Art on the streets

Booooooom.com -- Making pictures with light

Overspray Magazine is killer (see layout --->) . they also have a blog...

Jordan Todd, urban photographer on flickr

Neuarmy print design and illustration. yes.


Adbusters declares that street art is dead. Was that article title ripped from Nas, or Nietzsche? Dead as in thriving? Influential? Successful? Does being mainstream mean hollow, or does it mean that you've changed the direction of the flow? Does the "mainstream" like street art because it looks pretty, or also because of how it makes them feel, think, respond? Perhaps street art has become more popular because it resonates with what we the people feel, but don't say. Sure it's possible to sell out, especially if you're using your art to push that brand of luxury materialism that sells self-worth with handbags. But getting money for your art that has roots in street culture? Rock on to you sir. Will street art be the original thing as it becomes more adopted by mainstream culture? No. What stays orginal anyway? Does that mean it dies? Street art only dies when the artists decide to stop engaging public space with visual commentary. So that's up to the artists.

Designers

http://www.gregorisaavedra.com/

http://www.lorenzopetrantoni.com/

http://www.motibarzilay.com/

"Eco-Iconic" Products

I met Bill Blakemore of ABC news yesterday when he came to speak at my night course on climate change. He spoke about the psychological mentalities that humans go through in dealing with climate change. Another wonderful, engaging, effective speaker who spent over an hour talking about well, nothing much really. How about some reflection on where you think this is all going? You research and write and talk about climate change all of the time. Since you came all the way to my 7:30 pm night class, how about a little of your perspective?

I spoke to Mr. Blakemore briefly about the perspective of the journalist during moments of social change. At least that's what I was intending to talk about, but we started into a discussion on how journalists don't have a perspective, they just write/talk about what happens. Otherwise we enter into propaganda. Hmmm, well, great, but tell me the last news story published that wasn't stewing in the judgments and the assumptions of the journalist. Even the decision to put Clinton or Obama on the front page of the Times after a debate is a result of a judgment call. I think it would be great to read a major news publication at face value and have someone critically assess all of the players in the event and perhaps even explain each side's investment in the issue. You guys are the ones that go collect information from all over the world, and I depend on your research to form my understanding and positions. As one of my colleagues joked ,"I feel like I'm in communist Russia reading between the lines of every newspaper article." So what are my options? The Times? Ok, but written for 6th graders. The Economist? Featuring titles like "China: A Lot to be Angry About?" or articles that begin "For America, India is an annoying ally." What kind of journalism is that? That's story telling. The Boston Globe? As though Boston were its own globe. The free Metro paper everyone reads on the subway? Are you kidding? Please. Fox News? Er, I don't pay for cable, phew. I'll admit, that often leaves my news some combination of the BBC online and John Stewart.

My new favorite is RealNews.com a news site with no ads or corporate sponsors. Seems pretty legit and I actually get to find out what's happening & get some actual background on the topics they cover. You know, like how Bolivia is undergoing a massive confrontation about natural resource allocation that may end in complete chaos and the overthrow of their first populist president? I want to know when that kind of stuff is brewing! If you have any other suggestions for sources of actual, intelligent journalism, PLEASE let me know.