Love Reading Books

The history of the United States is a wild and crazy one. from the early fifteenth century onward people have been colonizing the continent of North America. People wanted to preserve the history that was being laid out before them. some of them wrote books, and many others did great art history paintings to remember the past.

The subjects of many of the first paintings done were the colonists themselves. Before most Europeans even arrived, the Spanish had already begun settling Mexico, the southwest, and Florida. many of the Spaniards had valiant portraits of themselves done, reflecting the conquistadors of their age.

The Spanish also painted many pictures of the natives in Mexico. many paintings of the Mayans and Aztecs were done before the Spaniards started their conquest of Mexico. these paintings give us an idea about Aztec and Mayan life.

The French were the next to come into the Americas and they mainly started settling in the St. Lawrence River area of Canada. these people took up a lucrative fur trade with the native population. Pictures of trading posts and friendly relations with Indians were done frequently here.

When the British arrived in the Americas, there was not an influx of art like during the Spanish and French arrivals. The British were mainly concerned about setting up a dependent colony in the Americas. This was successfully done at Jamestown in the middle of the seventeenth century.

Painting did not start to pick up again in the Americas until the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Once again, the subjects of most of these paintings were the native peoples that gathered and hunted on the land. many of these paintings sold for high prices.

When the Indian population of the Americas started to deteriorate, famous painter Catlin went to capture pictures of Indians untouched by civilization. he wanted to show people what was happening to civilized Indians. Catlin traveled up the Missouri River and painted over one thousand paintings.

There are many criticisms to the paintings that Catlin did. most of his critics were people that had been up the Missouri River. they claimed that nothing Catlin painted was even close to how it actually was. As a painter, Catlin painted what he wanted people to see. he would embellish scenes to make his paintings easier to sell.

Catlin tried to sell his enormous collection to the United States government. This goal was never achieved before he died. Catlin gave us paintings that offer a glimpse, however not a very accurate one, of the native populations before mass settling of the west started.

Many paintings of the era were focused on the new idea of Manifest Destiny, which is the idea that settlers had a right given to them by God to settle the west and displace the natives. many of these paintings used stark color changes. some of them made the east look bright and holy, while the west was being consumed by the light as settlers moved west. The art history paintings can give us a glimpse into the not so distant past.

When golfers meet, the common discussion are about clubs, putters, greens and other style accessories used during the game. However, most of the money a typical golfer spends in a year of golf would be on golf balls Your clubs and putters will last you for a long time. Balls will keep disappearing into sand traps and into the lakes. so, it is worth reading a bit about golf balls.

According to the prescribed set of rules, a golf ball weighs about 46 gms, and has a diameter of about 43 mm. There are dozens of popular golf ball manufacturers in the United States and all around the world, and different competitions and clubs subscribe to different manufacturers.

For you to choose your golf balls, there are a few generic things such as your swing speed, and your purpose of playing that should be considered. For instance, if you are a beginner, or an amateur player not too serious about your game, you will most probably benefit from choosing recreational golf balls. since they are made with two layers, they suit the players whose swing is slower – like less than 80 miles per hour. However, if you are a pro or play on a serious circuit, you need to pick the advanced balls – made of three or more layers, which require a much greater swing speed.

Golf is one of those games that stays with you till you grow really old. unlike sports like Football and Tennis that simmer down with age, Golf time increases as you grow old, and hence it is worth it to get golf training during the initial phase of your playing the sport.

There are several international players who have not had professional golf training, and that is fine too, but few things that you would love to get trained about would be the swing, the putt, and the selection of equipment. as time goes on, every player will develop his own technique in playing the game, and golf is one of those games which allow a wide range of techniques to be implemented. You can’t say that this is right and that is wrong, as there have been players with extremely unconventional techniques going on to win the best international titles over the years.

If you are starting late into the golfing fraternity, however, you would do well to get golf training of some sort. That way, you can cover up some of the lost years (in which you did not play the game), and can catch up with your contemporaries. That is an important thing to do, as golf forges bonds that last a long time, and you don’t want to be left behind when your friends are all moving up in their quality of the game.

There are several golf training courses on offered – ranging from on-course training by real pros, to online courses that take you through the basics and show you videos. Take your pick, and you will see a lot of difference in your game.

One little piece of advice would be to stay away from trick balls in the learning phase of the sport. That would help you do well later as you play more. Take care while you buy the balls, so that your game develops faster.

Photographer James Mollison’s where Children Sleep documents the personal spaces of kids around the world, from the middle-class and prosperous to the strikingly impoverished.

Over the course of four years, Mollison captured more than a hundred images of children and their bedrooms, with support from independent organization Save the Children. Born in Kenya and raised in England, the artist lives and works in Italy, with his own multicultural upbringing inspiring this moving collection of photos spanning countries as diverse as Senegal, Lesotho, Nepal, China, India, Brazil, and the United States.

Visit the Mollison’s website, read a review of where Children Sleep, learn more about Save the Children, and buy a copy of the book.

Click through below for a gallery of images from where Children Sleep.

