0462, 2009
Inkjet print
33.66 x 50.5 inches (85.5 x 128.3 cm): image size
40 x 58.5 inches (101.6 x 148.6 cm): paper size

As told to Arthur Ou
Artforum 01.26.10

WHEN FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT visited the Glass House, as Philip Johnson tells it, he was unsure whether he was inside or outside. He said that he didn’t know whether or not to take his hat off. Another quote by Johnson on the house: “Nature is the most expensive wallpaper.” I think the greatest thing about the house is that you’re “inside” once you step on the property. The Glass House is, in truth, a large structure of landscape architecture and a dozen buildings and sculptures.

In 2005, I started making multiple exposures using six filters (red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, yellow) for photographs I called “Hexachromes.” These images recorded vibrantly colored shadows on succulents in my front yard. I exhibited the “Hexachromes” in 2006 at Donald Young Gallery, in Chicago, and it was on that trip that I had an opportunity to visit and photograph the Farnsworth House. I showed these pictures (also made using six filters) to Jody Quon at New York magazine and she asked me to photograph Philip Johnson’s Glass House using whatever techniques I wanted.

I started shooting the Glass House in 2006 with the same filters I used for “Hexachromes,” but that technique really depended on motion and shadows to produce multicolored images. Nothing moved over the three days, so I decided to hold the filters in front of the lens, sometimes in pairs. This is how I began to incorporate arbitrary colors into pictures of the Glass House. I went back seven more times over the following three years.

I’ve been using the word filter as a noun, but it’s also a verb. A filter lets some wavelengths of light through and certain kinds of information to seep in. In addition to colored filters, I used clear glass, clear plastic, fogged plastic, pieces of glass that were slightly uneven or tinted, and finally a diffraction filter that breaks light into spectrums. Now I bring everything with me when I shoot, but initially I introduced new filters one by one. When I realized I could make the grass red or make sun flares, splatters, and different types of visual activity in front of this supposedly transparent house, or box, the project became a laboratory for ideas about transparency, reflectivity, and color.

In December 2008 I brought an HD video camera to the Glass House and shot some footage, but I wasn’t happy with it. Two days later I went back with my low-definition Canon G6 camera and shot video in the strange, snow-covered Lake Pavilion, which was built in 1962. It turned out to be much more exciting footage than the material I made with the HD camera and it became my first video in thirty-five years. I showed Lake Pavilion in 2009 at Galerie Nelson-Freeman in Paris and at Donald Young. Now I’m working on another video installation, Sun Pavilion, based on footage from that pavilion that I shot in October, which will debut at Regen Projects.

When I work at the Glass House, time seems to speed up. I never have enough time to work there. It’s very strange. One of the problems I have with the house as a piece of architecture is that, although it is symmetrical, the front is the same as the back, there are very few views of it that I work with. I use a frontal view primarily (because you can see through the house) and occasionally I can get something out of a diagonal view. Recently I have been photographing the inside of the Glass House. I’m trying to deal with Johnson’s very precise interior, unchanged from 1949, still housing an Elie Nadelman sculpture, a Nicolas Poussin painting, and an ensemble of furniture by Mies van der Rohe.

While the architecture of the Glass House in itself isn’t so revolutionary, what is revolutionary about Johnson’s house is its conceptual use of glass. This big glass box is plunked down in the Connecticut landscape. It’s such a direct statement of transparency and of reflective surfaces. It’s a lens in the landscape. In my work I’m adding to the conceptual conceit of the house by introducing a new decor of color and of distorted reflecting surfaces.

By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Published: February 7, 2010

We’ve always known that America’s reign as the world’s greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic.

What we’re getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce. Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overstretch, we’re paralyzed by procedure. Instead of re-enacting the decline and fall of Rome, we’re re-enacting the dissolution of 18th-century Poland.

A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow!” This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century.

Today, the U.S. Senate seems determined to make the Sejm look good by comparison.

Last week, after nine months, the Senate finally approved Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, which runs government buildings and purchases supplies. It’s an essentially nonpolitical position, and nobody questioned Ms. Johnson’s qualifications: she was approved by a vote of 94 to 2. But Senator Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, had put a “hold” on her appointment to pressure the government into approving a building project in Kansas City.

This dubious achievement may have inspired Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama. In any case, Mr. Shelby has now placed a hold on all outstanding Obama administration nominations — about 70 high-level government positions — until his state gets a tanker contract and a counterterrorism center.

What gives individual senators this kind of power? Much of the Senate’s business relies on unanimous consent: it’s difficult to get anything done unless everyone agrees on procedure. And a tradition has grown up under which senators, in return for not gumming up everything, get the right to block nominees they don’t like.

In the past, holds were used sparingly. That’s because, as a Congressional Research Service report on the practice says, the Senate used to be ruled by “traditions of comity, courtesy, reciprocity, and accommodation.” But that was then. Rules that used to be workable have become crippling now that one of the nation’s major political parties has descended into nihilism, seeing no harm — in fact, political dividends — in making the nation ungovernable.

How bad is it? It’s so bad that I miss Newt Gingrich.

Readers may recall that in 1995 Mr. Gingrich, then speaker of the House, cut off the federal government’s funding and forced a temporary government shutdown. It was ugly and extreme, but at least Mr. Gingrich had specific demands: he wanted Bill Clinton to agree to sharp cuts in Medicare.

Today, by contrast, the Republican leaders refuse to offer any specific proposals. They inveigh against the deficit — and last month their senators voted in lockstep against any increase in the federal debt limit, a move that would have precipitated another government shutdown if Democrats hadn’t had 60 votes. But they also denounce anything that might actually reduce the deficit, including, ironically, any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely.

And with the national G.O.P. having abdicated any responsibility for making things work, it’s only natural that individual senators should feel free to take the nation hostage until they get their pet projects funded.

The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.

Don’t hold your breath. As it is, Democrats don’t even seem able to score political points by highlighting their opponents’ obstructionism.

It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis. But by now, we know how the Obama administration deals with those who would destroy it: it goes straight for the capillaries. Sure enough, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, accused Mr. Shelby of “silliness.” Yep, that will really resonate with voters.

After the dissolution of Poland, a Polish officer serving under Napoleon penned a song that eventually — after the country’s post-World War I resurrection — became the country’s national anthem. It begins, “Poland is not yet lost.”

Well, America is not yet lost. But the Senate is working on it.

Untitled (Book painting 3), 26″ x 30″, Oil on canvas, 2009

Untitled (P. 78), 11″ x 14″, digital chromira print, embossed lamb skin upholstered frame, 2009

Untitled, digital chromira print, 16″ x 20″, 2009

Nancy De Holl

By FRANK RICH
NY Published: February 6, 2010

A funny thing happened after Adm. Mike Mullen called for gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military: A curious silence befell much of the right. If this were a Sherlock Holmes story, it would be the case of the attack dogs that did not bark.

John McCain, commandeering the spotlight as usual, did fulminate against the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But the press focus on McCain, the crazy man in Washington’s attic, was misleading. His yapping was an exception, not the rule.

Many of his Republican colleagues said little or nothing. The right’s noise machine was on mute. The Fox News report on Mullen’s testimony was fair and balanced — and brief. The network dropped the subject entirely in the Hannity-O’Reilly hothouse of prime time that night. Only ratings-desperate CNN gave a fleeting platform to the old homophobic clichés. Michael O’Hanlon, an “expert” from the Brookings Institution, speculated that “18-year-old, old-fashioned, testosterone-laden” soldiers who are “tough guys” might object to those practicing “alternative forms of lifestyle,” which he apparently views as weak and testosterone-deficient. His only prominent ally was the Family Research Council, which issued an inevitable “action alert” demanding a stop to “the sexualization of our military.”

The occasional outliers notwithstanding, why did such a hush greet Mullen on Capitol Hill? The answer begins with the simple fact that a large majority of voters — between 61 percent and 75 percent depending on the poll — now share his point of view. Most Americans recognize that being gay is not a “lifestyle” but an immutable identity, and that outlawing discrimination against gay people who want to serve their country is, as the admiral said, “the right thing to do.”

Mullen’s heartfelt, plain-spoken testimony gave perfect expression to the nation’s own slow but inexorable progress on the issue. He said he had “served with homosexuals since 1968” and that his views had evolved “cumulatively” and “personally” ever since. So it has gone for many other Americans in all walks of life. As more gay people have come out — a process that accelerated once the modern gay rights movement emerged from the Stonewall riots of 1969 — so more heterosexuals have learned that they have gay relatives, friends, neighbors, teachers and co-workers. It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love.

But that’s not the whole explanation for the scant pushback in Washington to Mullen and his partner in change, Defense Secretary Robert Gates. There is also a potent political subtext. To a degree unimaginable as recently as 2004 — when Karl Rove and George W. Bush ran a national campaign exploiting fear of gay people — there is now little political advantage to spewing homophobia. Indeed, anti-gay animus is far more likely to repel voters than attract them. This equation was visibly eating at Orrin Hatch, the Republican senator from Utah, as he vamped nervously with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC last week, trying to duck any discernible stand on Mullen’s testimony. On only one point was he crystal clear: “I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind.”

Now that explicit anti-gay animus is an albatross, those who oppose gay civil rights are driven to invent ever loopier rationales for denying those rights, whether in the military or in marriage. Hatch, for instance, limply suggested to Mitchell that a repeal of “don’t ask” would lead to gay demands for “special rights.” Such arguments, both preposterous and disingenuous, are mere fig leaves to disguise the phobia that can no longer dare speak its name. If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath.

The arguments for preserving “don’t ask” have long been blatantly groundless. McCain — who said in 2006 that he would favor repealing the law if military leaders ever did — didn’t even bother to offer a logical explanation for his mortifying flip-flop last week. He instead huffed that the 1993 “don’t ask” law should remain unchanged as long as any war is going on (which would be in perpetuity, given Afghanistan). Colin Powell strafed him just hours later, when he announced that changed “attitudes and circumstances” over the past 17 years have led him to agree with Mullen. McCain is even out of step with his own family’s values. Both his wife, Cindy, and his daughter Meghan have posed for the current California ad campaign explicitly labeling opposition to same-sex marriage as hate.

