-
-
I don't think any medium is better or worse than another- there can be "worthless" work done in all of them. To me, the most worthless thing is the over-extension of the term "art" itself, kind of like how "hero" is now used for anyone who shows any kind of inner strength or concern for others. I'm not saying these words are sacred, but they're overvalued in a way that is perhaps detrimental.
-
Caught between the rock of universality and and the hard place of complete relativism, huh? There is definitely universality in the human drive to create, to produce things. But if history is any indication, attempts to establish universal standards for truth or beauty, whatever their iteration, lead to dark outcomes. Even if there were impersonal criteria for such things, how could you ever divorce your act of making/viewing from your own perspective and the specific location (temporal, cultural, etc) in which it took place to evaluate or experience them? Even if we are hardwired/have an evolutionary memory to appreciate certain geometry etc. (à la Radiolab's "inner chimp"), it's a small part of the larger puzzle.
-
If I'm raising the dead for this dinner party, I imagine that resources aren't an issue? I would serve a multi-course banquet that progressed, course by course, from antiquity to the present using recipes taken from period cookbooks. Each dish would also feature period appropriate flatware, hollowware, linens, etc. and wine/beverage pairing. All the research and cooking would be a joy in itself, and the ultimate event would be such a spectacle! Hmm... actually, this isn't a bad idea- maybe I'll do a bare bones version...
-
-
Manhattan all the way (surprise). I don't object to New England clam chowder as an entity per se, but it's often so gloppy and paste-like that good bowls of it are few and far between.
-
As tempting as having the perfect love is, I just don't want to be the person who could rob another person of happiness in order to get it.
-
Ooh, but you do ask the good questions, Rai. I'd say I'm an equal mix of all three, though my ferocious side tends to make fewer appearances in public.
-
Both are equally important.
-
-
-
hmm... I'd say a nice 10 (soft and kick-ass shaolin kung fu panda-awesome). i.e. demonstrably awesome, but with even more awesomeness to look forward to.
-
Definitely people I know, though random stars have made awesome if rare cameos in my dreams before!
-
inequity.
-
inequity.
-
One is swimming in the ocean, another is walking through/sitting in woods or a beautiful garden (something with shade and lush flora). Both bring me great joy.
-
I believe the official answer is: "a woodchuck would chuck all the wood he could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood." My question is, James, you Kiwi, do you even know what a woodchuck looks like? :)
-
inequity.
-
Wait, all the clones on this island are from my DNA? So it's like a bunch of stormtroopers, except they're female, fat, not Australian, without uniforms, not fighting... they're sitting around philosophizing. As long as you clone Raphael as well so I can get a painted version of the new and improved S of A, and I get to enjoy the island paradise as well, I'm in.
-
I'm trying to remember if The Third Man has both... either that or Dude, Where's My Car?
-
Hmm... Cleopatra was certainly the more tragic figure, and she did see the entire Egyptian empire gasp its last pre-colonial breath during her lifetime. Has to suck, I would imagine. Nefertiti, on the other hand, helped lead a monotheistic revolution in Egypt and had considerable political power. However, Cleopatra enjoyed the attentions of the (if tv/movies are a true reflection of history and you KNOW that they are) rather yummy Marc Antony, and Nefertiti's hubs was the super inbred Akhenaten (as only royals can- we're talking Habsburg levels of inbreeding.. I need say only Charles II). In the end, I think I have the hair to pull off Cleopatra (with some extensions donated by Nubian servants), and she had some seriously kick ass jewelry, so I'm going with her.
-
