Title!

Blogspot has a new design. Oh well. To the eventual executor of my will: It is hereby proclaimed that the tombstone of the owner of this blog shall read "Challenge Complete".

I think I am doing this just to avoid my homework. Seriously. I wanted to talk to you guys about art today. Yeah, I know, what I have been smoking/snorting/injecting? Right? For real though, I wanted to talk about self portraits as an art form. Not photographs. Photographs are honest (unless they are Photoshopped). Photographs convey a message from one particular moment in time. They show the world, or the world of the subject, as it was, at that exact moment. I like photographs. I wanted to talk about self portraits that are not photographs. Paintings. Sculptures. Whatevers. For some reason, I find them to be a wishful personification of the artist themselves, or just a very narcissistic. As in, why do artists need to create an abstract, or a concrete image of themselves for display? Is a signature on the piece itself not enough? A tastefully crafted photograph? I get the need to express oneself, after all, that is what I am doing here (and I am aware that this blog, the blog format itself (not to mention Twitter) is inherently narcissistic and self-centered). But to display an image of yourself, crafted in your own mind to the way you want it to look and then expect it to provoke emotion in other people? That's like me saying that I think everyone should feel a certain emotion when they see me. Not just the people that know me. I mean everyone. The bum outside of Beantown. The security guard at Ashburton. The baseball jocks in the gym. The TSA employee at Logan. Does that make sense? I don't know, I'm tired, hot and rambling.

We're not young....anymore?

My first year in my masters program is coming to an end and as I always do at the beginning of summer, I take stock of what I have and sometimes what I don't (this last part can be a bit self-destructive and is advisable only to professional optimists and/or cynics: nevertheless, it's something I do not do often). I find that this is a good way for myself to reflect on the things I have gained, both material (yeah, right!) and abstract (knowledge, skills, networks etc.) and provide me with a reference point.

I can honestly say that one of my classes this year, while entertaining and educational, has not been to my expectations. Bluntly put, the professor teaching it is not the right person for the course. Nothing against the person, I like him/her very much as a teacher and person, but not for that particular class.

But my biggest gain this year has been the intangible knowledge I have accumulated: tales from fellow students and teachers about their current or previous work situations, employment opportunities, and the fact that I can talk my way into a lot of good situations if I just put my professional face on. Moreover, I feel I am starting to plot out a possible career for myself after graduate school. Most of you have heard me talk about what I want to do and where I want to do it, but I really feel like I'm steering myself down a path (less traveled, I hope!) that can lead me to where I want to be and what I want to do. I hope. (Cynical optimism or optimistic cynicism?)

Also, I am sunburned.

Tonight. We are young.

So it has come to my attention that I might literally be the worst blogger in the world. Literally.

Apart from all the self-deprecating shit and destructive thoughts here on Friday the 13th (April at that, whaddayaknow!), I want to talk about something that is near and dear to me.

Music.

Today, specifically about music in advertisement.

We have all heard the rather awkward jingles on the radio, selling everything from tires, cars, chocolate milkshakes and hamburgers to spa days, shampoo and pet supplies. But one thing I have noticed is that new music is more frequent in advertising on American television than it is in Norway. It appears that up-and-coming American musical acts utilize the commercials of brand names to spread their music. Two examples: this video was used in a commercial for an evil conglomerate named Apple. Quite a catchy tune if you ask me. One might even sing along.

This here video was used in a commercial for an automobile maker, and I have to admit, I absolutely love it. LOVE. IT. It might be my favorite song this year. And this is a song that I probably never would have known existed if it wasn't for the medium of the commercial during sporting events (these make up the bulk of my TV time).

My question is, is this a useful marketing strategy? Or do bands run the risk of having their songs labeled "that Apple commercial" or "that awesome car commercial?"

...

Clicky

Versace

My updates are highly sporadic these days, owed to the fact that there is so much fun school work to be done! Also, I may have been busy having a little bit of some awesome times these past weeks. Nuvel.

