總網頁瀏覽量
2013年8月6日 星期二
Georges Moustaki's "Le Mètéque" (佐治‧穆斯德基的《外鬼》)
2013年8月5日 星期一
Hundido en un rincón- Maná (受傷在一角)
en un rincón". Well , my friend, here it is with my translation in Chinese for the benefit of those who don't read Spanish. Enjoy.
Hundido
Te donde siempre me has tenido en soledad Hundido en un rincón entre polvo y el olvido buscando fin a este dolor
pero no podía vivir, más asi Te ¡Ay!, solo, en ¡Ay!, solo, el hundido
Te fuiste entre mis y los Muchos que me hundido
Siento el ya ni
Me dueles mientras hundido
¡Ay!, solo, en ¡Ay!, solo, el
Y y ahogado
en un
Y y ahogado
En un
¡Ay!, de mi solo yo aquí hundido
Uh- Yeah Uh- Yeah Oh no,
Uh- Yeah Uh- Yeah Oh no, cuanta soledad Maná | 受傷在一角 我在一角留言給你 在那兒我永被寂莫 籠罩 受傷在一角 在塵埃和遺忘中 我留給你這封信 正尋覓這哀傷之了結 我感覺我正在死亡 但我不能再活下去,不能再這樣 我在一角留言給你 唉!可憐的我 一個人,在一角 唉!可憐的我 一個心, 受傷在一角
你已一點一滴的 在我手與夢中 在那些歲月中溜走 多年了我被 我讓我自已 在孤寂中受創
我感受到那沉重的空氣 我已再不能呼吸了 在試寫此曲時 我已心痛徹骨 受傷在一角
唉!可憐的我 一個人,在一角 唉!可憐的我 一個心
受傷 把心收藏 在一角
受傷 把心收藏 在一角 唉! 只一個人 獨自 我在這裡 受傷在一角
呀--是的 呀--是的 噢不是的,多麼孤寂
呀--是的 呀--是的 噢不是的,多麼孤寂
愛梭羅(El |
2013年8月4日 星期日
Cuando Los Ángeles Lloran --Maná (天使們哭泣時)
One of the Latino bands I like is Maná., Orginally called Sombrero Verde ( Green Hat), its members, José Fernando (Fher) Olvera ( vocalist) Gustavo Orozco (electric guitarist, who left the group in 1986 for studies);the Calleros brothers: Juan Diego (bass guitarist) Ulysses (electric guitarist) and Abraham (drummer) (who left the group in 1984 and was replaced by Alex González, A Cuban-Colombian) all came from Guadalajara.
In 1975 they decided to get together to play different songs from groups they admired, including The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, The Police, among others.They wanted to do rock in Spanish and started to write songs of their own at a time long before rock was accepted by the public in general but they persisted. They released their first album "Sombrero Verde" in 1981, A Tempo de Rock in 1983 and many other albums.
They took up the new name of Maná ( a Polynesian word connoting "positive spiritual energy") in the 1980s and has since stuck with it, doing a fusion of rock, pop and Latin rhythms as part of a movement in Latin America first started in Mexico called "Rock en tu idioma" (Rock in Your Language), originating from Argentina and Spain and in 1987, launched their new album "Maná" under the Polygram Records label. From this album, the following singles came out: "Robot", "Mentirosa" (Liar), "Mueve tus caderas" (Move Your Hips), and "Queremos paz" (We Want Peace). With this production the group had little success, and it left the members almost entirely unsatisfied. Maná asked for withdrawal from Polygram Records after clashing with the latter to maintain the essence and identity of their group.
One of their songs I like is "Cuando Los Angeles Lloran" (When Angels Cry"). It's about a young man environmentalist intent on protecting the tropical Amazonia rain forest who got killed because of economic and political interests.
Cuando Los Ángeles Lloran A Era un De toda El Lo sabía Y también
Cuando Lluvia Lluvia
Pues
Un ángel Un ángel Un ángel Y no
Cuando Chico La selva . El Una esposa Y una
Cuando Es por Cada Ho ….no….
Un ángel Un ángel Un ángel Y no Un ángel Un ángel Un ángel Se fue
Cuando Cuando Lloverá Cuando Cuando Lloverá Huuuu Huuuu
Maná | 當天使們哭泣時
他們殺害萬德斯仔時 他是整個亞瑪遜尼亞 的保衛者和天使 美路歌沃知道 他死於冷血 警方也知道 當天使們哭泣時 雨降落在村莊上 雨降落在教堂的鐘樓上 有人死了
一個天使墜下了 一個天使死亡了 一個天使離去了 再不回來了。
當那殺手逃亡時 萬德斯仔正在死去 雨林滿溢在眼淚中。 他留下兩個可愛的小孩子 一個勇敢的妻子 和一個悲痛的雨林
當天使們哭泣時 是為每一株死了的樹木 每一夥顆熄滅了的星星 呵….. 不…. 不
一個天使墜下了 一個天使死亡了 一個天使離去了 再不回來了 一個天使墜下了 一個天使死亡了 一個天使離去了 在曙光中離去了
當天使們哭泣時 當天使們哭泣時 將會下雨 當天使們哭泣時 當天使們哭泣時 將會下雨 呼…. 阿... 吁…不…不….. 呼…. 阿... 吁…不…不….
愛梭羅(El Zorro)譯…. |
2013年8月3日 星期六
Saturday Fun (週末笑一笑)
1.
An artist asked the gallery owner if there had been any interest in his paintings on display at that time.
"I have good news and bad news," the owner replied. "The good news is that a gentleman enquired about your work and wondered if it would appreciate in value after your death. When I told him it would, he bought all 15 of your paintings."
"That's wonderful," the artist exclaimed. "What's the bad news?"
"The guy was your doctor..."
2.
An artist had been working on a nude portrait for a long time. Every day, he was up early and worked late - bringing perfection with every stroke of his paint brush. As each day passed, he gained a better understanding of the female body and was able to really make his paintings shine.
After a month, the artist had become very weary from this non-stop effort and decided to take it easy for the day. Since his model had already shown up, he suggested they merely have a glass of wine and talk - since normally he preferred to do his painting in silence.
