The Carcass
Agostino Veneziano (c. 1520)
[quote]
An Italian engraving of the 16th century, The Carcass, or Lo Stregozzo, depicts a cruel hag leading a diabolical procession atop a bizarre skeletal wagon, towed by nude human figures. In one hand she holds a vessel of flaming fire, evocative of lust; in the other, she seizes a frightened baby by the headâto crush, perhaps, or to consume.
In Exorcising our Demons: Magic, Witchcraft and Visual Culture in Early Modern Europe, historian Charles Zika suggests that Veneziano may have been alluding to the âwild huntâ or âfurious hordeâ of German folklore; a procession of ghostly or supernatural figures who ravaged the countryside, presaging war or plague. Those who chanced upon them might be punished, slain or compelled to join their procession, but those who remained indoors might placate the evil spirits by setting out offerings of food and drink.
Its central figure was traditionally identified with any number of divinities and legendary figures, including Freya, Wodan, Odin, Diana/Artemis, Proserpina/Hecate, and, of course, the Devil. In The Carcass, however, she is more than likely a witch, cribbed from a contemporary engraving by Albrecht DĂźrer, Witch Riding Backwards on a Goat.
âThe wild ride of witches,â writes Zika, âhad become established as a fundamental feature in literary accounts of the witchesâ repertoire of evil by the early sixteenth century. And some early visual images of witchcraftâŚwould also represent witchcraft as a line of women riding on animals.â The Carcass thus exemplifies early modern Europeâs dread of âthe destructive powers of witchcraftâŚlinking it to the powers associated with the dead and fears of female sexuality.â [/quote]
Afternoon Television
Maxwell Hendler (1965)
I assume this is a comment about TV replacing family life.
Mrs. Haystack Scandalizes BC Rocks, in the Cutest Way Possible
Iâve described BC Rocks at the top of this threadâpeople paint rocks and leave them about, and when others find them, they post pictures to the FriendFace group. Sheâs been having a friend post pictures on her behalf, since neither of us use social media. One of these proved controversialâshe found a blue rock and painted an otter onto it, showing flagrant disrespect for the original artistâs vision, or remixing it in a spirit of collaboration, depending upon whom you ask:
So far nobody has thrown any adorably-painted bricks through our window.
Less controversial was her contribution to a local sidewalk chalk event, âOtter Riding a Goat Beneath a Rainbow:â
I just spent a few days with family in Ohio, and the painted rocks thing is a Very Big Deal in small town midwest. My whole family is painting and hiding them, and there was a literal front-page story in the local paper about a prolific rock painter, and another about a local woman notorious for using store-bought stickers (!! horrors!) on her rocks and for adding stickers to other peoplesâ painted rocks. And of course discussion of proper rock etiquette is lighting up Facebook among local residents, Iâm told.
People take this stuff way too seriously. Youâre painting rocks, then hiding them again. Itâs a little thing to make peopleâs days just a little bit brighter. Itâs not worth all this headache and drama⌠and first world drama it is. Someone didnât paint a rock the right way, or painted one that had already been painted? Oh noes!
If it were me, Iâd set up ground rules early:
- Use whatever materials necessary to decorate the rock, so long as the materials do not harm people, animals, or the environment.
- Any designs, themes, or styles are permitted, but please use best judgment.
- Once the rock is out of your possession, it is no longer yours, and is free to be kept, relocated, or modified as the finder sees fit.
And so on.
Then again, I donât live for drama, which I suspect most of these facebook whiners do.
Thatâs what I said when I saw all the local drama. My sister explained that the frustration comes from having to set rules for something so simple and silly because some folks keep doing things that make everyoneâs lives more difficult, and posting them on Facebook. Such as:
⢠âHey everyone! I went to the state park today and scooped up a ton of rocks to paint!â
â community: sigh, no, youâre not supposed to steal rocks from the park in bags. Just find rocks. Itâs easy. OK, new rule. Donât take bags of rocks from state parks.
⢠âHey folks! I hid a bunch of rocks on the shelves at Target. Go find them!â
â community sigh, no, youâre not supposed to put them in stores. Youâre making a mess. OK, new rule, put them outside, cripes, this isnât that hard.
⢠âHey! I found a bunch of rocks near the school that kids painted really crappily, so I repainted them.â
â community: sigh, come on, those are kidsâ rocks. Be cool about this stuff, jeez.
Hmm. Anything that disturbs the environment in one way or another seems like it should be a no-no, and should go without saying. No toxic paints, no removing all the rocks from a place, no scavenging in protected areas, etc. Also, the rocks should come from public and be hidden in public. No stealing from some kidâs rock collection and hiding them in the gun aisle in Walmart, for example. But I guess people need to be told simple things.
The repainting kidsâ rocks is a bit trickier. Iâm on the side that says once the rock is out of your hands itâs no longer yours, but who also thinks âcollaborate, not undoâ is a good etiquette guideline to go by. Adding to a kidâs rock should be accepted without question. Completely painting over a kidâs rock because it wasnât very good and you almost got into art school no really you guys, is also acceptable but is a dick move.
From the little Iâve seen about this trend, it seems the bookface outrage seems to be a little more about people not doing it the ârightâ way rather than people not having common sense. The people who are obsessed with the ârightâ way to do fun frivolous things are all about the drama and are not my kind of people. Still, if thereâs one thing I can count on, itâs people not having common sense, so thereâs a little of that.
Iâm in total agreement, and frankly if someone wants to pick up rocks, paint them, add to them, and re-hide them, itâs fair game. The whole idea is that youâre releasing these things into the wild.
Where people run afoul of the whole idea is posting photos on FB of found rocks (usually painted by kids), then photos of how they âimproved themâ or repainted them entirely. Thatâs a total dick move and would really bum me out if I was a kid.
Eh. Completely repainting someone elseâs work is uncool. Expecting that this rock is some museum piece that will always remain unchanged in the state you left it, is also uncool.
Then again, Iâm a fan of temporary art, and stuff that changes or is ephemeral in nature. If I were to participate in such a project, Iâd understand straight away that art that no longer belongs to me is no longer mine, and whomever has it is free to do whatever they want to it, including completely destroy it. That may be a tough concept for many.
This is also a collaborative art project, so collaboration is to be expected and celebrated.
Another artifact of collaborative art projects is that many of the collaborators donât get it, or are too obsessed with rules and etiquette, or donât care at all about rules and etiquette. Oh well. That caveat is baked into the project.
I have nothing to add about the stupidity of people needing rules about painting and hiding rocks, but that Facebook page is pure joy. I love this project.
Just remember! They are not Easter eggs. You cannot crack them open and eat them.
I call bullshit on this comment - what kid uses the word âcherishâ?
I asked my son how he would feel if someone painted on or added to his rock. He said âI would feel terrible! I donât do art very often so when I do I cherish itâŚitâs mine. You arenât supposed to do that.â
A weird aspie kid like me.
That article seemed big on speculation and low on evidence. The comments are full of counter-examples which temper if not refute the thesis.
As also pointed out in the comments, there is incredible pressure to conform, throughout school but also in many workplaces. This seems like an obvious factor that was completely left out of the article.
Thanks, I found it depressing.
Well, and so the fuck what if it is right? Itâs so general it has no use in the predicting the creativity of a given individual.
What theyâre describing doesnât at all prove adults donât or canât explore and be creative, itâs just that they cut to the simplest and most likely explanations for basic problem-solving.
Letâs have that 4-year old write a symphony and see what happens.