it’s that time again. insomnia time.

So, yeah, the insomnia has hit again. Like it does.

 

Although, this time, I was able to catch the ass-end of Julie and Julia (totally one of my favorite movies), and it caused me to remember back in 2009, when I had taken a year off of school to suss out what exactly I was going to be doing with the rest of my life (a rest-of-my-life that lasted about a year and half), I wrote briefly for Handmade News‘s “Just for Fun” department.

 

And, since it’s National Novel Writing Month and I’m really behind on my novel, the insomnia is really insane and Julie and Julia was on, I’d go back and revisit the movie review that I had written of Julie and Julia for Handmade News.

 

‘Cause I’m weird.

 

And a procrastinator.

 

Also? Because, sometimes, reading what you have written before can be a heartening experience when you’re in the midst of a new writing project.

 

I.e., it reminds you that, even if you’re completely sucking right now, you once knew how to write, and possibly, you might remember how to write again.

 

Oh, melodrama. <–Can y'all tell that I grew up reading and watching Anne of Green Gables?

 

 

So, yeah, here it is so that y’all don’t have to over to the actual review (‘though, y’all should check out HMN).

 

Julie and Julia tells the story of young Julie Powell as she cooks her way through the 524 recipes in Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking in 365 days. That much, you figure out from the previews. What the previews aren’t saying is how supremely sweet and touching Julie Powell’s story is because it isn’t just the story of one New Yorker rapidly approaching thirty, but really, the story of all of us that are searching for a way to free ourselves from our own indecision and looking for a dare-to-be-great situation. Julie Powell’s story of empowerment is framed by Julia Child’s story of self-discovery as she learns to cook at Le Cordon Bleu and, eventually, writes Mastering the Art of French Cooking.

 

Although this movie probably qualifies as a “chick-flick,” it’s an oddity in the romantic comedy genre due to everybody already being married, but more than that, a lot of what is fantastic about this movie can be summed up in two words.

 

Food. Porn.

 

Director-writer-producer Nora Ephron deftly intersperses Julie Powells’s histrionics and Julia Child’s escapades with glorious, gratuitous food porn. It’s like Food Network in a movie theatre. That alone would have made this movie worth watching, but what was completely brilliant and supremely touching was the relationship between Paul Child (Stanley Tucci) and Julia Child (Academy Award®-winner Meryl Streep) set in the beautifully scenic Paris of the late 1940s and early 1950s and then in a succession of anonymous, European apartments until, finally, Julia and Paul move into their famous Cambridge Massachusetts house.

 

The portrayal of Paul-—which is largely based upon surviving letters that Paul wrote to his brother Charlie, letters that Julia wrote to her friend Avis, and Julia Child’s autobiography My Life in France—is wonderfully deadpanned and quirky, and Tucci, whose performance as Puck in the 1999 adaptation of A Midsummer Night’s Dream was unforgettable, catches those aspects of Paul exactingly, which is heartbreakingly obvious in Paul’s consideration of Julia throughout the film. Streep’s Julia is full of a madcap silliness that is completely believable if you’ve ever watched “The French Chef,” yet with an under-riding melancholy that infiltrates the film and is used to frame Julie’s own emotional setbacks and disasters with relationships and her job as well as trying to reconcile the Julia in her head and the Julia who lives and breathes in the world.

 

Before there is the misapprehension that this movie nothing but melancholy, there is a wickedly brilliant, sharp wit that pervades Julie and Julia and can be heard in the words and phrases that are nearly lost between Julia and Paul as scenes change and can be seen by incidents like the juxtaposition of the ritual boiling of lobsters for Lobster Thermidor with the Talking Head’s song “Psycho Killer.”

 

Amy Adams (Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian) and Chris Messina (Made of Honor) are fantastic as Julie and Eric, the quintessential functionally dysfunctional contemporary couple stuck in an apartment they don’t really like and in jobs that aren’t as fulfilling as they would want. Adams’ Julie is completely neurotic and brilliantly spastic while Messina’s Eric acts as a way to temper the craziness in much the same way that Tucci’s Paul balances Streep’s Julia, mirroring each other so that, even when Julie learns that Julia doesn’t care for The Julie/Julia Project, there are no hard feelings from the viewer toward Julia Child.

