry is palpable, top tier banter proves how smart and fun Keeley is, uncovering how Roy’s exceptionally rough exterior softens significantly only for her. It’s obvious that they’re 100% horny for each other they’ve been into each other for quite some time now. They seem inevitable.

I absolutely adore how painfully real they are as a couple. Neither is perfect. Their flaws and insecurities make them do foolish things sometimes, but they always manage to find a way to communicate like adults, acknowledge their faults and solve the issue. Their relationship is based on honesty and accountability. They make a great team and together they’re unstoppable—they encourage, challenge, inspire, support and care for one another deeply.

They may seem tough and confident, but they’re never afraid to be vulnerable with each other and I think that’s the essence of E&T’s relationship too.

What’s more, we don’t really know much about Keeley and it gives me an impression that she’s one of those characters who are very friendly, honest and lively, easy to talk to and trustworthy, always around people, always nurturing others, and yet they share very little of what’s inside their heads, keeping any sign of their trauma, fears and insecurities locked from the outside world. And I bet there’s plenty to unpack here. That’s quite similar to what I imagine for my Tiff.

I could talk about the similarities between Reeley and E&T for hours or do some episode analysis, but I’ll spare you an entire dissertation on the topic kdhdkhdkdhkdh

As for Aragorn and Arwen, I obviously won’t delve into the fantasy and its irresistible charm, because it doesn’t apply to OH’s fictional world, but some bits of their love story feel oddly familiar:

The circumstances are against them and their relationship seems impossible.

He pushes her away. She never loses hope, never gives up and always chooses him despite all odds, inspiring his strength and igniting hope during the darkest moments.

So basically…That’s a short summary of OH1 and 2 kdhdkhdkdb Plus Liv Tyler has that ethereal glow, she’s giving off Tiffany vibes 👀

Thank you so much for thinking of me and sending this brilliant ask❤️

#queueland baby! #ethan x mc #ethan ramsey #ethan x tiffany

[chainofclovers]

Ted Lasso 2x11 thoughts

For an episode that ends with a journalist Ted trusts but has (understandably) recently lied to warning Ted that he’s publishing an article about his panic attacks, it was fitting that this episode seemed entirely about what all of these characters choose to tell each other. And after most of a season of television that Jason Sudeikis has described as the season in which the characters go into their little caves to deal with things on their own, it turns out they are finally able to tell each other quite a lot.

Which is good because, um, wow, a lot is going to happen in the season finale of this show!

Thoughts on the things people tell each other behind the cut!

Roy and Keeley. I absolutely loved the moment during their photoshoot in which they bring up a lot of complicated emotional things and are clearly gutted (“gutted”? Who am I? A GBBO contestant who forgot to turn the oven on?) by what they’ve heard. We already know that Keeley and Roy are great at the kinds of moments they have before the shoot begins, in which Roy builds Keeley up and tells her she’s fucking amazing. From nearly the beginning of their relationship, they’ve supported each other and been each other’s biggest fans. But their relationship has gone on long enough that they’ve progressed from tentative arguments about space and individual needs into really needing to figure out what they mean to each other and how big their feelings are and what that means in relation to everything else. Watching these two confess about the uncomfortable kiss with Nate, the unexpectedly long conversation with Phoebe’s teacher, and—most painfully—the revelation that Jamie still loves Keeley didn’t feel like watching two people who are about to break up. (Although I could see them potentially needing space from each other to get clarity.) It felt like watching two people realize just how much they’d lose if they lost each other, which is an understandably scary feeling even—or especially—when you’re deeply in love but not entirely sure what the future holds. Not entirely sure what you’re capable of when you’ve never felt serious about someone in quite this way, and are realizing you have to take intentional actions to choose that relationship every single day. I’m excited to learn whether Roy and Keeley decide they need to solidify their relationship more (not necessarily an engagement, but maybe moving in together or making sure they’re both comfortable referring to the other as partner and telling people they’re in a committed relationship) or if things go in a different direction for a while.

Sharon and Ted. I’ve had this feeling of “Wow, Ted is going to feel so intense about how honest he’s been with Sharon and is going to end up getting really attached and transfer a lot of emotions onto the connection they have and that is stressful no matter how beneficial it has been for him to finally get therapy!” for a while now. And Sharon’s departure really brought that out and it was indeed stressful. But the amount of growth that’s happened for both of these characters is really stunningly and beautifully conveyed in this episode. Ted is genuinely angry she left without saying goodbye, and he doesn’t bury it some place deep inside him where it will fester for the next thirty years. He expresses his anger. (I also noticed he sweared—mildly—in front of her again, which is really a big tell for how much he has let his carefully-constructed persona relax around her.) He reads her letter even though he said he wasn’t going to, and he’s moved. I don’t think Ted has the words for his connection to Sharon beyond “we had a breakthrough,” but Sharon gets it, and is able to firmly assert a professional boundary by articulating her side of that breakthrough as an experience that has made her a better therapist. And is still able to offer Ted a different kind of closure by suggesting they go out before her train leaves. No matter how you feel about a patient/football manager seeing their therapist/team psychologist colleague socially, I appreciated this story because IMO it didn’t cross big lines but instead was about one final moment in this arc in which both Ted and Sharon saw each other clearly and modeled what it is to give someone what they need and to expect honesty and communication from them. I liked that Ted ends up being the one saying goodbye. (The mustache in the exclamation points!) I like that whether or not Sharon returns in any capacity (Sarah Niles is so wonderful that I hope she does, but I’m not sure), the goodbye these characters forge for themselves here is neither abandonment nor a new, more complicated invitation. It’s the end of a meaningful era, and although the work of healing is the work of a lifetime, it’s very beautiful to have this milestone.

