Foie Gras, a speciality of my Alsatian neighbours, is among the top ten of my favourite dishes. An hors d'oeuvre to be accompanied by a glass of Muscat d'Alsace, a delicious apperitive wine, best cherished in a cosy automnal or winter environment.
Gas attack on the West Front, near St. Quentin 1918 -- a German messenger dog loosed by his handler. Dogs were used throughout the war as sentries, scouts, rescuers, messengers, and more. (Brett Butterworth) - image credit.
The first world war was only two months old, one hundred years ago, a maelstrom gorging on everything living and alive.
Vintage everyday has a fascinating series of black and white pictures showing humans and animals in World War I.
The logic of modern technology underscores the importance of liberty for the advancement of our civilisation.
In an article well worth reading, Larry Downes argues forcefully that "largely absent from the platforms of Republicans and Democrats" there is an urgent
need for a radical shift at all levels of government, from laws and policies that delay and deflect disruptive change to an agenda that maximizes the profound potential of technological inventions to improve the human condition. [...]
There’s a better and safer way to protect and encourage disruptive innovation. First and foremost, governments must recognize severe limits in their ability to shape the destination, if not the trajectory, of disruptive technologies. Technology and policy run at different clock speeds, and the gap is getting wider. Even with the best of intentions, the most nimble regulatory agency still can’t keep up with the pace of change in consumer markets. When they try, the result, more often than not, is the invocation of the law of unintended consequences, where rules intended to encourage such noble goals as enhanced competition or the public interest wind up doing just the opposite.
A pro-innovation agenda begins instead by recognizing that markets are far more likely to resolve market failures than regulators, and to do so at a lower cost. This is not because markets are perfect, or appropriate subjects of uncritical reverence, but simply because markets react more quickly than do governments to the negative but usually short-term side effects of disruptive innovation. The next generation of technology is far more likely to remedy consumer harms than regulatory intervention can, and with considerably less economic friction. [...]
Americans, especially those under the age of 30, are deeply cynical about the political process. They live in a universe where technology can be counted on to make the world better and more interesting every 12 to 24 months, where life is approached as a series of problems to be solved through clever hacks, where even impractical dreams can be realized in weeks through a successful Kickstarter campaign. Why should they trust policy-makers who don’t live in their world, or share their optimism for its future, and who can’t be counted on to do what it takes to maximize its potential? Even if that just means staying out of the way.
Get the thought in your head, and you will find beauty of commercial origin everywhere.
The Apple Watch isn't a tech miracle. It requires a phone to work, creating an Occam's-razor moment for the consumer: Do I need another device if I still have to carry my phone around with me everywhere? Samsung has overcome this by offering a smartwatch that doesn't need a phone.
The Apple Watch's functionality isn't market-beating. It's a basic fitness tracker that can count steps, measure the heart rate and prompt the wearer to be more active. The device can handle messaging the way its competitors do. The Siri voice assistant makes an expected appearance. Though Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook seemed enthusiastic about the watch's useful features, they are too boring to discuss -- particularly in comparison to the Apple Watch's beauty as an object.
Oh, that's what it is. I guess we would have called it hard rock, in my days. The 20-year-old sun of a friend of mine has been to a "metal" concert recently, and I want to be sure I know what he is talking about. Not much different from rock as I knew it during the 1970s, "metal" seems to be perhaps more versatile, more eager to interpret different musical styles from classic music to German folklore or soft rock classics such as "Popcorn", though even such diversification was not uncommon in my youth.
Art is costly, art is scarce -- what capitalism does it drives down costs and it helps reduce and better manage scarcity.
As a result, under capitalism we are being inundated with art, with beauty or at least with enormous arsenals of objects and impressions in which to look for and find - based on personal standards - high aesthetic quality in plentiful supply.
The greatest contemporary source of art is the free market and the increased wealth derived from it that gives ordinary human beings hugely enhanced options to beautify their environment both by their private activities as well as in their professional capacities. Only, we tend not to notice this wonderful source of art.
The artful has become a normal ingredient in serving the masses of consumers; art is used to advertise other goods, and it is an auxiliary service or benefit built into commercial products, rendering obsolete the need to make art itself the object of advertisement.
Freedom has largely destroyed a world where art could be enjoyed and produced only by small, privileged elites.
However, the modern art establishment endeavours to perpetuate the bygone air of exclusivity. Modern "shock art", as characterised in the video, seems to me to be involved in a losing rearguard battle intended to defend the exclusivity of art in a world that produces beauty en masse, being driven in this commendable tendency by the rewards from supplying the broad population with products of integral or incidental artistic value.
Freedom democratised the ability to produce beauty -- just compare what the average house owner/occupier today is able to accomplish to make his dwellings more beautiful compared to a hundred, or two hundred years ago.
Modern cities are treasures of beauty. To me, at least, a clean and neat town is a piece of aesthetic delight; how much more dirty and grotty than today were towns only 30 or 40 years ago.
I agree with most of what the gentleman in the below short video has to say, though I am not sure I am entirely clear as to what objective standards of beauty may consist of. He does not mention one of them.
While I do not have a theory what beauty is, I know that I am surrounded by it more than ever - thanks to freedom.