art from the heartattack

>> So there I was at the refreshments table, the servers agonizingly checking everyone's driver's licenses to make sure of their age.

With no wine and feeling under dressed for the "Fancy Dress" description on the invitation, I stepped into to the 25th Annual Art From the Heart, Sonoma State's yearly Valentine's Day fundraiser for the on-campus art gallery.

But I was somehow still far too formal, clad in my casual wrap dress. More often than not those shuffling past me, clutching their bidding numbers, golf pencils and wine glasses, were dressed in jeans and t-shirts.

The half-hearted casual dress simply didn't match what had been promoted as an elegant, sophisticated event. It seemed like too much effort to leave the warm art gallery and go back to the outdoor tent for food and refreshments. It was cold out there, and the sound of rain on the thin roof of the white tent was as steady as a heartbeat.

I decided going back out there for delicate finger food was definitely not worth the effort, opting for another lap of the gallery instead. There were approximately 135 pieces of artwork, most of them small, most of them Valentine's Day themed.

But because the annual show is entirely composed of donated pieces, the final plethora of paintings ended up spanning a wide range of sizes, themes, color, mediums, and price values.

Though many artists offered pieces that were connected, or at least marginally relevant to the Valentine's Day auction date, many were not.

The unfortunate result of having the collection completely donated is that there is little apparent cohesion to the show. The general lack of focus dulled the benefit's potential impact. A toy shark mummified in gauze and O+ blood, an updated Mona Lisa painting featuring a movable arm and hidden heart and a lipstick-applying zombie biker chick (complete with heart tattoo) are all vaguely Valentine's Day related, but they don't go together and they certainly don't complement each other.

The University Art Gallery does make a point to request smaller art pieces, because they are more affordably priced and sell more readily at the silent auction. However, even that specification brought limited uniformity to the gallery display, as many artists choose to donate larger pieces anyway. Following the close of auctions on Feb 14., many of the larger, more expensive pieces of artwork remain unsold.

Elsewhere, a pair of ceramics that strongly resembled shot glasses were titled "Global Warming Cups." They were intricately formed and beautifully glazed, but there was no apparent connection to the rest of the show. The same confusion crossed my mind as I stood in front of a dark, acrylic painting of a cityscape at night.

In many ways, Art From the Heart seems to be teetering on the brink of a professional gallery opening, on the verge of making the step up from a casual, community-sponsored event. A crisp jazz quartet offered sophisticated ambient music through unworthy speakers that cut out abrasively and repeatedly.

Several well-executed acrylic and oil paintings were juxtaposed awkwardly next to abstract pieces of significantly lesser quality. And we, the guests, looked awkward all together in our jumbled costume selections. I spotted all sorts of interesting choices, a floor-length velvet dress, a top hat, Converse high tops, a fleece vest and a pair of painful looking four-inch platform stilettos.

After 25 years, a significant and impressive running history for a cultural event at our relatively young university, the annual Art From the Heart benefit seems ready to make the jump away from its sideshow beginnings and onto the main stage.

What started out as a local fundraiser open to any artist, professional or amateur, who wanted to donate, has already taken great strides towards professionalism.

Donations are now by invitation only, and several big, local names are included in the gallery black book, including Chester Arnold, Cynthia Hipkiss and Jack Stuppin.

As the gallery itself has aged and matured, it has built relationships with an ever-increasing roll call of artists who have showcased artwork there, and each year, new participants have been invited to join the Art From the Heart ranks.

While Art From the Heart might be a year or two away from achieving its full potential as a Sonoma County high-society, cultural event, it is a gathering with lots of heart and a wealth of community support.

"Every year it's a packed house in here," said curator Carla Stone, now onto her eleventh year of organizing this annual event. "People schedule their Valentine's plans around it."

Reprinted from The Sonoma State Star.

the good, the bad and the ugly

>> Are the Oscars turning into a mockery of themselves? Class seemed to be in short supply at the 81st Annual Academy Awards, an event I've always considered the height of Hollywood glamour. Phillip Seymour Hoffman spent the entire evening in a knit skullcap and Disney channel stars were everywhere.