Ted and Rebecca. So, maybe it’s just me, but it kinda feels like these two have a few li’l life things to catch up on?! (HAHHHHHaSdafgsdasdf!) I really adored their interactions in this episode. I maintain that Biscuits With The Boss has been happening this whole time (even when Ted’s apartment was in shambles, there’s biscuit evidence, and I feel like we’ve been seeing the biscuit boxes in Rebecca’s office pretty regularly too), even if it might have been more of a drive-by biscuit drop-off/feelings avoidance ritual. It was really lovely to see Ted on more even footing in Rebecca’s office, joking around until she tells him to shut up, just like the old days. And GOSH—for their 1x9 interaction in Ted’s office to be paralleled in this episode and for Ted to explicitly make note of the parallel in a way Rebecca hears and sees and understands?! MY HEART. In both of Rebecca’s confessions, she is not bringing good news but it is good and meaningful that she chooses to share with Ted. In both situations, Ted takes the moment in stride and offers acceptance equivalent to the gravity of what she has to confess. And in both situations, he’s not some kind of otherworldly saint, able to accept Rebecca no matter what because he’s unaffected by what she shares. He is affected. When he tells her about Sam, you can see a variety of emotions on his face. Rebecca is upset and Ted is calm, and even if I might have liked for him to try to talk about the risk the affair poses to the power dynamics on the team or any number of factors, I also really liked that he just accepts where she is, and—most importantly—does not offer her advice beyond examining herself and taking her own advice. A massive part of being in a relationship with another person (a close relationship of any nature) is figuring out how to support that person without necessarily having to be happy about every single thing they do. It’s so important that Ted connects what she’s just told him about Sam back to what she told him last season about her plot with the club. These both feel like truth bombs to him, and he is at least safe enough to make that clear. These are both things that impact him, things that shape how he sees her and maybe even how he sees himself. He cares about her and is capable of taking in this information; he has room for it. But it’s not something he takes lightly, and neither does she. See you next year.

Tumblr user chainofclovers and the TV show Ted Lasso. My brain is going wild thinking about all the ways the next “truth bomb” conversation could go in 3x11 or whatever. Maybe they go full consistent parallel and Rebecca confesses something else, this time about her and Ted or some other big future thing that impacts him as much or more as the other confessions have. (The same but different.) Maybe the tables turn and Ted has something to confess to her. While the 1x9 conversation ended in an embrace and the 2x11 conversation ended with a bit more physical distance (understandable given the current state of their relationship and the nature of the discussion), the verbal ending of both conversations involved voices moving into a sexier lower register while zooming in to talk specifically about their connection to each other, so I have to assume there will be some consistencies in s3 even if the circumstances will be completely different. I don’t really know where I’m going with this and I obviously will go insane if I sustain this level of anticipatory energy until Fall 2022 but I have a feeling my brain and heart are going to try!

Sam and Rebecca. I know there’s been a lot of criticism about whether this show is being at all realistic about the power dynamics and inevitable professional issues this relationship would create. On some level, I agree; I like that pretty much everyone who knows about the affair has been kind so far, but you can be kind and still ask someone to contend with reality. But I also think that in nearly every plot point on this show, the narrative is driven by how people feel about their circumstances first and foremost. (It’s why the whiteboard in the coaching office and the football commentators tell us more about how the actual football season is going from a points perspective than anyone else.) This episode reminded me how few people know about Sam and Rebecca, and how much their time together so far has been time spent in bed. The private sphere. I thought this episode really expertly brought the public sphere into it, not—thank goodness—through a humiliating exposure or harsh judgment but through an opportunity for Sam that illustrates not only all his potential to do great things but how much Rebecca’s professional position and personal feelings are in conflict with that. Could stand in the way of that. I don’t have a strong gut feeling about where this will go, but I do think Sam’s face in his final scene of this episode is telling. He started the episode wanting to see Rebecca (his most recent text to her was about wanting to connect), and Edwin’s arrival from Ghana really exploded his sense of what is possible for his life. If he’d arrived home to Rebecca sitting on his stoop prior to meeting Edwin, he’d have been delighted. Now he’s conflicted, and whatever decision he makes, he has to reckon with the reality that he cannot have everything he wants. No matter what. And Rebecca—she has taken Ted’s advice and is attempting to be honest about the fact that she can’t control Sam’s decisions but hopes he doesn’t go, and even saying that much feels so inappropriate. And I’m not sure how much she realizes about the inappropriateness of the position she’s putting him in, although maybe she’s getting there considering she exits the scene very quickly. I’ve honestly loved Rebecca’s arc this season. I think it’s realistic that she got obsessed with the intimacy she thought she could find in her phone. I think it’s realistic that her professional and personal ambitions are inappropriately linked. (They certainly were for Rupert. It’s been years since she’s known anything different; even if she’s done some significant recovery work to move on from her abusive marriage and figure out her own priorities, she’s got a long way to go.) I know there are people who will read this interaction between Rebecca and Sam as a totally un-self-aware thing on the part of “the show” or “the writers” but what I saw is two people who enjoyed being in bed together and now have to deal with the reality that they’re in two different places in their lives and that one has great professional power over the other. If that wasn’t in the show, I wouldn’t be able to see it or feel so strongly about it.

Edwin and Sam. I really enjoyed all the complexities of this interaction. Edwin is promising a future for Sam that doesn’t quite exist yet, though he has the financial means to make it happen. He offers this by constructing for Sam a Nigerian—and Ghanaian—experience unlike anything he’s found in London. Sam is amazed that this experience is here, and Edwin’s response is to explain to him that the experience is not here. Not really. The experience in Africa. Sam has of course connected to the other Nigerian players on the team, but this is something else entirely. I’m really curious if Sam is going to end up feeling that what Edwin has to offer is real or not. That sense of home and connection? So real. And so right that he would want to experience that homecoming and would want to be part of building that experience for others. But at the end of the day, he went to a museum full of actors and a pop-up restaurant full of “friends,” and is that constructed authenticity as a stand-in for a real homecoming more or less real than the home he’s building in Richmond? (With other players who stand in solidarity with him, and with well-meaning white coaches who say dumb stuff sometimes, and an a probably-doomed love interest, and a feeling that he should put chicken instead of goat in the jollof, and the ability to stand out as an incredible player on a rising team.)

