DragonCon 2012 pictures!

So, upon request, I will post some of the better DragonCon photos of my group. There are a couple of Picasa albums that I can share the links to:

• Album 1
• Album 2
• Album 3

Some of the biggest highlights of the Con this year... the RIOT panel, bombass costumes, celebrity encounters, late night parties, and oh yes, I got engaged! Oppa Gangnam style!

Our group

Extended Group!

DragonCon 2012 in T-5 days!

It's about time for DragonCon again! My friends and I have picked out characters and are *supposedly* putting finishing touches on our costumes during this final week, (and it's going to be a super busy week).
This year there has been A TON of preparation and hype for our annual trip to Atlanta. Our party has grown from about 5 people to about 15. It will remain to be seen just how sane our group can stay throughout the whole weekend. We have a lot of friends joining us, some new friends, lots of siblings, and some parents. To say the least, we we probably be wondering around in more than a few groups.

This year is going to be special, because we will break our League of Legends costume record once again.We had a lot of fun in 2010 bringing LOL to Dragoncon, and being some of the first (I remember hearing that there were a couple of others representing, but we did not run into them), and in 2011 when LOL gained more momentum with the D*Con crowd and we met quite a few LOL cosplayers. This year we're ready to bring it again! We will have a classic Morgana (me!), classic Kennen, classic Veigar, classic Garen, Emo Amumu, Renegade Talon, Geisha Karma, Zilean, Brolaf, and a Tribal Ryze (upcycling my Ryze costume from 2010), and possibly a Sivir.

I had taken on making my own costume and Kennen's, as well as most of Veigar's. It. has. been. intense. As of right now I still have to put the feathers on my wings, seal some stuff with more glue, and finish sowing some patterns. There was a time this summer when I spent an entire week only watching The X-Files and designing/sowing/crafting. I was in a daze. (Those of you who will go to DragonCon will understand my X-Files marathon... Gillian Anderson will be there!) I got a lot fancier with my costuming techniques, and that means sowing. Most of what you will see has been sown together by my 15$ sowing machine I got from CVS. This is the first time I have ever used a sowing machine and I think I did pretty well with my designs considering it's all freestyled. I can't help but think WTF did I do before my sowing machine?! Did I really just  glue the hell out of everything? I've also discovered the wonders of foam sheets. Seriously these things are SO versatile. I used them to make ears, armor, cloth bases, giant buckles, spikes... wtf did I do before foam?

Ok, ok, if you've made it this far you deserve a sneak peek!

Creative Commons License

I would just like to make a quick announcement that since switching YouTube accounts, I have made a few changes. All of the music videos have are under the Creative Commons Attribution license. What this means is basically that I am allowing these videos to be re-used. Maybe someone wants to make a fanvid and use one of my clips? (It's happened once that I know of!) Usually what will happen is that if one of my videos is remixed or reused the source video will be displayed along with the new video. But, just in case, I'll ask is that people let me know whenever they use the material so I can link it and +fav it! Sound good? 

Link to sexyDEATHparty's YouTube

Gogol Bordello at Fillmore Charlotte

Ok, I have a serious impairment in updating in a timely fashion. Mostly because I wait weeks and weeks after a show to write about it. Usually that doesn't work out because by now I've forgotten most of my impressions on the night-in-question. I really need to start utilizing my "voice memos" function on my Iphone more after leaving a show; that's when I'm most blabbery. The drinks help too.

The night in question, 5.21.12, Gogol Bordello lit up the Fillmore Charlotte with the Kopecky Family Band. This was... my 3rd? 4th time seeing GB? I've lost track (at least the site archives know for sure!). Well my plan was to forget about taking photos and videos and just enjoy and fully experience the dance manifesto. Did I? Apparently I didn't, I came out with quite a lot of photos (out of which, oh, only a few were decent [scroll and see below]) and a few videos. I didn't even notice until I went back to analyze the camera evidence. But I really kept the documenting as a secondary after-thought to dancing. These were some of my best GB photos, as I was able to get closer than ever before. I really need a nicer camera. Anyone want to make any donations? Anyone? 