The Good: Lots of love for Slumdog Millionaire and Milk, Anne Hathaway looking elegant and classic in Armani Prive, Meryl Streep's earth colored gown (her daughter's simple, brown dress was my favorite of the night), the Swarovski crystal curtain, Kate Winslet's acceptance speech and Nicole Kidman finally making an appearance towards the end of the night, looking ethereal in her white feathery gown.

Robin Wright Penn's low backed black gown was completely underrated. In my opinion, she and Sean stole the show, looking elegant, classic and a little pre-Milk brooding.

The Bad: Angelina Jolie's pretty, but boring black dress, the little waist belts everyone cinched around their Glinda the Good Witch style dresses, Jessica Biel's oddball Prada dress that wasn't quite salvaged by her flawless makeup and gorgeously messy updo and Penelope Cruz's overrated vintage Balmain gown.

Marion Cottillard's gown was nice, but a little too 80's and a disapointment after her beautiful Galliano mermaid gown last year.

Hugh Jackman's opening number was just uncomfortable. The Oscar's are an escape and the heavy-handed recession reminders and gimmicks got old quickly.

And why was Zac Efron a presenter?

The Ugly: Phillip Seymour Hoffman's knit skullcap, the missing Dark Knight cast, no "Oscar Winning Moment" film clips, the stage design, Miley Cyrus and Vanessa Hudgens in dresses years too old for them, Beyonce monopolizing the music performances again, and asymmetrical neck and skirt lines.

I was disappointed that M.I.A. was missing from the performance of "O Saya." The "Original Song" performances are usually my favorite part of the awards, but this year the medley performance still felt awkward. John Legend and A.R. Rahman just ended up clashing stylistically.

I almost liked SJP's haute couture Dior, but the neckline just wasn't age appropriate anymore and the make-up and hair weren't doing her any favors. Plus, Matthew Broderick looked as if his soul had been drained, which breaks my heart. I like to think of him as ageless, eternally as handsome and idealistic as he was in Glory.

* * *

It would have been nice to see more classic, fashion-forward film stars on the red carpet. Natalie Portman was there at least, as were Kate Winslet and Marissa Tomei (both as nominees) but I was hoping for at least a little Keira Knightley, with the Duchess up for a few technical awards. Perhaps she, Maggie Gyllenhall, Kirsten Dunst, Renee Zellewegger and Catherine Zeta-Jones already know what I am now realizing. The Academy Awards aren't half as beautiful and classic as they used to be and, frankly, they're worth missing.

both sides now

belt buckle heels

>> Absolutely adore my new shoes. Its ridiculously cold here though, so even though they're as comfortable as walking on air, I can't wear them anywhere yet. Cannot wait for summer to come. For now, I'm settling for wearing them underneath my desk while I'm writing at my computer...

urban outfitters effect

Marie Ek
Photographer

>> I suppose you could call it the Urban Outfitters effect. Lots of amateur photographers slapping a Poloroid/ Super 8 effect on poorly framed, out-of-focus and generally poor snapshots and calling them art. The result is Flickr photostream after Flickr photostream of wannabe UO catalog photos (I will refrain from one of my favorite rants- the one I launch into everytime an UO catalog appears in my mailbox and all the photographs are too blown out to actually make out any of the clothing), and it gets old very quickly. So I guess that's why I'm not as excited as so many other photo-blogger fanatics about Marie Ek's photos. They are the perfect case in point. They aren't bad. They just aren't... innovative.

Though I have to admit, I really really like the little fox.

better bedrooms

"I've got so much space now/ I've got a whole house/ With the wind blowing through."
- Wild Hope, Mandy Moore

>> I'm really attracted to stark, simple spaces at the moment. I like white, undecorated walls. I'm trying to keep my own little place very minimalist right now, although, as a college student, I've got stacks of books everywhere.

chenchow little architects

Freshwater House
Surry Hills, Australia

>> Anthony Chenchow's designs look strikingly industrial while still managing to blend seamlessly with nature. I really like how convertible many of the rooms are; just roll back the steel blinds into a any of multitude of configurations, opening the rooms to the sky. All glass walls and indoor gardens further blur the line between indoors and outdoors. The photography on the site is equally nice, emphasizing Chenchow's predilection for natural light and unconventional shapes.