Nate and everyone. But also Nate and no one. Nate’s story is so painful and I’m so anxious for next week’s episode. For a long time I’ve felt that a lot of Nate’s loyalties are with Richmond, and a lot of his ambitions are around having given so much to this place without getting a lot back, and having a strong feeling that he’s the answer to Richmond’s future. But now I’m not so sure; his ambitions have transferred into asking everyone he knows (except Ted, of course), if they want to be “the boss.” But Nate is all tactics and no communication. When he wants to suggest a new play to Ted, he hasn’t yet learned to read Ted’s language to learn that Ted is eager to hear what he has to say. And while Ted has been really unfortunately distracted about Nate and dismissive of him this season, he clearly respects Nate’s approach to football and was appreciative of the play. Nate just can’t hear that. The suit is such a great metaphor of all the things Nate is in too much pain to be able to hear clearly. Everyone digs at him for wearing the suit Ted bought him (including Will, who’s got to get little cuts in where he can, because he’s got to be sick of the way Nate treats him), but when he gets fed up his solution isn’t to go out on his own and find more clothes he likes; he asks Keeley to help him. And then crosses a major line with her...and no matter how kind she was about it, she was clearly not okay. Everything is going to blow up, and I’m so curious as to whether Nate will end up aligning himself with Rupert in some way or if he’s going to end up screwed over by Rupert and in turn try to screw over his colleagues even worse than he’s already done. Or try desperately to make amends even though it could be too late for some. Either way, I’m fully prepared to feel devastated. (And there’s no way I’m giving up on this character. If he’s able to learn, I truly believe he could end up seeking forgiveness and forging a happier existence for himself. Someday. Like in season 3 or something.)

Ted and Trent. Trent deciding to reveal his source to Ted is a huge deal, and I’m torn between so many emotions about this exposé. I’m glad it’s a Trent Crimm piece and not an Ernie Loundes piece. I’m glad that Trent made the decision to warn Ted and let him know that Nate is his source. I fear—but also hope—that this exposure will set off a chain reaction of Ted learning about some of the things he’s missed while suffering through a really bad bout with his dad-grief and panic disorder. The things Ted doesn’t know would devastate him. I wonder if Ted will want to figure out a way to make Nate feel heard and reconcile with him, and I wonder how that will be complicated if/when he realizes Nate has severely bullied Will, gets more details on how he mistreated Colin, etc. I wonder if Rebecca, whom Nate called a “shrew” right before she announced his promotion, will be in the position of having to ask Ted to fire him, or overriding Ted and doing it herself. So many questions! I have a feeling it’ll go in some wild yet very human-scaled, emotionally-nuanced direction, and I’ll be like “Oh my GOD!” but also like “Oh, of course.”

This VERY SERIOUS AND EMOTIONAL REVIEW has a major flaw, which is that none of the above conversations include mention of the absolute love letter to N*SYNC. Ted passionately explains how things should go while dancing ridiculously! Will turns on the music and starts gyrating! Roy nods supportively! Beard shouts the choreography like the Broadway choreographer of teaching grown men who play football how to dance like a boy band. Everyone is so incredibly proud when they nail it. I love them.

I cannot believe next week is the end. For now. I’m kind of looking forward to letting everything settle during the hiatus, but I’ve really loved the ride.

#ted lasso #ted lasso s2 spoilers #ted lasso 2x11 #meta by me #ALL THE FEELINGS!!!! #a lesbian watches ted lasso

[alexromero]

Do you believe there's still a possibility that the writers are down to explore T/R romantically? I know you can't read their minds and I don't mean to drag your spirits down because I do want them together as well but IMO it feels like it's a pipe dream at this point because there's been so much pushback from casual viewers to keep them platonic and it seems like they're trying to be #edgy by presenting us with this "unpredictable" storyline with S/R that several people were able to predict.

So, as much as I'm very disappointed in the way they've chosen to explore Rebecca this season, I do think Ted and Rebecca are gonna be explored romantically. There's just too much there for it to go unexplored. I think the scene that really sealed the deal for me was the dart scene. The way Ted was so explicitly pitted against Rupert, Rebecca's ex husband, was the first time we saw Ted reveal a more vindictive side to him. I mean, when you enter this arena of feelings that come with revenge and conning someone for someone you've grown to care for... it's just a step farther than strictly platonic. Ted is someone who's remained relatively level headed when it comes to resolving conflict. Always trying to mediated between two people in order to resolve things without malice. Now, I wouldn't go as far as saying Ted did what he did out sheer malice but.. he did do it to draw this firm and aggressive line between Rupert and Rebecca.

I think the rest is pretty self explanatory. I think Rebecca craves that emotional and intimate connection that she's found with Ted. She feels the need to include him in that lunch with her mother for an added emotional support that is still not there with Keeley. She's very in tune to his emotional state. I joked on Twitter calling it her "Tedar" lmao. The two times he had a panic attack, she was there for him. The entire Christmas episode. This very obvious parallel track they both seem to be on... whether it's their divorces in season one or the identity crisis in this season that has led them to make some bad and self sabotaging choices. Or just the fact that they're both two sides of the same coin. They're very similar people if you look closely. They both crave family and intimacy but demonstrate it in different ways. They are both, to their core, two people who love deeply and crave that same love back. They love to mentor and help others (Rebeca and Keeley, Ted and everyone around him.) They are also both people who deflect from their own emotions and issues to a fault.

There's just a wealth of potential that I don't think will be wasted. Not after Jason spent so much time finding the right person for the role of Rebecca and Hannah being a. the only to fulfill it & b. being the only one to have a chemistry test. I truly do think this season is meant to tackle their inner most demons in order for them to fully grow and be the best versions of themselves for one another. With Rebecca, it's her unresolved issues with Rupert and intimacy and with Ted it's his marriage and the unfortunate distance with his son and all the trauma with what happened to his dad (which will be revealed in ep 8 and tbh has been revealed already if you look closely.)

I do have hope. I don't want to say I completely trust the writers because they're human being and just as fallible as me. God only knows what goes through their minds. That being said, I really don't think they'd be cruel enough to not go there. There's just too much being referenced and set up for it not to be romantic. Empire Strikes Back is the hardest film of the three to watch because ... the good guys don't win. We, as viewers, don't win... just yet.

#anon #reply #I hope this helps anon #it helped me type it out

[the-desolated-quill]

Time Heist - Doctor Who blog

(SPOILER WARNING: The following is an in-depth critical analysis. If you haven’t seen this episode yet, you may want to before reading this review)

Oh God, Stephen Thompson is writing this. No. Worse. Stephen Thompson and Steven Moffat are writing this! Heaven preserve us!

