I'm still looking for people with so-called literary tattoos — that is, tattoos not of images but of words, phrases, whole passages from books. Maybe my example the other day was too extreme. Maybe some people say it and said, "Well, I don't have an entire passage from Fight Club on my back, so he's not looking for me."
Au contraire, mon frier. [Ecuiram LeVar appreciates my attempts at injecting fancy foreign words into my blogs but kindly corrects my butchered French. It's au contraire, mon frere] I am looking for you, even if you only have a line of poetry, a Biblical verse, a meaningful expression, or even some punctuation. That's literary as far as I'm concerned. So please get in touch. We need to talk.
You can reach me at stoehr [at] charlestoncitypaper.com or call (843) 577-5304 ext. 109.
Thanks -JS
(the above image is from a story by the Daily Telegraph in London. That's where I first read about images the paper found of "literary tattoos" scattered across the internet.)
On Tuesday, I mused a bit about how scientists have a lot to say about the arts, but artists don't seem to have much to say about science. I still believe that's true, but that's certainly not a categorical statement, as I concede from the beginning. That said, there is a growing field of artists examining the possibilities of what's being called "biotech art" or "bioart." I'm not convinced we know what that actually means yet, but it has to do with this notion of cross-pollination that I talked about. From what I can tell from a quick tour around the internet, this movement is small but based on what I've seen, it's really stunning — and disturbing. A good place to start is a report by Slate that ran this time last year. It's a slideshow of some of these "bioartists." The above image is by Adam Brandej. His website, called Genpets.com, is scathing and captivating parody of biotechnology.
The crew for Lifetime's Army Wives turned a parking lot in Charleston into a set depicting the deserts of Iraq. How'd they do it? Check this out and see.
Already controversy is brewing about Oliver Stone's biopic of George W. Bush. It's called W. and Josh Brolin (left) is the protagonist.
It's scheduled for release just before we go to the polls to vote for the next president. The trailer was leaked over the weekend and has a number of pundits gabbing about just the trailer's impact, let alone the movie itself.
Some say it will hurt McCain's bid for the Oval Office, because his platform is partly a continuation of Bush's policies. But I think Roger Moore, film critic for the Orlando Sentinel, is about right:
There’s a good chance that “nobody’s going to see” a movie about “an unpopular lame duck, any more than they're going to see a movie about the Iraq War,” Moore said in OrlandoSentinel.com’s blog Frankly My Dear. Most “people have tuned the past out, and are watching cable right now because they're all about the future—the election.”
The Daily Telegraph in London put together a collection of "literary tattoos" that its researchers found online. Some of them, like this one, a long passage from Chuck Palahniuk's novel Fight Club, are very impressive — and they suggest a kind of depth of character, a kind of cultural sensibility, that one doesn't normally associate with those who want to adorn their bodies with indelible ink.
Curious, I called a couple of tattoo places in Charleston to see if this were a growing trend. To my surprise, both places said yes, they'd seen more and more people asking for passages from novels, lines from poetry, song lyrics, philosophical axioms, and other sorts of literary heritage.
I want to write a story about this, but I need to talk to people who have literary tattoos.
If you have one, or know of someone who does, please get in touch. You can contact me at stoehr [at] charlestoncitypaper.com or call (843) 577-5304 ext. 109.
Thanks -JS
