
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
daisy chains.

Monday, November 16, 2009
young adult friction.
which seems appropriate,
given that i've never really had the time to indulge in film or videos,
i may as well embrace a look which embodies where it all began.
i also enjoy the pains of being pure at heart.
sorry that this embodies every painfully hipster cliche in terms of both video and song choice.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
arcadia.
I couldn't help but thank the gods that there wasn't one of these installed at the Lansdowne one fateful night.
That would have introduced a whole new level of lolz/complication, given that the guitar approach would probably be harder to reject than the killing animal approach.
On second thoughts, either approach would be pretty easy to reject if you consider the quality of the persons pursing our attention.
Snap.
in bed with foucault.
currently chillin' with some tea and some foucault.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
hi.
lose/lose.
So, don't go ahead and try find and download this game. It would be like playing with swine flu or some other type of virus.
But ha! I like the notion of games to reality.
"Lose/Lose is a video-game with real life consequences. Each alien in the game is created based on a random file on the players computer. If the player kills the alien, the file it is based on is deleted. If the players ship is destroyed, the application itself is deleted.
Although touching aliens will cause the player to lose the game, and killing aliens awards points, the aliens will never actually fire at the player. This calls into question the player's mission, which is never explicitly stated, only hinted at through classic game mechanics. Is the player supposed to be an aggressor? Or merely an observer, traversing through a dangerous land?
Why do we assume that because we are given a weapon an awarded for using it, that doing so is right?
By way of exploring what it means to kill in a video-game, Lose/Lose broaches bigger questions. As technology grows, our understanding of it diminishes, yet, at the same time, it becomes increasingly important in our lives. At what point does our virtual data become as important to us as physical possessions? If we have reached that point already, what real objects do we value less than our data? What implications does trusting something so important to something we understand so poorly have?
KILLING ALIENS IN LOSE/LOSE WILL DELETE FILES ON YOUR HARDDRIVE PERMANANTLY"
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
i have a lonely heart.


Monday, November 9, 2009
tied up with string.
THE SOUND OF MUSIC.
(seriously.)
I don't know what it is that i found scary about it. probably the general happy sentiment & excessively happy sing-alongs? either way, putting that movie on was a sure fire way to make me cry.
yet to this day one part of the movie still sits with me.
maria, and her stupidly catchy verse.
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few of my favorite things
I woke up this morning in the midst of exams; said goodmorning to my new b.f.f. sleep deprivation (that's another story, kids); and found a sea of packages waiting for me on the table.
in a frenzied opening of packages my mind was set into conflict.
[online shopping tends to ruin my bank account,]
[what have i actually bought?!]
[i really do enjoy the romantic aspect of "presents" in the mail (regardless of whether i have to enter my credit card details to get them)].
just bare with me a second longer, i'm in word-count filling mode. i AM going somewhere.
(just not necessarily in a direction you will care for).
But here is my favourite package:

the perfect study aid +++ sent me into a little pixie squee.
"cute little pixie girls get more!"
<3 <3
Sunday, November 8, 2009
shocking fashion.



superette: drop dead gorgeous.
zomg. QUICK!
Someone call PETA, clearly this is their domain. Cos I'm sure they'd be willing to conceptualise the 'model' as 'animal' in a vain attempt to launch some publicity for themselves.
Superette launched a new campaign to coincide with their opening of a second store in New Zealand. The campaign is titled 'be caught dead in it'. As the article linked above suggests this has received global attention. So what is the crime here? Shit, they used a pun. It carried through to a concept.
To the critics of this shoot, what do you want to see? You want fashion to become static?
I'm sure these voices are the same voices who scream that models are getting to thin, skin is getting too pale, there are rats on the catwalks etc.etc. And sure, some of these points have more merit than others.
But uh, dude. Fashion is meant to change/evolve.
Superette is a small store in New Zealand (available online also). They're the small fish in a big pond. And yet, their willing to push boundaries. Willing to 'shock', and 'offend'. Which I'm not sure the above shoot even does. The pun leads the shoot in a pretty obvious direction. What did the critics expect to see?
Leave fashion alone. Let these concepts evolve. Let fashion change.
Because, seriously. No models were harmed in the making of the above campaign.
(Rant ended).
hellhole ratrace.

Friday, November 6, 2009
russian love.








Thursday, November 5, 2009
He's just my Dale.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Dear Rumi.

Friday, September 25, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
princess diana.




Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Make Believe.



Holland, you're tight.




Pennsylvania.


Thursday, September 3, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Stabbing Crucifix.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Skinny Nelson.


Double Denim.