The place was packed, the people on the general floor were in a bouncy/dancy frenzy, and I'm pretty sure I left the Fillmore soaked with multiple samples of people's sweat. There was someone that was waving around one of those super nice Romanian flags, and I'm talking the thick kind with tassely bits. I gave the guy a shout-out and wrote his name on something that is long lost. My bad, guy. The flag made it to Eugene and he grabbed it with his bony, powerful hand. Caressing it with his fingers he threw it dramatically over his shoulder. He grabbed it and held it up above his head, elongating and showing off his tricepts... As he bend his arm backwards, the flag gently wiped beads of sweat from naked torso... as he threw it back into the crowd... then... oh, ahem... this is going in a separate direction now. Back to the original topic...

Maybe one of these days I'll start keeping track of setlists. Hmmm, but that sounds too clinical for my taste. On one hand, each person will be moved by the songs that they favor (whether that be the 'old stuff' or the 'new stuff') but on the other hand the electricity of the crowd/show as a whole is a completely separate entity. Here's a question for discussion: 

How important is the setlist to the general experience of a concert/show?

Videos under the cut!

Bob Log III at Snug Harbor

The brave ladies that sat on Bob Log's lap

So this post is about a month over due since it happened on May 5th. But whatever, I've been busy maintaining my perfect GPA and killin' it in grad skewl, so I think that's a pretty legit excuse. 

Bob Log III is super slick, and I was very surprised by the delivery of this one-man-band show and his showmanship! So, he wears a motorcycle helmet with an old phone receiver hooked up to it for aesthetics and fingerpicks the hell out of his guitars, and his feet play with some pedals. The crowd was loving the performance, but it felt like they were a little wary of participating on stage. At least in the beginning. After people boozed up some more the time was ripe to have some ladies join Bob Log's knees, as can be seen in the photo. I think it's kind of good that it came out a bit blurry and the ladies' faces are not easily distinguishable, because really... I wouldn't want a well-defined picture of me doing that on the internets. But then again, maybe they're those kinds of people. After all, they went up there willingly! I sound like I'm judging but I'm not. Bob Log played well into the night/morning, and kept on even as the majority (and by that I mean probably 4/5) of the crowd left.

Mr. Free and The Satellite Freakout put on a kind of interactive show, with the frontman's vanishing act of disappearing from the stage, and even the room. At other times he would gyrate on unsuspecting and suspecting people in the crowd. The music was good, the vocals were spastic yet melodic. I chatted with the frontman (Demitri was his name? [all-American, not non-American]) who was very nice and linked me to where I could hear more of their music which I have been enjoying since. Apparently them and Bob Log are from the same hometown and have been traveling across America together for this tour. This was something like the 60th show together, and among one of the final few. Nice.

Hear music here: Bob Log III, Mr. Free and The Satellite Freakout and Kill Your Mules (which were playing when I arrived, so I don't have anything to say about them; MY BAD!)

Go under the cut for videos!

On the Simulacra of Cosplaying

My favorite spot of interacting, experiencing, and being simulacra and the hyperreal has been, for the past two years, at DragonCon. Several hotels host events in which any kind of fictional character can come to life, and to be in that midst is mesmerizing. One finds oneself interacting with other people as if they are the incarnation of whoever they are cosplaying as. DragonCon is itself a simulacra, just as Baudrillard describes it: “It is no longer a question of imitation, nor of reduplication, nor even of parody. It is rather a question of substituting signs of the real for the real itself; that is, an operation to deter every real process by its operational double, a metastable, programmatic, perfect descriptive machine which provides all the signs of the real and short-circuits all its vicissitudes.” Imitation in the form of cosplay is probably one of the ‘rites of passage’ of DragonCon, and if you haven’t cosplayed you have not had a proper experience. The cosplay experience, is in itself what I would consider the purest form of experiencing a simulacra, since you get to be a live embodiment (or empty copy) of a fictional character. This is where it crosses into the hyper-real and into that infinite simulation of signs being exchanged for other signs, where the point of reference is non-existent. Of course, the source (the RTS game League of Legends) exists as a setting, but it does not exist as something more than a fictional world. This is just like Eco’s description of the recreation of original environments (the example about the Alice In Wonderland environment).