Well everyone can relax. Time Heist isn’t as bad as The Curse Of The Black Spot or Journey To The Centre Of The TARDIS. In fact Time Heist is actually surprisingly good. Well... it’s good up to a point, but we’ll come to that.

It’s a great premise. The Doctor and Clara are joined by augmented human Psi and shapeshifter Saibra to rob the bank of Karabraxos. The most secure bank in the galaxy. It’s a brilliant opening with some proper sci-fi in it. (I particularly like the little detail of using your breath to open code locked doors). And then there’s of course the Teller. LOVE it! It’s a great design for one thing and its powers are incredibly scary. It can sense your guilt and turn your brain into soup. Very creepy, although sadly undermined by the image of those people with their heads flattened. Ms Delphox puts them on display as a warning, but all it did was just make me snigger. Come on, you have to admit they do look just a little bit silly.

I also really like Ms Delphox, played by Keeley Hawes. While she does unfortunately get saddled with Moffat’s dominatrix dialogue and persona just like all of Moffat’s other female characters do, Hawes does such a good job in the role and really makes the part her own. She has such an authoritative presence on screen and is clearly having a lot of fun in the role. I particularly like how Delphox isn’t just evil for the sake of being evil. Due to the bank’s ultra strict security system and protocols, if Delphox fails to catch the robbers, she will be incinerated by her boss. It’s something different, which is nice.

Time Heist has a really good pace, Everything zips along very nicely and I was glued to the screen for the most part. I also really liked the characterisation. Top of the class is of course Peter Capaldi. He’s absolutely brilliant in this episode, capturing the Doctor at his very essence. Despite the fact Psi and Saibra know absolutely nothing about him and have no reason to trust him or take orders from him, the Doctor is able to take charge using the sheer force of his intellect and personality. Peter Capaldi is the Doctor. I also loved the scene where he rebukes Psi for accusing him of being cold and emotionless about Saibra’s ‘death.’ The Doctor has always been one to prioritise the job at hand over mourning the loss of someone, but this Doctor really doesn’t wish to be bogged down in sentimentality. Nine and Ten often express their grief with a brief sorry before moving on, whereas Twelve seems to prefer to keep it all to himself and just get on with things. He may seem uncaring, but his face when he’s walking away from Psi speaks volumes. He does care very deeply. He just doesn’t want to express it. The other characters are good as well. Out of the two I think I like Psi more. Johnathan Bailey does a really good job in the role and I like his motive for breaking into the bank. Wanting to reclaim the lost memories of his friends and family. And the scene where he sacrifices himself to save Clara was very effective. Saibra was good too and Pippa Bennett-Warner gives a good performance, but her motivation is a bit weak. Okay, I get the whole thing about shapeshifting every time she touches someone, but what’s the deal with this line:

“How could you trust someone who looked back at you out of your own eyes?”

Wha... What does that mean exactly? It sounds like typical pretentious Moffat bullshit to me.

Also Clara is pointless. Seriously, why is she even here? What role does she play? The Doctor is clearly the leader (and secretly the Architect). Psi is the hacker. Saibra is the shapeshifter. What’s Clara’s role? She’s not even the Doctor’s moral compass like in Into The Dalek. She’s basically just tagging along for the ride. If there was ever an episode that perfectly demonstrated how utterly useless and one dimensional Clara really is, it’s this one.

Yeah, I suppose I can’t put this off any longer. While there are large portions of Time Heist I did enjoy, a lot of the episode is sadly hampered by Moffat and Thompson’s usual sloppiness. Since we’ve just been talking about the characters, let’s talk about the ‘exit strategy.’ Presumably a way for the characters to painlessly kill themselves should the Teller discover them. A very dark idea, but also a completely ineffectual one thanks to its execution. If you’ve seen any sci-fi ever, you’ll know what a teleport looks like, and the fact that the effect we see when Saibra and Psi use the shredders look suspiciously like teleports does negatively impact the tragedy of their ‘death’ scenes because, in the back of your head, you’re wondering where they’ve gone off too and when they’ll be coming back. But even if you didn’t pick up on that, it still doesn’t work because their surprise return effectively undermines their sad and touching deaths in order for Moffat to pull a ‘gotcha’ moment.

Then there’s the Architect. Who here honestly thought he wasn’t the Doctor? It’s such a painfully obvious twist. He’s a time traveller, like the Doctor. He has access to memory worms, like the Doctor. They even chuck in a massive clunker of a clue by having the Doctor outright state he hates the Architect. Since when has the Doctor ever said that about anyone? He can’t even admit he hates the Daleks for fuck sake. The only possible person he could be referring to is himself, at which point you soon realise that this episode isn’t about a bank heist at all. It’s yet another episode that’s all about the Doctor, this time about his self loathing and manipulative tendencies. And it actually reduces the stories of Psi, Saibra and the Teller because you realise that the only purpose they serve is to shine a light on the Doctor. Loneliness bad, companionship good. This is the fifth story in a row that has focused exclusively on the Doctor. Anymore and the show is seriously at risk of disappearing up its own vortex. Why can’t the episode have just been about the Doctor breaking into a bank and saving Mr and Mrs Teller? I like that idea. It’s something different and it’s a very Doctorly motivation for breaking into a bank. Why does everything have to be so inwardly focused nowadays? I don’t mind the odd episode that explores the Doctor’s character (provided it’s done well), but this is taking the piss.

And then there’s all the plot contrivances. For the most secure bank in the galaxy, its security is unbelievably shit. Putting aside the almost comically oversized vents that anyone can comfortably crawl through, how come the guards seem to be searching for the intruders everywhere but near the fucking Vault where the valuables are kept? You’d think Delphox would post a couple at the door or something just in case. And what about the scene where the Doctor and Clara are captured? Before Delphox set the Teller on a random person that was just guilty for a crime he was about to commit. But with the Doctor and Clara, Delphox decides to take the Teller away for a little nap and let the guards deal with them instead. Why? But what really spoils Time Heist completely are the two gaping plot holes at the centre of the narrative. 

