The Extraordinary Tourist
Welcome to Utopia: Australia Votes 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
 It's the morning after the Australian Federal election and people all over the country are waking up to the realization that they've just kicked themselves (or been kicked by others) out of their eleven year comfort zone into a brave new era of Utopian Idealism.
Better the devil you know?
A new government means a new coat of paint, new carpets, new furniture and probably even a new corporate logo or name for every government department that is accessed by the public. Symbolic change, known as the 'transitional' period before the new government really gives us something to complain about.
Cynical?
Kevin Rudd replaces John Howard as our new Prime Minister. In his victory speech I heard him say that it was time to "write a new page in our nation's history". He said this again, later in the speech so that's at least two pages of writing just for starters. Well two pages and a signature on the Kyoto Protocol.
What I hadn't heard Kevin articulate before was this 'Utopian Idealism' that he would be a 'Prime Minister for ALL Australians' in which he listed everyone from Indigenous Australians to those serving in the Armed Forces on foreign soil. Kevin talked about putting 'all the old battles behind us', listing examples such as the fight between Unions and business, Public and Private, Federal and State, Growth and Environment. Finally he extended his reach to working with all the great nations of the world. Spoken like a new Prime Minister. John Howard was probably thinking 'yeah, good luck with all that.'
Personally I was quite excited about stealing the new laptop computer from my kids when, during his campaign, Kevin would hold up a computer and wax lyrical about his 'education revolution'. Unfortunately I don't have kids so that kind of curbed my enthusiasm.
You might think that I'm a disgruntled Howard supporter but, through my understanding of Australia's preferential voting system, my vote ultimately became a vote for Labor and Kevin Rudd. I have a thing about voting for minor parties like the Greens and The Australian Democrats first, in the slim hope that enough people will think like me. Then we could put a party into government that would be stunned into dumbfound silence should that ever happen... "pinch me, I think I'm dreaming... do we even have a plan for the whole nation?". That would sober a few people up very quickly the day after!
There are few occasions where you can get me to agree that something should be compulsory and voting is one of them. I'm pro-choice on just about everything but because people have to vote it at least gets them thinking about politics and who should run the country once every few years. I would hate to be in the USA situation where apathy allows anyone with a powerful minority in with a real chance if they can mobilize enough of their supporters into action on election day.
In this country people argue that we should choose whether we wish to vote like we can't choose not to vote. In actual fact, we still can choose not to vote. The cheap way is to turn up to a polling booth and lodge a blank form. The expensive way is to just not turn up and pay a fine for being too slack to get our name crossed off a list.
One thing I loathe about going out to vote is those people lined up, out front of every polling booth, handing out how to vote fliers. I know I pretty much ignored at least one person I know quite well (sorry to that person on the off chance you're reading this) because I just don't like having to wade through you all that much. Blinkers on, eyes on the door and go! That's me.
You could be my own mother (who will probably read this) handing out fliers for the party I'm going to vote 1 for and I wouldn't even see you until I'm out of the polling booth, mission accomplished. Don't believe me? The person I ignored was handing out how to vote fliers for the Greens party whom I voted for as first choice on both forms. I only recognised this person after I came out of the polling booth and noticed they were supporting the Greens.
I watched how the election panned out on the ABC (that's Australian Broadcasting Corporation, affectionately known as 'Aunty' in this country), because they don't 'spit on your mind', to quote Henry Rollins referring to TV network programming. I briefly tuned in to the commercial networks, who started earlier, where Channel Seven wins the Award for dumbing down the coverage for the 'Home and Away' generation, please... 'Tower of Power' and cartoon graphics of Kevin and John in a literal tug-of-war? Big, Hollywood star graphics? The whole thing reminded me of a pro-wrestling match.
For the first time there was at least one seat that had the whole nation intrigued. The Prime Minister's seat of Bennelong, where he was up against ex-Aunty journalist, reporter, and Labor party candidate Maxine McKew. At the time of writing this the seat was still too close to call. It will probably go right down to postal votes. However John Howard, in his concession speech, indicated that he thought the seat was probably lost, making him not only the countries second most successful Prime Minister but also the second Prime Minister to lose his seat at an election.