There are two levels of simulacra: the environment and the embodiment. The two together would create the *authentic* feel of the world of Runterra. Nerdy summoners (the name for people who play LOL) can wish for a recreation of a simulacra environment of the Fields of Justice, but until someone creates this simulacra, they will be left with experiencing it only partially – via the embodiment aspect. However, cosplaying has its own limitations, and that when it gets into some weird places. The cosplayer does not at any time become the character, but can only act in ways they perceive the character would act or not act at all. Beyond a visual embodiment of the simulacra, there is no real substance beyond it. It then attains Baudrillard’s 4th phase of the simulacra image: “It bears no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum.” And, “ultimately there has never been any” character; “that only simulacra exist; indeed that” the character “has only ever been his own simulacrum.” Still, the illusion is attractive, which is why thousands people attend DragonCon, and become an interactive part of that illusion: "I just shook hands with Captain Adama!" or "I just shared my rum with Captain Jack Sparrow!" or the more awkward "I think R2D2 was hitting on me..."

PAGANFEST America III

Paganfest takes on America for the third time, this time with Turisas, Alestorm, Ex Deo, Arkona, and Huntress! Argh, I'm so excited!

So I've become pretty obsessed with this song and video. I need more Huntress. NEED!
What a perfected "pterodactyl call" as I like calling it... Oh, Jill Janus your sorcery is dreamy... *sigh*

An Epideictic on Failure

An Epideictic on Failure 

“You know, a world of critics is absolutely idiotic. So whatever they say is… I sincerely don’t give a fucking fuck about it. And I assure you that nobody from people who are consistent with their creative flow give a mother fucking fuck about it either. Because ups and downs is a normal condition, of any artist and any human being. And the lower you’re gonna fall, the higher you can fly, as Frederic Nietzsche said. So, what the fuck is the problem with a failure? Is no problem. Even if you fail, so fucking what? Is not a big deal. And, best artists have collapsed enormously, so, it’s like, lack of failure is kind of a sign of lack of talent, actually.” - Eugene Hutz of Gogol Bordello (“YouTube”) 

Hutz’s speech is not poetic and however broken his English may be, his speech assumes what Aristotle would call clarity: language that informs and illuminates rather than obfuscate. Aristotle says poetic language makes for a bad speech, and style to be good must be clear through using plain words and language that is not poetic. Hutz uses the common language of everyday speech without imbedding words that can obscure meaning and include members of only certain communities. According to Aristotle, Hutz’s credibility would be increased through his use of plain language. A most obvious use of Hutz’s plain language is his overuse of the word “fuck” and its forms. Without getting too occupied in his rhetorical uses of this word, it is important to note that by using it he involves the common uses of language (whereas sophisticated use does not), as well as to emphasize his disapproval, discontent, and dismissal of the uselessness of “the world of critics”. He invokes the Aristotelian artistic pisteis, in which he predominantly appeals to logos and ethos. His appeals to ethos is foremost a part of what defines his logos. 

His ethos, and the presentation of his character first and foremost come through visually before he begins to speak, then audibly through the video clip of his delivered speech. Hutz’s presence is established in a restaurant with a fan conducting an interview in between eating and drinking, an ordinary activity. His appearance alone is congruent with that of someone in touch with their “artistic flow”: he looks like a gypsy punk. A militant shirt with pins, a large bandana of Guadalupe holding back his disheveled hair, visible piercings and multiple necklaces, sunken eyes alertly drowsy with drink, a waxed moustache, and an accent indicating fluency in more than one language (and consequently more than one way of viewing and creating meaning of the world through different languages). His accent indicates his Eastern European background, connecting him to a pre-communist way of living, and his mashing of the English language is consistent to that of an immigrant who came after his first language was fully developed, in his late teens. He is a most credible source for generation 1.5 immigrants, who also embody the double voicing of Hutz’s sociocultural background pre and post immigrating. He creates community with his immediate audience (the interviewers) and clip viewers, foremost by his status as an immigrant rock star. Considering, then, his audience, it is in this common condition that he becomes worthy of credence, in addition to the message he conveys through his speech. He embodies the “artist” and he is a “human being”. 

Hutz’s logos, is evident through the way he unfolds his speech and the sequence of his appeals to reason and logic. Hutz’s speech operates around two modern enthymemes: (1) The normal condition is in constant up and down flux / I am an artist and human being / Therefore I experience ups and downs, (2) Because I experience ups and downs / After falling low I can fly high / Therefore I have artistic talent. 

Based on the previous enthymemes, Hutz positions himself to be an authority. He lays down the foundation of “the world of critics” as consisting of a give and take relationship between the critic and the artist. Regardless of the critic being positive or negative, the artist is always vulnerable on account of what the critics say about them. 

