typeworship:

Bodoni pop-up book. Beautiful.

cukri:

Bodoni Bedlam Pop-Up Book by Victoria Macey

Very talented illustrator and designer Victoria presents us a very pretty pop-up book. And she’s one of the artists which we can find on tumblr. Follow her here.

Here’s how Shepherd would later describe the difference between Night and Day People—more than a half-century later, you’ll still recognize the types. The Day Person “believes in the world of the office; he really believes in file cabinets. … The time from 8 a.m. to 6 in the evening is the time he’s alive.” Whereas, for the night person, the world began the minute he stepped out off the office. The two types, in Shepherd’s view, were always battling, without even being aware of it. “So you’re sitting in this sales meeting and here is this guy sitting over here and he’s got this light of ecclesiastical fervor; he believes in Operation Dynamo that you’re about to foist on the public.”

Shepherd anointed his listeners as Night People, schooled them in what the term meant, and along the way transformed them from outsiders to insiders. The Day People didn’t reject you, Shepherd implied. You rejected them. “I’m talking about people with that wild tossing in the soul that somehow makes them stay up until three o’clock in the morning and brood,” he said. “They might get up at seven the next morning and go to work, but that isn’t what their life is about.”

Objections to Christianity… are phrased in words, but that does not mean they are really a matter of language and analysis and argument. Words are tokens of the will. If something stronger than language were available, then we would use it. But by the same token, words in defence of Christianity miss the mark as well: they are a translation into the dispassionate language of argument of something that resides far deeper, in the caverns of volition, of commitment.

typetoy:

www.typetoy.tumblr.com

Pitchfork: You’ve been associated with a lot of very inspired but also very hard living guys. How have you managed to move in the same circles as people like Gram Parsons and Steve Earle and survive? EH: Well, Steve Earle wasn’t hard living by the time we started working together! [laughs] I was only around Gram for a very, very brief period of time. I was pretty much the country mouse. When I was around Gram, he really trying to straighten up. We spent most of our time singing, and you can’t get all screwed up and sing. So the time we spent together was a pretty healthy time. I wish I could have spent more time around him. Maybe I could have helped him a little bit. But there’s no point in looking back. Pitchfork: It’s amazing that after 30 years of making music yourself, someone who just recorded a couple of albums is still so often talked about in the same breath as your own name. EH: Well, Gram was a visionary. There are not that many people who come along and come up with something totally different. Of course, being totally honest, people probably spend a little too much time focusing on the dramatic story of his life, including, unfortunately, an early death. A rock and roll casualty. Perhaps people don’t give as much credit to his music and his vision. A lot of times that stuff will supersede someone’s work, and I think that happened a lot with Gram. I think musicians– I’m the poster child for how one person can affect another. With Gram, I don’t think anybody would be interested in talking to me if I hadn’t met Gram and been inspired by him, and continued down the road he set out for me. I don’t think I would have come up with this stuff on my own. Pitchfork: That’s a very modest way to look at it… EG: But I think it’s true. I have a pretty good sense of my life, who I was and what I knew, and how different things were after he came into my life. I think there are people that you have those kind of big bang moments with in your life story, and that certainly was for me. It’s almost like B.C. and A.D.

here

There’s one example in particular that comes close to summing up the entire argument of What Money Can’t Buy. It concerns an Israeli daycare centre, which responded to a problem with parents turning up late to collect their children by introducing fines. The result? Late pick-ups increased. Parents turned up late, paid the fine, and thought no more of it; the fine had turned into a fee. The fear of disapproval and of doing the wrong thing was based on non-monetary values, and was a stronger force than mere cash. The daycare centre went back to the old system, but parents kept turning up late, because the introduction of market values had killed the old ideas of collective responsibility. Once the old “norm” of turning up on time had been marketised, it was impossible to change back.

There exists a very strong, but one-sided and thus untrustworthy, idea that in order to understand a foreign culture, one must enter into it, forgetting one’s own, and view the culture through the eyes of this foreign culture. This idea, as I said, is one-sided. Of course, a certain entry as a living being into a foreign culture, the possibility of seeing the world through its eyes, is a necessary part of the process of understanding it; but if this where the only aspect of this understanding, it would merely be a duplication and would not entail anything new or enriching. Creative understanding does not renounce itself, its own place in time, its own culture; and it forgets nothing. In order to understand, it is immensely important for the person who understands to be located outside the object of his or her creative understanding — in time, in space, in culture. For one cannot really see one’s own exterior and comprehend it as a whole, and no mirrors or photographs can help; our real exterior can be seen and understood only by other people, because they are located outside us in space and because they are others.

The dialogic nature of consciousness, the dialogic nature of human life itself. The single adequate form for verbally expressing authentic human existence is the open-ended dialogue. Life by its very nature is dialogic. To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to heed, to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes, lips, hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his entire self in discourse, and this discourse enters into the dialogic fabric of human life, into the world symposium.

thingsmagazine:

Print by Jonathan Green