2006-10 Vital Source Mag – October 2006
Testing Page for Evan
By Subhead here This is one paragraph. This is another. And another. This is bold.
Oct 24th, 2006 by Vital Archives
Jet
By Jon M. Gilbertson There was no denying that Jet’s 2003 debut, Get Born, was energetic. That distinguished both the Aussie band and their songs from Oasis, with whom they have otherwise shared numerous characteristics: brotherly consanguinity (the Cesters vs. the Gallaghers), a producer (Dave Sardy) and a fetish for wearing yesterday’s fashions as though they were today’s. Not a lot has changed on Jet’s follow-up, Shine On, but it is a stronger album because of how every little evolution accumulates over the course of its 15 tracks. The most noticeable improvement lies in the band’s ability to vary tempos. Get Born’s best songs were its faster ones, period, and never mind that the clumsy “Sexy Sadie” rewrite “Look What You’ve Done” was a hit. Now, whether tearing through the mid-tempo AC/DC-derived “Stand Up,” gently developing a Pink Floyd tangent via the title track, or throwing noise all over the garage in “Rip It Up,” Jet sounds just that significant bit less reverent of their sources. As frontman and lead singer Nic Cester spearheads the turn toward determined looseness, both his shredded-speaker scream and his Abbey Road-era croon have gained something akin to personality. Mostly, though, Jet and Sardy don’t tamper with what worked before: Chris Cester’s Ringo-solid drums, Mark Wilson’s power-trio bass (which sounds heavy in the quartet setting) and Nic Cester and Cam Muncey’s too-perfect guitar interplay. Yes, what worked before for Jet was actually what worked 35 years before Get Born got born. It still works, and probably shall as long as cheeky bastards like this have the energy and arrogance of youth.
Oct 1st, 2006 by Vital Archives
Shoot from the hip
By Jon Anne Willow You may have heard of Cedar Block, Milwaukee’s premiere presenter of offbeat creative events with an emphasis on group participation. You may have heard of Saul Leiter, the New York street photographer who blazed the trail for the use of color in art photography in the mid 20th century. And you may have heard of lomography… or not. But even if none of these are familiar to your ear, you will surely have heard of the Milwaukee Art Museum (MAM) and of Milwaukee Street in Milwaukee. And whether you’ve heard of all these things or only the last two, you will soon see them brought together in what is perhaps one of the most interesting collaborations of local and national photography this year. In Living Color: The Photographs of Saul Leiter opened at the Art Museum on September 28. Unlike his ersatz contemporaries in Abstract Expressionism, Mark Rothko and Richard Pousette-Dart, Leiter’s work wasn’t embraced by the formal art community until recently. But like Fellini or Bergman among filmmakers, his influence has been felt among photographers for decades. And now Milwaukee will be first to acknowledge his contribution to the form with the first-ever major exhibit for the 82-year-old photographer. As early as the late 40s, Leiter worked primarily in color, shooting scenes of New York City that stunningly captured urban life in saturated frames and off-kilter focus. At that time, color photography was not only expensive to process, but viewed by many as a baser form of the medium. Leiter’s photos further insulted the “art world” by presenting technical “imperfections” rather as augmentation, an approach with which he was rewarded by resounding silence from curators around the world. To his vast credit, Leiter didn’t care: he continued to ply his trade his own way, presenting his work as slide shows with his photographs blown up to the scale of full-size paintings. The MAM exhibit will include a room devoted to a digital slide show in that vein, along with around 70 color prints, a selection of black and white photos and four of his watercolor/govache paintings. Enter Cedar Block, the brainchild of Brent Gohde, ostensibly a member of Milwaukee’s emerging DIY Art Movement. (Though the city has yet to be recognized nationally as a haven for such, we are confident it will, so we’ll just say it now). Gohde, like his peers, is firmly committed to the principle that there is a place for every artist who wants to work, even if their talents and opportunities don’t fall into traditionally accepted tracks. To that end, Cedar Block stages unusual events, from Weird Science Fairs to essay contests, and now an exhibit of lomography-inspired photographs by local artists in conjunction with the Leiter exhibit. “There’s never been a voice that shouldn’t be heard,” says Gohde. “These events provide a venue for the non-traditional artist to show their work, have it displayed in a world-class museum. My fondest hope is reaching further quarters of the Milwaukee community […]
Oct 1st, 2006 by Jon Anne Willow
What kind are you?