McCain aside, the most common last-ditch argument for preserving “don’t ask” heard last week, largely from Southern senators, is to protect “troop morale and cohesion.” Every known study says this argument is a canard, as do the real-life examples of the many armies with openly gay troops, including those of Canada, Britain and Israel. But the argument does carry a telling historical pedigree. When Harry Truman ordered the racial integration of the American military in 1948, Congressional opponents (then mainly Southern Democrats) embraced an antediluvian Army prediction from 1940 stating that such a change would threaten national defense by producing “situations destructive to morale.” History will sweep this bogus argument away now as it did then.

Those opposing same-sex marriage are just as eager to mask their bigotry. The big arena on that issue is now in California, where the legal showdown over Proposition 8 is becoming a Scopes trial of sorts, with the unlikely bipartisan legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson in the Clarence Darrow role. The opposing lawyer, Charles Cooper, insisted to the court that he bore neither “ill will nor animosity for gays and lesbians.” Given the history of the anti-same-sex marriage camp, it’s hard to make that case with a straight face (so to speak). In trying to do so, Cooper moved that graphic evidence of his side’s ill will and animosity be disallowed — including that notorious, fear-mongering television ad, “The Gathering Storm.”

The judge admitted such exhibits anyway. Boies also triumphed in dismantling an expert witness called to provide the supposedly empirical, non-homophobic evidence of how same-sex marriage threatens “procreative marriage.” In cross-examination, Boies forced the witness, David Blankenhorn of the so-called Institute for American Values, to concede he had no academic expertise in any field related to marriage or family. The only peer-reviewed paper he’s written, for a degree in Comparative Labor History, was “a study of two cabinetmakers’ unions in 19th-century Britain.”

In another, milder cross-examination — on “Meet the Press” last weekend — John Boehner, the House G.O.P. leader, fended off a question about “don’t ask” with a rhetorical question of his own: “In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?” Besides Mullen’s answer — that it is the right thing to do — there’s another, less idealistic reason why President Obama might want to get into it. The debate could blow up in the Republicans’ faces. A protracted battle or filibuster in which they oppose civil rights will end up exposing the deep prejudice at the root of their arguments. That’s not where a party trying to expand beyond its white Dixie base and woo independents wants to be in 2010.

Polls consistently show that independents, however fiscally conservative, are closer to Democrats than Republicans on social issues. (In May’s Gallup survey, 67 percent of independents favored repealing “don’t ask.”) This is why Scott Brown, enjoying what may be a short-lived honeymoon in his own party, calls himself a “Scott Brown Republican.” A Scott Brown Republican isn’t a Boehner or Hatch Republican. In his interview with Barbara Walters last weekend, he distanced himself from Sarah Palin, said he was undecided on “don’t ask” and declared same-sex marriage a “settled” issue in his state, Massachusetts, where it is legal.

It’s in this political context that we can see that there may have been some method to Obama’s troublesome tardiness on gay issues after all. But as we learned about this White House and the Democratic Congress in the health care debacle, they are perfectly capable of dropping the ball at any moment. Let’s hope they don’t this time. Should they actually press forward on “don’t ask” in an election year with Mullen and Gates on board — and with even McCain’s buddy, Joe Lieberman, calling for action “as soon as possible” — they could further the goal and raise the political price for those who stand in the way. Recalcitrant Congressional Republicans will have to explain why their perennial knee-jerk deference to “whatever the commanders want” extends to Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Stanley McChrystal on troop surges but not to Mullen, who outranks them, on civil rights.

The more bigotry pushed out of the closet for all voters to see, the more likely it is that Americans will be moved to grant overdue full citizenship to gay Americans. It won’t happen overnight, any more than full civil rights for African-Americans immediately followed Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces. But there can be no doubt that Mike Mullen’s powerful act of conscience last week, just as we marked the 50th anniversary of the Greensboro, N.C., lunch counter sit-in, pushed history forward. The revealing silence that followed from so many of the usual suspects was pretty golden too.

A karaoke machine outside a house in Pasig city, east of the capital, Manila.

By NORIMITSU ONISHI
NY Times Published: February 6, 2010

GENERAL SANTOS, the Philippines — After a day of barbering, Rodolfo Gregorio went to his neighborhood karaoke bar still smelling of talcum powder. Putting aside his glass of Red Horse Extra Strong beer, he grasped a microphone with a habitué’s self-assuredness and briefly stilled the room with the Platters’ “My Prayer.”

Next, he belted out crowd-pleasers by Tom Jones and Engelbert Humperdinck. But Mr. Gregorio, 63, a witness to countless fistfights and occasional stabbings erupting from disputes over karaoke singing, did not dare choose one beloved classic: Frank Sinatra’s version of “My Way.”

“I used to like ‘My Way,’ but after all the trouble, I stopped singing it,” he said. “You can get killed.”

The authorities do not know exactly how many people have been killed warbling “My Way” in karaoke bars over the years in the Philippines, or how many fatal fights it has fueled. But the news media have recorded at least half a dozen victims in the past decade and includes them in a subcategory of crime dubbed the “My Way Killings.”

The killings have produced urban legends about the song and left Filipinos groping for answers. Are the killings the natural byproduct of the country’s culture of violence, drinking and machismo? Or is there something inherently sinister in the song?

Whatever the reason, many karaoke bars have removed the song from their playbooks. And the country’s many Sinatra lovers, like Mr. Gregorio here in this city in the southernmost Philippines, are practicing self-censorship out of perceived self-preservation.

Karaoke-related killings are not limited to the Philippines. In the past two years alone, a Malaysian man was fatally stabbed for hogging the microphone at a bar and a Thai man killed eight of his neighbors in a rage after they sang John Denver’s “Take Me Home, Country Roads.” Karaoke-related assaults have also occurred in the United States, including at a Seattle bar where a woman punched a man for singing Coldplay’s “Yellow” after criticizing his version.

Still, the odds of getting killed during karaoke may be higher in the Philippines, if only because of the ubiquity of the pastime. Social get-togethers invariably involve karaoke. Stand-alone karaoke machines can be found in the unlikeliest settings, including outdoors in rural areas where men can sometimes be seen singing early in the morning. And Filipinos, who pride themselves on their singing, may have a lower tolerance for bad singers.

Indeed, most of the “My Way” killings have reportedly occurred after the singer sang out of tune, causing other patrons to laugh or jeer.

“The trouble with ‘My Way,’ ” said Mr. Gregorio, “is that everyone knows it and everyone has an opinion.”

Others, noting that other equally popular tunes have not provoked killings, point to the song itself. The lyrics, written by Paul Anka for Mr. Sinatra as an unapologetic summing up of his career, are about a tough guy who “when there was doubt,” simply “ate it up and spit it out.” Butch Albarracin, the owner of Center for Pop, a Manila-based singing school that has propelled the careers of many famous singers, was partial to what he called the “existential explanation.”

“ ‘I did it my way’ — it’s so arrogant,” Mr. Albarracin said. “The lyrics evoke feelings of pride and arrogance in the singer, as if you’re somebody when you’re really nobody. It covers up your failures. That’s why it leads to fights.”

Defenders of “My Way” say it is a victim of its own popularity. Because it is sung more often than most songs, the thinking goes, karaoke-related violence is more likely to occur while people are singing it. The real reasons behind the violence are breaches of karaoke etiquette, like hogging the microphone, laughing at someone’s singing or choosing a song that has already been sung.

“The Philippines is a very violent society, so karaoke only triggers what already exists here when certain social rules are broken,” said Roland B. Tolentino, a pop culture expert at the University of the Philippines. But even he hedged, noting that the song’s “triumphalist” nature might contribute to the violence.

Some karaoke lovers are not taking chances, not even at family gatherings.

In Manila, Alisa Escanlar, 33, and her relatives invariably gather before a karaoke machine, but they banned “My Way” after an uncle, listening to a friend sing the song at a bar, became enraged at the laughter coming from the next table. The uncle, who was a police officer, pulled out his revolver, after which the customers at the next table quietly paid their bill and left.

Awash in more than one million illegal guns, the Philippines has long suffered from all manner of violence, from the political to the private. Wary middle-class patrons gravitate to karaoke clubs with cubicles that isolate them from strangers.

But in karaoke bars where one song costs 5 pesos, or a tenth of a dollar, strangers often rub shoulders, sometimes uneasily. A subset of karaoke bars with G.R.O.’s — short for guest relations officers, a euphemism for female prostitutes — often employ gay men, who are seen as neutral, to defuse the undercurrent of tension among the male patrons. Since the gay men are not considered rivals for the women’s attention — or rivals in singing, which karaoke machines score and rank — they can use humor to forestall macho face-offs among the patrons.

In one such bar in Quezon City, next to Manila, patrons sing karaoke at tables on the first floor and can accompany a G.R.O. upstairs. Fights often break out when customers at one table look at another table “the wrong way,” said Mark Lanada, 20, the manager.

“That’s the biggest source of tension,” Mr. Lanada said. “That’s why every place like this has a gay man like me.”

Ordinary karaoke bars, like the Nelson Carenderia here, a single room with bare plywood walls, mandate that a singer give up the microphone after three consecutive songs.

On one recent evening, at the table closest to the karaoke machine, Edwin Lancaderas, 62, crooned a Tagalog song, “Fight Temptation” — about a married man forgoing an affair with a woman while taking delight in their “stolen moments.” His friend Dindo Auxlero, 42, took the mike next, bawling songs by the Scorpions and Dire Straits. Several empty bottles of Red Horse crowded their table.

“In the Philippines, life is difficult,” said Mr. Auxlero, who repairs watches from a street kiosk, as he railed about government corruption and a weak economy that has driven so many Filipinos to work overseas, including his wife, who is a maid in Lebanon. “But, you know, we have a saying: ‘Don’t worry about your problems. Let your problems worry about you.’ ”

The two men roared with laughter.

“That’s why we come here every night — to clear the excesses from our heads,” Mr. Lancaderas said, adding, however, that the two always adhered to karaoke etiquette and, of course, refrained from singing “My Way.”

“Misunderstanding and jealousy,” in his view, were behind the “My Way” killings. “I just hope it doesn’t happen here,” he said.

“L” 1958

“V” 1958

Through February 13
Greenberg Van Doren
730 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor

By Alie Ward
The Los Angeles Times
February 4, 2010

Conceived in 2004 with fellow Silver Lake artists David Burns and Austin Young, Fallen Fruit began as an art project to map fruit growing in public spaces. The message: One person’s overburdened branches and yard waste are another’s lunch. Over the last five years, public interest in the project has spiked as sustainable food sources and frugality have come increasingly into fashion.

