Free Store?! Groovy, baby

10th Street, Manhattan used to be home to a free store, above.

What do British communists, San Francisco hippies, and free stores have in common? The name ‘diggers,’ among other things.

In 1649, British communists called themselves diggers and tried to create Utopian, moneyless societies. Mainly small agrarian communities, these died out by 1651, in part because of efforts against them by the King’s Privy Council.

A group of performance artists in San Francisco, founded by Emmett Grogan,took the name ‘diggers‘ in the 1960s . Riding on a wave of hippieness, the movement grew as they too tried to create a moneyless society. They put on performances in the parks and streets, making San Francisco their stage. They spawned the first free stores in the United States, and have also been credited with the spread of whole wheat bread in America. Going back to the agrarian roots of the movement, these diggers baked bread in 2 pound coffee tins and gave it away. Recipe here.


This led to a free store on 10th Street in Manhattan, where according to a New Yorker Talk of the Town article from 1967, the shop was “crowded with Negro and Puerto Rican children, old women speaking Middle European dialects, barefoot runaways with glazed eyes, stumbling winos, and gaily ornamented hippie couples, all picking through boxes full of used shoes or fingering racks of soiled clothing or burrowing under piles of miscellaneous junk spread out on rough wooden tables, which line the walls.”

Has the digger movement entirely died out since then? If you remember the New York Times article from last summer, not at all. Dumpster diving was exposed as part of a freegan community. The freegan‘ lifestyle was (dubiously) celebrated as “scavengers of the developed world, living off consumer waste in an effort to minimize their support of corporations and their impact on the planet, and to distance themselves from what they see as out-of-control consumerism.”

Sounds like the 1960s diggers and 1650 agrarians have found their modern day equivalent. You’d think free would sell itself in the most practical way, yet these groups all developed a socially conscious ethos that supported their anti-establishment view of the good life.

Peace and Love.

Ravels in Review Friday (already!)


Has another week really passed? It seems so here in Art Ravel’s land, which has been hopefully busy despite a recurrence of hangovers.

Reasons to be hopeful:

1) Spring has returned to Manhattan and gallery hopping can commence again, as I document here. Sure, in between then and now we had some freezing days, but a thaw is coming. *Could also be a reason to be hungover.

2) YouTube’s content gets more fun by the minute. See Richard Serra shovel Vaseline under Mathew Barney’s direction. Not to be missed.

3) A new play by Moises Kaufman shows us how to make time stand still, in addition to its other good qualities.

4) In another exorbitant claim, a man has discovered the secret of beauty. *Could also be a reason to be hungover.

5)I said goodbye to Culture Pundits, and hello to cool art magazines.

6) Asking questions about Kara Walker, rather than critique, in a further positive, hopeful effort.

And so what do I think sums up this week, its hopes, its hangovers?

Lobsters, obviously. Why? Ask the Surrealists, or read Signs of Spring.

The Secret of Beauty

Math.

That’s right, math is the secret of beauty. Or a least of beautiful design as it relates to architecture, furniture and other decorative arts. Horace Brock claims to have discovered that the secret of beautiful design is “themes” (motifs such as a curve or line) and “transformations” (changes in the motif, such as size, rotations). People find only a middling amount of complexity beautiful, so if there are many themes, there should be few transformations, and vice-versa.

Brock claims his theory goes beyond Fibonacci, and other calssic models of beautiful form.

It sounds simplistic, to say the least, and even more like a vague description of how objects physically must appear. Brock, based on this Boston Globe article, seems to have an interesting personality, if only for calling aesthetic philosophers Kant, Schiller, and Hume “fuzzy wuzzy.” He gets extra credit for saying about art’s effect on him, “it’s all a variation on an orgasm, isn’t it?”

I’m not arguing that form, whether you classify it as themes or motifs, is unimportant. I would argue that it is not the secret of beauty, only a component. N’cest ce pas?