Civil Disobedience (please keep left)

I see rules and regulations as a fence. Most of us would, if encountered by one, walk along it until you find an opening that allows you to go through. Some would change direction completely. Only in case of an emergency, if we absolutely have to, would we climb a fence we’ve been told not to climb. Sometimes the emergency is the fact that someone placed the fence there in the first place. On such occasions the fence need to be pulled up and preferably burned. If the fence only benefits five people and is an obsticle to ninety-five, then one should start by questioning why the fence is needed in the first place, and see if there is any way of reaching a compromise that will make everybody happy, if not someone needs to step up and do something. The five people who benefit from the fence are very unlikely to do so. But if the other ninety-five help each other the fence should be gone within an hour and it will be a great team-building experience as well.

written in solidarity.
against victimization.
pro freedom of expression.
pro zombies against zombies.



Arthur Asa Berger explains the term semotics in his book What Objects Mean (2009, Left Coast Press, inc. Walnut Creak, CA). “Semiotics” he says “is the sience of signs. /…/Signs are things that stand for other things or anything that can be made to stand for something” 

Berger also explains the theories of Charles Sander Pierce, the founding father of modern semiotics. Pierce’s theory  was that universe was made up of signs and that the viewers of those signs have to supply some of the meaning to them. Meaning, in my opinion and not Pierce or Berger’s, that semiotics is somewhat the core of every kind of art. It’s not about what the artist, author, performer etc. show you, it’s what you make out of it yourself. Their intent of their work doesn’t necessary suit your interpretation.

Pierce had more theories about semiotics. About it being divided into three smaller groups (indexical, iconic and symbolic signs) for example. This is all very sensible. Make a lot of sense etc. Thing with theories, though, is that to be able to explain anything you need to divide your theory into smaller sections with new theories and new facts and the more specific you get the more you need to specify. Semiotics is a simple and natural thing, most of the time you will instantly know what the things you see in front of you symbolise, but if you decide to make it complicated then you might lose yourself in a sea of socio-psychology and anthropology and, speaking from experience, you will soon begin to question your own existence. Might be worth it though.

Tibor Kalman (this guy is jokes)




These are six of the reasons why I like Tibor Kalman:

  1. On one of his book covers he looked a bit like Mao. That’s pretty radical.
  2. In 1993 he moved from New York to Rome, left everything behind, to concentrate fully on his magazine Colors. Colors was about “the rest of the world” which, as we all know is a very vast subject and I think it was a good move of Tibor to quit everything else because otherwise he’d burn himself out. (he did die six years after he left New York, but I don’t reckon there was any major connection. I do know that he got a quite beautiful note from the Staff of the Creative Time saying “As we say our sad good-byes and send our condolences to Maira, Lulu and Alex, we anticipate seeing some interesting cloud formations, better groupings of constellations and possibly a longer spring. Thank you Tibor, the pleasure was ours.” The New York Times, 6 May, 1999.
  3. Tibor once said “Good designers make trouble“. This is true.
  4. He also said “Consumption is a treatable disease.” I don’t believe that this is true, but it’s very sweet of him to think so. I respect him for that.
  5. He looks a lot like the history teacher I had when I was 16. His name was Tibor too. Tibor-the-History-Teacher had a very monotone voice and was overly fond of late swedish kings. I’ll look into it and see if Tibor-the-Graphic-Desinger shared any of these traits. I doubt it.
  6. Also, his work is stunning.


Images from:

Multiculturalism vs David Cameron

Multiculturalism is under attack. London is under attack. David Cameron claims that it has failed in this country. This was said the day before the EDL held their conference in Luton. Celebrating their successes of the last year. Don’t need to check up on any facts on this, because I know. I was there. Unite Against Fascism, The Socialist Workers Party and Love Music Hate Racism gathered as many people they could and got on the train to Luton to stand side by side with the locals, and help them defend the mosque which, it leaked out a few days earlier, had been targeted by the EDL. Most of us never made it to the mosque. We got kettled in the town square for six bloody hours by 2000 police men. Why is there only a few hundred counter-demonstrators on the streets a day like that one, and why was there 3000 far-right activists?

To blame muslims for being terrorists has a name. Islamophobia. To say, like David Cameron did in his speech the 5th of February this year, that multiculturalism is opposing “Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality” is a big fat lie. multiculturalism has failed in David Cameron’s eyes because he’s not making any money out of it.

the image is my own.