1775 Attitude

Monday, April 22, 2008

Laurence J. Peter: “If a cluttered desk is the sign of a cluttered mind, what is the significance of a clean desk?"

------------------------------

I rediscovered Glenn Feron's website, "The Art of Retouching". If you choose a thumbnail and then pass the cursor over the photo, you can see it before and after retouching. Some of the differences are amazing. It reminds me that when we look at a photo and compare ourselves, we have to remember that we probably won't be able to recreate the look with diet or makeup. That look never really existed.

Here are some of the more startling:
http://www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio30.html
http://www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio31.html
http://www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio50.html
http://www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio40.html

--------------------------------

I read an online essay (that pretends to be a treatise) on differentiating between original old, new reproduction, and cheap imitation Asian, Indian, and Middle-Eastern jewelry. I got very annoyed very quickly, for several reasons.

The author constantly refers to the jewelry as "ethnographic jewelry". Um, ethnographic refers to the study of a culture, and more specifically to writings about that culture. So this might be an ethnographic essay, but the jewelry isn't ethnographic. It's ethnic.

It was quickly apparent that the word "ethnic" wasn't big enough for her. "Ethnographic", having more syllables, was obviously preferable. That isn't the only example. It looked like she wrote the essay, and then went through it and used a thesaurus to find the fanciest replacement words she could. I guess that makes it sound more learned?

I have a huge reading and listening vocabulary, but when I write, I use simple little words. Most people do that. It's more comfortable, and there's less chance of being misunderstood. There are people who use the biggest words they can find, in an effort to impress, I guess, and many of them use them incorrectly. They might impress some, but they look foolish to others. Oh well.

Anyway, a second thing that is annoying is that she presents the topic as if she's an expert and has gone into it in depth. I was hoping to learn something. But what she presents is obvious to the most casual observer. She makes some sweeping generalizations that even I, a mere dabbler in the subject, know should not be made.

The same thing is true of jewelry as of textiles: it doesn't have to be made of the best material, or beautiful, or well made to be old and valuable. Even 300 years ago, less expensive existed. It's just that the better stuff was more likely to be preserved. In fact, because of their rarity, sometimes the simple crude village-made examples are more valuable. (The most valuable oriental rug I own is a small lopsided trapezoidal thing. It's valuable because it was crafted on a nomadic lap-loom, and commemorates a family event.)

Every so often I see a "pasha". Someone who sets him- or herself up as an expert, the guru, the leader, in something. They somehow gather a worshipful following. Mental image of a person sitting on a pile of pillows, with followers gathered around sitting on the floor gazing up admiringly, offering tribute, as the focus of their attention dispenses pearls of wisdom, and glances of favor. No one can criticize the guru without suffering the fury of the followers.

I don't know how they do it. Much of what they dispense is pure poop. You see it here and there in the blogosphere, where a blog owner (usually female) reaches mythic status, and woe be to anyone who offers a correction or disagreement in comments. At some point, comments must be worshipful, or you die. (It was especially bad in AOL journals, because you can't hide your identity there. It was one of the reasons I had to move from AOL journals to Blogger.)

It seems to be an attitude thing. I suspect this woman wants to be on that pile of pillows.
.