Franklin D. Roosevelt Says to Moneyed Interests (EG Bankers) in 1936: “I Welcome Their Hatred!”

In 1936 Franklin D. Roo­sevelt was seek­ing a sec­ond term as pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States. Hav­ing assum­ing the office in the depths of the Great Depres­sion, Roo­sevelt had sta­bi­lized and reformed the bank­ing sys­tem, put mil­lions of unem­ployed peo­ple to work build­ing pub­lic infra­struc­ture, and cre­at­ed Social Secu­ri­ty to bring mil­lions of elder­ly cit­i­zens out of pover­ty.

The reforms, known col­lec­tive­ly as the New Deal, were pop­u­lar with the major­i­ty of cit­i­zens. But by the next pres­i­den­tial elec­tion year the bankers and busi­ness­men were push­ing back hard. Although Roo­sevelt came from a priv­i­leged back­ground, he was despised by many in his social class. Unfazed, Roo­sevelt bold­ly pro­claimed in his famous cam­paign speech of Octo­ber 31, 1936: “I wel­come their hatred!”

With Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma prepar­ing to address the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion tomor­row night it might be an inter­est­ing time to lis­ten to a lit­tle of Roo­sevelt’s speech, which he deliv­ered at Madi­son Square Gar­den in New York City three days before the elec­tion. In the audio clip above he talks about how things were in Amer­i­ca before he took office, and about the forces seek­ing to drag the coun­try back:

For twelve years this nation was afflict­ed with hear-noth­ing, see-noth­ing, do-noth­ing gov­ern­ment. The nation looked to gov­ern­ment but the gov­ern­ment looked away. Nine mock­ing years with the gold­en calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the tick­er and three long years in the bread­lines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! And, my friends, pow­er­ful influ­ences strive today to restore that kind of gov­ern­ment with its doc­trine that that gov­ern­ment is best which is most indif­fer­ent to mankind.

Roo­sevelt defeat­ed his oppo­nent Alf Lan­don, the Repub­li­can gov­er­nor of Kansas, by a his­toric land­slide, tak­ing more than 60 per­cent of the pop­u­lar vote and all but eight of the 531 elec­toral votes. To read the full text of Roo­sevelt’s speech, click here.

Relat­ed con­tent:

‘The Right of the Peo­ple to Rule’: Hear Theodore Roo­sevelt Speak

Danny MacAskill, Biker Extraordinaire, Takes on the Streets of San Francisco


Dan­ny MacAskill spent sev­er­al months rid­ing the streets of Edin­burgh, Scot­land in 2009, demon­strat­ing his unique set of tal­ents on the moun­tain bike. It was all cap­tured in a video called Inspired Bicy­cles. Did you catch it? If so, you’re not alone. The video has clocked more than 31 mil­lion views. Now, Dan­ny is back, this time tak­ing on the mean streets of San Fran­cis­co. It’s all about, as Rem­ing­ton likes to say, pre­ci­sion, pow­er and con­trol. You can find more of Dan­ny’s videos on his web site.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Sci­ence Behind the Bike: Four Videos from the Open Uni­ver­si­ty on the Eve of the Tour de France

Brus­sels Express: The Per­ils of Cycling in Europe’s Most Con­gest­ed City

David Byrne: From Talk­ing Heads Front­man to Lead­ing Urban Cyclist

The Physics of the Bike

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

Chuck Jones’ The Dot and the Line Celebrates Geometry & Hard Work: An Oscar-Winning Animation (1965)

The ani­mat­ed short above, The Dot and the Line, direct­ed by the great Chuck Jones and nar­rat­ed by Eng­lish actor Robert Mor­ley, won an Oscar in 1965 for Best Ani­mat­ed Short Film. Based on a book writ­ten by Nor­ton Juster, “The Dot and the Line” tells the sto­ry of a romance between two geo­met­ric shapes—taking the arche­typ­al nar­ra­tive tra­jec­to­ry of boy meets girl, los­es girl, wins girl in the end (find­ing him­self along the way) and inject­ing it with some fas­ci­nat­ing social com­men­tary that still res­onates almost fifty years lat­er. One way of watch­ing “The Dot and the Line” is as a “tri­umph of the nerd” sto­ry, where an anx­ious square (as in “uncool”) Line has to com­pete with a hip­ster beat­nik Squig­gle of a rival for the affec­tions of a flighty Dot.