Maxine will be a legend if she wins it. She partly demonstrates a point I made to my partner on election day that, for an independent candidate to even have a glimmer of hope of becoming Prime Minister, they would need to be a high profile media celebrity. (Now that I've thought more about it they'd also need a really good, rock solid deal with a major party to work as a coalition. An independent leading a major party with a majority? Pigs would have to fly. Better the independents stick to 'balance of power politics').
So all this is becoming a bit long and a little off point. However I couldn't let the election pass without writing something about it. Politics does interest me a lot more than I let on, even if I don't consider myself to be that well informed of each parties policies.
Today we have a new government in Australia. One that I can only hope will do more good than bad for the country. John Howard did a pretty good job of things in many areas but now we have Kevin Rudd. Welcome to Utopian Idealism. Day 1.Labels: news, people
Student finds valuable art inside sofa bed!
Thursday, November 01, 2007
In one of my previous blog posts, titled Art in your couch, I humorously suggested the idea of looking down the back of your couch to see if you could find any 'art'. Today, in a Reuters news feed, I came across this story Student finds baroque painting inside old sofa, which gives serious credibility to the idea that looking down the back of your couch for art may not be such a silly idea after all.
The story relates how a German Student bought a sofa bed at a flea market and, some usage time later, discovered a rather valuable painting hidden inside.
Titled "Preparations for the flight to Egypt," the artwork is believed, by experts, to have been painted between 1605 and 1610 by an unknown artist thought to have ties to Venetian painter Carlo Saraceni.
The student, who discovered the painting between the folds of the sofa bed, sold the painting at auction in Hamburg for 19,200 euros (US$27,660). A tidy profit on the 150 euros she paid for the sofa.
As a footnote to this story, for those unknown artists who may be reading this, there's hope that your art may have real investment value nearly four centuries after you painted it.
Come to think of it, there is a sofa bed in my living room... I think I'll discreetly slip one of my artworks between the folds when nobody is looking!Labels: art, news
Thrown out any good art lately?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
"Tres Personajes" by Rufino Tamayo, a 1970 oil and sand on canvas painting, in an undated image released to the media on Oct. 22, 2007. Source: Sotheby's via Bloomberg News |
We've all heard stories of people finding extremely valuable items in kerbside rubbish collections but this one might get you taking a closer look at a few discarded paintings.
New York City woman, Elizabeth Gibson, was walking past a collection of garbage bags put out for collection one Saturday morning in 2003 when her eye caught a painting sticking out the top. Initially she walked right on by but a short time later she returned for a second look with a hunch that this painting may just be the goods for her apartments living room wall.
There must have been something about the painting that suggested there was more to it than would at first appear because Elizabeth began, what would turn out to be, a rather lengthy and difficult journey to find out the artworks history.
Fast forward four years later and Elizabeth learnt that the painting its self was by an extremely important and valuable Mexican artist, Rufino Tamayo and was titled, `Tres Personajes.' Painted in 1970 the title translates to 'Three People' in English.
Clearly a dilemma for Elizabeth who initially hid the painting behind a false wall once she began to uncover just how valuable it was.
If that wasn't enough, it was unnerving to find out that the painting had been stolen almost twenty years earlier from art collectors, a couple living in Houston who bought the painting from Sothebey's in 1977 for US$50,000. A fact she uncovered in 2005 whilst watching a PBS Television program about missing artworks.
Up to this point I'm really just retelling a story that you can read about in several articles including Bloomberg's Stolen Tamayo Found in Manhattan Trash May Sell for $1 Million by Lindsay Pollock.
Now did you catch that last headline? The conclusion to this story is that Elizabeth returned the painting and received a tidy $15,000 dollar reward from the owner as well as an undisclosed fee from Sothebey's for the sale of the painting which is expected to fetch between $750,000 to 1 million when it is auctioned on November 20, 2007.