They talked for a few hours, getting to know each other better. Then as they were sipping their claret, the artist heard a car arriving outside. He jumped up and said, "Oh no! It's my wife! Quick, take off your clothes!"
3.
A bumper sticker for artists: "My other car is a bike, too."
4.
After his wife divorced him, Joe asked his best friend, Bill, to fix him up with a blind date.
Bill obliged.
The next day Joe called up Bill and shouted at him angrily: "Bill, what kind of a guy do you think I am. That girl you fixed me up with was cross-eyed; she was almost bald; her nose was long, thin and crooked; she had hair growing on her face; she was flat chested; and her ankles were as thick as her thighs".
Bill answered: "Either you like Picasso, or you don't like Picasso."
5.
There was this world famous painter.
In the prime of her career, she started losing her eyesight.
Fearful that she might lose her life as a painter, she went to see the best eye surgeon in the world.
After several weeks of delicate surgery and therapy, her eyesight was restored. The painter was so grateful that she decided to show her gratitude by repainting the doctor's office.
Part of her work included painting a gigantic eye on one wall.
When she had finished her work, she held a press conference to unveil her latest work of art: the doctor's office.
During the press conference, one reporter noticed the eye on the wall, and asked the doctor, "What was your first reaction upon seeing your newly painted office, especially that large eye on the wall?"
To this, the eye doctor responded, "I said to myself 'Thank God I'm not a proctologist.'"
6.
Artist Pablo Picasso surprised a burglar at work in his new chateau.
The intruder got away, but Picasso told the police he could do a rough sketch of what he looked like.
On the basis of his drawing, the police arrested a mother superior, the minister of finance, a washing machine, and the Eiffel tower.
It may be raining again. Surely hope that it doesn't get in the way of your enjoyment of your weekend fun .
<
2013年8月2日 星期五
Recollections of Art Basel 2013 .1 Sculptures (2013 巴塞爾藝展回顧:5 雕塑篇)
For me, part of the fun of going to an art exhibition is that you never really know what you are going to find until you are there and often even after you have been there. There are so many kinds of artists, so many different kind of personalities, so many different kinds of sensitivities and so many different kinds of "artwork"! .
One of the most frequent questions we ask ourselves when we find ourselves before an "artwork" is "what does it mean?" as if it must "mean" something or other before it can make some kind of "sense" to us. We "see" or "read" a work of art AS IF it were a sentence in a paragraph in or an entire prose essay, a letter, an email, an office document, a news article or a scientific or a financial report. I often ask myself, what does this question "what does it mean" itself mean in the context of our looking at an artwork? What kind of "meaning" or "sense" do we have in mind when we ask the question "what does it mean"? Surely not the kind of sense we mean when we ask the question : "what is the purpose of this set of knife and fork, this set of table ware?" Answers like "to help us propel food into that orifice in our face we call our 'mouth'." may serve as a good answer in this context. Its meaning is purely functional and empirical. For a woman, the set of knife and fork and table ware may mean something like "by using this particularly beautiful set of cutlery and tableware which I don't normally use, it means that I wish to honour my guests by putting them on the table". Its meaning is social. Do we expect this kind of answer to our question when we interrogate an item of so-called "artwork"? Surely not.
So what is it that we're after when we ask that question of a piece of "artwork"? That it be something "beautiful"? If so, then in the usual sense of the word "beautiful", many "artworks" we find in art galleries, exhibitions, museums would surely be disqualified because the kind of qualities they embody can with little difficulty be qualified as "ugly" in the sense of not smooth, harmonious, well-proportioned, balanced etc. and if so, they can't have any "meaning" for us.
