what a great post! I have been walking a lot lately too, and since this is the first time I've lived without my bike for 3 years, I definitely notice that the slower pace is better for contemplating -- "noticing," like you say. I am kind of jealous of your Philly walking-- because Philly is more fringe, more unpredictable actually than NY in a lot of ways. NY is so full of things (esp. in Manhattan where I am staying now) but Philly has those long spaces in between things so might make you a little more forced to notice smaller stuff.
That is an interesting comparison w/ the femme fatale.. in some ways in makes sense (both products of a modernist city, though that is being pretty damn generous to the actual places you're talking about, since we're not exactly talking about the Seagrams Building)-- but generally I think those buildings have been described as intimidating/authoritative in a masculine sense, as the inpenetrable (ahem) masses of corporate presence. I wonder if Baudelaire talked about the city in more feminine terms too? You flaneur!!
oui, oui, madame bing...danschankMay 9 2009, 17:53:59 UTC
by the way, my friend stuart was in the run you just did the other week here. i wanted to go, but had made plans to see that zoe strauss photo thing under i-95 (do you know about this?) and then it rained and i did neither!
i agree that philly is more unpredictable, especially since i'm doing this with paintings in mind. there's an unfortunate sense in NYC - especially manhattan - that everything's been sufficiently editorialized, either by lou reed or allen ginsberg or patti smith or someone writing for vice magazine. the fact that no one gives a shit about that in philly is kinda liberating.
interesting point about the femme fatale being the product of a modernist city. i think i conceived of "penetration" in the feminine because of my own libidinous unconscious, frankly, being attracted to girls and all. in a way the thought began as something kinda crass and maybe chauvinistic, but i still thought it was worth sharing. and i agree that these spaces aren't particularly innovative - they're just designed to stand apart from their settings, i think. like the old cliche of the architect that just pops his/her "vision" into an unrelated environment. bad architecture, really. and i think the kind of corporate allure that follows - the temptation of entering the "big leagues" financially/career-wise, kinda mirrors the desire that these women often represent (at their worst, mostly) in old film noirs. seductive power plus an impulse towards conquest, i guess. the fact that i just sexualized the word "conquest" kinda makes me want to barf. it's hard to write about sexist ideology without sounding sexist.
i think future "walking around posts" may end up getting into less familiar neighborhoods. i was a bit limited this time by it being 1am. i guess i could have written about that - how safety (or the illusion of it) actually dictates my movement.
That is an interesting comparison w/ the femme fatale.. in some ways in makes sense (both products of a modernist city, though that is being pretty damn generous to the actual places you're talking about, since we're not exactly talking about the Seagrams Building)-- but generally I think those buildings have been described as intimidating/authoritative in a masculine sense, as the inpenetrable (ahem) masses of corporate presence. I wonder if Baudelaire talked about the city in more feminine terms too? You flaneur!!
Reply
i agree that philly is more unpredictable, especially since i'm doing this with paintings in mind. there's an unfortunate sense in NYC - especially manhattan - that everything's been sufficiently editorialized, either by lou reed or allen ginsberg or patti smith or someone writing for vice magazine. the fact that no one gives a shit about that in philly is kinda liberating.
interesting point about the femme fatale being the product of a modernist city. i think i conceived of "penetration" in the feminine because of my own libidinous unconscious, frankly, being attracted to girls and all. in a way the thought began as something kinda crass and maybe chauvinistic, but i still thought it was worth sharing. and i agree that these spaces aren't particularly innovative - they're just designed to stand apart from their settings, i think. like the old cliche of the architect that just pops his/her "vision" into an unrelated environment. bad architecture, really. and i think the kind of corporate allure that follows - the temptation of entering the "big leagues" financially/career-wise, kinda mirrors the desire that these women often represent (at their worst, mostly) in old film noirs. seductive power plus an impulse towards conquest, i guess. the fact that i just sexualized the word "conquest" kinda makes me want to barf. it's hard to write about sexist ideology without sounding sexist.
i think future "walking around posts" may end up getting into less familiar neighborhoods. i was a bit limited this time by it being 1am. i guess i could have written about that - how safety (or the illusion of it) actually dictates my movement.
Reply
Leave a comment