By Jon Anne Willow Dear Readers, My boyfriend is my favorite kind of conservative. A drive past a “Give Peace a Chance” yard sign is enough to get him started. “I don’t want to hear from anyone about being unhappy with the way things are going unless they have a plan to change it,” is one common complaint. If I mention that he himself is unhappy with “the way things are going” he is quick to point out that he’s not complaining. (God forbid we ever end up at a red light behind a “Republicans for Voldemort” bumper sticker: The only thing that bothers him more than liberals without a plan is fantasy andscience fiction.) When afforded these impromptu opportunities to engage in political debate, the conversation plays out predictably. He lays out his argument with the usual tent stakes of the superior organizational power of the Republicans and his support of decisive action and a clear agenda over ideological drift and Tower-of-Babel pluralism. His resolve typically begins to falter, though, when questioned directly on whether the decisive actions to which he refers represent sound policy, and whether the clear social and moral agenda of his party truly adhere to the founding principles of Republicanism. Like many conservative individuals, he is a person of common sense, secretly disappointed in just how far his party has strayed from its core values. I’m pretty sure I’m also my boyfriend’s favorite kind of liberal. I pound the tent stakes of our nation’s fall from grace: of a once-compassionate government which no longer guards the interests of its most vulnerable, which thumbs its nose at the rest of the world’s economic and social interests, which aggressively seeks to erode such basic personal freedoms as privacy and reproductive choice. My resolve typically begins to falter, though, when he points out that despite the fact that many Americans on both sides of the political fence share my views, my party has done nothing to effect change except make the aforementioned charges. Yes, Democrats are working hard to win back Congressional seats in these midterm elections on a vague platform of curing these ills, but the party was beset on all sides for over a decade before it started to retaliate with any force. “The war has been such an effective distraction,” I attempt to argue. “People don’t want to buck the leadership when faced with such a crisis.” I even sometimes add lamely, “Besides, these things take time.” (God forbid we end up at a red light behind a “Democrats Have Moral Values, Too” bumper sticker. The only thing that bothers me more than liberals without a plan is whining statements of the obvious.) Not so secretly, I am also disappointed in how far my party has strayed from its core values. But what is the solution? The events of the last five years have shown in stark relief just how little difference there is between elected officials. Even if given a free pass on the […]
Oct 1st, 2006 by Jon Anne Willow
Now you see it…
By Amy Elliott + photos by Kate Engeriser You’re seeing something you know, but you don’t know what you’re seeing – that’s how “Super Subconscious” hits the eyes. Painted in grayscale and composed of hundreds of layered advertising icons, it shifts with your gaze; some things come into relief, others fall concealed. The panels of the mural snap as they sway and sink in the wind. You can hear it for blocks on Vliet Street when the traffic is light. Two kids who’ve come to skate at the Vliet Street Commons hoist their skateboards to shield the sun from their eyes.They laugh at the cackling mug of Spongebob Squarepants, point at the logos they recognize and the brands they like. “Led Zeppelin,” says one to the other. “This is awesome.” Its sharp lines catch the glances of drivers-by; it looks like an emphatic banner for an epic party in the Commons or a stark charge of political will. But the piece is the attempt of artists Harvey Opgenorth and Nate Page – in their own words – to “graft a mural-sized ‘representation’ of the subconscious mind” and “to disrupt commercially implied cultural value systems.” Later this month, Opgenorth will install “Subliminal” in the window of an empty storefront across the street at 4920 Vliet, a neon piece that will blink its own questions about the nature of advertising. Both installations are part of a collaboration with the West End Vliet Street Business Association (WEVSBA) and IN:SITE (insitemilwaukee.org), an organization for the encouragement, management and promotion of temporary public art in Milwaukee. “Vliet street has