Ok so I may be accused of going too far sometimes.
If I was Nicki Minaj, I could oft be heard saying “I’M OBSESSED with you!”
I think that I really like consistency and reliability (or maybe even monotony)… until I don’t; Then, perhaps, I like the change (or maybe I just feel confident enough to want the change rather than thrust myself upon it prematurely, in preference to the staying any longer with the ‘same-ness’).
In difficult times I listen to the same song on repeat for hours… “through night and day / and in and out of weeks / and almost over a year” - I find the repetition calming, reassuring, reliable and ‘the same as it just was’.
But it is not just for solace I do this; for elevating mood, better than a red neck-tie; the repetition of something like Pharrell Williams’ Happy (a worthy contemporary of Bobby McFerrin’s “Don’t Worry - Be Happy”) is one of those that I’M OBSESSED with.
Imagine finding 24hoursofhappy?
booking dot yeah!
24hoursofhappy can be listened to or watched intently; or it can just be there in the background uplifting the ambiance of the workplace, ironing station, car ride, whatever.
Ok; so seen through the lens of an intense, Nicki Minaj OBSESSION of repetition; the 24hoursofhappy clip hasn’t been my focus ‘visually’, more it has been for the auditory appreciation. It has been viewed on the periphery, played in the background, taking up ‘screen real estate. However, regardless, it has been an 8-track reel-to-reel loop worthy of comparison to the legend that the “Happy Birthday Paul” parrot has become in our family.
WRT 24hoursofhappy - I see some specific points in time, more frequently than others <out of the 24 hour loop>; but when watching, God-Like, the subjects in the clip, I imagine myself as Pharrell, interested in their individuality and uniqueness, their choices of dance move and expression of ‘worship’ (or mimicry of the vocals for they are not Milli Vanilli and no-one will judge them).
So Pharrell, watching, but not controlling them (i.e. dictating the way they ‘act’) other than to have selected them from the auditions for the part, or perhaps welcoming them to the cast purely if they responded to an advertisement for spots in the film clip, or some combination of the two depending on how inclined to predestination one is (although Rom8:29 is pretty clear that if it is about the response to the advertisement, then it is all really about who wrote the advertisement and which paper it was published in, and the prearranged delivery of the paper to specific residence, and the person there having a day off work to allow them to read the entire paper etc etc in order that the response can be made)
The differences in style show that clearly Pharrell has not said “if you are in this clip you must…” <insert up to 613 instructions as to how to be a righteous cast member> in order to be what he wants for his clip.
Of course there is his example at the beginning of each hour (his example), there as a reminder, a suggestion if you will, as to the conduct of one, dancing to his song.
I wonder how much care there is on their part, how much love, how much effort, how much inherent skill, how musical they might be, how quickly they may have picked up the song (or the chorus), how much rhythm they have, how hard they have worked in their lives to learn moves for such an occasion, how much sacrifice they have encountered before now, how this changes things for them.
Like God may do when viewing our Christian walk. Of course he knows all of those answers, and He loves viewing our feeble attempts to worship Him 2Cor5:9 (He is bigger than I). I guess Christ also intercedes for our weak attempts at pleasing Him; Rom8:33-34 - and some direction away from ‘self’ is recommended in Ps51:16-17 (i.e. express yourself, but remember it is about me [or my Son] rather than about you)
I could imagine looking down on them ‘imitating my perfect creation’ (i.e. Christ) like the subjects try to lip sync Pharrell’s creation of a song. They inevitably do it poorly; to a greater or lesser degree than each other; some only chime in for the chorus, some try to sing main and backup vocals and get lost in them, switching between them; changing and sometimes giving up in embarrassment; some refuse to sing/lip sync and just dance; at least one doesn’t dance at all (at least not while any other character can see) - so many parallels with living in the image of Christ.
It is just a song. Not a long song. Not 24hrs long and changing all the way, not complex like one of Abba’s, not requiring almost humanly impossible medieval monk-like chanting or Castrati-like harmonising - just 3 minutes (odd) with a gentle repetitive tune and a simple verse or two and a chorus.
Yet still their attempts to pay homage are embarrassingly short of perfect (or at least I imagine they would be for Pharrell).
How much more if the song was a life lived perfectly?
Which of us could do it well? Who could please the one who created the song? Surely just ‘trying’ to sing it would make Him ‘happy’ - that’s what we all think - ‘Oh well - at least I tried…’ ”at least" all I can think is that if God had sarcasm (and I suspect being completely good He does not - although being completely powerful He could have it, if He wanted to) when viewing our attempt to live as Christ, He would say “Why are you bothering” or “Stop, stop, please stop - you are butchering my creation!!!”
They are doing that for me, just after a few 10s of hours of viewing. Don’t get me wrong it does not affect my enjoyment of the song; but if I was watching my little creations making a similar mess of emulating my perfect one, I don’t know how I would restrain myself from Smiting them all.
His grace is obviously the difference and another part of my dance that needs work!
The coming age of 99% unemployment.
John Robb: “[M]ost of the commercial activity in goods and services we see today — from education to health care to manufacturing to transportation to retail to legal services —[may be] accomplished by less than 1% of the people it used to require.”
Also: Edward Snowden proves that one person acting alone can wage war on the world’s only superpower. And it looks like he’s winning.
Start of breakky - baked beans, tomato and onion with fresh basil and oregano…
Goes nicely with chicken sausages, bacon, hash Browns, & coffee! (at Active West Physiotherapy)
thru Feb 2:
“Woman To Go”
Mathilde ter Heijne
Jack Hanley Gallery, 327 Broome St., NYC
part of an ongoing traveling installation displaying postcards which can be taken for free. Each postcard shows a portrait of an unknown woman that lived between 1839 (the beginning of photography with Daguerreotypes) and the 1920s. On the message side is the biography of a known woman who was influential or extraordinary in her time. The pictures and biographies were collected from all over the world. The women whose biographies are known, all struggled for their individual goals in a world where men were predominant, where women didn’t have the right to vote or to own property, and only men were thought to be worth remembering. Most of these women have been forgotten and the many unknown women help us to remember the known. The postcards are to be taken for free in order to give people the opportunity to “take away” a female role model, or a little source of inspiration.”
The idea, which FitzGerald outlines in “Process Over Platforms A Paradigm Shift in Acquisition Through Advanced Manufacturing,” breaks down like this: instead of building large, expensive manned aircraft in tiny numbers (the military purchased just 187 F-22s, for $174.5 million a pop) the military could—in theory—build thousands of customized drones out of 3-D printed parts, using robotic assembly lines that run 24 hours a day. Then, writes FitzGerald and his co-author, Dr. Aaron Martin, Director of Strategic Planning at Northrop Grumman (which lost the contract for the F-22 to Lockheed in 1991), the military could deploy the 3-D printed drones in complex, infinitely configurable and no doubt terrifying swarms controlled by “digital pilots.”