Do we want an "artwork" to be something "pleasant"? Something which induces in us a feeling of an agreeable pleasure before we'd say that it's "meaningful"? If so, then again many "artwork" will also be "disqualified because if the relevant meaning is "negative" eg. when it induces in us a feeling of fear, of annoyance, anger or disgust, then it can't be "meaningful" for us at all.
Do we want an "artwork" to deliver a "message" like "China is a country worthy of respect and honour" or "this work shows us the natural creativity of our working class who have the capacity to lead our society into that glorious future predicted by the prophecy of scientific socialism proclaimed by Marx and Engels as perfected by the thoughts of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Teng and the current leaders of the CCP?" or show us the "glory" of God of the glory of man, or that of a particular community. If so, then if it doesn't carry any such revolutionary or political or theological "message", it' d immediately become "meaningless. Does an "artwork" necessarily have to carry any such message or any "message" at all before it can be "meaningful" ?
Can an "artwork" not simply be an "expression" of whatever it is that the artist may want to "express" by it? If so, how can we tell what it is that the "artwork" is intended to "express" by the relevant artist? Do we have to rely entirely on what's supposed to be the artist's 'creative intention"? If that is the case, are we sure that in every case, the artist himself/herself has any clear ideas what it is that he/she wishes to do? Do they always start out with a clear plan of what it is that they want to do when they started out the process of creating the relevant work of art and then simply go head to execute that plan, like an architect building a public monument? Or is it more likely to be the case that the relevant artist starts out not having any clear idea of what it is that he/she wants to do when they have in front of them a pile of raw materials like various paints, an easel, a canvas, some wood, metal or other "art" material and that the relevant "idea" becomes more and more evident and takes on a clearer shape as and when the creation process proceeds and that sometimes, the artist would be as surprised as we may be upon the "completion" of his/her artwork to see or discover what in fact he/she has "created" so that even after its completion, he/she is still wondering what the relevant piece of "artwork" may "mean"? Is the artist driven to create by some subterranean or unconscious urge to "create" the true source of which he/she may be ignorant or only vaguely aware? if so, what can the relevant piece of "artwork" mean if even the artist himself/herself has no clear idea of such?
Is the relevant piece of artwork something "independent" of the state of mind or emotion of the artist once it's "completed" and is before the public's eyes? If so, where does the "art" of the "artwork" reside? In the artwork itself or in certain qualities of that "artwork" and if so, what? Or does it reside in the eyes/sensitivity/imagination/feeling/attitude of the spectator? If so, what then is the "meaning" of the relevant piece of "artwork? Does the "artwork" then only have such "meaning" as the spectator is prepared to bestow upon it?
What is/are the true answer(s)? In the end, do the relevant 'artworks " express merely their own brute "existence"? Are they both entities presented for "appreciation" and the "material embodiment" of their own "meaning" ,whatever the word "meaning" may itself mean? Are there any "true" answers? Whatever the answer(s) to such questions may be, here are some more samples at the exhibition.

plastic strips of various colors rolled into various shapes and each illuminated by a light source

A set of farm implement all dressed up with neckties and collars for a party?

A reflecting disc reflecting the ceiling partitions of the convention centre itself. Which is the "correct" viewing angle? is there one?

A glum looking woman with disproportionately huge head and relatively undeveloped body by David Hockey

A sculpture by Miro

silk-string wrapped human skull hung on metallic vice

silk-string wrapped human skull stuck with a drill

Another such human skull cut but with a round metal lampshade for the cranium bone

Another skull with what looks like a metal sewer cover for mouth

Another human skull fitted on another metallic vice with its mouth wide open laughing or crying?

A wooden human figure with all kinds of "flags" or "sticks" stuck on his body

Another view the same figure

museum box with various figure in different postures by Sergei Shekovtson 2013 (?)

A pair of feet on stilts beside a blue corduroy pillar by El Zorro