“Now we seem really pragmatic,” Viegener says with a laugh. “It’s nice.”

The collective — which isn’t a nonprofit but rather an ongoing art collaboration — has since held events, including jam-making sessions at galleries, a South American residency to examine fruit farming, and a compelling and cheeky interactive banana exhibit at Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions last summer.

This year, the collective is tackling LACMA. After Fallen Fruit participated in Machine Project’s 2008 exhibit “A Field Guide to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art,” the group sprouted the idea for Eat LACMA, a nine-month series of events kicking off this weekend with tree adoptions, followed by lectures, tours, artist-curated gardens and food-themed art installations.

“All of our projects involve fruit, but Eat LACMA examines food in general,” Viegener says. “The art of the table, the centerpiece, even dinner music; food is a very primal form of culture because it connects us.”

“It’s central to everyone’s lives,” adds Michele Urton, LACMA’s assistant curator of contemporary art.

Eat LACMA will commence with two tree giveaways this weekend: One at Watts Towers on Saturday and another at LACMA on Sunday. Fallen Fruit will distribute 300 peach, nectarine, apple, tangerine and plum trees to anyone willing to plant them in public space or “on the perimeter.” That term, used often in Fallen Fruit discourse, refers to the edges of property lines, where branches overhang into public space and the excesses can easily and legally be shared by the community.

“If everyone planted a fruit tree in a public space, it would change the city,” says Fallen Fruit co-founder Burns. “It would change our relationship to the city; it would change our children’s relationship to it.”

This weekend, recipients can sign “adoption” papers pledging to care for their new tree and keep the collective updated. The progress of the tree is tracked, becoming a part of Fallen Fruit’s long-term art project.

Eat LACMA continues in March, when several artist-curated gardens will take root on the LACMA campus. Plans include a hanging garden of bitter melons, a Peruvian potato field and a fountain filled with live tilapia, which will be collected and cooked for a fish taco-meets-art function later in the year. Each garden is intended to create a “unique conversation,” Burns says.

On June 27, the collective will unveil “The Fruit of LACMA,” an exhibit representing food-related work culled from LACMA’s permanent collection. More than 50 pieces, including decorative art and classical paintings and even Harold E. Edgerton’s iconic “Shooting the Apple” photograph, examine the many complexities of human relationships with food.

Fallen Fruit will also debut a multimedia assemblage, for which it will solicit video of strangers dining, described by Burns as “60 seconds, head and shoulders, food in the face.” The user-submitted footage will become a montage of mouthfuls and screened on a loop. They’re hoping to collect submissions from different corners of the globe. Food is everywhere in art, but, Viegener notes, “We never see anyone eating.”

Eat LACMA will also include a jam-making session and a summertime event dubbed ” Salsa Salsa,” which delivers a one-two punch of tomato harvesting for pico de gallo, alongside spicy Latin dance instruction.

The series concludes in November with “Let Them Eat LACMA,” as food from the various gardens will be put to practical, edible use.

“For the final aspect, the public gets to eat the art,” says Fallen Fruit co-founder Young.

Fallen Fruit says the aspiration is to draw art lovers, environmentalists and curious foodies who otherwise may not commingle.

“What we’re excited about is not just the offshoot conversations about public space and sustainability and carbon footprints,” Burns says. “But it’s also the fact that one of the things we love to do is make jam with people we don’t know.”

LACMA/ Fallen Fruit

HEIMO ZOBERNIG
Untitled (HZ 2003-077), 2003
acrylic on Trevira video red (Television CS)
70 x 70 cm (27 1/2 x 27 1/2 inches)

GUY MEES (1935 - 2003)
Verloren Ruimte (VR-062), 1986-1987
colored paper
228 x 120 cm (89 3/4 x 47 1/4 inches)

CHRISTOPHER WOOL
Untitled (D 451), 2008
silkscreen and ink on paper
sheet 182.9 x 140.3 cm (72 x 55 1/4 inches)

BERNARD FRIZE, GUY MEES, DAAN VAN GOLDEN, CHRISTOPHER WOOL, HEIMO ZOBERNIG
January 16, 2010 to February 27, 2010

After 30 years of activity in the gallery business and a longstanding friendship with Mai 36 Galerie, Victor Gisler has invited his Belgian colleague to curate an exhibition. Micheline Tob-Szwajcer has selected five artists of various nationalities who work conceptually and also dedicate their practice to questions concerning painting. The works shown in the exhibition occupy a broad range from pure painting with self-referential claims to clear, precisely formulated ideological stances and attitudes that go beyond genres

Thanks to Matt Connors

Mai 36 Gallery

By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Published: February 4, 2010

These days it’s hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we’re told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims generally aren’t stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they’re reported as if they were facts, plain and simple.

Yet they aren’t facts. Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits than anything you’ll see on TV. Nor do investors seem unduly concerned: U.S. government bonds continue to find ready buyers, even at historically low interest rates. The long-run budget outlook is problematic, but short-term deficits aren’t — and even the long-term outlook is much less frightening than the public is being led to believe.

So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.

To me — and I’m not alone in this — the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized.

And fear-mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear-mongering on weapons of mass destruction.

Let’s talk for a moment about budget reality. Contrary to what you often hear, the large deficit the federal government is running right now isn’t the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions, and been met — appropriately — with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment.

The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.

True, there is a longer-term budget problem. Even a full economic recovery wouldn’t balance the budget, and it probably wouldn’t even reduce the deficit to a permanently sustainable level. So once the economic crisis is past, the U.S. government will have to increase its revenue and control its costs. And in the long run there’s no way to make the budget math work unless something is done about health care costs.

But there’s no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade. Consider, for example, what the latest budget proposal from the Obama administration says about interest payments on federal debt; according to the projections, a decade from now they’ll have risen to 3.5 percent of G.D.P. How scary is that? It’s about the same as interest costs under the first President Bush.

Why, then, all the hysteria? The answer is politics.

The main difference between last summer, when we were mostly (and appropriately) taking deficits in stride, and the current sense of panic is that deficit fear-mongering has become a key part of Republican political strategy, doing double duty: it damages President Obama’s image even as it cripples his policy agenda. And if the hypocrisy is breathtaking — politicians who voted for budget-busting tax cuts posing as apostles of fiscal rectitude, politicians demonizing attempts to rein in Medicare costs one day (death panels!), then denouncing excessive government spending the next — well, what else is new?

The trouble, however, is that it’s apparently hard for many people to tell the difference between cynical posturing and serious economic argument. And that is having tragic consequences.

For the fact is that thanks to deficit hysteria, Washington now has its priorities all wrong: all the talk is about how to shave a few billion dollars off government spending, while there’s hardly any willingness to tackle mass unemployment. Policy is headed in the wrong direction — and millions of Americans will pay the price.

By DAVID BROOKS
NY Times Published: February 1, 2010

We like to think that in days gone by, the young venerated the elderly. But that wasn’t always so. In “As You Like It,” Shakespeare’s morose character, Jaques, calls old age “second childishness and mere oblivion.” Walt Whitman hoped that the tedium and pettiness of his senior years would not infect his poetry.

Developmental psychologists, when they treated old age at all, often regarded it as a period of withdrawal. The elderly slowly separate themselves from the world. They cannot be expected to achieve new transformations. “About the age of fifty,” Freud wrote, “the elasticity of the mental processes on which treatment depends is, as a rule, lacking. Old people are no longer educable.”

Well, that was wrong. Over the past few years, researchers have found that the brain is capable of creating new connections and even new neurons all through life. While some mental processes — like working memory and the ability to quickly solve math problems — clearly deteriorate, others do not. Older people retain their ability to remember emotionally nuanced events. They are able to integrate memories from their left and right hemispheres. Their brains reorganize to help compensate for the effects of aging.

A series of longitudinal studies, begun decades ago, are producing a rosier portrait of life after retirement. These studies don’t portray old age as surrender or even serenity. They portray it as a period of development — and they’re not even talking about über-oldsters jumping out of airplanes.

People are most unhappy in middle age and report being happier as they get older. This could be because as people age they pay less attention to negative emotional stimuli, according to a study by the psychologists Mara Mather, Turhan Canli and others.

Gender roles begin to merge. Many women get more assertive while many men get more emotionally attuned. Personalities often become more vivid as people become more of what they already are. Norma Haan of the University of California, Berkeley, and others conducted a 50-year follow-up of people who had been studied while young and concluded that the subjects had become more outgoing, self-confident and warm with age.

The research paints a comforting picture. And the nicest part is that virtue is rewarded. One of the keys to healthy aging is what George Vaillant of Harvard calls “generativity” — providing for future generations. Seniors who perform service for the young have more positive lives and better marriages than those who don’t. As Vaillant writes in his book “Aging Well,” “Biology flows downhill.” We are naturally inclined to serve those who come after and thrive when performing that role.

The odd thing is that when you turn to political life, we are living in an age of reverse-generativity. Far from serving the young, the old are now taking from them. First, they are taking money. According to Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution, the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on children.

Second, they are taking freedom. In 2009, for the first time in American history, every single penny of federal tax revenue went to pay for mandatory spending programs, according to Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute. As more money goes to pay off promises made mostly to the old, the young have less control.

Third, they are taking opportunity. For decades, federal spending has hovered around 20 percent of G.D.P. By 2019, it is forecast to be at 25 percent and rising. The higher tax rates implied by that spending will mean less growth and fewer opportunities. Already, pension costs in many states are squeezing education spending.

In the private sphere, in other words, seniors provide wonderful gifts to their grandchildren, loving attention that will linger in young minds, providing support for decades to come. In the public sphere, they take it away.

I used to think that political leaders could avert fiscal suicide. But it’s now clear change will not be led from Washington. On the other hand, over the past couple of years we’ve seen the power of spontaneous social movements: first the movement that formed behind Barack Obama, and now, equally large, the Tea Party movement.

Spontaneous social movements can make the unthinkable thinkable, and they can do it quickly. It now seems clear that the only way the U.S. is going to avoid an economic crisis is if the oldsters take it upon themselves to arise and force change. The young lack the political power. Only the old can lead a generativity revolution — millions of people demanding changes in health care spending and the retirement age to make life better for their grandchildren.

It may seem unrealistic — to expect a generation to organize around the cause of nonselfishness. But in the private sphere, you see it every day. Old people now have the time, the energy and, with the Internet, the tools to organize.

The elderly. They are our future.