Check out his official site here.

obsession du jour: chloe fall 2008

cultural resolution: san francisco botanical garden

>> We spent a peaceful, balmy Saturday afternoon exploring San Francisco's Botanical Garden. The grounds are enormous, beautiful, and, best of all, free. With the cherry trees, magnolias and camellias just blooming, the garden is beginning to erupt into a rainbow of spring colors.

The grounds include a Japanese garden complete with koi pond and mini-pagodas, a maze of Eastern-Australia trees and shrubs, a boardwalk through a forest of rare, prehistoric-looking plants (all implanted with GPS chips should you consider taking one for your at-home landscaping) and dinosaur shaped shrubbery, and a Fragrance Garden filled with all imaginable sages, heathers, and herbs.

Particularly loved the earthy-smelling Mexican Sage and elegantly gnarled Monterey Pines.

How to Get Facebook Stalked

>> Just a few years ago, celebrity status was reserved for the select, beautiful people who made their ways into the pages of “US Weekly” and “People”. But thanks to the advent of websites like "Stalkbook" and "MyStalk," celebrity is now within your reach. Now that you’ve got the means of broadcasting all your personal opinions, likes and dislikes and the details of your daily existence, here are some tips on how to connect with the people who care, because let’s be honest, if someone isn’t stalking you, there must be something wrong with you:

1. Keep Your Status Updates… well, Up-to-Date: How is anyone ever supposed to keep track of you if you're only updating your status once a day, or even every other day? Especially now that you can update your status with a simple text message, there really isn’t any reason your status shouldn’t be a minute-to-minute reflection of where you are at any given time. And please remember to be specific. “Jane Smith is bowling” just doesn’t tell who you are with or which bowling alley you picked. A better status update would be “Jane Smith is at Double Decker with John, Jim and Julie and just bowled a strike!” and update as appropriate.

2. Lots of Picture: A picture is worth a thousand words and this has never been more true than on Facebook, because let’s be honest, a good profile picture can make or break your page. Don’t be afraid to use the angles to get that perfect shot; your pictures are your first impression and first impressions are everything. Tag all photos of yourself so Facebook friends don’t have to sort through untagged albums to see your beautiful face and, of course, be sure to untag all remotely unflattering photos. You just don’t want that awkward photo of you drunkenly falling down the stairs last weekend floating around where one of your fans might find it.

3. 10, 12, 16, 25 Random Facts: There are several versions of this list of personal trivia making the rounds on Facebook. A real Facebook stalker wants to know all your idiosyncrasies, so don’t just do one, do all of them! And for goodness sakes, don’t let your friends ignore you meticulously compiled lists… Tag!!

4. Your Virtual Entourage: The more Facebook friends you have, the more potential stalkers you have, so get that friend count number as high as you can. Add anyone you know, even if you only met once at a party three months ago or never spoke in high school. Keep an eye on the “People You May Know” sidebar. Join all applicable Facebook groups and networks: both are great places to connect with more people who might be interested in even the most mundane details of your daily life. Everyone is a potential Facebook stalker.

5. You, You, You: You profile should be a compendium of the personal information that is relevant to you. Maybe you have your Top 10 favorite movies and your screen name, but that’s just not enough. Your true fans are going to want to know which politicians and National Parks you are a fan of, your favorite childhood books, the TV shows that you watch when you’re sick, the quotes that define you life experience and, obviously, your email, phone number and home address.

Because why else do we put all that personal information up for display on the Internet? We agonize over our profiles, but for who? We write and labor over them in hopes of showcasing who we really are, all without ever being sure anyone actually reads it. We’ve achieved the venue to market ourselves, without having achieved the fame to warrant it. We publish without an audience. And why do we do it? Because deep down, everybody wants to be stalked, because somehow, that would validate our existence just a little bit more.

Reprinted from The Sonoma State Star.