The Line begins the film “stiff as a stick… dull, con­ven­tion­al and repressed” (as his love inter­est says of him) in con­trast to the groovy Squig­gle and his groovy bebop sound­track. With the pos­si­ble sug­ges­tion that this love trans­gress­es mid-cen­tu­ry racial bound­aries, the Line’s friends dis­ap­prove and tell him to give it up, since “they all look alike any­way.” But the Line per­sists in his fol­ly, indulging in some Wal­ter Mit­ty-like rever­ies of hero­ic endeav­ors that might win over his Dot. Final­ly, using “great self-con­trol,” he man­ages to bend him­self into an angle, then anoth­er, then a series of sim­ple, then very com­plex, shapes, becom­ing, we might assume, some kind of math­e­mat­i­cal wiz. After refin­ing his tal­ents alone, he goes off to show them to Dot, who is “over­whelmed” and delight­ed and who “gig­gles like a school­girl.”

Here the sub­text of the nerd-gets-the-girl sto­ry­line man­i­fests a fair­ly con­ser­v­a­tive cri­tique of the “anar­chy” of the Squig­gle, whom the Dot comes to see as “undis­ci­plined, grace­less, coarse” and oth­er unflat­ter­ing adjec­tives while the line—who pro­claimed to him­self ear­li­er that “free­dom is not a license for chaos”—is “daz­zling, clever, mys­te­ri­ous, ver­sa­tile, light, elo­quent, pro­found, enig­mat­ic, com­plex, and com­pelling.” I can almost imag­ine that George Will had a hand in the writ­ing, which is to say that it’s enor­mous­ly clever, and enor­mous­ly invest­ed in the val­ues of self-con­trol, hard work, and dis­ci­pline, and dis­trust­ful of spon­tane­ity, free play, and gen­er­al groovi­ness. At the end of the film, our Dot and Line go off to live “if not hap­pi­ly ever after, at least rea­son­ably so” in some cozy sub­urb, no doubt. The moral of the sto­ry? “To the vec­tor belong the spoils.”

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book, BlueSky or Mastodon.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Josh Jones is a doc­tor­al can­di­date in Eng­lish at Ford­ham Uni­ver­si­ty and a co-founder and for­mer man­ag­ing edi­tor of Guer­ni­ca / A Mag­a­zine of Arts and Pol­i­tics.

The BBC Symphony Orchestra Performs 4′33,″ the Controversial Composition by John Cage, Born 100 Years Ago Today

100 years ago today John Cage start­ed leav­ing his mark on our cul­tur­al land­scape. And, by the time he was all done, says The New York­er’s res­i­dent music crit­ic Alex Ross, “he may have sur­passed Stravin­sky as the most wide­ly cit­ed, the most famous and/or noto­ri­ous, of twen­ti­eth-cen­tu­ry com­posers,” with his influ­ence extend­ing “far out­side clas­si­cal music, into con­tem­po­rary art and pop cul­ture.”

We could­n’t let the cen­te­nary cel­e­bra­tion of Cage’s birth pass by with­out revis­it­ing 4′33,″ his most famous and con­tro­ver­sial com­po­si­tion from 1952. Depend­ing on how you inter­pret it, the exper­i­men­tal com­po­si­tion offers a reflec­tion on the sound of silence, or per­haps the sounds you hear when the music goes silent and the atten­tion shifts to the audi­ence in the con­cert hall. This per­for­mance comes to us cour­tesy of the BBC Sym­pho­ny Orches­tra. And now we leave you with some bonus mate­r­i­al.

John Cage Per­forms Water Walk on “I’ve Got a Secret” (1960)

Cage’s Nor­ton Lec­tures Pre­sent­ed at Har­vard (1988–89)

John Cage Unbound: A New Dig­i­tal Archive Pre­sent­ed by The New York Pub­lic Library

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

Ayn Rand’s Philosophy and Her Resurgence in 2012: A Quick Primer by Stanford Historian Jennifer Burns

The Col­bert Report Mon — Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Jen­nifer Burns
www.colbertnation.com
Col­bert Report Full Episodes Polit­i­cal Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

