Posts tagged with art

waterpaperink:

Misty Mountains
An old painting I found while doing some spring cleaning

waterpaperink:

Misty Mountains

An old painting I found while doing some spring cleaning


hi-res







yes trees opening up like a scream yes the wolves moving their bodies before their own shadows yes claws falling in love with the air yes smoke always moving in the direction opposite of our bodies yes down yes a tearing in the ground yes a dream of a throne of birds yes throwing our bones upward saying yes that is my shape yes that is my dream yes stepping out of the fire with a mouth full of snow yes angels building houses in the screams yes a goodness yes oh my god yes my spine yes i think my spine is more of a spine and less of a shiver yes less of a fire more of a flowering yes less of a knife more of a knife yes raising a body like a sharp deliberate thing yes towards the sky yes delighting in whatever falls from it like a rain yes like a fire yes like a frost yes whatever falls it will not be me yes it will not be the trees yes it will not be the fur yes it will not be you yes i am more of an opening more of a deliberate thing
aheartlikea-socket, via tiny ghost hands 

(Source: Flickr / joshuamellin)




Moises Mahiques

hi-res










utopian01:

Sine 02b.




Old Man and Nurse by Wilfrid Wood
via sfmoma

hi-res




andrewmaclean says the “Spotify Model”—which we could also call the "newspaper model"—where "consumers" get something they want for free, but are really the product which media outlets are selling to advertisers—is “inevitable”.

image

Why would this be a more logical way for the world to run than just paying for movies, music, television, journalism, comics, and T-shirts? I’m going to spitball together a slapdash explanation and ask if you can improve on it. Here’s my model:

  1. Three car dealerships each have a big marketing budget. (Why? See 4.)
  2. The only newspaper in town, by charging $2/paper, was accessing 10% of the town—that’s the demand level to just buy the paper.
  3. 999/1000 newspaper readers are not interested in buying a car. But the 1/1000 who has been thinking about buying one, hasn’t decided which dealership to go to.
  4. Each car dealership stands to gain $20,000 from making the sale—and furthermore they’re in competition with each other. If the car-purchaser can be swayed to my dealership instead of yours, once they walk on the lot we have a 90% chance of selling them a car that day.
  5. So it’s worth spending quite a lot of money on ads to win that selling opportunity. At some level the monetary value of influencing 1-in-1000 customers to be more likely to walk onto my lot instead of yours, outweighs the revenue the newspaper was making from $2/pop reader payments.
  6. But why not take the money from both sides? Surely it’s better to have two revenue streams (advertisers + readers) than one? But not if by selling the newspaper for $0 or negative, you can double, triple, dectuple the circulation. If you can stuff the ads down people’s throats by slashing the price or equivalently finding people and putting it in their hands, then you can double, triple, dectuple the advertising revenue (so long as the car dealerships are willing to keep paying for more exposure, even if it’s crappier exposure).
  7. So in this story it all comes down to the fact that people don’t want to pay a lot for newspaper but they will pay a lot for cars. So much more, in fact, that subscription revenue is dwarfed by even 0.1% of the value of influencing the big-ticket purchase decision.
  8. In other words it’s because the demand for big-ticket items is not just one or two orders of magnitude higher than the demand for comics, movies, television episodes, songs, albums, and so on. It’s many orders of magnitude higher. Enough more orders of magnitude to that demand that it more than makes up for the low fraction of interested buyers and the fact that your ad can only influence the customer, not control them.

That’s my half-baked story. Care to critique or improve on it?




What’s wrong with originality? on PennSound

Poet Tan Lin in an ambient conversation with Charles Bernstein about lies, originality, boredom, appropriation, ….

(Source: rey.sc)