itwonlast

youmightfindyourself:

Mickey Mouse in Vietnam is a 16mm underground short movie. The director was Lee Savage, the producer and head designer was Milton Glaser. It features the Disney character Mickey Mouse being shipped to Vietnam during the war. Moments after arriving, he is shot dead. It was produced independently in 1969 and has a total running time of one minute. This film was lost for many years until April 22, 2013 when a YouTube user uploaded the video.

Charles André Mare (1885–1932) was a French painter and designer. During the First World War, Mare joined the French Camouflage Corps where he led the development of military camouflage, painting artillery using Cubism techniques to deceive the eye. His ink and watercolour painting Le canon de 280 camouflé (The Camouflaged 280 Gun) shows the close interplay of abstract art and military application at that time. His aid was his life-long friend painter Fernand Léger. Together they developed processes ranging from painted canvases to camouflage nets and dummy figures and materiel. He kept an illustrated and thorough journal of his experiences, ultimately publishing his book “Cubism and Camouflage, 1914-1918″.
Mare applied the principles of disruptive coloration camouflage using forms derived from Cubism: bands of colour juxtaposed to prevent the eye from recognizing the shape of a gun barrel, for example. Colours are chosen to overlap with those of the surrounding landscape. At that time, Mare painted ten of his many watercolour sketchbooks in Cubist style.
But Mare didn’t limit himself to Cubism: “I found myself in a huge hayloft and I painted nine ‘Kandinskys’ (…) on tent canvas. This process had a very useful purpose: to make artillery positions invisible to reconnaissance planes and aerial photography by covering them with canvases painted in a roughly pointillist style and in line with observation of the colours of natural camouflage (mimicry) (…) From now on, painting must make the picture that betrays our presence sufficiently blurred and distorted for the position to be unrecognisable. The division is going to provide us with a plane to experiment with some aerial photographs to see how it looks from the air. I’m very interested to see the effect of a Kandinsky from six thousand feet.”

Charles André Mare (1885–1932) was a French painter and designer. During the First World War, Mare joined the French Camouflage Corps where he led the development of military camouflage, painting artillery using Cubism techniques to deceive the eye. His ink and watercolour painting Le canon de 280 camouflé (The Camouflaged 280 Gun) shows the close interplay of abstract art and military application at that time. His aid was his life-long friend painter Fernand Léger. Together they developed processes ranging from painted canvases to camouflage nets and dummy figures and materiel. He kept an illustrated and thorough journal of his experiences, ultimately publishing his book “Cubism and Camouflage, 1914-1918″.

Mare applied the principles of disruptive coloration camouflage using forms derived from Cubism: bands of colour juxtaposed to prevent the eye from recognizing the shape of a gun barrel, for example. Colours are chosen to overlap with those of the surrounding landscape. At that time, Mare painted ten of his many watercolour sketchbooks in Cubist style.

But Mare didn’t limit himself to Cubism: “I found myself in a huge hayloft and I painted nine ‘Kandinskys’ (…) on tent canvas. This process had a very useful purpose: to make artillery positions invisible to reconnaissance planes and aerial photography by covering them with canvases painted in a roughly pointillist style and in line with observation of the colours of natural camouflage (mimicry) (…) From now on, painting must make the picture that betrays our presence sufficiently blurred and distorted for the position to be unrecognisable. The division is going to provide us with a plane to experiment with some aerial photographs to see how it looks from the air. I’m very interested to see the effect of a Kandinsky from six thousand feet.”

larssss:

The Ghost Army was a United States Army tactical deception unit during World War II officially known as the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops. The 1,100-man unit was given a unique mission within the Army to impersonate other U.S. Army units to deceive the enemy. From a few weeks after D-Day, when they landed in France, until the end of the war, they put on a traveling road show, using inflatable tanks, sound trucks, phony radio transmissions and playacting. They staged more than 20 battlefield deceptions, often operating very close to the front lines. Their mission was kept secret until 1996, and elements of it remain classified.

larssss:

The Ghost Army was a United States Army tactical deception unit during World War II officially known as the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops. The 1,100-man unit was given a unique mission within the Army to impersonate other U.S. Army units to deceive the enemy. From a few weeks after D-Day, when they landed in France, until the end of the war, they put on a traveling road show, using inflatable tanks, sound trucks, phony radio transmissions and playacting. They staged more than 20 battlefield deceptions, often operating very close to the front lines. Their mission was kept secret until 1996, and elements of it remain classified.

First World War anti-shrapnel face masks on display at the Museum of the Great War

First World War anti-shrapnel face masks on display at the Museum of the Great War

The Raven
"For me, Wikipedia is a useful subset of the entire internet, and as  such a subset of all human culture. It’s not only a resource for  collating all human knowledge, but a framework for understanding how  that knowledge came to be and to be understood; what was allowed to  stand and what was not; what we agree on, and what we cannot.
As is my wont, I made a book to illustrate this. Physical objects are  useful props in debates like this: immediately illustrative, and useful  to hang an argument and peoples’ attention on.
This particular book—or rather, set of books—is every edit made to a  single Wikipedia article, The  Iraq War, during the five years between the article’s inception in  December 2004 and November 2009, a total of 12,000 changes and almost  7,000 pages.
It amounts to twelve volumes: the size of a single old-style  encyclopaedia. It contains arguments over numbers, differences of  opinion on relevance and political standpoints, and frequent moments  when someone erases the whole thing and just writes “Saddam Hussein was a  dickhead”.
This is historiography. This is what culture actually looks like: a  process of argument, of dissenting and accreting opinion, of gradual and  not always correct codification.
And for the first time in history, we’re building a system that,  perhaps only for a brief time but certainly for the moment, is capable  of recording every single one of those infinitely valuable pieces of  information.” (via)

"For me, Wikipedia is a useful subset of the entire internet, and as such a subset of all human culture. It’s not only a resource for collating all human knowledge, but a framework for understanding how that knowledge came to be and to be understood; what was allowed to stand and what was not; what we agree on, and what we cannot.

As is my wont, I made a book to illustrate this. Physical objects are useful props in debates like this: immediately illustrative, and useful to hang an argument and peoples’ attention on.

This particular book—or rather, set of books—is every edit made to a single Wikipedia article, The Iraq War, during the five years between the article’s inception in December 2004 and November 2009, a total of 12,000 changes and almost 7,000 pages.

It amounts to twelve volumes: the size of a single old-style encyclopaedia. It contains arguments over numbers, differences of opinion on relevance and political standpoints, and frequent moments when someone erases the whole thing and just writes “Saddam Hussein was a dickhead”.

This is historiography. This is what culture actually looks like: a process of argument, of dissenting and accreting opinion, of gradual and not always correct codification.

And for the first time in history, we’re building a system that, perhaps only for a brief time but certainly for the moment, is capable of recording every single one of those infinitely valuable pieces of information.” (via)