The first is the solar storm. This is the only time the bank is vulnerable, but it’s also the only time the TARDIS can’t land. Well... why don’t you just land the TARDIS at a time when there isn’t a solar storm? The Doctor said it himself at the beginning. Robbing a bank is easy if you’ve got a TARDIS. In fact I’m assuming that was how he planted all the briefcases. If he could do that, why not just materialise the TARDIS right inside the Private Vault, grab Mr and Mrs Teller and go? You wouldn’t even need to bother with the memory worms. The second plot hole is Madame Karabraxos (also played by Keeley Hawes). So what sets all of this in motion is a dying Karabraxos from the future phoning the Doctor and begging him to save the Tellers. The entire plot hinges on the Doctor giving her his phone number and then just hoping she’ll miraculously grow a conscience and realise what a horrible, selfish bitch she was when she has no reason to. (yes i know there’s the whole self loathing thing with the clones, but that’s really not good enough. It also doesn’t make any sense. if you hate yourself so much, why would you create clones of yourself in the first place?) It’s also completely reliant on Karabraxos not losing the phone number, except why in God’s name would she keep it? At this moment in time, she has no reason to take the Doctor seriously yet and clearly has no interest in redemption just yet, so why hang on to the phone number? It’s absolute nonsense.

Like I said, there are a few things about Time Heist I liked and I did enjoy it to a point, but what ultimately holds it back from greatness is Thompson’s usual ineptness when it comes to basic storytelling as well as Moffat once again putting more effort into trying to outsmart the audience and prove how clever he is rather than writing something that’s actually satisfying and worthwhile. Overall, good idea, but sloppy execution.

#time heist #stephen thompson #steven moffat #doctor who #twelfth doctor #peter capaldi #clara oswald #jenna coleman #bbc #review #spoilers

[garynsmith]

Why Does Harrison Ford Keep Showing up in Luxury Real Estate Listing Photos?

By Sean Keeley

Here’s a fun exercise. Pick a major city and start sorting the available home listings on the market by price, starting with the most expensive. Then, go one-by-one down the list, perusing the photos in each listing. See how long it takes for Harrison Ford to show up.

No, the Hollywood A-lister isn’t hiding in luxury real estate listings like some kind of Where’s Waldo-esque performance art. Just keep an eye on the large TV and home theater screens that inevitably pop-up in these kinds of residences. Not every listing will include them, but more often than not, you’re bound to come across plenty of Hollywood icons and classic films.

Inside this $35 million residence in Brentwood, Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman keep showing up in various rooms where “Casablanca” is apparently playing on an endless loop. That’s Leonardo DiCaprio from “The Great Gatsby” on the big screen in this $28.5 million mansion in Bel Air. This $12.5 million contemporary mansion in Santa Monica evokes “The Godfather” in a few of their images.

Eventually, however, he will emerge. Ford cuts an iconic profile as Indiana Jones, ready to whip this $7.5 million house in Tarzana onto the market. That’s Ford as Han Solo steadying his blaster inside a $6.4 million home in Encino. In Los Feliz, he’s back in action as Indiana Jones inside this $3.8 million home.

Courtesy of Yana Galuz

Whether it’s Ford, DiCaprio or Daniel Craig as James Bond, what is it about adding an image of these Hollywood stars on a TV screen in a random listing image that makes a difference for agents? When people are making million-dollar decisions, why even bother?

“You’ve got this big, black rectangle,” says Sotheby's International Realty agent Linda Bettencourt. “If you can take advantage of it and add some lifestyle feelings to it, that’s going to be useful.”

Bettencourt, who worked as a property stager for 18 years before becoming an agent, says that she once preferred prop TVs with “innocuous images of sunflowers or football games” when staging luxury homes. However, that didn’t provide the intended effect.

“What was interesting was that when you saw them in a photo, they looked like a picture hanging on the wall. It sort of flattens out the whole function and appeal of a television set, so we would have to find some other way to do it.”

Courtesy of Windermere Real Estate

Enter Harrison Ford. Or, more broadly, the usage of screenshots from iconic movies such as “Star Wars” or “Roman Holiday” as well as the latest James Bond film. Sure, you will still see some flat-screen televisions or home theater screens with stock images of surfers, concerts or skylines, but there’s something about seeing a famous face staring back at you while scrolling that's impossible not to notice. It’s not just a visual reaction; it’s a visceral one, as well.

“What do ‘Gone with the Wind’, James Bond, Indiana Jones, and ‘Star Wars’ have in common? They are ubiquitous in evoking familiar feelings of adventure, romance and excitement—everything you want to feel at a great home,” says Senada Adzem, executive director of Luxury Sales at Douglas Elliman Real Estate. “Selection of those images is culturally and generationally influenced, and the actual images represent an important tool to target a particular psychographic profile of a buyer.”

Sure enough, depending on the type of buyer you’re targeting, agents seem to focus these images accordingly. The usage of classic films such as “Casablanca” and “Roman Holiday” speak not just to romantic notions, but also to a specific generation for whom those movies have an emotional resonance. However, as Adzem notes, this is not cross-generational imagery.

Photo by Andy Frame

“Millennials could care less for Humphrey Bogart and classic movies, but they do love ‘Game of Thrones.’”

Demographics affect these images in different ways, as well. It’s not just about what kind of buyer agents are trying to attract, but also where in the country this particular home is located.

“In California, you’re not going to show images of an earthquake,” notes Bettencourt. “In San Francisco, you might use images from ‘Alcatraz’, ‘Bullitt’ or ‘Vertigo.’” Though, she does note that “Alcatraz” could be a questionable pick because you don’t want “something that’s going to create a mental conversation that’s distracting from the photo.”

All of which leads us back to Harrison Ford. Why did he become the patron saint of luxury real estate listing photo TV images and not, say, Tom Hanks, who is equally as popular in American pop culture, yet rarely shows up? According to Bettencourt, it’s about the kind of films these two actors make.

Photo by Andy Frame

“Tom Hanks doesn’t do a lot of action movies. Who’s going to be inspired by 'Cast Away?' [Harrison Ford] speaks to a brand of adventure that is universally appealing. His films are usually very colorful. They have nice cinematography. You see a lot of him because his films are very recognizable, everybody likes him, and they’re feel-good films. They always have a good ending.”