This “world of critics” is transcending boundaries of culture, language, and country, education, and even professional qualification – yet it is still linked together in criticism of the artist. Hutz, who has gained international attention, more accurately portrays the artist in the “world of critics” by linking them across all of the aforementioned boundaries. The condition of the “idiotic” critic can and does occur everywhere, and no artist is safe from it. But Hutz finds a loophole to combat his vulnerability as an artist: by dismissing the “world of critics” be denies his vulnerability to it. The dynamic power struggle between the artist and the critic becomes exposed and turned on its head. His freedom from the vulnerability imposed by critics lies in his “creative flow”, and it is a secret that Hutz shares with us: consistency of creativity cannot be touched by critics. Here, the artist becomes more powerful than the critic. Hutz is using his authority as an artist, “I assure you,” to give his audience the inside scoop on the secret of combatting critics: “…nobody from people who are consistent with their creative flow give a mother fucking fuck about it either.” Here he exposes the solution which poses a threat to the “world of critics”: if artists are confident and “consistent with their creative flow” then the critic’s power is diminished because their criticism does not cause any effect for the artist in any way. Hutz implies that he is not the only one that knows about this loophole, and that if you are an artist it is inevitable that you have found the loophole by being “consistent with [your] creative flow”. 

The critics he refers to are critical to artists of any kind, not exclusive to music artists, and are even more broadly critical of “any human being”. Artists are human beings, and all human beings are to some degree artists. Hutz’s interview contains a double voice: one which holds implications specifically for artists, and one which more broadly encompasses to account for all human being. Hutz parallels the artist with “any human being”. 

As Hutz describes the ‘world of critics’ he unavoidably becomes a critic himself, but in a different sense of the word. What he means by this and how he simultaneously separates himself from the “idiotic” critics lies in the separation that is attributed by the subtle difference that Hutz draws between himself and the “world of critics”. To further define “the world of critics” as Hutz refers to it, it consists of people “who judge[s], evaluate[s], or analyze[s] literary or artistic works, dramatic or musical performances, or the like, especially for a newspaper or magazine.” (“Dictionary.com”). Hutz separates himself from this view of “the world of critics” by criticizing it in a less specific way: “a person who judges, evaluates, or criticizes” without the determiner of artistic criticism as suggested in the previous definition of the word (“Dictionary.com”). 

He is himself the front man and brain behind gypsy-punk band Gogol Bordello. Coming from this position, the audience can better understand the insider’s point of view. Hutz does not criticize artists, but he does criticize critics. The “world of critics” he refers to is, most obviously, the evaluation of an artist (or group of artists) by those who are not artists. As with all evaluations they can be either positive or negative and Hutz is assigning the “world of critics” a negative connotation: it is “idiotic”, and through his blatant disapproval and dismissal of it: “I sincerely don’t give a fucking fuck about it.” The shortness of his blurb is expressive of this feeling, choosing to discuss the larger implications “of any artist and any human being.” Hutz does not at any time become a critic that is part of the “idiotic” “world of critics” he describes because he keeps his distance: he does not criticize artists. 

One of Hutz’s assumptions in his speech is that critics dispense negative criticism. It is a critic’s job to prod at things, whether assuming the position of constructive criticism or not. The assumption is that criticism dispensed by “the world of critics” is often not constructive and is negative instead. Hutz’s suggestions include that negative criticism and “failure” is the focus of the “world of critics”. He views the focus on failure as a wrong approach, because failure “is not a big deal”. He best sums up the sentiment by saying that “lack of failure is kind of a sign of lack of talent, actually.” Hutz proves how “ups and downs is a normal condition, of any artist and any human being”. Yet there is a certain weakness in Hutz’s argument: critics are humans, and humans are artists. According to this hypothetical syllogism critics are artists. However, critics don’t actively engage in being artistic when they criticize. They rather follow a pre-determined formalist process of criticism, which is far from being consistent with Hutz’s “creative flow”. According to Hutz’s logic, do critics experience ups and downs? Can critics claim a certain type of artistry and be vulnerable to other critics? It is certainly possible, but this topic goes beyond Hutz’s specified boundaries. 