In 2009, Stan­ford his­to­ri­an Jen­nifer Burns pub­lished God­dess of the Mar­ket: Ayn Rand and the Amer­i­can Right, which traced Rand’s intel­lec­tu­al devel­op­ment and her rela­tion­ship to the con­ser­v­a­tive and lib­er­tar­i­an move­ments. It was some­what for­tu­nate tim­ing. Indeed, from the first day Pres­i­dent Oba­ma took office, the defend­ers of pre-2008 cap­i­tal­ism began buy­ing Rand’s well-known book, Atlas Shrugged, by the dozens. Now, with Paul Ryan, a card-car­ry­ing Ran­di­an, get­ting the VP nod from the Grand Old Par­ty, Burns and her book are get­ting anoth­er moment back in the spot­light. They’re help­ing answer some very basic ques­tions peo­ple might have: How do you pro­nounce her first name? What is her phi­los­o­phy of objec­tivism all about? Why does the right adore some­one who mer­ci­less­ly mocked their core reli­gious beliefs? And, what would Rand have thought about a polit­i­cal fig­ure like Paul Ryan? Would the love have been rec­i­p­ro­cat­ed?

They’re all good ques­tions — ones that Burns recent­ly addressed on The Col­bert Report (above), in the Op-Ed pages of The New York Times, and now in the lat­est edi­tion of Stan­ford Mag­a­zine. We’ve extract­ed a few of the key Q & A’s:

First things first, I always stum­ble on her name. What is the cor­rect pro­nun­ci­a­tion of Ayn?

Here’s a good trick to remem­ber it. In keep­ing with her phi­los­o­phy of self­ish­ness, “Ayn” rhymes with the word “mine.”

So what does Rand’s phi­los­o­phy of objec­tivism boil down to?

Here is how Rand summed it up in ten words or less: “meta­physics: objec­tive real­i­ty; epis­te­mol­o­gy: rea­son; ethics: self-inter­est; pol­i­tics: cap­i­tal­ism.”

If I was going to break that down a lit­tle bit, meta­physics is objec­tive real­i­ty, which means we can only rely on our mind and on rea­son. It’s our only guide to thought and action. Epis­te­mol­o­gy, rea­son. The only way we can know any­thing is through the rea­son­ing mind. Ethics, self-inter­est. Rand claimed that self­ish­ness was a virtue. It was vir­tu­ous to pur­sue your own inter­ests and defend your own inter­ests. And pol­i­tics is cap­i­tal­ism because lais­sez-faire cap­i­tal­ism for her was the only sys­tem that allowed the indi­vid­ual to real­ize his or her full poten­tial and to keep the fruits of his or her labor and not be oblig­at­ed to oth­ers or pun­ished for suc­cess.

Was she con­cerned about the less for­tu­nate?

That was not a big part of her ethics. Her ethics were based on the indi­vid­ual and on the individual’s right to pur­sue his or her goals. The indi­vid­ual was not oblig­at­ed to oth­er peo­ple. If you chose, because of your own val­ues, to help oth­er peo­ple or to engage in char­i­ty, that was fine, but that did not make you a moral per­son. What made you a moral per­son is rely­ing on your­self, pur­su­ing your own inter­ests, and not being a bur­den on oth­ers.

Some of the char­ac­ters she depicts the most neg­a­tive­ly in her nov­els are peo­ple like social work­ers. She thought social work­ers were [about] the most evil peo­ple pos­si­ble because they made their lives on the mis­ery of oth­ers. Moral­i­ty and ethics, for her, had noth­ing to do with help­ing oth­er peo­ple.

Why has Ryan start­ed to mea­sure his sup­port for her?

She is very hard for politi­cians to embrace because not only is she not reli­gious, she’s antire­li­gious. The fact that Ryan gave Atlas Shrugged as a Christ­mas gift [to staffers] is a tremen­dous irony because Rand was a fire-breath­ing athe­ist. She did not believe in God. She called reli­gion a psy­cho­log­i­cal dis­or­der. She tru­ly believed you need­ed to use rea­son and log­ic and no faith what­so­ev­er.

So as Ryan’s star began to rise, he quick­ly began to back away from her for that very rea­son. And he made this sort of clum­sy sub­sti­tu­tion of St. Thomas Aquinas as his major inspi­ra­tion rather than Ayn Rand, although he’s on the record in mul­ti­ple places very recent­ly talk­ing about Rand and not talk­ing about Aquinas.

You can read the full inter­view here.

