How Many Topics Can I Reasonably Cram Into One Blog Post?

After publishing my last post, I realized there was one more thing I wanted to write on the topic of politics. A while ago I read a book called "The War of Art" by Steven Pressfield. It's a good book, primarily about the struggle to be artistically productive. But of all the points made in the book, the one that stuck with me the most was about politics, not art. In a very short chapter called "Resistance and Fundamentalism," Pressfield draws a distinction between the Artist and the Fundamentalist. The essence of it (or at least what I have taken away from it) is that the Artist (the Progressive) believes that a better world is always yet to come, and this it is the responsibility of humans to work towards that world, while the Fundamentalist (the Conservative) believes that the best version of the world has already passed, and we have now fallen, and the way forward is really to go back... to that lost world of the past when things were better. It's such a simple, yet powerful, way to see this divide between types of Humans. I think about it all the time. The short chapter I'm referring to has a lot more to say... in only 3.5 pages. You can read it for free HERE... you'll find the chapter starting on page 45.

______________________________________________

I have lost a few friends over the years, not to death, but to something a little harder to figure out. These (former) friends I'm referring to have been primarily male. For the most part, these people have just stopped talking to me... dropped me, so to speak... and in the absence of any explanation, that has been confusing. But one or two people over the years have taken the time to "break up with me," or to explain the problem. Although the explanations were muddled, they expressed in one way or another the sentiment that I am not a "good friend." Which is to say, I don't know how to 'do' friendship correctly. I’m going out on a little bit of a limb here, but I speculate that the ones who just went quiet may have had similar complaints to the few who actually explained themselves to me. I’ve also gotten in trouble with my family from time to time for similar reasons; for not being attentive or not communicating as much as I should.

The thing is, I just don’t really need very much in the way of the normal aspects of friendship, like seeing people regularly, keeping up with friendly emails and stuff like that… the kinds of things that I think are called “friendship maintenance.“ In my mind, I'm still on the same good terms with friends, even if I don't talk to them for a year. And so because I don’t really need those things so much, I get a little confused by people who do. And more specifically, I get confused by people who need those things from me. I’m old enough now, and smart enough, to realize that many people do need these things… so sometimes I try to play along and be 'normal'. But I’m not very good at it. 

I guess another thing that stuck in my head, and which pertains to this topic, is something I read a long time ago which made the following simplified argument: People can put their energy towards their work, their family, or their friends. Generally speaking, or so the argument goes, people can only really put energy towards two out of those three. The third invariably suffers. For me, the passage of years has shown clearly that work and family are where I put my attention. And that feels normal to me. 

I am not autistic, but there are times when I hear or read descriptions of the social impairment that most autistics experience, and it feels very familiar. From what I have read, the language of emotion and interpersonal connection feels like a foreign one to them… one that they simply cannot understand. And there are times, admittedly in a very superficial kind of way, that I experience the same thing. 

In closing, to those of you for whom I could not provide the kind of friendship that you needed, sorry. And good for you for realizing it, and moving on. And to those of you who stick with me, thanks! It's nice to know you!

______________________________________________

I have a personal theory about the metric system versus the imperial (inch) system. I cannot help but see in these two systems the vestiges of what I believe were the disparate political cultures under which these two systems of measurement arose. The imperial system, originated in Britain, is arcane, difficult to memorize, and… when you get into some of the deeper and more esoteric corners of it… bordering on the nonsensical. The divisions of the inch, into 16ths, 32nds, and 64ths, are fundamentally ridiculous. The imperial system for measuring thicknesses of metal sheets is particularly stupid. My theory is that these systems were originally devised, perhaps in an unconscious way, with the intention (or at least the corollary benefit) of stratifying society into those who could understand the system, and those who could not. The metric system, on the other hand, could not be more straightforward. Because it is a base-10 system, it is extremely easy to understand. Not only does pretty much everybody in the world except the United States use the metric system… but so do the American military and NASA and a variety of US-based manufacturing concerns. My theory goes on, then, to postulate that this system arose partly out of a desire to have a common approach that everybody could understand… across all levels of society. I primarily use the Imperial system, because I live here in the US and all my tools are calibrated in inches, but after having lived in Europe for a bit, I can say that I prefer using the metric system.

(I find it funny that, when you get into the precision measurements required for machining, the inch is divided into 1000ths... or a base-10 system, a practical nod to the inherent sensibility of that approach. AND... the inch is internationally DEFINED as 2.54 centimeters!)

______________________________________________

I am excited to report that I recently got a private commission to build a sculpture for a gentleman that I know here in Taos. For the last year or so, as the pandemic ate away at the core of Christina‘s and my business model, I have been nursing along two cherished sculpture ideas. As I mentioned in my last post, I proposed one of those ideas for Burning Man this year... and I’m not prepared to talk about that one just yet… because I’m superstitious that way! But the other one that I’ve wanted to build, which is a standing female robot character which pays homage in some ways to the big red robot which now stands at Meow Wolf, and also to the sitting Buddha figure of With Open Arms, but which is an evolution from both of those, it’s something that I will now get to build. I have to say, I’m very excited! 

One really fun result of this commission is that I have finally been able to purchase a tool that I’ve wanted for a long time… well, at least since I used one back at BBK in Berlin. The tool is called a plate bending roll. I built basically the entire body of With Open Arms with a really incredible plate bending roll in Berlin, and I’ve just purchased a similar one, although much smaller, to build this new figure. I’m really excited about it! 

Here I am standing next to the roller I used in Berlin. It really was my favorite tool at BBK.

And here's a low-res photo of the one that I just bought. I have just noticed that the cabinetry at the left end of each machine is almost identical, and I'm wondering if there is some crossover between the European company (Metallkraft) and the American one (Americor). A google search showed nothing conclusive.

______________________________________________

It occurred to me the other day that if I were to pick out the most memorable of my machines and sculptures, and arrange them chronologically, it would be a linear progression not only in time but also along the axis which starts at machine and ends at human, and also along the access which begins at male and ends at female. 

The private commission I'm about to start building will sit very nicely at the right end of this continuum. Being able to see this progression in my head, and chart it, has actually already given me a general idea for yet another sculpture which could come after these that I am building now. Again… Exciting!

______________________________________________

I have been re-visiting my love for the late fashion designer, Alexander McQueen. One aspect I'm looking at with fresh eyes right now is: why do I like him so much?

Way back in my blog post of November 11, 2020, I stated that I had arrived at a theory which explained and tied together various elements of my psychological landscape. Amusingly, even though I'd written about the discovery as kind of a "teaser," no one asked for elaboration. This just goes to show that either A) no one reads my blog, B) people do read it but don't care about the theory, or C) people were desperately curious for elaboration but somehow knew that, had they asked, I would have politely declined to answer... about which they would have been correct! 

Anyway, the theory - which was new at the time - is now a firm part of my self-concept. And, it does shed light on my appreciation for McQueen. 

But perhaps this blog post is now sufficiently long, and has bounced randomly between topics enough, that I don't now need to go into McQueen. Let it suffice to say that I consider him an artist of the first magnitude, the highest level, and that, although I would never presume to put myself on the same level as a genius like mcQueen, I see a lot of commonalities between McQueen and myself - psychologically and artistically. 

Maybe I'll write about him again soon.

If you made it this far, well... thanks for reading.

Love to all of you,

Christian