By Tony Barboza
The Los Angeles Times
February 3, 2010

While Los Angeles city officials and hired consultants tinker with the draft of a mammoth bike plan, vocal critics in the cycling community complain it does not include enough new bike lanes and presents a mishmash of paths and routes that are unintelligible to the average cyclist.

But instead of merely nay-saying, one group of cycling advocates and bloggers known as the L.A. Bike Working Group is developing an alternative bike plan. They are starting with a network of long-distance bike routes they are comparing to a freeway system for cyclists.

Conceptual maps of the proposed Backbone Bikeway Network envision a network of long-distance routes designed to provide cyclists safe passage between different neighborhoods along heavily-traveled corridors, including Wilshire, Venice, Whittier and Sepulveda boulevards.

“The city really is more palatable when you have a straight shot through it, with less lights and less stop signs,” said Mihai Peteu, 28, who helped design the map after holding public meetings with cyclists throughout the city. “I think cyclists deserve to have something similar to the freeway system.”

It’s just an idea, Peteu said. But given a little funding to paint bike lanes, improve the pavement and create shared bike-car lanes called sharrows, such a system could give cyclists a speedier way around town.

Graphic courtesy of L.A. Bike Working Group

Anne Collier
Cut, 2009
C Print
49 11/16 x 53 inches

Through February 20, 2010

Anton Kern

Works on paper 1968 – 2008
January 22nd 2010 - March 13th 2010

Daniel Bucholz

By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Published: January 31, 2010

In times of crisis, good news is no news. Iceland’s meltdown made headlines; the remarkable stability of Canada’s banks, not so much.

Yet as the world’s attention shifts from financial rescue to financial reform, the quiet success stories deserve at least as much attention as the spectacular failures. We need to learn from those countries that evidently did it right. And leading that list is our neighbor to the north. Right now, Canada is a very important role model.

Yes, I know, Canada is supposed to be dull. The New Republic famously pronounced “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative” (from a Times Op-Ed column in the ’80s) the world’s most boring headline. But I’ve always considered Canada fascinating, precisely because it’s similar to the United States in many but not all ways. The point is that when Canadian and U.S. experience diverge, it’s a very good bet that policy differences, rather than differences in culture or economic structure, are responsible for that divergence.

And anyway, when it comes to banking, boring is good.

First, some background. Over the past decade the United States and Canada faced the same global environment. Both were confronted with the same flood of cheap goods and cheap money from Asia. Economists in both countries cheerfully declared that the era of severe recessions was over.

But when things fell apart, the consequences were very different here and there. In the United States, mortgage defaults soared, some major financial institutions collapsed, and others survived only thanks to huge government bailouts. In Canada, none of that happened. What did the Canadians do differently?

It wasn’t interest rate policy. Many commentators have blamed the Federal Reserve for the financial crisis, claiming that the Fed created a disastrous bubble by keeping interest rates too low for too long. But Canadian interest rates have tracked U.S. rates quite closely, so it seems that low rates aren’t enough by themselves to produce a financial crisis.

Canada’s experience also seems to refute the view, forcefully pushed by Paul Volcker, the formidable former Fed chairman, that the roots of our crisis lay in the scale and scope of our financial institutions — in the existence of banks that were “too big to fail.” For in Canada essentially all the banks are too big to fail: just five banking groups dominate the financial scene.

On the other hand, Canada’s experience does seem to support the views of people like Elizabeth Warren, the head of the Congressional panel overseeing the bank bailout, who place much of the blame for the crisis on failure to protect consumers from deceptive lending. Canada has an independent Financial Consumer Agency, and it has sharply restricted subprime-type lending.

Above all, Canada’s experience seems to support those who say that the way to keep banking safe is to keep it boring — that is, to limit the extent to which banks can take on risk. The United States used to have a boring banking system, but Reagan-era deregulation made things dangerously interesting. Canada, by contrast, has maintained a happy tedium.

More specifically, Canada has been much stricter about limiting banks’ leverage, the extent to which they can rely on borrowed funds. It has also limited the process of securitization, in which banks package and resell claims on their loans outstanding — a process that was supposed to help banks reduce their risk by spreading it, but has turned out in practice to be a way for banks to make ever-bigger wagers with other people’s money.

There’s no question that in recent years these restrictions meant fewer opportunities for bankers to come up with clever ideas than would have been available if Canada had emulated America’s deregulatory zeal. But that, it turns out, was all to the good.

So what are the chances that the United States will learn from Canada’s success?

Actually, the financial reform bill that the House of Representatives passed in December would significantly Canadianize the U.S. system. It would create an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency, it would establish limits on leverage, and it would limit securitization by requiring that lenders hold on to some of their loans.

But prospects for a comparable bill getting the 60 votes now needed to push anything through the Senate are doubtful. Republicans are clearly dead set against any significant financial reform — not a single Republican voted for the House bill — and some Democrats are ambivalent, too.

So there’s a good chance that we’ll do nothing, or nothing much, to prevent future banking crises. But it won’t be because we don’t know what to do: we’ve got a clear example of how to keep banking safe sitting right next door.

Chumash Fish Effigy

John Peabody Harrington relentlessly studied Indian families for decades. Today, a 71-year-old woman who considered him a pest is grateful for his intense scholarship.

By Steve Chawkins
The Los Angeles Times
January 31, 2010

Everyone thought the tall, strange white man was some kind of genius. But to teenage Ernestine De Soto he was a giant pain in the neck, a nosy, “Ichabod Crane-like” character who drew her mother’s attention from its rightful place — on her.

John Peabody Harrington studied De Soto’s Chumash family for nearly 50 years, pumping her great-grandmother, her grandmother and her mother for the tiniest details of their lives. Everything fascinated him: the Chumash names of places mostly forgotten, of fish no longer caught — even, to the family’s puzzlement, of private parts never discussed in polite company. A brilliant linguist and anthropologist, Harrington had been just as relentless with countless Indian families throughout the West, but that didn’t impress the young Ernestine.

“I was just a brat to him,” she said. “He’d never speak to me if he could help it.”

Toward the end of his life, Harrington was ravaged by Parkinson’s disease, and De Soto’s mother spoon-fed the lonely old man. Sometimes De Soto’s 5-year-old daughter would tickle his feet. In a few months, he would die, poor and obscure, most of his obsessively collected notes gathering dust in barn lofts and attics. But over time his work would profoundly influence De Soto and many other Native Americans whose heritage was on the verge of vanishing.

“It’s due to his madness that we are who we are today,” said De Soto, a 71-year-old nurse who works at a Santa Barbara rest home. “We have a language. We have an identity.”

Paranoid and secretive, Harrington was a fiercely devoted researcher of California tribes. He had a particular fascination with the Chumash, recording virtually every sound and word of their language, every nuance of their belief system and daily lives. As he did with other Native Americans until his death in 1961, he furiously quizzed De Soto’s relatives for days at a time, sometimes recording their recollections on wax cylinders or scratchy aluminum disks.

At her kitchen table, De Soto vividly recalled how annoyed she was by the Smithsonian researcher’s constant questions on “everything from the hair on top of your head to how you trim your toenails.” Just as vividly, she slips into the voices of long-gone family members, telling stories that, but for Harrington, would have been lost.

From time to time, De Soto stages one-woman presentations portraying female ancestors back to her great-great-great-grandmother Maria Paula, who was born in 1769, the year Spanish explorer Gaspar de Portola trekked up the coast through Santa Barbara.

Her stories start in a Chumash beach village and culminate with the trials of a modern Chumash woman: Ernestine.

Boat-builders and astronomers, the Chumash lived in villages scattered from Malibu to Morro Bay and spoke about eight dialects that are virtually separate languages. Before Spanish colonization, there were as many as 20,000; by the end of the mission system in the 1830s, there were perhaps 3,000. Most died in epidemics.

None of this was of more than passing interest to the young Ernestine. Today, though, she’s intensely proud of her lineage in Santa Barbara’s Barbareño band of Chumash. She says her DNA is a rare strain of Haplogroup D, a genetic sequence that links her to present-day Ecuadorean tribesmen and a 10,000-year-old human tooth found in an Alaska cave. And, though no full-blood Chumash are thought to survive, De Soto was pleased to be chosen years ago as the model for an early Chumash woman in a diorama at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

“As soon as I die, they’ll probably throw it in the basement,” she joked.

She also stars in the poignant documentary “Six Generations,” a museum project produced and directed by filmmaker Paul Goldsmith that traces her roots to the days when Spanish monks established missions along the California coast. Generation after generation, the stories of De Soto’s ancestors are punctuated by disaster, displacement and disease.

As De Soto uncovered them, they resonated with her.

By the time she was 24, she had five children and more hard lessons than she could count from a string of abusive men. For a few years, she drifted. At points, she was sick, broke, disowned by her family. Only in her late 30s did she start pulling her life together, taking classes at Santa Barbara City College. For one assignment, she wrote about her family — for a while, she lived in a small house with 17 relatives — and a tide of memories surged.

“It evoked feelings that were always there,” she recalled. “They were just dormant.”

Taken by a teacher to the archive of the Santa Barbara Mission, she met an earnest graduate student named John Johnson. His thesis was on Chumash marriage and family patterns, and he was intensely interested in Mary J. Yee, the last native speaker of Chumash. Yee, who had recently died, was De Soto’s mother.

The two became fast friends.

With Johnson at her side, De Soto pored over the mission’s records of births, baptisms and deaths. To learn about two of her great-uncles, she dipped into records as far afield as San Quentin. She scoured her memory for the old family stories her mother used to tell. And she dived into the microfilmed field notes of Harrington, her old nemesis.

Yee, the wife of a Chinese vegetable peddler, was a favorite source — and, later, a close friend — of Harrington’s. And while the eccentric scholar was picking her brain, Yee was inspired to take her own notes, recording family lore and drawing caricatures of her questioner. Her 42 notebooks are in the Santa Barbara museum, and De Soto finds something new each time she delves into them.

“It’s like a little girl going into the attic and opening an old trunk, pulling out all these dolls, clothes and old family things,” she said. “It’s like having a treasure.”

There’s Yee’s prayer in Chumash for her daughter, which has yet to be translated. And there are the ancient tales — one of which De Soto turned into a children’s book, “Sugar Bear,” about Chumash generosity to wayfarers.

“She’d tell me stories every night,” De Soto said.