On a recent trip to PS1, I had the unique opportunity to compare a few different approaches to visiting (and hopefully, seeing) exhibitions. Back in 2005 I noticed during Cai Guo Qiang’s gorgeous show, Inopportune, that people visiting the exhibit approached his work, mostly, in one of three ways. They either entered the show “cold” without reading any of the supplemental materials offered by the museum, read the material and then saw the show, or simply talked with a partner while looking at each of the works. Visiting museums across the United States since then, I often notice these three “approaches” seem to be the most popular. but is there a “best” way to view an exhibit? does it depend on the artist, venue, or the show itself? Close colleagues and friends have weighed in on this topic and there seems to be no agreement whatsoever. Some say they read very little and see the show cold- even avoiding wall labels. Some do lots of research before committing to a show they will see. Others enjoy exhibitions most when they have someone with them to compare thoughts and ideas. So… PS1 last week offered me a rare opportunity to compare these approaches in one space since I was anxious to see three of the exhibits on display featuring Laurel Nakadate, Ryan Trecartin, and Nancy Grossman.

The first exhibit, Ryan Trecartin’s any ever, I entered cold. I bypassed the wall text (which I later realized was a real ball of verbal gymnastics that would have just confused me) and went straight into the first room. not having much info to work with, I immediately fell in love with the fact that this was quite literally a video-installation. Couches were set up around the first gallery and the place looked like a living room ready for destruction- clothes on the floor, large hammers displayed on shelves. I even noticed the exact same medicine cabinet I have in my own home, which was a little creepy considering the video rolling behind me. the fact that Trecartin’s show had headsets to individually listen to the video made me compare the music happening in the room to the dialogue, if you can call it that, in the video. There was a huge difference between the relaxed music in the room to the 100 mph audio on the headsets. I stayed with this first video for almost 20 minutes before moving on and became less patient with each of the interconnected rooms I entered. the videos felt a little too similar, even though they are constructed as a series, although the installations were quite different and beautiful. I went from sitting at a picnic table to leaning on bleachers to dangling my legs from airplane seats in order to watch many of the videos. seeing the show “cold” was initially exciting but left me a little numb by the end, and I honestly think the series of seven videos is probably impossible to see in one visit, even beyond the actual length of time it would take to see them.

The second exhibit, Laurel Nakadate’s Only the Lonely, I had read a little bit about and was excited to see for a variety of reasons. Being familiar with Nakadate’s work that “touches on voyeurism, loneliness, the manipulative power of the camera, and the urge to connect with others, through, within, and apart from technology and the media,” I felt a heck of a lot more prepared than I did for the Trecartin show. but similarly to the first exhibit, this show was impossible to see in its entirety even if I spent the entire two hours I had with this one artist. Having read about the show and being familiar with Nakadate’s photography helped me enjoy “365 Days: a Catalogue of Tears”. certain photos in this assault of an installation drew me in to the quiet of the image. They made me guess about the authenticity of Nakadate’s “sadness” each day. Exploring sadness on this level also struck me as “performing” in way that really addressed, for example, the importance of composition in order to convey the idea vs. the way she did so with her videos. Wall texts written by the artist also helped overall, so this was an added pleasure.

Upon entering Nancy Grossman’s Heads, I was eager to try out the third approach- talking it through with someone. since I was there alone, I decided to avail myself to the invitation on a PS1 employee’s nametag. It simply read, “Ask me.” So I did. I asked about who had the final say over the layout of the installation- Nancy Grossman or the curator. the way the space was arranged was both stunning and ominous- a symmetrical table of heads at eye level looking out at the room and four heads in each of the corners staring in. the gentleman I talked with told me that Grossman gives basic instructions about the height at which the sculptures should be viewed but that the curator designed the layout of the space. we talked about the intensity of seeing not just the front of the works at eye-level but also being able to see details on the backs of other heads while viewing each of the pieces. the detail in the stitched scraps of leather made me look again and compare how delicate details contrasted with often menacing expressions and themes, such as “the role of the silent witness amid cruelty and disorder.”

For me, going “cold” into a show is probably my last choice, with all due respect to friends and co-workers who feel passionate about this way of seeing. creating a dialogue about what I will see and am seeing, even if it’s in my head, is often better than throwing myself at a show or a new artist. Is there a “best” way? no. Is there a best way for each of us? Probably. Discovering that way is definitely a worthwhile exercise.

It's supposed to be in Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers: the Story Of Success" but I don't have this book and I'm too lazy to go to the library:

"[Jeb] Bush claims that his success is only the result of "his own pluck and work ethic" and that he was actually at a "disadvantage" having a grandfather who was a senator and a father who was president!"

anamericanstudies.com/2008/12…

"it was fun reading about Jeb Bush insisting that he is a self-made man, that he got ahead by his own individual pluck and determination. this from a man born to a United States president, brother to another, and grandson to a senator and wealthy Wall Street banker. Gladwell points out that this is "thinking that cannot be described as anything other than delusional." "

amazon.com/review/R39TZ2B8K42…

Well you keep saying Jeb Bush was vorn to a president,

Jeb Bush was 35 years old before daddy became President.

Jeb Bush sold real estate in florida,

I don't really see how daddy or grand daddy helped him sell real estate.

I don't see how daddy or grand daddy helped him get elected Governor, or reelected governor.

Jeb Bush was one of the kost popular governors Florida ever had.

Regarding the Kennedy remark, I don't think anyone thought he was;

But he was the first Catholic president, and before African-Americans were given the vote, many states didn't allow Catholics couldn't vote either.

I doubt jeb said that since all of the bush boys rode along on their daddy's apron strings.

Yes his own "pluck and work ethic" not his trust fund right?

Technically, we are all self-made. Jeb could have easily made himself into a liberal bum.

You can probably find it the same place where a Kennedy was a "self-made" man.

Ok, so whats your point?