Boston is walking briskly towards summer, some days the pace is so ferocious that the wind out here is unbearable. This is obviously no problem as jackets are meant to remedy such a thing. But I feel entitled to one weather-rant now and then. In other news, the Scandinavian labor movement does not exactly produce a ton of scholarly material: assignment proving difficult.

I do have a lot of stories from Philadelphia, some of them fun, some of them hilarious and some of them just...interesting. But it's getting late. So cross your fingers that I will remember to write something later this week.

Peace!

To vote or not to vote

Channeling my inner Shakespeare on what he would most certainly call a summer's day here in Connecticut: 20+ and sunny. I wish I brought some shorts with me for spring break.

As the informed reader will know, it is election year and season of the primary here in the U.S. and A. As my main man, Barack Obamadeus (borrowed that one from Munroe: XKCD), is currently stationed in the White House, he does not need to prove himself in a primary election this year. This amuses me, myself and political bloggers, reporters and informed people across the nation as there is nothing more entertaining than watching 4 old white men self-destruct through a series of debates, TV ads and interviews/press conferences. The 30-second run-down on the candidates, brought to you in part by Statens Lånekasse:

Newt Gingrich: this former Speaker of the House is one angry son of a bitch. He is famous, among other things, for having an affair with his then third wife to be while publicly berating President Clinton for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. He is also willing to grant statehood to the moon, provided that 10,000 Americans live there. That's like flipping a huge middle finger at Washington, D.C. Moreover, Gingrich has proved unwilling to reason in debates and he comes off as a spoiled brat in terms of how he conducts himself in response to criticism.

Ron Paul: the self-proclaimed libertarian in the race, and someone who bears a resemblance to Gollum, mr. Paul has envisioned a highly protectionist policy for the United States should he be elected. He even talked about "building a wall around America", for some reason. While his protectionism-babble is the stuff of crazy people, Paul actually has some good, moderate ideas on his mind and he is not to idiotically conservative on social issues like some of the other candidates.

Rick Santorum: speaking of idiotically conservative, Santy baby! This devout conservative catholic has publicly stated that rape-babies are a blessing, on par with his anti-abortion campaign. However, he is also anti-contraception. He believes, per the bible (although I do not know where it says), that man and woman should not lay until married. Noble stance, and one that I can easily respect. The problem is, he should not be the one deciding this for people. But then again, he is not. In a country that prides itself on the separation of state and church, and has explicitly stated so in its constitution (the most sacred document to most Americans), mr. Santorum believes that Americans should answer to god when it comes to political decisions. Not only does this go against the constitution, but it also go against any form of reasoning: as soon as you involve your religion into politics, you are not making decisions based on rationale, logic or sanity any more. And that can be dangerous to a country. (I would have a religious discussion, but I just don't feel like it. It alienates people, makes them angry at me and ends with me getting angry and using bad words). This is all coming from a guy who has a JD and an MBA...you would think that smart people would be smarter.

Mitt Romney: the flip-flop master, former governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a rich motherfucker, mr. Romney is perceived as the candidate that can take the most votes from Obama in a general election. The problem: he does not resonate well with Republicans. More problems: mr. Romney is one rich asshole. With a networth of around $250 million and a taxable income in 2011 of about $42 million, he does not exactly appeal to the blue-collar workers he so desperately wants. In recent weeks, he has stated that the auto industry is important to him personally because his wife drives "a couple Cadillacs" (paraphrased), and that he is not a huge fan of NASCAR but some of his "close friends are team owners". Not exactly something that is fathomable to the 99%.

If you want my advice, Obama is going to win the general election in November. The alternatives are ghastly, and frankly, they act stupid. As I have not visited the bible-belt I cannot say what the feel is for any of these four outside of the North-East. But it seems that Republicans are longing for the days of H.W. and McCain, just as much as I am.