“There were old ghost stories. She remembered the taste of acorn mush, and how my great-grandmother would grind acorns, chew them and feed them to her babies like a bird.”

Other family memories weren’t so gentle.

A devout Catholic, De Soto tries to attend Mass every day. Her refrigerator magnets are religious paintings. But growing up, she heard about a female ancestor who was flogged by a monk for running off from the mission with a Spanish soldier. She knew that at various times, her family fled rather than face mistreatment.

Even so, De Soto worked at the mission’s infirmary for six years and developed a deep fondness for the friars.

“I’d joke around with them,” she said. “I’d say: I have to leave now. Don’t beat me!”

In “Six Generations,” she narrates two centuries of mostly melancholy family history.

Great-great-grandmother Maria Ygnacia shares her home with local paisanos who return to rob her and her blind husband and rape their daughter. “This is how they repaid the favor of being allowed to live here,” De Soto says in the film, portraying Maria in a solemn monotone.

Great-grandmother Luisa Ygnacio sees her husband, a violin player for the mission’s orchestra, complain of cramps and, in the space of a morning, drop dead of cholera. Her second husband is stabbed to death in a Los Angeles saloon, and a third is found facedown in a creek, apparently killed by bandits. A 4-year-old son, one of her 15 children, dies of a rattlesnake bite.

The stories roll on, most of them sad but not unusual for the time, the place and the people. De Soto’s mother, who spoke only a Chumash dialect until she was 12, had never seen a camera and bolted in terror from a class photograph, figuring she was about to be gunned down. Lacking toys, she played with a dead owl until her parents burned the rotting carcass.

Some of the stories are verified in old newspaper accounts and mission records. Many came straight from Harrington’s notes: Delirious from a fever, Maria Juana as a young girl dreamed of marrying a wot — a chief — years before she actually did so. As she lay dying, Maria Ygnacia sent her daughter-in-law to gather spring clover for a last meal.

Such details would be poignant in any family, but for De Soto they are especially so because her people came so close to extinction.

Other Native American families feel the same way.

Her old friend Johnson, now curator of anthropology at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, said that over his career he has received inquiries from more than 1,000 people eager to trace their roots.

Some, he said, hope to receive federal benefits or revenues from groups with casinos, like the Santa Ynez band of Chumash. Many are driven by more profound forces.

“I’ve had people just weep with the realization that they’ve been able to identify their ancestors,” said Johnson, who has sometimes been criticized as a know-nothing outsider when a search comes up dry.

“It’s emotionally overwhelming. We can show them that their great-grandparents worked with John Harrington and that the stories they heard from some great-aunt are real. It’s validating for them,” he said.

For De Soto, it’s the kind of knowledge that has helped her deal with tough circumstances.

The mother of five grown children has seen her family raked by mental illness, alcoholism and drug abuse. She has a congenital heart condition and a respiratory ailment. She doesn’t think retirement is in the cards.

“But we’re hard-grit survivors,” she said. “What I have — it’s a legacy you can’t put a dollar value on.”

link to Six Generations, a Chumash Documentary

By BOB HERBERT
NY Times Published: January 29, 2010

I had lunch with Howard Zinn just a few weeks ago, and I’ve seldom had more fun while talking about so many matters that were unreservedly unpleasant: the sorry state of government and politics in the U.S., the tragic futility of our escalation in Afghanistan, the plight of working people in an economy rigged to benefit the rich and powerful.

Mr. Zinn could talk about all of that and more without losing his sense of humor. He was a historian with a big, engaging smile that seemed ever-present. His death this week at the age of 87 was a loss that should have drawn much more attention from a press corps that spends an inordinate amount of its time obsessing idiotically over the likes of Tiger Woods and John Edwards.

Mr. Zinn was chagrined by the present state of affairs, but undaunted. “If there is going to be change, real change,” he said, “it will have to work its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves. That’s how change happens.”

We were in a restaurant at the Warwick Hotel in Manhattan. Also there was Anthony Arnove, who had worked closely with Mr. Zinn in recent years and had collaborated on his last major project, “The People Speak.” It’s a film in which well-known performers bring to life the inspirational words of everyday citizens whose struggles led to some of the most profound changes in the nation’s history. Think of those who joined in — and in many cases became leaders of — the abolitionist movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the feminist revolution, the gay rights movement, and so on.

Think of what this country would have been like if those ordinary people had never bothered to fight and sometimes die for what they believed in. Mr. Zinn refers to them as “the people who have given this country whatever liberty and democracy we have.”

Our tendency is to give these true American heroes short shrift, just as we gave Howard Zinn short shrift. In the nitwit era that we’re living through now, it’s fashionable, for example, to bad-mouth labor unions and feminists even as workers throughout the land are treated like so much trash and the culture is so riddled with sexism that most people don’t even notice it. (There’s a restaurant chain called “Hooters,” for crying out loud.)

I always wondered why Howard Zinn was considered a radical. (He called himself a radical.) He was an unbelievably decent man who felt obliged to challenge injustice and unfairness wherever he found it. What was so radical about believing that workers should get a fair shake on the job, that corporations have too much power over our lives and much too much influence with the government, that wars are so murderously destructive that alternatives to warfare should be found, that blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities should have the same rights as whites, that the interests of powerful political leaders and corporate elites are not the same as those of ordinary people who are struggling from week to week to make ends meet?

Mr. Zinn was often taken to task for peeling back the rosy veneer of much of American history to reveal sordid realities that had remained hidden for too long. When writing about Andrew Jackson in his most famous book, “A People’s History of the United States,” published in 1980, Mr. Zinn said:

“If you look through high school textbooks and elementary school textbooks in American history, you will find Jackson the frontiersman, soldier, democrat, man of the people — not Jackson the slaveholder, land speculator, executioner of dissident soldiers, exterminator of Indians.”

Radical? Hardly.

Mr. Zinn would protest peacefully for important issues he believed in — against racial segregation, for example, or against the war in Vietnam — and at times he was beaten and arrested for doing so. He was a man of exceptionally strong character who worked hard as a boy growing up in Brooklyn during the Depression. He was a bomber pilot in World War II, and his experience of the unmitigated horror of warfare served as the foundation for his lifelong quest for peaceful solutions to conflict.

He had a wonderful family, and he cherished it. He and his wife, Roslyn, known to all as Roz, were married in 1944 and were inseparable for more than six decades until her death in 2008. She was an activist, too, and Howard’s editor. “I never showed my work to anyone except her,” he said.

They had two children and five grandchildren.

Mr. Zinn was in Santa Monica this week, resting up after a grueling year of work and travel, when he suffered a heart attack and died on Wednesday. He was a treasure and an inspiration. That he was considered radical says way more about this society than it does about him.

Chuka Soba Inoue serves shoyu ramen (with soy-enhanced chicken broth) near the Tsukiji fish market.

By MATT GROSS
NY Times Published: January 31, 2010

NOT far from Waseda University in Tokyo, around the corner from a 7-Eleven, down a tidy alley, lies a ramen shop that doesn’t look like a ramen shop. In fact, Ganko, as it’s called, doesn’t look like anything at all. There’s no sign, no windows, only a raggedy black tarp set like a tent against a tiled wall, with a white animal bone dangling from a chain to signal (somehow) what lies within.

Past the tarp and through a sliding glass door is Ganko proper. Five stools are lined up along a faux-wood counter, and above it a thin space opens like a proscenium onto a small kitchen, crusted black with age and smoke but hardly dirty. The lone performer is a ramen chef. With a week’s stubble on his chin, his eyeglasses fogged with steam and a towel wrapped around his neck, he certainly looks ganko, or stubborn, and he speaks hardly a word as he methodically fills bowls with careful dollops of flavorings and fats, ladles of rich broth, noodles cooked just al dente and shaken free of excess water, a slab of roast pork, a supple sheet of seaweed, a tangle of pickled bamboo shoots. All is silent until the final moment, when the chef drizzles hot oil on top and the shreds of pale-green scallion squeal and sizzle.

From then on there is only one sound — the slurping of noodles. Oh, it’s punctuated by the occasional happy hum of a diner chewing pork or guzzling the fat-flecked broth, or even by the faint chatter of the chef’s radio, but it’s the slurps that take center stage, long and loud and enthusiastic, showing appreciation for the chef’s métier even as they cool the noodles down to edible temperature.

And when the noodles are finally gone, the bowl empty of everything but a few oleaginous blobs, each diner sets his bowl back upon the counter, mumbles “Gochiso-sama deshita” — roughly “Thank you for the meal” — pays the 700-yen fee (about $7.85 at 89 yen to the dollar) and wanders back out into the daylight world where Ganko suddenly seems like a hallucination, a Wonderland dream of noodly bliss.

Now, you might think that Ganko would be a closely held secret — a destination I managed to uncover only through bribes, threats and tearful entreaties. But you’d be wrong. I learned about Ganko out in the open, from an English-language blog, Ramenate!, started by a Columbia University graduate student working on his Ph.D. in modern Japanese literature and, more important, cataloging his near-daily bowls of noodles.

Ramenate! is hardly the only ramen blog out there. There are dozens, many in English, many more in Japanese. Together they constitute but one small corner of Tokyo’s sprawling ramen ecosystem, a realm that encompasses multilingual guidebooks, glossy magazines, databases that score shops to three decimal places (Ganko’s underrated by RamenDB.com at 76.083), comic books, TV shows, movies (like the 1985 classic “Tampopo,” in which a Stetson-wearing trucker helps a beleaguered widow learn the art of ramen) and, according to the Shinyokohama Raumen Museum (yes, there is a ramen museum), the 4,137 shops selling bowls of noodles in broth.

Still unclear? Well, combine New Yorkers’ love of pizza, hot dogs and hamburgers, throw in some Southern barbecue mania, and you’ve still only begun to approximate Tokyo’s obsession with ramen.

This ramen is definitely not the dried stuff you subsisted on in college. At the best shops, and even at lesser lights, almost everything is fresh, handmade and artisanal, from long-simmered broths and hand-cut noodles to pigs raised on red wine (for an inside-out marinade). In some quarters, regional varieties predominate: shoyu, or soy-enhanced chicken broth (like Ganko’s), is popular throughout Honshu, Japan’s main island, but tonkotsu, or pork-bone broth, from the southern island of Kyushu has developed a widespread following, while garlicky, thick-noodled miso ramen from Sapporo, in the north, has adherents too. Elsewhere, the flavors are simply at the whim of the chef, or of ever-shifting trends.