a lot of missing teeth,” says Pat Mueller, President of WEVSBA. “From 43rd to 60th we have Washington Park, the old 3rd district police station, Wick Field – things that sort of eat into our retail and commercial space.” But that same stretch – 43rd to 60th – has no national chain stores, a fact that Mueller, and the artists working for IN:SITE, wanted to celebrate and explore. “The whole climate of the city has changed since these business districts were built,” says Mueller. “The little stores that met people’s everyday needs don’t exist anymore. You have to find a niche, and to that end we have really moved toward art.” The backbone of hope IN:SITE embraces temporary art for reasons that are practical as well as conceptual. Less upkeep and financial overhead means more artists have the chance to share their voices and more neighborhoods can afford to participate. Non-permanent art can change with neighborhoods that are as dynamic and diverse as the people that live in them, and the projects always stay fresh, surprising and adventurous. In the North Avenue Gateway District on the west side, on the corner of a handsome but empty building, Chris Silva and Michael Genovese hang weathered signs, hand-lettered with equally weathered aphorisms: “Every man is guilty of the good he did not do;” “It is a sign of strength, not […]
Oct 1st, 2006 by Amy Elliott
High time for a high tide?
By Lefty McTighe The 1994 national elections were a watershed moment in American political history. In the first midterms of Bill Clinton’s presidency, Republicans trounced Democrats by more than 4.7 million votes nationwide, triggering a 54-seat swing in the balance of power in the House of Representatives, and handing the GOP control of that chamber for the first time in 40 years. It is that dramatic outcome enthusiastic Democrats and Progressives hope to emulate in the upcoming 2006 midterm elections, just a month away. After all, they argue, many of the factors that contributed to the Republican rout in 1994 exist today: an unpopular president, a culture of corruption crippling the party in power and a sense that the nation is heading in the wrong direction. Yet while the problems that plague Republican incumbents in 2006 bear a strong resemblance to those that doomed Democrats in 1994, an even more critical piece of the puzzle remains, at the moment, missing. Democrats in 2006 are still struggling to match the success of Republicans in 1994 in developing, articulating and rallying around a shared vision for the nation. And that could be the crucial difference in whether Democrats can win control of Congress this November. Incumbents in the crosshairs The parallels are intriguing. In 1994, scandal rocked Democratic Congressional leaders, just as for Republicans today. For Dems, it was a check-writing scam involving the House bank. Republicans today are saddled with Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and corruption involving political contributions. Widespread dissatisfaction with the chief executive also existed in 1994. Bill Clinton had a rocky first two years in office, marked by a highly controversial debate over gays in the military, an unexpected flashpoint in Somalia, and the political fiasco that was his health care plan. George W. Bush is perhaps even more unpopular rolling into his midterm elections. The 43rd president has consistently polled below 40 percent of late, with his leadership and judgment in serious question over Iraq, Katrina, economic issues and more. In both years the same party ruled the White House and Capitol Hill, creating a sense of politicians run amok and a lack of accountability; ethics clouds hung over both parties, and the president lacked the political capital to rally his party to victory. But will that be enough for Democrats this November? The “Vision” thing In September 1994, six weeks before the November midterm elections, Congressional Republicans unveiled the ‘Contract with America.’ It was an ethos that propelled the Grand Old Party to electoral victory, and three factors made it an enormously powerful political tool. First, the Contract articulated a clear conservative vision to American voters, and an undeniable alternative to the Clinton White House. From lower taxes to welfare reform, from revamping Social Security to tort reform, it was a crystal clear agenda from the right end of the spectrum. In politics, where contrasts matter most, the differences couldn’t have been more obvious. Second, the Contract was signed by all but two Republican candidates for […]