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

Ayn Rand Instructs John­ny Car­son on the Virtue of Self­ish­ness, 1967

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

Le Ballet Mécanique: The Historic Cinematic Collaboration Between Fernand Legér and George Antheil

Film is by nature a col­lab­o­ra­tive medi­um, and cer­tain­ly one of the strangest and most inter­est­ing cin­e­mat­ic col­lab­o­ra­tions of all time has to be the 1924 avant-garde film Bal­let Mécanique, which brought togeth­er the mod­ernist lumi­nar­ies Fer­nand Léger, Ezra Pound, Man Ray and George Antheil.

The glue that actu­al­ly held the whole project togeth­er was an unknown young Amer­i­can film­mak­er named Dud­ley Mur­phy, who was liv­ing in Paris and saw Man Ray’s exper­i­men­tal film Le Retour à la Rai­son when it came out in 1923. Mur­phy was so impressed that he sought Man Ray out and sug­gest­ed they work togeth­er on a project. Mur­phy was a tech­ni­cal­ly skilled and well-equipped cin­e­matog­ra­ph­er with sev­er­al films under his belt, so the offer intrigued Man Ray. He said he would do it as long as Mur­phy agreed to work by the Dadaist prin­ci­ple of spon­ta­neous, irra­tional exper­i­men­ta­tion. Mur­phy agreed, and the two men began film­ing scenes togeth­er

Mur­phy also sought help from the poet Ezra Pound. As Susan B. Del­son doc­u­ments in her book, Dud­ley Mur­phy, Hol­ly­wood Wild Card, Pound wrote a let­ter to his father in 1923, say­ing, “Dud­ley Mur­phy, whom I met in Venice in 1908, he being then eleven, turned up a few days ago. His dad is a painter, he is try­ing to make cin­e­ma into art.” Pound was famous­ly gen­er­ous when it came to help­ing oth­er artists, and he agreed to help Mur­phy and Man Ray. “I knew him as a kind­heart­ed man, always ready to help oth­ers,” Man Ray lat­er said of Pound, yet “dom­i­nat­ing­ly arro­gant where lit­er­a­ture was con­cerned.”

The extent of Pound’s direct involve­ment in the mak­ing of Bal­let Mécanique is an open ques­tion, but it’s gen­er­al­ly believed that he exert­ed some aes­thet­ic influ­ence, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the pris­mat­ic mul­ti­ple image shots that call to mind some of the ear­li­er exper­i­ments of Vor­ti­cism, a move­ment Pound was close­ly con­nect­ed with. “The vor­tex,” Pound once wrote, “is the point of max­i­mum ener­gy. It rep­re­sents, in mechan­ics, the great­est effi­cien­cy. We use the words ‘great­est effi­cien­cy’ in the pre­cise sense–as they would be used in a text book of Mechan­ics.” The title of the film was actu­al­ly tak­en from a 1917 piece by Man Ray’s friend, the Dadaist painter Fran­cis Picabia.

In the fall of 1923 Mur­phy began edit­ing the scenes he had shot with Man Ray, but by then they were run­ning out of mon­ey. Pound sug­gest­ed that his friend the cubist painter Fer­nand Léger might agree to see the project through to com­ple­tion. Man Ray knew of Léger’s dom­i­neer­ing per­son­al­i­ty and want­ed no part of it. He left the project and asked Mur­phy (with whom he was still on friend­ly terms) to make sure his name was left out of the cred­its. Pound also arranged for the wealthy Amer­i­can writer and art patron Natal­ie Bar­ney to com­mis­sion a musi­cal score to accom­pa­ny the film. Pound chose a young Amer­i­can com­pos­er he had met ear­li­er in the year named George Antheil, who lived above Sylvia Beach’s Shake­speare and Com­pa­ny book­store.

Antheil accept­ed the com­mis­sion but went his own way, show­ing no inter­est in even see­ing the film while he was work­ing on the music. “From the out­set,” writes Del­son in her biog­ra­phy of Mur­phy, “the film and the score led remark­ably sep­a­rate lives. In his let­ters to Pound dur­ing this peri­od, Antheil made lit­tle or no men­tion of the film.” Not sur­pris­ing­ly, the film and music did not match. The music was twice as long as the com­plet­ed film. In fact the film would even­tu­al­ly be released with­out the music, and the two have only rarely been exhib­it­ed togeth­er.