Over six days in late November, I submerged myself in Tokyo’s ramen culture, eating roughly four bowls a day at shops both fancy and spartan, modern and ganko, trying to suss out not just what makes a good bowl but also the intricacies of ordering and eating well. Above all, I wanted to know why such a simple concoction — brought from China by Confucian missionaries in the 17th century — inspired so much passion and devotion among Japanese and foreigners alike, and to thereby gain some deeper understanding of Tokyo itself.

My guide for much of this ramen adventure was Brian MacDuckston, the 31-year-old English teacher from San Francisco behind RamenAdventures.com. Tall and pale, bald and bespectacled, Mr. MacDuckston resembles a noodle himself, and his thin, lightly tattooed figure belies the amount of ramen he’s consumed. Indeed, as he told me, he’s even lost weight during the three and a half years he’s lived in Japan — a rare feat among food bloggers.

Not that he ate much ramen at first. It was only in January 2008, after months of noticing the 45-minute lines outside Mutekiya, a trendy ramen shop in the Ikebukuro neighborhood, that he finally decided to dip his chopsticks.

“It was awesome back then,” he told me. The shop had recently been on TV, and was serving a special pork-laden ramen: “A slice of pork, and then it was stewed pork, and then it was a pork meatball, and then it was a pile of ground pork too. I couldn’t comprehend it. It was delicious, of course.”

He was hooked. He began Googling best-of lists and standing in line for hours. “That’s crazy, any way you look at it,” he said. “It’s noodles and soup, and you wait two hours for it? There’s something crazy about that.” Still, it was his kind of crazy, and since he was between jobs and surviving on unemployment insurance, he started to blog.

Today, Mutekiya’s lines remain long, but Mr. MacDuckston’s tastes have matured beyond the shop’s serviceable tonkotsu broth and slightly overcooked noodles. After Mutekiya, he became a huge fan of Nagi, a mini-chain with a branch just outside the wild, neon Shibuya shopping-and-night-life zone. As Mr. MacDuckston led me there one night, I realized the quiet neighborhood was familiar — two years earlier, I’d wandered the area with friends, searching for somewhere to eat. Little did I know we’d walked right by one of Tokyo’s better ramen shops.

It was an easy mistake to make. Nagi looks more like an exclusive drinking den than a bustling noodlery. The dining room is intimate, its walls decorated with brown-paper flour sacks, and you place your order not by buying a meal ticket from a vending machine, as is often standard, but with an actual waiter, who lets you specify just how hard (or soft) you want your noodles. We asked for ours bari — wiry — and that’s how they came, thin and deliciously mochi-mochi, the Japanese analog of al dente. They were so good, in fact, that we left soup in our bowls to flavor the kaedama, the almost requisite extra helping of noodles we’d ordered.

That soup wasn’t bad either — a tonkotsu broth, simmered for days until milky and rich — and the toppings (tender roast pork, an incredibly eggy slow-cooked egg) were top-notch, but this Nagi was all about the pasta.

At the next place Mr. MacDuckston took me to, Basanova, in a not very exciting neighborhood a few train stops west of Shibuya, the broth was definitely the star. That’s because Basanova specialized in green curry ramen, a clever adaptation of Thai flavors to Japanese tastes. It was fascinating to slurp, at once vibrant with the heat of chilies and the aromas of lemon grass and kaffir lime, but at heart a classic Japanese ramen. You won’t find this in Bangkok.

LIKE Nagi, Basanova was a nice place to relax. Sure, there was a ticket vending machine, and you ate at a stainless-steel counter, but the atmosphere invited lingering with a beer or two, and the owner didn’t mind our taking plenty of pictures. He even came over to chat, explaining that because his parents came from opposite ends of Japan — hence from vastly different ramen traditions — taking the fusion-cuisine route was a natural decision.

As we left, Mr. MacDuckston and I were followed out the door by a young woman who’d been eyeing us curiously. In the street, she identified herself as Kana Nagashima, a student just returned from a decade in Singapore who had started a ramen club at her university. Her giggly enthusiasm was delightful, and she seemed as impressed with us as we were with her. Before we moved on, she and Mr. MacDuckston exchanged contact information. Talk about meeting cute.

Another fusion dynamic was at play even farther west, at an unassuming corner shop called Ivan Ramen. Ivan is the brainchild of Ivan Orkin, a 43-year-old New York City native and former cook at Lutèce who in 2003 moved to Tokyo with his Japanese wife and son and, well, needed a job. Since “ramen’s fun,” as he told me one morning before the shop opened, his path was set. He started Ivan Ramen in 2007, and despite occasional skepticism from traditionalists it became a hit. His classics — salt and soy broths of remarkable single-mindedness — and his whimsies, like a “taco” ramen or rye-flour tsukemen (noodles served dry with broth for dipping), are so popular that he has a line of dried products in Circle K convenience stores and a line of 20-odd customers outside his door.

“One of the reasons it’s an obsession is it’s truly an everyperson’s dish,” Mr. Orkin said. “Pricewise, it’s affordable for just about anybody. It comes in a bowl, and a good bowl of ramen is balanced perfectly: the soup, the noodles, the toppings, everything works together. So when you’re eating it, even though it’s all these disparate ingredients together, somehow they feel as if you’re eating one thing.”

Nowhere did I have a more balanced bowl than at Ikaruga, where I ate with Meter Chen, a fashionable Hong Kong transplant who works in the entertainment industry and who has written a Chinese-language book about ramen, and his assistant, Naoko Yokoi. As we stood in a 20-minute line out front, Mr. Chen was hopeful — he liked Ikaruga’s logo. “You know if the taste is good or not,” he said later, by the attention the owners pay to design.

Inside, Ikaruga was bright and peaceful, with ample room between tables and counter. The cooks and waiters were bright and peaceful, too, wearing black shirts buttoned to the collar and Zenned-out smiles on their faces. This was an oasis, and I understood why it had been featured in “Girl’s Noodle Club,” a guidebook to shops that defy ramen’s stereotypically macho image.

And Ikaruga’s ramen? It seems almost heretical to pick it apart, to praise separately the deep tonkotsu broth with its hint of bonito flavor, or the slices of pork, their edges caramel-sweet, the flesh tender and not too fatty, or the bite of the noodles or the egginess of the soft-cooked egg. Suffice to say, this ramen was perfect.

But perfection takes many forms. The antithesis of Ikaruga is Jiro, a small chain of ramen shops that is something of a sub-obsession for Bob, the 42-year-old American who runs the RamenTokyo.com blog. If Mr. MacDuckston is a noodle, Bob — who didn’t want his last name used — is the unabashedly meaty pork. Which is understandable considering Bob’s goal: to eat at all 33 Jiro franchises.

“It’s like the White Castle of ramen,” he said: cheap, unrefined, flouting all the apparent rules. The bowls are huge, the noodles rough cut, the broth a thick, porky trickle, the toppings a garbage heap of bean sprouts, cabbage, chopped pork and garlic, garlic, garlic. “The taste is just unbelievable,” he said. “You can’t even describe it compared to regular ramen.”

Indeed, it’s great stuff, perfect in its way. But as I tried (and failed) to finish the monster bowl, I wondered how much the 45-minute line had affected my judgment. Who waits that long and doesn’t deem the ramen great? Was I crazy, à la Mr. MacDuckston? Or just obsessed like everyone else?

After a few days in Tokyo, I’d collected several theories about ramen’s popularity. At the Shinyokohama Raumen Museum — a cavernous basement done up like a 1930s urban area, with branches of famous ramen shops — an exhibition explained that in the 1960s as Japanese cuisine became industrialized and as foreign cuisines attained “gourmet” status, ramen became a throwback to a simpler time. By the 1980s, ramen was a way for an affluent new generation to connect with its roots.

Naoko Yokoi, Meter Chen’s assistant, said there was another angle — for young people, ramen is now a demonstration of trendiness: “It’s status for them. Knowing and going to a famous ramen shop is cool.”

Bob was succinct: “On the planet Earth, who doesn’t enjoy eating noodles?”

For many of the ramen obsessives — myself included — it was all, I suspected, about the hunt. Whether they were scouring the Japanese media for leads or wandering around, nose in the air, eyes alert to suspicious lines, finding gems among Tokyo’s 4,137 ramen shops (a conservative estimate, by the way) was a laborious process that made the final first slurp that much sweeter.

Would I have loved the inky-black “burnt” miso ramen at Gogyo as much if I hadn’t gotten lost trying to find the cavelike restaurant? Would the textbook shoyu ramen served by elderly men at the Chuka Soba Inoue stand have seemed so cool if I hadn’t known that a block away tourists were overspending on sushi at the Tsukiji fish market? Would I have had such a crush on the pan-seared tsukemen at Keisuke No. 4 if Mr. MacDuckston and I hadn’t walked two miles there through the rain after everywhere else had closed?

Each step in that process brought other rewards as well. I learned better how to navigate Tokyo’s notoriously unnavigable streets. I improved my Japanese (slightly). And I began to see how ramen mania, whatever its origin, allowed strangers to connect in a city where connections can be hard to make. All I had to do was mention my quest, and I’d be besieged with recommendations, reminiscences and requests to join in, which is how, one evening, I found myself eating ramen topped with grated cheese with Sohee Park, the romantic lead from “The Ramen Girl,” a 2008 movie starring the late Brittany Murphy as an aspiring noodle chef. His verdict (and mine): “fun to try.”

“Fun to try” may not sound like much, but in Tokyo — a city that is, at times, open to all manner of experience and yet just as often closed to those who don’t know the social codes — “fun to try” goes a long way. It softens the hard, geeky edge of obsession and lets you laugh off 45-minute missteps and closed-on-Tuesday failures.

The night Mr. MacDuckston and I ate at Nagi, for example, we were wending our way through a crowded section of Shibuya when he spied a line of young people extending into the street. He approached a young woman at the end, his eyes shining with ramen lust, and asked, in Japanese, what they were waiting for.

The elevator, she said.

So on we hunted, hungry and unfazed. Somewhere out there was the next great bowl of noodles, and we would find it, even if it took all night.

THE BLOGS

RamenAdventures.com, Ramenate.com and RamenTokyo.com are wonderful, frequently updated resources, as is GoRamen.com, written by Keizo Shimamoto, who’s now an apprentice in the kitchen of Ivan Ramen. A number of other sites are either shuttered or seldom updated, but still have valuable information: ramen-otaku.blogspot.com, Rameniac.com and RamenRamenRamen.net.

