Writings by Pat Hartman.
My main claim to fame is the zine Salon: A Journal of Aesthetics, 25 issues published from 1988 to 1998. My book, Call Someplace Paradise, can be found here.
Visit http://www.VirtualVenice.info, my site about Venice, California.
email me
04/01/2002 - 04/30/2002
05/01/2002 - 05/31/2002
06/01/2002 - 06/30/2002
07/01/2002 - 07/31/2002
08/01/2002 - 08/31/2002
09/01/2002 - 09/30/2002
10/01/2002 - 10/31/2002
11/01/2002 - 11/30/2002
12/01/2002 - 12/31/2002
01/01/2003 - 01/31/2003
03/01/2003 - 03/31/2003
04/01/2003 - 04/30/2003
05/01/2003 - 05/31/2003
06/01/2003 - 06/30/2003
09/01/2003 - 09/30/2003
11/01/2004 - 11/30/2004
02/01/2006 - 02/28/2006
03/01/2006 - 03/31/2006
01/01/2007 - 01/31/2007
02/01/2007 - 02/28/2007
Graphics:
Ann-S-Thesia
Dingbat Fonts:
The Dingbatcave
Fine Art:
Eyebalm
Powered by
Blogger
Blog Reads
Ornamental Illness
DawgBlawg
Moving Target
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
 |
Category: Vision
The Smiley Face the ultimate icon, an abbreviation for the concept of all that is nurturing, soothing, stimulating, warm, human, good - in short, for the concept of Mother. Therefore, recognition of the Smiley Face is hardwired into every baby's cranium. Research shows that babies are attracted to any face-like configuration of light and dark areas (the sculptured hills of Mars, for instance.) The preference for something that looks like a face, rather than a representation of some other thing or an abstract pattern, is a basic instinct. One magazine recently showed magnified photos of tumor tissue with "faces" in them. People used to see a Man in the Moon. (Some still do.) Yet powerful as the face-recognition instinct is, it has, like the ability to learn languages, an optimum time frame. To an adult with newly regained sight, a human face looks like a blur, and when eventually it becomes possible to discern rearrangement of the features, the job is only half done. The expressions still must be decoded and interpreted. The film Blink gives some indication of how the world appears to someone in that situation. A violinist who was traumatically blinded at age eight gets her sight back, and can't even recognize the murderer who stalks her. Furthermore, she doesn't have a clue whether her own face is pretty, and has to ask other people.
Marius von Senden was so fascinated with the problems faced by newly sighted adults that he researched every known case over a three hundred year stretch of history, right back to the time when John Locke first posed a hypothetical question in a 1690 essay. A person who had been born blind, Locke knew, could learn to distinguish between a cube and a sphere by touch. If he suddenly became able to see, would he recognize the cube and the sphere by sight? Locke didn't think so. When Sacks' patient became able to see, he couldn't tell his cat from his dog without feeling them. Von Senden's research led him to conclude that such people invariably face a "motivation crisis". To learn to see is overwhelmingly difficult, and there is a temptation revert to blindness, where one knows how to cope. Not every patient makes it through this stage.
posted by Pat on 6:02 PM |
Saturday, August 03, 2002
|
Category: True Crime Topic: Timothy Masters
I call the local newspaper and learn that the Hettrick/Masters chronicle is contained in a "clip file," which can be copied for $40. Or more, if the copying takes longer than an hour. (Do the writers get a slice?) Useful to know, but as it turns out, the copying isn't needed. A couple of people in the news business tell me what to look for and where.
Next stop, the public library. All in all, the micro reading process is fairly grueling, but I manage to lurch around and eventually hit paydirt.
One of the reporters who wrote about the investigation is kind enough to answer factual questions and share his insights. That discussion leads to another round of looking up stuff.
As above, so below. On one level, there's research. On another, the soul-search is in progress. Why am I doing this? Do I truly want to spend life-energy pursuing the details of a sordid, bloody crime? Does it matter that a young man, who may or may not have killed a woman, was convicted on evidence that even the most generous assessment can only characterize as slim?
Other writing projects howl for my attention. And if I yearn to explore an injustice, there are many more blatant ones to choose from, affecting thousands or millions of people. So why get all bent out of shape over a murder conviction, however equivocal? We've all seen too many Kennedy assassination buffs, OJ trial aficionados, and Jon-Benet theorists. I doubt there are many other students of this crime, not since the death of Clyde Masters, Timothy's father. The defense attorney, of course, And the police. We're a small but elite group, we Hettrick murder buffs.
While I don't strive for a constant state of righteous anger, every few years a current event (previous examples being the MOVE firebombing and the Mt. Carmel massacre) gets its teeth into me and won't let go.
Of all the constitutional amendments, it is the First of which I am most fond. And this is a First Amendment issue. It's, like, a prior restraint thing. If people can't exercise self-expression in writing and drawing, for fear of being accused of murder when someone happens to be killed in their neighborhood, this definitely, to borrow an elegant phrase, "offends the guarantee of free speech."
But what if Masters actually did kill Hettrick? What if my writing about him contributes in any way to the release of a murderer? How can I live with that? The weak argument is: already there are far worse killers at large, set free for far worse reasons. The return of Timothy Masters to society would mean a statistically negligible danger.
A more satisfying argument is: Overall, the greater good is served when occasionally a miscreant escapes punishment - if the alternative would be wrongful punishment of the innocent. The outrageous notion that an accused can be convicted on the basis of lousy art work is an idea we can't afford to normalize. The greater good requires that it be quashed.
Presently at issue is whether Masters will be granted a new trial. This possibility rests on how the Colorado state supreme court feels about a few nit-picking technicalities (that was sarcasm you just heard). A new trial could free the prisoner, but probably could not, ultimately, bring us any closer to the truth. After all this time it's unlikely that incontrovertible evidence will materialize. Absent a surprise confession, by Masters or someone else, there is little hope that anyone will ever really know what happened that night in 1987.
But suppose it does turn out that he did it? On my mental video monitor, Emily Litella launches a rant and then, once the mistaken premise is brought to her attention: "Never mind." If Timothy Masters is somehow proven to have killed Peggy Hettrick, will I feel like a fool?
Well, no. Because his guilt or innocence is incidental to the substance of the matter. It is the basis for his conviction that sticks in my craw. Sent up for life for drawing scary, ugly pictures: the very concept is beyond repugnant. For my purposes, whether he did the murder or not is beside the point. If he's innocent, that's just the poisonous icing on the already putrescent cake.
posted by Pat on 5:08 AM |
Graphics and design by Ann Stretton ©2001
