Mo Money, Mo Problems

This post is just a way for me to keep track of the tech stuff I want to buy in the next few months. Why? Because I like making lists. Duh.

1. Purchased! Video Card -- I love my desktop computer. It's certainly not the best PC in the world, but it was inexpensive and it's been flawless for over two years. The only bummer is its graphics card. So my next purchase will be to upgrade that. I'm guessing it'll be between $150 and $200, including a new power supply since mine currently sucks (300w, need 400 for better video cards).

Edit - May 17th, 2010: Ordered this tonight. Didn't even need a new power supply! Go figure. Only spent around $157.

2. Purchased! 23" Monitor -- My current monitor is starting to crap out on me. It's also not nearly as big as I'd like. I think I'll upgrade to the monitor I use at work, because I'm in love with it. I presume I'll be spending around $150.

Edit - May 17th, 2010: I ended up ordering a 25" off Newegg. Well, technically Rob ordered it -- for my birthday present this year. It was around $230, which was more than I would've spent. He spoils me. :)

2. Acquired! Printer -- I've been using the HP freebie printer that came with my desktop, and it's terrible. Time to upgrade to something legit. Probably around $200.

Edit - Earlier This Month: Rob snagged a free printer from a friend and gave it to me, since mine was crapping out. It's not the greatest, but it's filling the void until I one day get a really nice one.

4. PURCHASED! Tokina 12-24mm f/4 -- My addiction to buying camera lenses is in full-force. This is probably the cheapest wide-angle that can produce the results I want. New it's around $400, but I could probably get a used one for about $350.

Edit - March 7th, 2010: During my daily perusal of Craigslist, I came across a listing for a Nikon lens. On further inspection, I found it was the exact lens I wanted. I e-mailed the seller and made a deal. I just got back from Wayne, where we made the transaction. The drive was a bit far, but he took $15 off the price to make up for my commute. I managed to get the lens for $310, and it's pretty much flawless. I saved about $100 bucks. There are some rarities that sell on ebay for $350, but the majority of them sell for close to $400, plus shipping. So... win! I can't wait to take some awesome outdoor shots with it. The test shots I did in my kitchen make it look huge.

5. Laptop PC -- Like I said, I love my desktop, but I need more mobility now that my old laptop has been hijacked by my sister. I want to be able to work and travel simultaneously, so a laptop is essential. I'm currently leaning towards a Dell XPS 16, but we'll see. I'll be putting a considerable chunk of money towards a powerful machine, probably in the neighborhood of $1,300. And no, I don't want a Mac. To each their own :)

Art: Get Real

I've listened to enough "What is Art?" debates to know not to delve into that topic too far. It's difficult to define without insulting somebody. If someone asks for my opinion on the topic, I usually say art is a "creative expression". Seems all-encompassing enough.

I do have a hard time accepting anything and everything as "art", though. I love art history. I love old, old art. It's not always the most exciting or interesting, but I dig it. To create such stunning, realistic work in rather difficult settings makes it hard for me to enjoy a lot of the post-modern art (for example). I appreciate it for what it is, but it'll never be my thing.

The most impressive works to me have always been in the realm of Realism, Hyperrealism, Photorealism... whatever you'd like to call it. The amount of detail and precision to create these paintings/sculptures is mind-boggling.

Chuck Close has always been one of my favorite realists, and artists in general. He created enormous, photo-realist paintings until he suffered a massive spinal artery collapse, leaving him paralyzed. Despite his injury, he continues painting his huge portraits, though his style has changed to accommodate for his limitations in mobility. Instead of the intricate, photo-real details, he paints in colored orbs which from afar, create equally impressive portraits.

Recently, my love for realism expanded into the 3-D realm with hyperreal sculpture. There's something eerie about most of the works I've seen. Sam Jinks was the first I noticed, and his sculptures are downright creepy. He makes them out of silicon, paint, and real human hair.

Another well-known, realist sculptor is Duane Hanson. His pieces were made from fiberglass casts of real people. When he first started casting in 1966, his subject matter tackled violent situations. He had a piece about a back-room abortion procedure, a drug addict, a motorcycling accident victim, Vietnam and a race riot.

Hanson's later works abandoned these outwardly politically-charged, graphic themes and stuck to the subtle atrocities that encompass ordinary American life -- tourism, shopping, eating and lounging. His fat, unattractive sculptures make a pretty obvious social commentary on Americana.

Ron Mueck began his career making puppets and photo-realistic props for television and films. His work appeared in Labyrinth and Jim Henson's The Storyteller, along with various advertisements.

Mueck transitioned his work into fine art, creating hyper-real, silicon sculptures. Mueck's work presents people, often looked tired, sickly or grotesque. One of his more haunting pieces, Dead Dad, is about two-thirds the natural human scale and uses Mueck's own hair. Rather self-explanatory, the piece presents his father: small, dead and nude. In a gallery setting, viewers literally must step around the silicon corpse.

For Mueck, and all the other realist sculptors, space and presentation play an obvious role in how the work is presented. Unlike two-dimensional art, the sculpture forces the viewer to interact in some way. And when the work is mimicking life so closely, it plays with our subconscious.