Although Antheil even­tu­al­ly com­posed sev­er­al vari­a­tions of his score, the ver­sion he fin­ished in 1924 calls for a bizarre group of mech­a­nis­tic or indus­tri­al-sound­ing instru­ments, includ­ing 16 play­er pianos, sev­en elec­tric bells, three air­plane pro­pellers of vary­ing sizes, and a siren. In his man­i­festo “My Bal­let Mécanique: What it Means,” Antheil describes his accom­plish­ment in words that are per­haps more bizarre than the air­plane pro­pellers and siren:

My Bal­let Mécanique is a new FOURTH DIMENSION of music. My Bal­let Mécanique is the first piece of music that has been com­posed OUT OF and FOR machines, ON EARTH. My Bal­let Mécanique is the first piece of music that has found the best forms and mate­ri­als lying inert in a medi­um that AS A MEDIUM is math­e­mat­i­cal­ly cer­tain of becom­ing the great­est mov­ing fac­tor of the music of future gen­er­a­tions.

Math­e­mat­i­cal­ly cer­tain or not, Antheil’s score did go on to exert con­sid­er­able influ­ence. “The tex­tures and effects in this work are,” accord­ing to musi­cian and schol­ar Mark Fend­er­son, “direct pre­de­ces­sors to those used in the music of John Cage, Ter­ry Riley, Philip Glass and John Adams.” Although the music for Bal­let Mécanique would always remain Antheil’s most famous accom­plish­ment, the film itself was some­thing of a foot­note to Fer­nand Léger’s career.

The film begins and ends with Léger’s play­ful image of a cubist Char­lie Chap­lin, along with shots of Mur­phy’s wife Kather­ine relax­ing in a bucol­ic set­ting.  In between it moves fran­ti­cal­ly from image to image, with indus­tri­al engines, man­nequin parts, kitchen­ware, clock pen­du­lums and shapes of pure abstrac­tion appear­ing and reap­pear­ing with machine-like reg­u­lar­i­ty. In one sequence a wash­er­woman climbs a steep stair­way only to keep reap­pear­ing again, like Sisy­phus, at the bot­tom.

The close-ups of a wom­an’s eyes and lips are of Man Ray’s lover and mod­el, Kiki of Mont­par­nasse. In the orig­i­nal ver­sion of the film, Mur­phy had report­ed­ly includ­ed some erot­ic nude images of Man Ray and Kiki embrac­ing, but Léger had them edit­ed out. As a mat­ter of fact, when the film was released the auto­crat­ic Léger arranged to have Mur­phy edit­ed out of the cred­its, despite the fact that Mur­phy was the one who basi­cal­ly made the film–much of it before Léger was even involved. All sur­viv­ing ver­sions of the film, includ­ing the one above, say sim­ply “un film de Fer­nand Léger.”

The sto­ry behind the mak­ing of Bal­let Mécanique reveals a great deal about the per­son­al­i­ties involved: about Pound’s gen­eros­i­ty, Léger’s ruth­less­ness, Man Ray’s wari­ness, Mur­phy’s naiveté, Antheil’s ego­ma­nia. The film itself, accord­ing to the Cir­cu­lat­ing Film Library Cat­a­logue at the Muse­um of Mod­ern Art, “remains one of the most influ­en­tial exper­i­men­tal works in the his­to­ry of cin­e­ma.”

Le Bal­let Mécanique has been added to our meta col­lec­tion of 500 Free Movies Online. You can find it in the sec­tion that includes Silent films.

Relat­ed con­tent:

Anémic Ciné­ma: Mar­cel Ducham­p’s Whirling Avante-Garde Film

Man Ray and the Ciné­ma Pur: Four Sur­re­al­ist Films from the 1920s

 

The Business Card of William Carlos Williams: Doctor by Day, Poet by Night

There you have it: the busi­ness card of William Car­los Williams. Yes, that William Car­los Williams. Imag­ist poet, nov­el­ist, play­wright, essay­ist, crit­ic, writer of short sto­ries — and New Jer­sey pedi­a­tri­cian. Would any of us, upon read­ing his writ­ten work, have advised him not to quit his day job? And yet quit it he did not, prac­tic­ing med­i­cine by day and writ­ing in the evenings. Giv­en that his office hours evi­dent­ly ran to 8:30 p.m., he must have spent some seri­ous­ly late nights at his desk. But because Williams burnt the can­dle at both ends, we may today enjoy poems like The Red Wheel­bar­row, This is Just to Say, and the vast­ly longer Pater­son, an adap­ta­tion into verse of the city of Pater­son, New Jer­sey. Such poems show that the con­crete and the every­day — just the things you’d expect a small-town fam­i­ly doc­tor to deal with — nev­er escaped Williams’ atten­tion. Crit­ics tend to cite one phrase from Pater­son that sums up this sen­si­bil­i­ty: “No ideas but in things.”