The best resource for finding ramen shops is RamenDB.com, which is written entirely in Japanese. For help navigating it, check out RamenTokyo’s instructions at ramentokyo.com/2009/05/supleks-ramen-database.html.

THE SHOPS

Finding an address in Tokyo can be a challenge, even with Google Maps. For a more accurate, if slower, map system, check out DiddleFinger.com.

Ganko, 3-15-7 Nishiwaseda, Shinjuku Ward, no phone; ramen from 550 yen.

Gogyo, 1-4-36 Nishi-Azabu, Minato-ku; (81-3) 5775-5566; ramendining-gogyo.com; ramen from 850 yen.

Ivan Ramen, 3-24-7 Minamikarasuyama, Setagaya-ku; (81-3) 6750-5540; ivanramen.com; ramen from 800 yen.

Shinyokohama Raumen Museum, 2-14-21 Shinyokohama, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama City; (81-45) 471-0503; raumen.co.jp/ramen/; admission 300 yen.

Ikaruga, 1-9-12 Kudankita, Chiyoda-ku; (81-3) 3239-2622; emen.jp/ikaruga; ramen from 650 yen.

Basanova (sometimes Bassanova), 1-4-18 Hanegi, Setagaya-ku; (81-3) 3327-4649; ramen from 700 yen.

Chuka Soba Inoue, 4-9-16 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku; (81-3) 3542-0620; ramen from 600 yen.

Nagi, 1-3-1 Higashi, Shibuya-ku; (81-3) 3499-0390; n-nagi.com; ramen from 780 yen.

Keisuke No. 4, 1-1-14 Hon-Komagome, Bunkyo-ku; (81-3) 5814-5131; grandcuisine.jp/keisuke; ramen from 1,000 yen.

Mutekiya, 1-17-1 Minami-Ikebukuro, Toshima-ku; (81-3) 3982-7656; mutekiya.com; ramen from 680 yen

Jiro, multiple locations; see ramentokyo.com/2007/06/ramen-jiro.html for addresses and hours.

Thanks to Jonathan Maghen

The shadow of Neil A. Armstrong fell on Tranquility Base, where the first moon landing took place, on July 20, 1969.

By JESSE McKINLEY
NY Times Published: January 29, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — In one small step for preservation and one giant leap of logic, the official historical commission of California voted Friday to protect two small urine collection devices, four space-sickness bags and dozens of other pieces of detritus, all currently residing nearly a quarter of a million miles from the state.

This is not a joke. I repeat, Houston, not a joke.

Saying it wanted to raise awareness of both the state’s cosmic contribution to the Apollo 11 moon mission and the potential threats from lunar interlopers, the California State Historical Resources Commission voted unanimously to designate more than 100 pieces of space trash, scientific apparatus and commemorative tokens to its list of protected resources.

Milford Wayne Donaldson, the state historic preservation officer, said the reasoning behind the first-of-its-kind designation was simple: Scores of California companies worked on the Apollo mission, and much of their handiwork remains of major historical value to the state, regardless of where it is now or what it was for used for then.

“It has a significance that goes way further than whether it came from a quarter million miles away or not,” Mr. Donaldson said. “They are all parts of the event.”

While Apollo 11 was indeed a landmark mission — during which Neil A. Armstrong became the first man to walk on the moon and he and Buzz Aldrin apparently ditched their boots — it wasn’t exactly tidy. Worried about the weight of their landing capsule, the harried lunar explorers left behind tons of trash, including empty food bags, electrical equipment and, yes, several receptacles meant for bodily waste.

There is also a collection of artifacts of historical note and emotion: Mr. Armstrong’s footprint, for example, and an American flag. Apollo 11 also left behind a mission patch from Apollo 1, in which three astronauts died in a fire, and a message from world leaders.

And while some of the garbage might seem like, well, garbage, California is just one of several states seeking protection for the items in the face of possible lunar missions by other nations as well as a budding space tourism industry.

In New Mexico, home to early Apollo test sites like the White Sands Missile Range, a similar measure is expected to be considered by the state’s cultural properties review committee in April.

Beth O’Leary, an assistant professor of anthropology at New Mexico State University and an expert in “lunar archeology,” said she had screamed with delight when she heard the news from California. But she admitted that persuading people to safeguard Apollo’s space junk was often a challenge, if only because it is on — you know — the moon.

“I don’t think anyone argues with it being a major event in the history for humanity, right up there with the invention of fire,” Ms. O’Leary said. “But people don’t tend to think of it as something we need to be protecting.”

So for the last decade, she and other historians and archeologists have been pushing for protection through their Lunar Legacy Project, which has an inventory of items left behind at Tranquility Base where the astronauts landed in July 1969, including a plaque spelling out exactly who made the mess.

“Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon,” it reads. “We came in peace for all mankind.”

Mr. Donaldson said he hoped his commission’s vote might help goad the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization into placing the landing site on the World Heritage List, an international compilation of famed landmarks.

“I think there’s a threat from private companies,” Mr. Donaldson said. “And with today’s technology, they could probably pinpoint this.”

That said, Mr. Donaldson admitted that there were no “space cops” available to safeguard the state’s newest historical resource. But, like the Apollo astronauts themselves, he seemed optimistic that Friday’s vote might lead to bigger and better things.

“Hopefully,” he said, “this will take off.”

via

Members of the Indian women’s national soccer team training for the South Asian Games, which start Friday in Bangladesh.

By JENNIFER DOYLE
NY Times Published: January 28, 2010

GOA, India — When the Indian women’s national team takes the field against Sri Lanka on Friday in the South Asian Games, it will be its first soccer match in two years.

India’s national women’s team will play its first match in two years, on Friday against Sri Lanka.

India’s national soccer association had failed to schedule a friendly match for its women’s team since October 2007. And last June, FIFA, the sport’s world governing body, sent a rebuke to the All India Football Federation and, with no matches to evaluate, removed the Indian team from its world rankings.

The delisting seemed to move Indian soccer officials to action.

The team was reassembled in late November for a two-month training camp in Margao, Goa, home of one of India’s few artificial-turf fields.

While the men’s national team arrived by plane and stayed in five-star accommodations for its camp, the women’s team — a mixture of veteran and new players — traveled by train for as many as five days and was packed three to a room in a dormitory. The women had no training uniforms when they arrived and did their own laundry.

But as the women moved through their days as a unit — training in the mornings and evenings, and taking all their meals together — they developed a sense of optimism.

“We have been living like a family,” midfielder Amoolya said.

Bembem Devi, the captain, said “being in camp together feels good.”

The removal from the world rankings marked a nadir for women’s soccer in India. The national program languished even though women’s soccer has long been popular. Indian women have played soccer for more than 100 years, and the sport is played widely in schools. In the 1970s, leagues blossomed in regions with strong soccer traditions: Goa, Bengal and Manipur. Matches could draw tens of thousands of fans.

Yolanda Sousa Hammermeier, a star in the 1970s, said fans turned out “not to see the women but the football.”

In the 1980s, India competed in the independently organized world championships that predated the FIFA Women’s World Cup. India was one of Asia’s strongest teams and was optimistic about the future.

Yet, over 25 years, the women’s national program has slowly disintegrated. For players like Devi, the dream of representing her country at the World Cup or the Olympics has slipped further out of reach, even as women’s participation at the school and regional levels has increased.

The teams have few resources, and many of India’s Asian neighbors and most likely opponents are unstable, making friendly matches and international tournaments a logistical nightmare.

In 1985, at FIFA’s behest, the Indian soccer federation, which had previously run only the men’s game, took over administration of the Women’s Football Federation of India, which had been founded in 1979 by female players.

Leaders of the women’s game were replaced with inexperienced and uninterested staff. The program lost momentum and many of its best players.

Players of Sousa Hammermeier’s generation still feel betrayed and are reluctant to let their daughters play.

The team’s staff members acknowledged they face an uphill battle convincing players their national team is worth the effort.

Yet the women’s team saw important signs of change at the recent camp. One reason for the shift in spirit can be traced to a November conversation between Alberto Colaco, the president of the Indian soccer association, and Sunil Gulati, the head of the United States Soccer Federation.

Gulati, who was born in India, visited the association’s headquarters in New Delhi on his way to a tournament. While exploring how the federations might cooperate, Colaco asked for help with the women’s team.

Gulati sent Mike Dickey, the head coach of the Americans’ girls under-15 team, to the camp in Goa. Dickey led two weeks of training and ran a coaches’ clinic.

The fact that a high-level coach from FIFA’s top-ranked program had traveled to work with Indian players and training staff seemed to lift the squad.

Shahid Jabbar, the women’s head coach, said that after Dickey’s arrival, players became more aggressive on the field. “They want to show us what they are learning,” Jabbar said.

Dickey also invited Marcus Pacheco, the goalkeeping coach for the Indian men, to visit the camp.

Pacheco brought along Subhashish Roy Chowdhury, a goalie with Mahindra United in the Indian league and a national team player. Their visit signaled support from the men’s side. Pacheco was dismayed to think that the women’s goalies received little training while growing up. That problem cannot be overcome in two days, he said.

When Dickey first met the team on the training ground, they were not in uniform. No one at the soccer association had asked Nike, the team sponsor, to send gear. It took only a few phone calls to outfit the women in India’s national team training equipment.

The women were not preoccupied with the differences at the men’s camp.

After so long in the wilderness, they were happy to be together, playing the sport they love and raising their game.

“This is a turn for the better,” said Macline Mendonca, an assistant coach and former goalie.

The squad was eyeing the South Asian Games in Bangladesh with optimism.

“We feel sure to win the gold medal,” Mendonca said. The team is confident, she said. “We have to be.”

Thanks to Jonathan Maghen

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NY Times Published: January 27, 2010

Howard Zinn, an author, teacher and political activist whose book “A People’s History of the United States” became a million-selling leftist alternative to mainstream texts, died Wednesday in Santa Monica, Calif. He was 87 and lived in Auburndale, Mass.

The cause was a heart attack, his daughter Myla Kabat-Zinn said.

Published in 1980 with little promotion and a first printing of 5,000, “A People’s History” was, fittingly, a people’s best-seller, attracting a wide audience through word of mouth and reaching 1 million sales in 2003. Although Professor Zinn was writing for a general readership, his book was taught in high schools and colleges throughout the country, and numerous companion editions were published, including “Voices of a People’s History,” a volume for young people and a graphic novel.