This explanation also helps to make sense of the more curious examples of this technique you’ll come across. A random search might reveal luxury listings with images taken from films such as “The Three Amigos”, “Masterminds” and “First Knight” and leave you feeling confused by the randomness. However, when you realize it was more about highlighting Steve Martin, Zach Galifianakis, and Sean Connery, respectively, and what kind of emotional response they elicit, it makes a lot more sense.

Still, despite the fact that it was a hugely successful film, we’re going to draw a line at using an image from “Titanic” in your luxury listing. That just can’t possibly be a good omen.

Photo by Andy Frame

Is all of this legal under copyright law? That’s a good question that few agents can answer or want to dig too deeply into. Because of the limited scope of real estate listings, it’s not the kind of thing that is likely to catch the attention of a movie studio like Disney or Universal. However, Bettencourt notes that if your listing photo was used, for example, in a magazine ad or high-profile spread, that might put you in harm’s way.

“If Disney felt strongly about it, and it was in Architectural Digest, they would let you know.”

Just like in real life, it seems as though Ford’s days as the main attraction are numbered. Especially when it comes to the highest of high-end luxury listings, you’re more likely to see Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Craig and Ryan Gosling grace television screens these days. As times change and, more importantly, potential buyers change, it’s inevitable that the imagery used to entice them will change, as well.

Ultimately, as Bettencourt puts it, the best strategy is to use whatever evokes the intended emotional response

“We want someone to feel good about the space. [To think about] how ideal it would be to sit around with your friends and family and watch a great film. I think that’s what people are trying to capture when they choose those images on a screen.”

This piece was originally published by Neighborhoods.com.

Sean Keeley grew up in New Jersey, went to school in Upstate New York, lived in Los Angeles for eight years, followed it up with six years in the Pacific Northwest and now calls Chicago home. He's spent the better part of the last decade writing about real estate, neighborhoods and his beloved Syracuse Orange. 

  from RISMedia\'s Housecall http://ift.tt/2n4leyg via IFTTT

[nofomoartworld]

Thinks: Simon Anderson

Through Either Side: Interview with Simon Anderson

Keeley Haftner: So Simon, this will be somewhat of a traditional interview, but punctuated with my mention of selections from George Brecht’s Water Yam for you to respond to. Sound good?

Simon Anderson: Okay!

KH: Let’s begin with:

TWO DURATIONS

red

green

SA: Brecht was a scientist, so he kept good notes and drawings. He begins by playing with electric lights for different durations. Around this time he’s in a class with John Cage, where they work very closely and developed a bond. Cage kind of allows him to relax a little and open up his work. So, after all of his experiments engaging the complexity of electronics, he just goes with two durations: red and green, which I think is a lovely piece. I’ve done it myself and seen it done in many ways. Of all of them I think my favourite is eating the green salad and drinking the red wine – a most excellent version! A Japanese artist called Takehisa Kosugi first performed it this way England in the 1970s, and it was Kosugi who did the drinking and eating. I performed it this way for a conference where I was asked to think of a reason why this work was valid, and I realized that what he’s simply doing is asking you to pay attention to different lengths of time. Because that’s mostly what Brecht does – he asks you to pay attention. In class I’ve done it on a chalkboard with red and green chalk, which is the hardest to got off and therefore the most annoying. [Laughs] This is what Fluxus does; it asks you to think of something through a particular lens and then you can start to apply it all over the place. Two Durations crops up as a motorist or pedestrian in Chicago, for example. You get these incredible avenues of red changing to green as you wait. One can’t but help but think of this in terms of George Brecht!

KH: Brecht’s obituary in New York Times described his efforts to ensure that “the details of everyday life, the random constellations of objects that surround us, stop going unnoticed.” What might you say is the importance of this concept today? Has it become more or less important over time?

SA: Heavy! One of the things that is very instructive for me is to look at Brecht’s history and position and learn from that. His “event-scores” came right out of music scores. I’ve got a little piece of evidence here that I want to show you. [Opens package] This is a facsimile reproduction of his notebooks to the John Cage class in the 1950s. In this first class, “Experimental Compositions” with John Cage, he makes a note about “events in sound space.” He’s already thinking in terms of events and what an event actually is. He saw events as things that happen around you, where the event-score operates like the musical score by giving you permission to listen. Like the musical score, you read the crotchets and quavers and all of that, which that brings you in tune with the instrument. The event score is five-dimensional permission to notice the things that he’s noted, and of course, very easily from that, everything else. I think everyone notices everything today. Perhaps too much. [Laughs]

KH: So after our lessons from Fluxus artists, perhaps we should attempt to notice less?

SA: I think it’s quite complicated. Luckily, because that’s what keeps it interesting! Of course both Brecht and Fluxus weren’t alone in their concentration on the everyday in the 1950s and 1960s. But Brecht had a particular aesthetic and he was also, like, really concentrating. In the stories one hears about him, he was all about virtuosity and paid a great deal of attention to detail. He took conceptual care in building things. I guess we’re all infatuated with the everyday today, and Brecht is a great saint in the panoply somehow.

THREE CHAIR EVENTS

Sitting on a black chair

Yellow chair. (Occurance.)

On (or near) a white chair.

SA: Chairs were big for Brecht. He sat down, a lot, presumably. [Laughs] The point of the chair for him is that it’s everyday and has many functions that operate as gateways to other things. I can sit down and have a cup of tea. I can sit down and think. I can sit down to have an interview. A chair is just one of those things that permeates the everyday, and unless you’re Gerrit Rietveld or someone, you don’t pay attention to the chair. There were other artist’s working with chairs, like Scott Burton and Richard Artschwager, but they were very sculptural and quoting the minimal or post-minimal. Brecht’s chairs were pre-minimal. And they were for you to sit on. That’s what people loved about them – it was the art life dichotomy that everyone was talking about, solved.

KH: It actually reminds me a lot of Lawrence Weiner’s conceptualist children’s book about the table, Something to Put Something On. That book really rocked my world!

SA: Sure, and I also want to say that contemporaneously with Brecht: Ben Vautier the French Fluxus artist was performing pieces where he would sit in public places and just hold a sign that said ‘to look at me is enough’: “Regardez moi cela suffit,” There are some great movies of him just sitting there with all the people watching him, and it is enough! Viewers are spending as long looking at that as they are when the shuffle in front of the famous work of art in the Louvre.