Given that there are many valuable artworks that have been stolen and never recovered over the years you may want to consider taking a closer look at what people are placing out for garbage collection.Labels: art, news
Sucking the moisture out of the air...Island Sky.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
In my recent post A Tax on Rainwater I made the following statement:
"A tax on rainwater might be valid if we were literally sucking the moisture out of the air. Farming clouds."
 Watching my local evening news broadcast tonight I was interested in a story about Australian owned company Island Sky who manufacture machines capable of extracting the moisture from the air and turning it into drinking water.
Island Sky's technology can be scaled depending on intended usage. From a 'water cooler' style model for the home or office through to being able to adapt the technology for commercial and industrial uses.
As much as the concept of Island Sky's technology is fantastic it does make me wonder if this kind of machine could affect weather patterns if implemented on a large and concentrated scale? For example could we see coastal cities sucking a larger proportion of moisture from the air to the detriment of inland towns?
The reason why I wonder leads back to my original quote above. Sucking the moisture out of the air. That's a much different proposition to collecting water as it flies. It's no longer random, it's calculated. It may have repercussions for the natural movement of water vapor through the air. If that happens then we surely may see a tax on rainwater.
At this point its all a little unknown but the whole Island Sky concept is one that seems well worth backing. Especially if it can bring clean water to developing countries that really need it.Labels: ideas, issues, news
Cy Twombly. Art you can love...or not?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Agnes Tricoire, presents to the court a reproduction of the kiss mark on a painting by artist American Cy Twombly.
Photo: MSNBC
|
In researching this post I'm happy to say that American artist, Cy Twombly's all white artwork, 'Untitled', is an exception to his art rather than the norm. Perhaps that is why the artwork is valued at just over 2.8 million dollars and lays some credibility on my rationale in pricing my own blank canvas in my video guide to Pricing your artwork for sale.
Regular readers will know my distaste for blank canvas artworks so I could not pass up this opportunity to comment on Rindy Sam, a 30 year old, female French artist, who loved Twombly's blank artwork enough to kiss it with fully, lipstick loaded, lips.
The incident happened on July 19, 2007, where the painting was part of a traveling exhibition on display at the Museum of Contemporary Art in the southern French city of Avignon. The kiss was described as an 'act of love' by Rindy who was promptly taken into custody by French Police.
Not amused, the owner of the painting, Yvon Lambert, wants $2,878,000 in damages, which includes the value of the painting and the $47,000 restoration cost. To date, 30 cleaning products have been used on the canvas with little success in restoring it to its pristine, bone whiteness.
You can read the full story in this article, French court tries woman for kissing painting, appearing on MSNBC's web site.
In this article, "Passionate" kiss lands art lover in court, on Yahoo News, Rindy is reported as having said that she 'thought her lipstick had improved the white, untitled painting'. I'm inclined to agree.
Where once there was simply a painting waiting to be started, there is now a collaborative effort that is made all the more interesting for the controversy surrounding it. Value adding I say. Should add another million at least to the price tag now that it will forever be known as the painting that was kissed by an 'art lover'.Labels: art, news
The World Wide Pluto Conspiracy.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Popular YouTuber Nalts recently posted this video rant about the planet pluto being downgraded to 'dwarf' planet status. Nalts video opposes the announcement on August 24th, 2006, by the The International Astronomical Union (IAU), that Pluto would no longer retain full planetary status due its size being considerably smaller than other 'planet like' objects found in the same region of space.
You can read about the announcement in this article from Science Daily which includes an illustration of other objects, amongst them a larger object called 'Xena', that some astronomers were hoping would achieve 'planet' status.
The Nalts video jogged my memory of an article that I wrote way back in 1996 that positioned my beliefs on the question of alien life forms and whether they do or don't exist. What is remarkable about the article is that it puts forward the idea that the planet Pluto may not actually exist. Here is an extract:
Just because you haven’t seen a UFO or an Alien life form doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Most people have never seen the planet Pluto either yet we accept that it exists because we’ve all seen pictures and enough independent astronomers have actually seen it through a telescope to confirm that for us. If that was all the evidence we need then UFOs and Aliens would be fact. We’ve all seen pictures of them and there are enough independent witnesses to confirm their existence for us.