Hutz uses a blatant claim to the authority of Friedric Nietzsche, a philosopher who attempts to make sense of the human condition, to support his own authority even further. “…The lower you’re gonna fall, the higher you can fly, as Frederic Nietzsche said.” Here he sets up his second modern enthymeme mentioned earlier based on “lack of failure is kind of a sign of lack of talent, actually.” (2) Because I experience ups and downs / After falling low I can fly high / Therefore I have artistic talent. 

On the surface, Hutz’s speech appears to be epideictic: praise of the artist and blame of the critic. According to the epideictic, his audience would be one of spectators. He does not press his audience into a judging position. Aristotle’s trifecta of speaker, subject, and audience is made complete by encouraging the audience to discover the truth for themselves: they too can be “consistent with their creative flow” through dismissing critics. It is possible that Hutz’s speech could be seen as a “failure” in the eyes of the “idiotic” “world of critics”; however, I feel assured he would be untouched by it. He would become his own critic: if he saw it as a failure, it would only motivate him to refine his thoughts and explanations in the future, therefore flying higher, above the reach of “the world of critics”. 

Music, a Barthesian Signification.

Seeing as this has no concretely meaningful relation to the Barthesian signification of mythology, I will perhaps revise this to hopefully include it. Maybe.

Music, a Barthesian Signification.

It is something that appeals to everyone, of every community and every taste. It constantly traverses between micro and macro planes, and one can engage in both simultaneously. It says a lot about a person: what group they are part of, their interests, maybe what kind of moods they are prone to and personality traits (micro), and is opened up to something bigger than the self when it is cultural, social, and economic, and religious (macro).

Music has a symbiotic relationship with mood: either influencing a person’s state or induced by the person’s mood. Genre of music certainly contains psychoanalytical facets relating to one’s personality: the aggressive personality listens to metal, the relaxed personality listens to mellow and smooth music, et. Cetera.

Whatever types of music people choose to listen to, they are instantly associated with a ‘music culture’ or subculture (punks, goths, hippies, metal heads, etc.). It is of importance that this personal association is sometimes on purpose, and sometimes not. The listener is therefore initiated into a community in which certain genres or other qualities are deemed as being part of.

Music exists in different modes that can be classified into genres, and even subgenres. Sometimes genres diverge, and sometimes they merge to create something new. When divergence or convergence occurs, the audience or community in which genres were accepted a priori are sometimes not so accepting of what emerges.

Take the example of “gypsy-punk” as coined by the artists Gogol Bordello. It is neither truly gypsy nor punk, but it has qualities of both. The gypsy community sees the rise of gypsy punk as an offensive bastardization to gypsy musical roots and traditions. The punk community see it as very far from the fast, raw, and angry qualities usual of punk music and would even say that the only ‘punk’ aspect of gypsy-punk is its fast tempo. However, this convergence of the two genres has found a community of its own: gen.5 immigrants with a yearning for something traditional infused with something contemporary.

The popularity of genres in turn is reflective of its listener, their tastes, age, preferences, likes and dislikes. What else music say about the people who listen to it? Listening to music can be an elitist sport, or it can be something one casually engages in from time to time.

Music is a cultural, social, and economic, religious, local, and global.

Everything about music is social. Even if a person is by his or herself, they are sharing and engaging in someone else’s vision. Music is social though concert/ performance /show, burning a cd for a friend or ‘sharing’ it on social media networking sites, remixing it, collaborating on it, its purchase. Music is representative of a community’s voice and concerns. There are those who feel entitled to free music, and others who feel the need to pay to support artist’s creativity and efforts. Music is a cultural display: through instrumentation, rhythms, vocals, and languages (among other qualifiers) which form a unification of something cultural, traditional, or genre-based. A spiritual connection can be made through music, such as is encountered in the religious rites of byzantine chants, or church quires. It can let the listener tap into something ‘perfectly’ constructed through pitch and tempo of singular and/or overlapping sounds.

Music moves people. Various dances, or ways of moving to music, are identifiers of a genre and culture (or subculture); the way one moves is in accordance with the sounds of instrumentation and/or vocals. Sometimes you move smoothly in accord with beat and rhythm (like belly dance), but sometimes moving spasmodically is also in accord with beat (the St. Vitus dance).

We can deduce that music is a way of communication, and that it goes beyond the use of any particular language. Listeners can engage, and most importantly enjoy music even in a language they don’t understand.