KH: The artist is present, as it were… [Laughs] So with regard to Brecht’s event-scores, he is quoted as having said they were “like little enlightenments” he wanted to communicate to his friends who would know what to do with them. Were you one of those friends, and would you say that you know what to do with them?

SA: [Laughs] – I wrote to a lot of Fluxus artists when I was an undergraduate student, simply because I wanted to know a little bit more about what they were doing. Brecht was one of the people who wrote me back. So in that sense, I may not be a friend, but rather someone who he has helped with some advice. First of all, he said, “Fluxus is a blue peanut.” Okay, thank you very much; what do I do with that? And then, he said, “as for what you should do, I’d suggest research on the spot.” I’ve taken that advice. There’s nothing like trying to find out what’s going on right now where you are in order to understand what’s going on with other people where they are. So that was a hook.

KH: In a previous interview you mentioned that back in the 1970s you were drawn to mail art because there wasn’t much responsibility involved. Why are you drawn to things that lack responsibility?

SA: That’s a deep one, isn’t it! After a while one develops one’s aesthetic; you realize what you’re interested in and what you’re not. I’m not interested in making big statements or professing anything too rigidly. Because I change my mind, like everyone. I like the freedom that not having or taking responsibility gives to you. Mail art was great because they said, no jury, no returns, no fee. I was unemployed, I never did well in selection, and I liked that you never had to see the thing again. One could feel abstractly that you were part of something but it didn’t weigh on you. And, you got stuff back. Some artists cared deeply and spent hours making delicious collages for people, but others it would fart in an envelope and seal it, like “here it is; have fun with it.” [Laughs] It was very empowering and relaxing.

WORD EVENT

Exit

SA: Brecht was one of those people who early on showed the fun and possibility of art through the mail. It was part of The Yam Festival that he and Robert Watts organized. They did this thing called delivery event. You would send them a certain amount of money ranging from about $1 to $20, and they would send you something in return. And one of the things Brecht would often send was an exit sign. What is powerful I think about Word Event is that people are exiting the world all the time. It’s pretty profound. Everyone has to do it. No one can avoid doing that piece. And can you do it badly? Is there a bad exit?

KH: Perhaps you can claim Britain’s most recent exit as your own interpretation of Brecht’s piece. (Laughs)

SA: I actually did do an interpretation of that work in a similar context! There is a photo of me in a crowd at the Tate Turbine Hall from a concert I conducted there in May of 2008, where I am carrying a red EXIT protest sign, well before Brexit.

KH: Fantastic!

SA: A moving exit is a nice… This prompts me to think of what has happened to Fluxus now, how the work has been inflated and solidified in museums, sometimes for good and sometimes maybe not so. Who knows? That’s its fate. And that again circles back to the weirdness of the everyday being paramount.

KH: For me, perhaps the most powerful component of happenings like that of Brecht’s event-scores is that the work never ceases. It has the potential to be reimagined endlessly in new sites and contexts, and in that way, perhaps optimistically, can be seen as endlessly relevant, endlessly capable of recontextualisation and renegotiation. Is this too optimistic?

SA: Well, I think that the artists themselves loved reinterpretation. They reproduced each other’s work over and over, until eventually it would be claimed as one of their own. It happened most famously with Nam June Paik who did La Monte Young’s score Draw a Straight Line and Follow It, which became Zen for Head. Every decade or so someone will say, “do you mean to say that nowadays Fluxus is anything you want?” To which we say, yes, still is. [Laughs] I don’t think they would care about ownership, except maybe when they’re old and crotchety and need dental care. Generally I think they didn’t care to think about monetising their work, or trying to put a barrier around it. Brecht was famous for that. Like, ‘relax, kids. Fluxus is a Latin word that George Maciunas dug up. I never studied Latin.’ Not exactly true you see, because in his book he’s written multum in parvo, which is Latin tag meaning “much in little.” Key to the whole minimalist thing, I think. And then later on he says “Marcel Duchamp plays chess, I play pick up sticks”. Fluxus is just a word someone thought up; consider opposing it.

KH: The way that you’re talking about this, commodities aside, I’m wondering… and this might be an inane question, but…

SA: …Oh, there are no inane questions!

KH: …Would you make a distinction between the way the artist interprets their own work and the way that the audience interprets it as instructions, or do you find them to be the one in the same?

SA: It’s far from an inane question – it’s one I’ve obsessed over for a long time. For me that’s where things get a bit interesting. I’ve been talking so loosely about music and sculptures and happenings, as if the intermediate air we breathe is natural, but it’s not. Music has a tradition, art has a tradition, and in this case they collide to a certain extent. Where would we be if we believed that Haydyn had to play his own piano pieces to you? You’d be like, “oh, I bet they were good!” [Laughs] And so it’s a different tradition and it comes with the permission to redo. And that permission is limited and hedged around allegro ma non troppo [fast but not too much]. One of the things that Cage and Brecht were trying to do was make music that wasn’t hedged in by all of that. They wanted to free it.

KH: If we could pretend that it doesn’t matter whether the work is the original or an interpretation, than I’m wondering: when the objects in an event-score obsolesce, do you feel that perhaps the work should be laid to rest, or that the work should be reinterpreted with existing objects and ideas?

SA: Another very difficult question. I mean, there are whole conferences about exactly this stuff. Down at the University of Chicago they’ve got this big concrete thing they’ve had to conserve…

KH: …Oh, the Wolf Vostell?

SA: ….Yes, the Vostell. And so this question is uppermost in everyone’s mind. One of my favourite pieces is a piece by George Maciunas. It’s called In Memoriam to Adriano Olivetti. Adriano Olivetti was a great mind who designed the famous portable typewriter, and this beautiful adding machine. The machine used adding machine rolls, which became the score. When was the last time you saw an adding machine? For a while I had people in the office collect the rolls for me. But I have to use them really quickly because the ink is different and it fades. I got my store out the other day to do this piece and it was a blank roll!