In both cases how do you know that what your looking at is truth. Just because an astronomer focuses your telescope for you doesn’t automatically mean that you’re looking at Pluto. Yes - welcome to the world wide Pluto conspiracy.
Possibility and the need for an open mind is vitally important to reaching your own conclusions on what is truth. One day in the distant future one of your ancestors could be standing on Pluto thinking “Yes, at last I have concrete proof that Pluto exists.”
Then one of my ancestors walks over and says “Pluto? no mate you ever heard of the World wide Pluto conspiracy that was uncovered in the early part of the 21st century?”
- TET, 26 August 1996.
Did I know something back in 1996 - almost exactly ten years before Pluto was down graded in August 2006? Technically, while the big rock in space called 'Pluto' does exist, it no longer exists as a planet. According to the IAU it should never have been classified as a planet in the first place based on the size of other objects found recently with more modern telescopes.
Is this just the tip of the ice berg in the World Wide Pluto Conspiracy? Is Xena working to replace Pluto as the furthest planet from our sun? Could Mercury be under threat in its newly acquired status as the smallest planet in our system? Who are these people at the IAU and why do they get to decide if Pluto can be a planet or not?
You've gotta love a good conspiracy theory no matter how spaced out!
Footnote: The above article isn't intended to be a serious contribution to the discussion. If you would like to know more about the IAU's discussions about defining just what constitutes a 'planet' then a good place to start is this article on their web site.Labels: news, observation, video
A Tax on Rainwater?
Saturday, October 06, 2007
 Over the past year there has been much debate in Australia over the idea of a rainwater tax for residential properties. It all seems to have started over a leaked Federal Government email by National Water Commission chief, Ken Matthews, suggesting that "Legally, all water in Australia is vested in governments."
Mr Mathews goes on to say:
"Governments have not yet considered the capture of water from roofs in rainwater tanks to be of sufficient magnitude to warrant the issuing of specific entitlements to use this class of water.
"However, if rainwater tanks were to be adopted on a large scale such that their existence impacts significantly on the integrated water cycle, consideration could be given to setting an entitlement regime for this class of water."
You can read the full article about the email and its subsequent discussion in this report by the Herald Sun dated January 14, 2007.
I can certainly understand the logic of Government ownership of rainwater and how, if residential properties were all to start collecting rainwater in greater quantities, it would affect storm water run off and ground water levels. However the idea to put a tax on rainwater is counter productive.
Many Australian state governments have been encouraging the use of rainwater tanks, even offering rebates to have them installed and plumbed into the water supply of residential properties. To put a tax on the collection of rainwater would be like having to pay back the rebate and then keep on paying for doing the environmentally sound thing of installing a rainwater tank.
To think that we might have to pay extra could be argument enough for uninstalling the tank and relying entirely on mains water. Next stop - increase the price of mains water usage?
In a country like Australia rain water isn't a reliable service. The whole point of capturing rain water is to take the pressure off our dams and other water supplies when they don't receive enough rain. Is the government likely to tax us on the actual amount of rain water we collect or are they likely to tax us on the size of our rainwater tanks regardless of whether the rain comes or not. The latter could be argument two for uninstalling the tank.
A tax on rainwater might be valid if we were literally sucking the moisture out of the air. Farming clouds. However we're not. We're simply collecting water as it falls from the sky. It's almost as silly as taxing people for using solar power. The more solar panels you have the more tax you pay.
If you're going to tax people for being environmentally responsible in a way that the government has encouraged then ultimately you are taking a step backwards. A tax is not a benefit for doing the right thing. A tax is something that should be applied to people and industries that persist in being environmentally irresponsible.
I did read that the current Federal Government had moved to assure people that tax on rainwater wasn't likely to occur in the foreseeable future but just lately I've heard some politician on the news raise the issue again, warning that it could happen?
I can tell you that any government that thinks this is a good idea had better make a really good case for it because, on the face of it, they would lose my vote entirely.Labels: issues, news
|  Subscribe to
my blog feed.
|
