Manchester Experiential Media Toast&Jam Pro

•May 31, 2010 • Leave a Comment

My aesthetics preferences

•May 26, 2010 • Leave a Comment

please check

Produce by marco sevilla

Music : marco sevilla

Produce by marco sevilla

Music Seeing Hester

•May 22, 2010 • Leave a Comment

scratch a hippie and you will find a fascist.

•May 22, 2010 • Leave a Comment

might as well send them to the Vatican to get raped my the paedophile popes sent by almighty god… ironic

•May 22, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Teaching children religion before the age of 18 is child abuse. “Jane Placca” 22/05/10.


•May 8, 2010 • Leave a Comment

“In The Expressive Fallacy, Hal Foster demonstrates expressionism to be just another fabrication. “(E)xpressionism is a paradox: a type of representation that asserts presence – of the artist, of the real. This presence is by proxy only (the expressive marks of the artist, the indexical traces of the hand), and yet it is easy to fall into the fallacy: for example, we commonly say an expressionist like Kandinsky ‘broke through’ representation, when in fact he replaced (or superimposed) one form with another – a representation oriented not to reality (the coded, realist outer world) but to expression (the coded, symbolist inner world). After all, formlessness does not dissolve convention or suspend mediation; as the expressionist trope for feeling, it is a rhetorical form too.”

As examples of the artistic reaction against expressionism, Foster details a succession of painters beginning with Jasper Johns (Target with Plaster Casts) in 1955, to Roy Lichtenstein (his brushstroke paintings), and, more recently, Gerhard Richter. In other art media, self-expression acts primarily as a conceit to work against. As we draw closer to contemporary times, artwork in form and concerns move closer to design, and, ?nally, art must coexist with design to have import. Foster cites Jenny Holzer and Peter Nadin’s artist book Eating Friends, which “debunks” expression with a literal obsession with “inner life”: texts and images (the stuff graphic design is made of), focusing on internal organs.”


•April 28, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Writing in the New York Times, A.O. Scott calls the film “astonishing” and “exemplary” and suggests it is to film animation what Art Spiegelman’s “Maus” was to graphic novels — the expansion of a popular genre into a “profound and original vehicle for the contemplation” of horror.,…/ outofline/2009/01/ in contrast with :

“First, the Christian militiamen entered the camp with the full knowledge of the Israeli Army, which provided them with at least some of their arms and provisions and assisted them with flares during nighttime operations.” Bobst/library/wf-265.htm  

There is sufficient distortion of the facts in Waltz with Bashir to warrant my discomfort. Unlike Musashi: The Dream of the Last Samurai where myth is often inseparable from fact, the events described in Waltz with Bashir took place in 1982. Yes, the pools of blood stain the hands of the Maronite Christian Phalangists who initiated the slaughter of civilians. It was, however, Ariel Sharon, then Israeli Defense Minister, who practically invited the Phalangists into Sabra and Shatilla after the assassination of Bashir Gemayel while the IDF sealed the area off and provided logistical support (such as firing flares at night to assist in the massacre). The film is ambiguous about the passage of time during the massacre, but it appeared to suggest that the events happened in one night, and was stopped by the IDF at dawn the next day. This is complete distortion. The massacre occurred over THREE DAYS. Three days of IDF soldiers stationed less than 500 metres away, watching through binoculars as civilians were raped, murdered, and evicted from their homes. Folman’s allusion that the IDF did not realize the nature of the massacre as anything beyond an anti-terror action does not hold water. 2009/10/waltz-with-bas..  

this is more likely …………on the  event of war

war can be define as the conflict in between two or more nations.     More likely war is about resourses, even dough that’s no always expose to the public eye.

War is use to deliver messages of terror and intimidation.

There has never being a fair war. And its always being about territories, resources, power.

Cinema can give a very small idea what the wars, the problem is that cinema as the ultimate art form can also be manipulate and use as form of propaganda in the best interest of those founding such films.

Audiences don’t really tap in to the political and economic side of the cinema industry, this makes it easier for the medium of cinema to penetrate peoples personal judgment field with out people even realises it.

In war the most affected sadly is the people that forms the nation, specially when civilians are not even fighting still get bomb, shot and killed.  Some argued that is human nature to mobilize, explore, conquer and rule, this create wars in the modern society.

War is no a new business, we tent to forget all the wars, occupations and massacres that been taking place in the last millennium, may be because we were not able to film it, or may be because our nature is a forgetful one.  to find some of this  printing  evident materials is often no possible since they have either been destroy or looked up some where safe from the public and what is being keep only describes  the good ones as good ones, the villains and the one truth. The holly one!!

Back to Waltz with Bashir “Folman’s attitude toward the film and his work in general. In interviews about the film, Folman is explicit that he does not believe that art can make change in society and that the film was for him a tool to work through his demons. He sees himself (and perhaps the artist in general) as outside of politics. He was surprised by the support he received from the Israeli government, but shrugged it off without further comment, and toured around the world collecting praise and awards as Israeli bomber jets and ground troops crushed the Gaza Strip. Why should he care? His work was done. He had worked through his demons and told his story. His reflections on the filmmaking process are strikingly similar to the way that the soldiers are depicted in his film; neither filmmaker nor soldier have a sense of ownership or responsibility. “Really, we didn’t know what we were doing. I believe you never do as filmmakers,” he said in an interview. He speaks about the role of the filmmaker in the same way he presents the role of soldiers in war—confused, unknowing, surprised.

And what about Palestinians, the screaming characters in his film? What about their stories? Folman is clear that he cannot tell a Palestinian story (“Who am I to tell their stories?” he says of the Palestinians. “They have to tell their own stories.”) Certainly we would not want him to try to tell the stories of Palestinians, but it is not too much to expect that he recognize how his project does not exist within a vacuum and how, in his work, he actively participates in the silencing of Palestinian voices and the further sealing off from Palestinians the space of Israeli culture (the so-called beacon of left hope). After all, it is not that Palestinian filmmakers are not telling stories too. In 2002, filmmaker Mohammad Bakri, a Palestinian citizen of Israel, made a film Jenin, Jenin about the massacre in Jenin committed that year by Israeli soldiers. Bakri’s story did not have a place in these Israeli stories. He certainly did not receive funding from the Israeli Film Foundation, and in fact, his film was officially banned by the Israeli Film Board. While eventually the Israeli High Court overturned the ban (with the statement by Justice Dalia Dorner: “The fact that the film includes lies is not enough to justify a ban.”), Bakri was shortly afterwards charged with libel by several soldiers who participated in the massacre, and to this day faces huge legal fees and fines” (for more on this case see