 

Julie and Eric become somewhat of a critique of blogging culture and hipsters for thirty-something couples, but Adams and Messina are so real in their portrayals that it’s hard to think badly of Julie and Eric since it seems that they are trying to find meaning whereas many soon-to-be thirty-somethings aren’t. This critique is set among a cheerily-gloomy New York one year after 9/11: Julie’s cubicle is the soft yellow that screams of some bureaucrat’s idea of “soothing” and “calming” while the street scenes are bare and often concrete in contrast to the wonderful crowded-ness of Julie and Eric’s apartment that is, as we are reminded, “900 square feet”—-and above a pizzeria.

 

Overall, although the film probably won’t be winning too many awards since it doesn’t have Tom Hanks dying of some horrible disease, it is sweet and witty, empowering and charming, and you’ll likely come away with a hearty appetite–both for food and for cooking.

 

Bon appétit!

 

Not precisely the kinda thing that y’all are probably expecting from a studio art blog (although, those of you that have been here for ever and ever and ever probably aren’t surprised by my little forays into writing).

 

Totally understandable since artists are not generally thought of creatures given to work with the written typed word, but words have always been important to me (as if evidenced by a degree in Literature and a job history littered with writing-oriented jobs).

 

It’s also incredibly important to my art, e.g., the unnamed friends series all have L-A-N-G-U-A-G-E poetry not-fairtales that accompany them. Also, Artist Books, for me, is less about the physical book-making (although that is important–form must meet function, after all), but more about the transmission of information, of concept.

 

And, the novels that I write during NaNoWriMo and the scripts that I write during Script Frenzy are where the fairytales, mythologies, narratives, and popular culture references that appear in my work get dumped stored a lot.

 

Think of them as my external hard-drives. <–See, 'Lain, I do have an external storage center for my brain-files!

 

So, odd as it is, story-writing is part of my conceptual process and, therefore, part of my art-making.

 

I'm not certain that I had really verbalized that for myself before.

 

 

Nice to know all of it works together.

 

Courage.

what are your thoughts? CVs and artist resumes and other things

I’ve been working on my CV again (which means, I’ll have to update the blog’s info again *sigh*) for a couple of reasons.

 

The first is that where The Husband teaches is in need of people that can teach art and know about Art History. <–I’ve been helping him flesh out their library with Art History texts as well as guest lecturing for his Humanities classes:  how the 20th century went collectively wacko at once, what caused it, and what it did to the art.  How’s that for a title of a book?

 

Have I mentioned how much I truly and deeply love the 20th century art history textbooks Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism, Vol. 1: 1900-1944 and Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism, Vol. 2:  1945 to the present? It’s set up by year, which I know sounds tedious, but that means that everything that ended up influencing a particular year is accounted for in the previous years as well as the chapter of that year.  It’s as close as one can get to reliving that time period.  Also, totally co-authored/co-edited by Yve-Alain Bois, Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, Hal Foster, and Rosalind Krauss.

 

There’s a weird kinda happy place in my heart.

 

So, yeah, I’m supposed to finish it up and send it off to the school’s head hunter (in a good way).  Who knows, I might end up teaching 2-D design and art classes for the Elementary Education kids.

 

That could be kinda fun.  Alyson would be so proud.

 

The other reason, for those of you that don’t know, is that I have an interview to teach paper-making at one of the local technical colleges on the 15th. <–The short version is that I had talked to Miss Carrie, our Education Director at the ARTgarage, about possibly teaching paper-making in the Spring, and she mentioned it to the site manager/headhunter (again, in a really good way) for this technical college, and he asked if I’d like to interview for an adjunct faculty spot.