I often relate hyper-real sculpture to a bit of information I picked up in my Psychology class at Rutgers, but in reference to realistic, computer-generated humans. There's something eerie and unnerving about the characters in The Polar Express (for example) -- they are very close to real, but not quite. Something about the human psyche is turned off by these not-quite-real people.

The sculptors I've mentioned obviously have tackled our aversions to the almost-real by using it to their advantage. None of these works are particularly "pretty" -- they're violent, disturbing, weird. Even the most subdued works, such as Hanson's comical take on American life, remain unnerving. When a work of art is able to tap into your emotions, I consider it to be very successful. These sculptures definitely move me more than any Pollock ever has.

Fear

Throughout my life, I've only had three major fears. When I was little, I was scared of bugs/spiders. As I grew up, I learned more about them and realized it was an irrational fear.

I developed a fear of the ocean for a few years, after nearly drowning when I was in middle school. It wasn't an intense phobia or anything like that. I could still go to the beach and even go in the water. I just couldn't go in too far, and I definitely couldn't put my head under water.

It took until the summer of 2006 for me to really get over my fear. I went to the beach with Marianne and Kristi, on the hottest day of that year. It was so unbearable, I pretty much forced myself into the water. I'm still not much of an ocean-lover, because it's usually too cold or grimy, but I'm happy to get that fear out of the way.

I suppose the most rational of my fears would be one most people share: the fear of death. And I don't mean dead things (like in the picture), or the fear of going to "hell". Ever since I was little, I was terrified of my family, friends, pets, or even myself, dying.

The fear intensified as I stopped believing in god. I couldn't handle the concept of no longer existing, for the rest of eternity. I read a lot of books and theories, trying to find peace of mind. I read Spook by Mary Roach, the same woman who wrote my favorite book, Stiff. In it, she tackles the whole after-life question. She investigates different religions, scientific studies, even tries to find a shred of validity in séances. The book left me disappointed, though. Just as I had suspected, there was no answer at the end.

So why am I describing this fear in the past-tense? There is no for sure answer to what happens when we're worm food. But I've found a theory that makes sense to me, and does offer some comfort: The Cyclic Universe.

Here is another good article to help explain this theory. In a nutshell, the theory hypothesizes that the universe goes through an ongoing cycle of expansion and contraction. The cycle starts (though it would never really have a beginning or an end) with the Big Bang, sending out every bit of matter and energy that exists in the universe.

The solar system, stars, planets, everything in existence occurs out of that big explosion. Time proceeds as we understand it. The earth forms, changes, and reaches the point at which we know it today. There is a brief window, during which we are consciously alive (my doodle is clearly not to scale).

After our death, things will continue. At some point, it is certain that the earth will be destroyed. We don't know when, or how, but it will certainly happen. Let's assume the planets in our solar system meet their demise when our sun burns out.

Things will continue on. Matter will continue to exist. Every atom that once made up your body, your home, your country, your world -- it's still there. It's just careening through space. Soon all the other planets will break down, along with the stars. Energy and particles will disperse throughout the universe. Each clump of matter will break down into individual molecules, then into atoms, then into mere sub-atomic particles.

So then what? The theory explains:

Two parallel orbifold planes or M-branes collide periodically in a higher dimensional space. The visible four-dimensional universe lies on one of these branes. The collisions correspond to a reversal from contraction to expansion, or a big crunch followed immediately by a big bang. The matter and radiation we see today were generated during the most recent collision in a pattern dictated by quantum fluctuations created before the branes. Eventually, the universe reached the state we observe today, before beginning to contract again many billions of years in the future. Dark energy corresponds to a force between the branes, and serves the crucial role of solving the monopole, horizon, and flatness problems. Moreover the cycles can continue indefinitely into the past and the future, and the solution is an attractor, so it can provide a complete history of the universe.

- Paul J. Steinhardta and Neil Turokc

Source

So why does this model make sense to me? Well, according to the most basic scientific principles, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So how can we mark a point in time as the beginning? Every tiny sub-atomic particle (electrons, quarks, string theory, etc.) that exists today, has always existed, and will always exist. There is no point of creation, no point of complete demise. Everything will just undergo massive amounts of change.

OK, fine, but what does that mean for me as a human-being? Well, that's up for interpretation. I believe that trillions of years after I die, the universe will undergo another massive contraction/expansion, creating another Big Bang. Because the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity remain the same, the particles that explode out of the Big Bang will do so in the exact same manner, every time.

The solar system, stars, planets... everything will form again. The dinosaurs will come and go. World Wars will rage. In the human year of 1987, I will be born. I will live for however many years. When I die, the neurons in my brain will cease to function, and my consciousness will end.

The trillions of years between this cycle and the next will pass in the blink of an eye, since my brain will no longer function. Your consciousness is a brief window into this ever-repeating cycle.

This theory isn't perfect, but no theory is (hence the term "theory"). In 2012, there will be more evidence available involving the study of "dark matter". It could rip this theory apart, or make it more sold. I guess we'll just wait and see.