KH: That’s kind of beautiful though…

SA: Yes, it’s great! So, you know sometimes it’s ridiculous to try and conserve the thing. Fluxus is named after change and flow; you’ve got to accept that you can’t step into the same river twice.

THREE TELEPHONE EVENTS

When the telephone rings, it is allowed to continue to ringing, until it stops.

When the telephone rings, the receiver is lifted, then replaced.

When the telephone rings, it is answered.

SA: The very case in point! Telephones don’t ring anymore; they have tones. When that was written 1961, the telephone was a place. We got our first telephone when I was in my early teens and it was at the bottom of the stairs. Why? Because it was huge! No answering machine. So, you could just leave it ringing, and it would probably carry on ringing forever if the caller didn’t hang up. Pick it up and put it down? Well there are a million excuses for that today, right? Keep it ringing? It’s going to voice mail anyway: who cares, I didn’t really want to talk to you. So everything’s different, everything’s the same. What does it mean to perform this when the phone is no longer a place but a person? I’m not calling home; I’m calling you. It’s a pain when have to carry your place around with you and you can’t escape it! But we’ll develop decorum, I’m sure. I think Brecht would get a kick out of that change.

KH: My own perspective your character as an instructor seems to be that of the provoker or trickster. What would you say is your relationship to instigation and defiance, particularly as it relates to working within a bureaucratic institution?

SA: Well, as you know, I’ve been teaching for a long time. I was taught a lot about teaching from these characters. Brecht, along with Bob Watts and Allan Kaprow, put together a proposal for new teaching methods in the early 1960s. They put a grant forward for which they never got the money, but they went on to teach in quite unconventional ways and to help people be unconventional as artists because of that. My education is through that experience. I consider myself privileged because I also got to see a lot of the original people perform their own pieces, and learn how they did or what they thought was important. Going to the dinner before the concert while they’re planning the concert – that is so informative!

So, let’s pretend we want to look at and think about Caravaggio here [gestures to poster on the wall of Caravaggio’s Boy with Basket of Fruit]. What do we do? We go and stand in front of the painting. We maybe go to the house where it was exhibited; we might read about Caravaggio; we might even watch the wretched films about Caravaggio depending on what our level of interest was. If you’ve never seen Water Yam performed, or if you’ve only see it in a vitrine or whatever, how do you learn about it? I’m interested in is things that are by their nature fugitive, but yet they can be recreated. As an art historian I’m interested in explaining infrastructure that surrounded that creative moment as closely as I can. It’s essentially what we all do when we think about all artworks. We are all intuitively recreating them all the time. Some of them you have to go to Italy to see. Some of them you can get in the plastic box. And I like the plastic box thing. [Laughs] I want what I’m interested in to remain open. Or at least, I don’t want to take responsibility for closing it.

IMPOSSIBLE EFFORT

Do 1.

Do 2.

SA: Eric Anderson is a Danish Fluxus artist who will be in the Fluxus and Film Symposium on May 5th and 6th at University of Chicago, so head’s up there. He used to have a button piece that said “if you’ve only done it once you haven’t done it at all.” Brecht was very interested in randomness. He worked harder than most people I know to achieve it. This is pre-computer, when it was quite difficult. He actually had a copy of the book, A Million Random Digits, published homonymically enough by the RAND Corporation. But in the end he realized that searching for randomness is like writing stuff down: you lose the thing in the excitement of the chase. So just try doing it again, and you’ll realize that you’ve done something different. And if you thought the first time you did it was impossible, is the second time you do it more impossible or less impossible? These are very interesting questions because they’ve already chipped away at the idea of possibility. In the 1990s they called these ideas “thought experiments,” and then they became terribly unpopular because the secretary of defense at the time started using them to justify war. These characters as I mentioned were not full-time artists, and they often came from different backgrounds, technical scientific engineering. They just thought about art in a different way.

KH: Brecht was a chemist, also, working for Johnson & Johnson, Mobil Oil, among others. I’m interested in this overlapping of art and science in a more personal way, but also it seems somewhat in fashion today. Do you see Brecht’s chemistry background as having an influence on his work, or being in direct relation to it in some way?

SA: I see it being integral. And let’s not forget that all these folks had been in the military, because it was the 1950s and there was still the draft for Second World War. So these people were used to dealing with institutions – they knew how the machine worked. Anyone interested in science at this time knew about the future and the possibilities that were on the horizon. People had worked in radar and knew that television was on the way. The famous 1968 exhibition Some More Beginnings: Experiments in Art and Technology (E.A.T.) had a lot of Fluxus artists in the show and featured in the catalogue. So Brecht is certainly not alone; even into the late 1960s Fluxus artists were still thinking about science and applying it in art.

THREE AQUEOUS EVENTS

ice

water

steam

SA: I had a student once do a fabulous interpretation of this on a stage with an electric clothes iron and an ice cube. They held the clothes iron upside down horizontal, put the ice cube on it, and just waited.

KH: That’s very nice…

SA: It is very nice! It’s about matter and form changing and staying the same. What are we actually witnessing when we instigate a state change? We’re not just making iced tea into hot tea. We’re witnessing this real thing that is vital to our existence, and we’re also witnessing something that is almost magic – almost alchemy. We have the solid turn into the liquid and then turn into the air itself. The question of quality and quantity was big for those artists – when quantity brings about a change in a quality. It’s a Hegelian question, essentially, but also a scientific one. I could get very boring that one… Better to have the cup of tea!

KH: Anything you’d like to say to close?

SA: Maybe we’ll let chance have a say. [Draws an event-score from Water Yam] Oh yes, here’s a nice one:

KEYHOLE

Through either side

…That’s very Brechtian. He gives you a statement and asks you to consider opposing it. To look at things through either side.

KH: That’s a lovely place to end!

SA: And we just picked it out at random, very good.

Simon Anderson is a British-born-and-educated cultural historian and Associate Professor of Art History, Theory, and Criticism at the School of the Art Institute. You can find his complete bio here.

EDITION #26

The Rise of the Performance Art Festival in the USA

How We Work: An Interview With Sara Drake

Recoloring Queer and Transgender Performance Art: Reflections on Recent Performance Panels

ANNOUNCEMENT! Changes… oh my.

from Bad at Sports http://ift.tt/2ptTjY9 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Bad at Sports