"Surely if a machine is able to
reproduce another machine systematically, we may say that it has a reproductive
system. What is a reproductive system, if it be not a system for
reproduction? And how few of the machines are there which have not been
produced systematically by other machines? But it is man that makes them
do so. Yes; but is it not insects that make many of the plants
reproductive, and would not whole families of plants die out if their
fertilisation was not effected by a class of agents utterly foreign to
themselves? Does any one say that the red clover has no reproductive
system because the humble bee (and the humble bee only) must aid and abet it
before it can reproduce? No one. The humble bee is a part of the
reproductive system of the clover. Each one of ourselves has sprung from
minute animalcules whose entity was entirely distinct from our own, and which
acted after their kind with no thought or heed of what we might think about
it. These little creatures are part of our own reproductive system; then
why not we part of that of the machines?"
Monday, October 14, 2013
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Who stole the cookie from the amphora?
From NY Times advice column "Social Qs," published October 3, 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning
the Table
My
husband’s friend made a beautiful coffee table for us as a wedding gift. We
have kept it for over a decade, even though it is much too large for our living
room. Now we have a toddler, and I am afraid that he will hurt himself by
stumbling into the table (even though we baby-proofed the edges). Should we
discuss the table with our friend and offer to give it back to him, replace it
and say nothing, or just keep it? My husband votes for the last, but he is
sentimental. If it matters, we rarely see the friend.
Dear
Anonymous,
You
should certainly keep the table, and then make sure to ask favor of your
carpenter friend to undo the damage you caused the coffee table when you
“baby-proofed the edges.”
Indeed,
if you permit this digression, I am opposed to the excessive degrees to which
parents go to accommodate their household upon the arrival of a child, hoping
to shield little Jonathan from potential collisions and skirmishes with the
furniture. Alas, modern society has erected too many artificial fences, as it were, between a child and the state of nature. If the child’s growth is to be successful, it must be about
learning---both through self-experimentation and parental guidance---to examine
the natural world around him and to separate the objects of nature into two
categories: those that are dangerous and those not.
Moreover,
when nowadays the child proceeds to examine the world through his sense of
touch, he soon makes the unfortunate discovery that, instead of natural
materials, all household products tend to be constructed of synthetic materials, or natural ones of grossly inferior element. Instead of mahogany,
walnut, or teak, modern furniture is built mainly of that vulgar admixture
known as “particle board.”
This
appalling trend relates also to society’s increasing preference for electronic
over paper books. Yet consider the differences in textures, if you will,
between an object made of Morocco leather and one made of high-impact
polystyrene (as the scientists call it), of which most electronic gew-gaw
casing is made, as well as PVC sewer pipes. Consider also the difference
between the smell of buckram or vellum and the smell of a polycarbonate-enclosed smart phone. Alas,
the child growing up today is deprived of such pleasures as smelling Morocco
leather, or of feeling fustian and linsey-woolsey fabrics; and ‘tis no doubt
owing to people like you, who would repudiate as “sentimental” these kind of differences.
Finally,
allow me to offer the following simple solution to your problem. I urge that
you henceforth devote less time upon various internet-related activities, such
as tweetering, facebooking, and emailing, and more upon attending to your
child’s living-room perambulations.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Tour of 18th century London Churches
It brings me great pleasure to take my readers upon a walking tour of 18th century London (made possible by Google Street View), dwelling especially on those of the city's churches erected directly in consequence
of the Act of 1711, also known as the Commission for Fifty Churches, passed by the Tories in Parliament, and approved by Queen Anne, with the intent of signifying
the triumph of the High Church. To finance this noble goal---of erecting fifty
churches---it was deemed appropriate to impose a tax upon coal.
The unconventional viewing angle of these photos, rather than that of a professional photographer, merely reflects the pedestrian's actual street-level perspective.
 |
| St George, Bloomsbury |
 |
| St George in the East |
 |
| Christ Church Spitalfields |
 |
| St Alphege, Greenwich |
 |
| St Anne's Limehouse |
 |
| St George's, Hanover Square |
 |
| St Mary-le-Strand |
St Mary-le-Strand,
built in 1717, designed by the papist Mr. James Gibbs in the Roman Baroque style.
 |
| St Luke's, in Old Street |
 |
| 1760 illustration of St Luke's |
St Luke’s in Old Street, jointly designed by
Mr. Hawksmoor and Mr. James, and completed in 1733. Note the obelisk spire, a feature
of high rarity in Anglican Churches.
 |
| St Paul's, Deptford |
St Paul’s, in Deptford, designed by Mr. Thomas
Archer in Roman Baroque style, and completed in 1730.
 |
| St John's, in Smith Square |
 |
| St John's, in Smith Square, 18th century illustration |
St John’s, in Smith Street, designed by Mr.
Archer, and completed in 1728, in finest example of British Baroque style. Note
the distinct four towers, as if resembling an upside-down footstool--- this in
honor of Queen Anne’s caprice of kicking over the footstool and gesturing
towards the upside object, in a whimsical attempt to illustrate to Mr. Archer what Her
Majesty wanted her church to look like.
Monday, September 2, 2013
A father's letter to his son, advising him to reform his Art School occupation
Dear boy:
By your past letter and the picture enclosed therein I find that you are a
tolerably good Pop Artist, as such an occupation is called, and can present several arch, colorful impressions of supermarket dairy isles to the curious. Your mother
delights in your series of rows of industrial yogurts and puddings. For my part, I am very glad on’t, as it is a
proof of some attention towards your craft---and a certain bringing forth of fruit in our
lavish investment in your Art School education.
But I hope you will be as good a Portrait Painter,
which is a much more noble occupation, than that of a Pop Artist. By portraits,
you will easily judge, that I do not mean the mere outlines and the coloring of
the human figure---as one might do with a pudding container---but the inside of
the heart and mind of man. This art requires more Attention, Observation, and Penetration, than the other. Search, therefore, with the greatest care, into
the characters of those whom you converse with. And through the perspective of
a Portrait Painter, endeavor to discover their predominant passions, their
prevailing weaknesses, their vanities, their follies, and their humors, with
all the right and wrong, wise and silly springs of human actions, which makes
such inconsistent and whimsical beings of us supposed rational creatures----and
learn to represent this upon the canvas through the person’s natural likeness or
a satiric construction thereof.
You will find that being a Portrait Painter
will enable you to reach a deeper understanding of your fellow human creatures
and ultimately your own self. To achieve this end, you are not to
shrink from any physical blemishes, nor make too many allowances for people’s
moral shortcomings. Pray, do not forget that the final purpose of Higher Education is to deepen one’s knowledge of Human Nature. I
must therefore urge you to devote more of your hours in studying the human face instead of yogurt and pudding containers. Endeavor by all means, to acquire this talent,
for it is a very great one.
To learn to become an excellent Portrait
Painter you are advised to study the works of Mr. Francis Cotes, Mr. Joseph
Highmore, Sir Joshua Reynolds, and for the satiric modes of representation Mr. William
Hogarth. Unless you submit to this transformation, my boy, you will continue to give
anxious thoughts to
Your
loving, affectionate father,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)