“A People’s History” told an openly left-wing story. Professor Zinn accused Christopher Columbus and other explorers of committing genocide, picked apart presidents from Andrew Jackson to Franklin D. Roosevelt and celebrated workers, feminists and war resisters.

Even liberal historians were uneasy with Professor Zinn, who taught for many years at Boston University. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. once said: “I know he regards me as a dangerous reactionary. And I don’t take him very seriously. He’s a polemicist, not a historian.”

In a 1998 interview with The Associated Press, Professor Zinn acknowledged that he was not trying to write an objective history, or a complete one. He called his book a response to traditional works, the first chapter, not the last, of a new kind of history.

“There’s no such thing as a whole story; every story is incomplete,” Professor Zinn said. “My idea was the orthodox viewpoint has already been done a thousand times.”

“A People’s History” had some famous admirers, including the actors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. The two grew up near Professor Zinn, were family friends and gave the book a plug in their Academy Award-winning screenplay for “Good Will Hunting.”

Oliver Stone was a fan, as was Bruce Springsteen, whose bleak “Nebraska” album was inspired in part by “A People’s History.” The book was the basis of a 2007 documentary, “Profit Motive and the Whispering Wind,” and even showed up on “The Sopranos,” in the hand of Tony’s son, A.J.

Professor Zinn himself was an impressive-looking man, tall and rugged with wavy hair. An experienced public speaker, he was modest and engaging in person, more interested in persuasion than in confrontation.

Born in New York in 1922, Professor Zinn was the son of Jewish immigrants who as a child lived in a rundown area in Brooklyn and responded strongly to the novels of Charles Dickens. At age 17, urged on by some young Communists in his neighborhood, he attended a political rally in Times Square.

“Suddenly, I heard the sirens sound, and I looked around and saw the policemen on horses galloping into the crowd and beating people,” he told The A.P. “I couldn’t believe that.”

“And then I was hit. I turned around and I was knocked unconscious. I woke up sometime later in a doorway, with Times Square quiet again, eerie, dreamlike, as if nothing had transpired. I was ferociously indignant.”

War continued his education. Eager to help wipe out the Nazis, he joined the Army Air Corps in 1943 and even persuaded the local draft board to let him mail his own induction notice. He flew missions throughout Europe, receiving an Air Medal, but he found himself questioning what it all meant. Back home, he gathered his medals and papers, put them in a folder and wrote on top: “Never again.”

He attended New York University and Columbia University, where he received a doctorate in history. In 1956, he was offered the chairmanship of the history and social sciences department at Spelman College, an all-black women’s school in segregated Atlanta.

During the civil rights movement, Professor Zinn encouraged his students to request books from the segregated public libraries and helped coordinate sit-ins at downtown cafeterias. He also published several articles, including a rare attack on the Kennedy administration, accusing it of being too slow to protect blacks.

He was loved by students — among them a young Alice Walker, who later wrote “The Color Purple” — but not by administrators. In 1963, Spelman fired him for “insubordination.” (Professor Zinn was a critic of the school’s non-participation in the civil rights movement.) His years at Boston University were marked by opposition to the Vietnam War and by feuds with the school’s president, John Silber.

Professor Zinn retired in 1988, spending his last day of class on the picket line with students in support of an on-campus nurses’ strike. Over the years, he continued to lecture at schools and to appear at rallies and on picket lines.

Besides “A People’s History,” he wrote several books, including “The Southern Mystique,” “LaGuardia in Congress” and the memoir “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train,” the title of a 2004 documentary about Professor Zinn that Mr. Damon narrated. He also wrote three plays.

His wife and longtime collaborator, Roslyn, died in 2008. They had two children, Myla and Jeff.

One of Professor Zinn’s last public writings was a brief essay, published last week in The Nation, about the first year of the Obama administration.

“I’ve been searching hard for a highlight,” he wrote, adding that he wasn’t disappointed because he never expected a lot from President Obama.

“I think people are dazzled by Obama’s rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president — which means, in our time, a dangerous president — unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.”

2008. 16mm film (black and white and color, silent), 16 min

Figure 3

Closes February 15

MOMA

A log house by Sou Fujimoto Architects.

The outside facade of House H.

By FRED A. BERNSTEIN
NY Times Published: January 22, 2010

DURING one three-week period recently Iwan Baan touched down in Amsterdam, Mexico City, Miami, New York, Milan, Rome, Tokyo, Medellín and Basel, where he photographed buildings designed by some of the world’s top architects, including Herzog & de Meuron, Rem Koolhaas and Toyo Ito. Along with Steven Holl, Thom Mayne and the Japanese firm Sanaa, they have helped turn Mr. Baan, 34, into almost certainly the most peripatetic architectural photographer in the world as well as one of the most widely published.

Just five years after he took up architectural photography, Mr. Baan is “remaking the genre,” said Charles Renfro, a partner in Diller Scofidio & Renfro, for whom he has photographed projects like the High Line and the renovated Lincoln Center. For decades magazine editors, developers and architects themselves favored a static style of photography that framed buildings as pristine objects. Mr. Baan’s work, while still showing architecture in flattering lights and from carefully chosen angles, does away with the old feeling of chilly perfection. In its place he offers untidiness, of the kind that comes from real people moving though buildings and real cities massing around them.

Mr. Baan sees buildings as backdrops for his photographs of people, he said during a recent visit to New York. Looking at a picture of the new Cooper Union building in the East Village, designed by Mr. Mayne, Mr. Baan said, “It’s about the woman shuffling down the street.” His work owes as much to Diane Arbus and Henri Cartier-Bresson as to Julius Shulman or Ezra Stoller, the pre-eminent architectural photographers of the late 20th century.

And where Shulman may be best known for exalting glass houses that hovered above Los Angeles, Mr. Baan often does the opposite, chartering helicopters to photograph buildings as small objects amid relentless urban sprawl. If Shulman and Stoller’s glorifying of pure form was an ideal match for the purist Modern architecture of their era, Mr. Baan’s conjuring of real life may be ideally suited to a time when architects like Mr. Koolhaas are creating buildings meant to absorb and reflect the messiness of 21st-century cities.

Mr. Baan, who grew up outside Amsterdam, got his first camera, an Agfa Clack, at 12 but quickly traded it in for a more sophisticated model. In the mid-1990s he studied photography at the Royal Academy of Art, in The Hague, but he didn’t plan to shoot architecture because when he tried it, he was asked for “incredibly boring” pictures, he said, “with blue sky and no people.” And he never finished school, in part, he said, because some of his professors didn’t consider his digital work “real photography.” At the end of the decade he lived in New York, where he took photos for a series of children’s books.

Like many technophiles of his generation, he was fascinated by the Internet. In 2004 he saw an exhibition of images produced by Mr. Koolhaas’s research studio, AMO, on the history of Europe, and — looking for work — he wrote a proposal for turning it into an interactive Web site. Months after he submitted it, he got a call asking if he could accompany Mr. Koolhaas to Brussels to present the idea to an official of the European Union.

That trip led to a number of collaborations with Mr. Koolhaas, including an assignment to document construction of the CCTV tower in Beijing, which involved flying to Beijing every eight weeks. He contacted the offices of Herzog & de Meuron (whose Bird’s Nest stadium was being built for the 2008 Olympics) and Steven Holl (whose Linked Hybrid, a series of residential towers connected by sky bridges, was breaking ground), asking if he could photograph their buildings there. Rather than waiting to be chosen by clients, “he chose our architecture,” Mr. Holl recalled.

Mr. Baan said he was drawn to the Chinese projects largely because the migrant construction workers who lived on site — as many as 10,000 in the case of CCTV — created entire communities for him to photograph, with the new buildings as backdrops. And he was able to capture pretty much what he saw. Nobody bothered to pose for the young man with a self-effacing manner and a hand-held Canon.

Unmarried and unattached, Mr. Baan books his own travel, negotiates his own fees by e-mail (it helps that he speaks three languages) and carries all the equipment he needs in a shoulder bag. He works for architects, their clients or magazines, including several European publications. Last year the Italian design magazine Abitare sent Mr. Baan to Norway to photograph the Knut Hamsun Center, a museum by Mr. Holl north of the Arctic Circle. Mr. Holl then purchased the rights to the photographs, which were distributed to news outlets. Given the building’s remote location, Mr. Baan’s photographs will be crucial to how it is received internationally, Mr. Holl said.

In his spare time Mr. Baan is photographing a series of little-known Richard Neutra houses in Europe for a coming show at the MARTa Herford museum in Herford, Germany. And he has flown to Africa repeatedly to photograph the work of contemporary African architects, a personal passion. He had two books out last year, one on the work of Sanaa, the Japanese firm known in New York for the New Museum of Contemporary Art, the other on the Porsche Museum in Stuttgart, Germany. He accepted the Porsche commission, he said, knowing that he would take an approach to the building at odds with the smooth, luxurious image of the cars.

Mr. Baan maintains a studio in Amsterdam — his nominal hometown — where he has developed techniques for taking panoramic photographs of the insides of architectural models. As part of the symbiosis between Mr. Baan and the architects he works with, his panoramas of their models, presented to prospective clients, have helped them win commissions. In addition to working for stars like Mr. Koolhaas he is also helping to popularize the work of young architects whose work he admires, including Sou Fujimoto, who has created some highly innovative houses in remote parts of Japan.

Mr. Baan may never put down roots, but he and a friend, the Dutch-born architect Florian Idenburg, are considering building a two-family house in Brooklyn. (Mr. Idenburg has a wife and children.) That will give Mr. Baan a place to stay and yet another building, in another throbbing city, to use as a backdrop for his startling photos.

Walead Beshty, Large Copper (FedEx® Large Box ©2005 FEDEX 139751 REV 10/05 SSCC), Standard Overnight, Los Angeles-New York trk#870069766931, trk#870069766910, trk#870069766920, January 12-13, 2010, 2010-, Copper, accrued shipping labels, 12 x 18 x 3

Nina Beier & Marie Lund , Walead Beshty, Alexandre da Cunha, Sean Edwards, Ian Law, Dan Rees, John Smith, Kerry Tribe

14 January - 13 February 2010

Wallspace

JAMES WELLING: GLASS HOUSE
January 30 - March 6, 2010

OPENING RECEPTION
Saturday, January 30
6 - 8 pm

Regen Projects