Friedman Wrestles With Uncertain Future

>>For an America currently transfixed by a conflict with jihadists, global warming and a crumbling economy and global warming it seems outlandish to imagine another cold war with Russia, the development of space based energy sources and the dawn of another American “Golden Age,” all within the next 100 years.

But to author George Friedman, these are more than mere possibilities; they are the likeliest next big events in history.

In “The Next 100 Years,” the latest offering from the author of “America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between the United States and Its Enemies” and “The Future of War: Power, Technology and American World Dominance in the 21st Century,” science fiction and history collide as Friedman attempts the impossible task of forecasting world events for the 21st century.

Friedman is the founder and chief intelligence office of Strategic Forecasting, Inc (Sratfor), a private intelligence agency who counts several foreign governments and Fortune 500 companies among its clients.

This gives him an unusual insider perspective on world affairs and means he is uniquely positioned to imagine what the 21st century might look like.

Though he is a self-declared “conservative Republican,” “The Next 100 Years” is not a partisan book. Friedman focuses on politics on a global scale, and doesn’t waste any time on the relatively minor Democrat vs. Republican debate.

Friedman explains his process for geopolitical prediction by comparing world leaders to chess opponents. “On the surface, it appears that each player has twenty potential opening moves. In fact there are any fewer because most of these moves are so bad that they quickly lead to defeat. The better you are at chess, the more clearly you see your options,” he writes.

He argues that geopolitics focus very little on individual leaders and that these politicians are constrained by reality; they are limited executing the next logical and necessary step in foreign affairs.

Thus, Friedman arrives at his predictions by breaking geopolitics down to their fundamentals and conducting a process of elimination.

He defends his often outrageous claims by noting that world affairs are never static and that no one at the beginning of the 20th century could have anticipated the surprising turns of events that defined the century.

He outlines the process of geopolitical prediction that guided him to each particular conclusion so carefully that the future he imagines often seems very possible.

“The Next 100 Years” is a crash course in the economic, political, sociological, technological and geographic history relevant to current world affairs and the upcoming century.

Though Friedman is the first to admit that it almost inevitable that his predictions will be wrong, his book offers a very accessible explanation for the processes of geopolitics.

Friedman’s maintains a very conversational tone, his dry, subversive sense of humor makes frequent appearances throughout his book, and the fast pace stalls only briefly in chapter eight, when Friedman’s engaging style dissolves into a textbook-esque list of countries, capitals and acronyms.

The chapter sets the hypothetical stage for the rise of a new set of global powers for the 21st century, and the information is certainly interesting, but it is stylistically inconsistent as Friedman’s causal style chokes on the complicated ideas, making it the book’s obvious weak point.

Early on, Friedman contends that America is on the rise and challenges any fears about America’s decline. He argues America has always had a tendency for doom, gloom and nostalgia.

With “The Next 100 Years,” he contends that the 21st century will be characterized by regional powers forming coalitions to balance America’s overwhelming political power and America’s efforts to disrupt these attempts.

But while Friedman regards the 21st century as “The American Age,” he avoids venerating the nation. “The Next 100 Years” includes several harshly honest observations about American foreign policy.

In chapter eleven, Friedman is at his most imaginative; he describes the way a hypothetical World War III might play out on the global stage.

Friedman’s speculation about military technology, including armored infantrymen (“a single soldier, encased in a powered suit that is able to lift substantial amounts of weight and protect the soldier from harm”) and “Battle Stars” (space-based command centers orbiting over potential target regions) seems to borrow heavily from pop culture.

Though his predictions here are the most unlikely, the chapter makes for a fascinating and chilling read as Friedman blurs the line between fiction and non-fiction.

Yet even if the predictions in “The Next 100 Years” read more like a new genre of science fiction rather than a political manifesto for the 21st century, there is no doubt that Friedman is at least offering a comprehensive, modern meditation on the way world politics work.

The impossibility of foreseeing the unforeseeable means that ultimately Friedman’s predictions are long shots, but one does get the sense that Friedman’s guess is better than most.

Reprinted from The Sonoma State Star.