In the clip just above, you can hear Allen Gins­berg, a friend of Williams but a decid­ed­ly more bohemi­an sort, read from Williams’ Spring and All. It cer­tain­ly seems pos­si­ble that the poet­’s main­te­nance of a day job and all its trap­pings of the non-poet­ic life not only failed to ham­per but actu­al­ly fueled his writ­ing. Wal­lace Stevens, anoth­er poet who famous­ly held a seem­ing­ly mun­dane par­al­lel career, said as much about his own tra­di­tion­al employ­ment. He cred­it­ed the dai­ly walk to his lawyer’s job at the Amer­i­can Bond­ing Com­pa­ny, and lat­er the Hart­ford Acci­dent and Indem­ni­ty Com­pa­ny, with pro­vid­ing the men­tal space that made what we think of as his last­ing work pos­si­ble. This work led to a Pulitzer Prize in 1955. An offer of a place on Har­vard’s fac­ul­ty fol­lowed, but he turned it down. Some­times we sim­ply hit upon a lifestyle that lets us express what we need to express. Did Stevens’ lifestyle work for him? Have a lis­ten to him read­ing Final Solil­o­quy of the Inte­ri­or Para­mour. Per­haps the results speak for them­selves:

A spe­cial thanks goes to Steve Sil­ber­man (aka @stevesilberman) for send­ing Williams’ busi­ness card our way.

Relat­ed con­tent:

William Car­los Williams Reads His Poet­ry (1954)

Bill Mur­ray Reads Wal­lace Stevens Poems — “The Plan­et on The Table” and “A Rab­bit as King of the Ghosts”

101 Ear­ly Wal­lace Stevens Poems on Free Audio

Harold Bloom Recites ‘Tea at the Palaz of Hoon’ by Wal­lace Stevens

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Steven Pinker Presents His Big Gallery of Cape Cod Photography

Har­vard pro­fes­sor of psy­chol­o­gy Steven Pinker gar­nered a sig­nif­i­cant amount of atten­tion in the past year for his mas­sive, 800-page book Bet­ter Angels of Our Nature, which argues the con­tro­ver­sial the­sis that, despite the atroc­i­ties of the 20th and 21st cen­turies, vio­lence has declined world­wide and we live in the most peace­ful era in human his­to­ry. (A much short­er ver­sion of his the­sis is an essay enti­tled A His­to­ry of Vio­lence). You might expect some­one steeped in research on bru­tal inhu­man­i­ty and war to be a lit­tle on edge, but Pinker has a side­line as a pho­tog­ra­ph­er of the tran­quil and serene.

His most recent series of pic­tures builds on a fif­teen-year his­to­ry of pho­tograph­ing scenes of Cape Cod. In a tweet announc­ing the most recent col­lec­tion, Pinker claims his inspi­ra­tion for this series is the pho­tog­ra­ph­er Joel Meyerowitz, whose book Cape Light ren­ders the Mass­a­chu­setts Cape in the soft sub­tle tones of Renoir’s land­scapes. Pinker’s lens takes in a deep­er, rich­er light, and col­or pops from his images in unex­pect­ed ways—more Manet than Mon­et. His pho­tog­ra­phy, I would imag­ine, pro­vides a much-need­ed diver­sion from the heady inten­si­ty of his aca­d­e­m­ic work, and the images are strik­ing and beau­ti­ful. Look through Pinker’s lat­est Cape Cod series here.

For more of Pinker’s pho­tog­ra­phy see the full archive at his web­site.

And vis­it this link for an exten­sive archive of video and audio inter­views and talks from Pinker.

Josh Jones is a doc­tor­al can­di­date in Eng­lish at Ford­ham Uni­ver­si­ty and a co-founder and for­mer man­ag­ing edi­tor of Guer­ni­ca / A Mag­a­zine of Arts and Pol­i­tics.

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.