Oct 1st, 2006 by Vital Archives
Of labor unions and fetish gear
By Matt Wild A man wearing an American flag headband tears past me on his bicycle, narrowly avoiding a collision forceful enough to rearrange our collective bone structures. He turns back to look at me, a strange grin on his face, a psychotic glint in his eyes. “Wake up, kid. Wake up!” It’s 11 a.m. and I’m stumbling east along Wisconsin Avenue, hung over and slowly following the annual Labor Fest parade to the Summerfest grounds. I’m here to find out why so many perfectly sane people have decided to get out of bed on this cold, wet morning and gleefully march through the streets of downtown Milwaukee. Hordes of union-types carry banners denoting their affiliations (Sheet Metal Workers, Bricklayers Union). Small children hold signs saying “Don’t Roll Back Workers’ Rights!” A WTMJ news chopper hovers overhead like a threat. I try to snap a few pictures, but a hay-bailer driven by a bunch of iron workers nearly plows me over, my second near-miss of the day. Collecting my wits, I decide to heed the biker’s advice: Wake up. Ask questions. “Immigration reform” are the words I hear most often when pressing people on their reasons for marching, as well as a laundry list of candidates to be supported: Doyle, Kohl, Falk, et al. Amidst the admittedly left-leaning crowd I manage to spot a small group of Mark Green supporters, huddled tight against the inclement weather. Quietly sidling up I politely try to strike up a conversation. Would they like to answer a few questions? Nothing. What are their reasons for being here today? No answer. What are Mark Green’s views on unions? On immigration? A few evil glares, some hushed mumblings (I distinctly hear “Don’t even look at him.” ), but still nothing. Have you guys seen any of Green’s TV commercials, and if so, how long can you make it before you start laughing? Sensing a potentially ugly scene, I decide to ditch the weasely bastards and head for the festival grounds. Inside, the mood is somewhat muted, the light drizzle from the morning having turned into a fairly steady downpour. While signs screaming “Safety on the Job!” and “Protect Immigrant Workers Now!” abound, the event itself is disturbingly similar to Summerfest: eight dollar cups of beer and cover bands playing “Love Shack.” Barbara Lawton is giving a speech on the Miller Oasis stage, her words echoing off a sea of wet, empty bleachers. A grizzled-looking man suddenly approaches, a despairing look on his face. “You see this crowd? This represents every progressive in the state. It’s no wonder we always lose.” Surely it’s just the weather, I remark. If it wasn’t such a miserable day, maybe then…but no, he’s already gone. An unidentified woman takes Lawton’s place on stage and begins making an impassioned speech in Spanish. I ask another woman nearby to translate for me, but she doesn’t speak any… “ENGLISH! DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND. ENGLISH!?! Take another picture of me and I’ll…” There’s a drunken lunatic […]
Oct 1st, 2006 by Matt Wild
Salad Days
By David Seitz When Wisconsin voters consider the proposed constitutional ban on civil unions and same-gender marriage on November 7, it will mark the first time the fate of unmarried domestic partners (lesbian, gay and heterosexual) and their families has been subject to direct legislation in our state’s history. While the legislature has long debated lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues, the proposed amendment injects LGBT rights directly into the public discourse in a new way, blurring the boundaries between the personal and the political in ways not seen since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Drawing the lines As a 22-year veteran of the state legislature who is also an openly gay man, State Senator Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee) speaks clearly about how he maintains professional relationships with colleagues and constituents whose votes or views harm the interests of LGBT Wisconsinites and their families. “I respect those who philosophically believe in what they’re doing, as opposed to those who know it’s baloney, or who didn’t decide for themselves,” Carpenter says. “Some who personally opposed the ban but voted for it said to me, ‘It’s nothing personal, but I voted that way.’ Privately, I’m disappointed, and I’ll think a little less of them as human beings, but it certainly doesn’t keep me from working with them on behalf of my constituents.” He also notes that he only rarely hears negative comments from constituents about his own sexual orientation, and that when confronted, he simply moves on to the next person. By contrast, Carpenter’s colleague from a neighboring district, State Senator Tom Reynolds (R-West Allis), has come under fire from constituents, LGBT community leaders and his election opponent for his support of the ban and handling of related issues. Reynolds is seeking re-election in the 5th State Senate district. Reynolds has not been criticized for the sort of election-oriented cynicism Carpenter describes as so disappointing. On the contrary, Reynolds appears to fall into the category of those who “philosophically believe” in the ban. An evangelical Christian, Reynolds was the only state legislator to attend the 2003 “International Conference on Homo-Fascism” in Milwaukee. He also professed support for the ban in campaign literature, writing, “…the secular humanists are trying to normalize all perverse human desires.” He has been reproached for failing to develop that ability which Carpenter describes as so vital to a professional legislator’s work: separating personal opinion from professional priority. As one of Reynolds’ constituents, I experienced this firsthand. I am openly gay and continue to actively oppose the marriage ban. I mentioned those facts during a listening session Reynolds held at my church on the matter in 2004. After that meeting, Reynolds personally sent me information on “re-orientation therapy” for gay people on his state senate letterhead and franking. Though this encounter and one other took place two years ago, I only felt comfortable speaking publicly about them this spring. Since my story came to light, I have learned of other gay citizens who say they’ve had similar […]
Oct 1st, 2006 by Vital Archives
Having THE Talk
By Lucky Tomaszek You just never know when it’s going to happen. You can be standing in line at the grocery store with your child, or walking into the exam room at your doctor’s office. Perhaps you’re lucky and you’re at home with no one around to watch you blush and fumble as you realize that it’s happening: your child is asking you about sex. Different kids ask about it at different ages and for different reasons. Sometimes a relative or close friend is expecting a baby, or sometimes they’ve heard a whisper or rumor at school. Occasionally, they’ve seen pets, wild animals, or even (gasp!) their parents actually having sex. Whatever the reason, they’re curious and they want to know everything. Making an important choice As parents, we have a choice. We can tell them the truth without making them feel embarrassed, or we can fumble, stutter and let our own discomfort show. If you choose the first, your children will feel like they can come back to you later when they have more questions. Choose the second and you risk them turning to their peers for more information. When I was in elementary school, it was very popular to give children a book when the questions started. During the 1970s and into the 80s, several feel-good, body-positive books were written to meet the demand. Where Did I Come From? by Peter Mayle is a good example of these. But I remember talking to friends who had received a book in response to their inquiries. All of them felt like the underlying message from their well-meaning parents was, “I don’t really want to talk about this.” The question then becomes, how do we have this conversation? Not just “How do we survive it?” (which is a valid concern), but how do we handle it smoothly, while leaving all of the parties with their dignity intact? How much is too much? In our house, the kids are exposed to the circle of life very early. As a midwife, I have pregnant women coming in for prenatal care all the time, so the kids have been curious since an early age. It started with, “Why is her belly so big?” That’s an easy one. “She has a baby in her belly” satisfied my inquisitor for a while. Later I was approached again. “Mama? How did the baby get in there?” Okay, Lucky. Deep breath. Fortunately, I quickly remembered a rule I had read in a mainstream parenting magazine years before. Answer these hard questions as briefly as possible. Children will ask for more information if they’re ready for it. “It grew there,” I responded. “Will it come out?” “Yes,” I nodded reassuringly. “When?” “Around Christmas,” I sighed with relief as I realized that this was the end of this round of questions. But I knew then that I was going to need to be ready with […]
Oct 1st, 2006 by Lucky Tomaszek