 

Evidently, they’ve been trying to get someone “young and fun” to get these classes off the ground finally.  I don’t know if I’m young or fun, but I do have an inordinate amount of fun playing with paper and paper-pulp and making sculptural objects out of it. <–This has directly lead to a sick love of polyurethane.

 

So–yeah–CV, me, and art-job interviews.  Eep with a capital EEP.

 

But, this has all been getting me to think about what we, as artists, and we, as educators, put on our CVs and the order in which we put it on their.

 

When I was a tutor in the Writing Center at NIU and at Kishwaukee College (and, yes, I do realize the irony in my cracktastic, informal blog being written by someone with a Literature degree and ~6 years worth of Writing Center experience), I learned that, sometimes, it’s better to put the relevant experience that’s going to qualify you for the job at the top instead of your education; whereas, in academic CVs, you always put your education first.

 

As artists, it seems like we’d put our education first, but a lot of us have very peculiar educations *raises tentacle* and self-educations *again, raises tentacle*, so our show might be a more appropriate opener.

 

But, if you’re applying for a teaching position, it would again be education because that’s the way the academic world works, right?  And what about published works?  I’m odd and have had my art published as well as a couple academic articles.  Should I separate them or leave them together? <–Again, I’m weird, and I think that they should all be together because they’re coming from similar places in my brain.  Who knows if that makes sense to anyone else on the planet, yeah?

 

I know how I did mine (and it has been Husband, also a Writing Center tutor, approved).

 

What are your thoughts, my lovelies?  How do y’all structure your CVs, resumes, and other job-getting ephemera?

 

Leave comments, musings, and anything else that you’d like.  I’d love to hear your thoughts.

 

Courage.

“It will be fun. I swear.”

After last week’s post, it seems that the consensus is that my theme for my sketchbook for The Fiction Project should be my new little unnamed friends series.  It seems like it’s going to be a bestiary; I’m thinking about calling it The Bestiary of Unnamed Creatures and combine the bestiary aspect of the sketchbook with a Virgil wandering the Underworld travel-log ala Dante’s Inferno.

 

And I have loads of little friends for it too.  I’m up to four completed sketches and three more ideas just kicking around.  Some of the text too.

 

The working text for this little guy is:

“Like Byatt’s “The Thing in the Forest” from The Little Black Book of Stories, these creatures literally move through their environment–slinking, slithering, pulsating, and subdividing.

 

Like cellular mitosis but with pain.  Yet, do we know that there is no pain in cellular mitosis.  Do the mitochondria scream when they are torn asunder?  Do the cilia ache when they remember that they once belonged to another entity?

 

There are worlds upon worlds at the micro-level–how can we know?  Maybe this little creature is but the unrecognized mitochondria of another, larger being?”

 

The other new guy’s working text is:

 

“They are tiny blobs of hot air, dirigibles of dragonfly elegance.  Pretension is their stock and trade.

 

They, ginormous in their iteration, glide through mangrove swamps filled with slinking crocodilians–preying upon the unsuspecting denizens, enveloping them in their yearning, bilious membranes.”

 

They keep multiplying, and they’re starting to become the very flora that creatures are wandering in–an environment that is a sentient as the creatures within it.

 

There seems to be something rather scary going on their.

 

All we need know is an iteration of the brainweasels in there.

NaNoWriMo \o?

So, I have crazily decided to play NaNoWriMo this year. o.O

 

First. Time. Ever. \o/

 

Is anyone else participating? ‘Cause, ya know, I don’t wanna be alone in my crazy.

 

I’m trie_squid over there if ya want a buddy.

 

So far, my idea is kinda non-existent, but seems to want to be a short story novel ala Byatt. I even have names for some of the stories in it:  “Squid in a Jar”, “Cherubim Have Six Wings”, “Quixotism and Curiosity, or I Want to be Anthony Bourdain When I Grow Up”, “Snarktastic”, “Birthday Wishes and Burlesque Elephants”, and “Ruminations”.

 

What they’re about I haven’t the foggiest.

 

…it’s kinda cool though.