Meekling Blog!

Announcing Our 2019/20 Books!

Meekling 2019-20.png

We spent the fall reading the submissions from our open reading period and we were wowed again and again. It was a challenge to narrow our scope to a number our tiny but mighty press can work with, but we did it at last!

We’re absolutely thrilled to announce we’ll be working with the following authors to bring their books into the world over the next two years:

2019
Sarah Meyer, Shit I’ve Cried About(collected)
Marream Krollos, Stan
Willy Smart, Switchwish
Carrie Olivia Adams (title tbd)
2020
Suzanne Gold, ALLTALK
Rachel Linn, Household Tales
Kate Wyer, Girl, Cow and Monk

We’re excited! Are you? That’s SEVEN amazing books.

Stay tuned for more details in the coming weeks and months. We’ll soon be selling subscriptions to the series, and we’re planning a party in January to raise some funds.

Happy reading, and mazel tov ya’ll!!

 

Q&A with C. Relkbi, aka Rebecca Nakaba

Last September C. Relkbi gave a lecture based on her B-Movie creature analysis, featured in The Meekling Review. Her lecture touched on various forms of creatures and popular misconceptions, and included slides of their potential habitats including the one featured in the photo above (taken in a high school bathroom in Gary, Indiana) . In this interview we speak at greater length about Relkbi’s research, the genesis of her interest in these creatures, how they are often inaccurately referred to as “monsters”, as well a her favorite B-Movie creature of all time.

What first drew you to critical creature discourse and the genotypical and phenomenological study of B-Movie creatures?

I suppose what draws anyone to a field of study they are passionate about: childhood exposure. As a kid I watched a lot of B-Movies with my father, who is very talented at pattern recognition. I remember we had many discussions on the similarities and differences between the “monsters”: how they behaved when angered, frightened, surprised, or walking slowly through a marsh or forest. The humans were easy to understand, so I was always more curious about the creatures. I’d never seen one outside of films, so I started doing as much research as I could. Much of it tangential, as the field was and is small, but like my dad I’m pretty good at pattern recognition. My mom studied genetics for a little while, too, so I grew up knowing that in humans adenine pairs with thymine and guanine with cytosine. I wondered: what would B-movie creature DNA base pairs be? Of course we can’t know, but that’s part of the fun, isn’t it? Solving the mystery with the clues at hand.

I think the moment I knew studying B-Movie creatures was what I wanted to spend my career pursuing was when I first saw a B-movie that featured a desert habitat. I grew up in Southern California, and seeing one of those creatures roam my landscape was thrilling. I can’t recall the film, and I’ve searched for it my entire professional life.

For those readers unfamiliar with your branch of research, please describe what you do and the most important conversations happening in critical creature discourse at the moment.

As a B-movie scientist, I study B-movie creatures, or in colloquial (yet inaccurate) terms, “monsters”, in a way analogous to an astronomer studying stars. Both astronomers and myself have to contend with physical and temporal distance, and data that almost entirely comes from EM radiation (though astronomers have available to them the entire EM spectrum, and I must rely on optical and occasionally radio). Much of what I and astronomers do is modeling based on data, as things like control samples are mathematical ideals and our testing laboratories more computational.

I study these creatures to learn more about them, where they live, their peculiarities; what any biologist would say. Compared to the thousands of species of insects or birds or mammals, they are rare, and dependent on celluloid preservation methods. It is important to gather and accurately interpret data before their documentation—thus, in a way, their lives—is unsalvageable.

Some very exciting conversations in critical creature discourse have begun to separate analysis of the creature from anthropocentric psychology. In the past, creature motivation and even existence was all recorded under the shadow of human motivations. But my research and that of my colleagues has shown that, while the human drive must be accounted for in how the creatures are represented, a trove of unexplored data are presented when the creatures are studied as independentof the human psyche. Our hope is that after this more rational examination, the creature and human may be united again for a more complete understanding of each.

What are the most typical misconceptions of B-Movie creatures held by the general public?


The most common misconception I’ve encountered is that all B-movie creatures are violent or aggressive without reason. I believe this to be caused by selection bias and documentary techniques. The cases in which a creature has violently interacted with a human are much more likely to be documented than a peaceful encounter. And, it is much easier to document creatures that reside in habitats that overlap with those of humans. Close quarters will often lead to an interaction of some kind, though in my extensive research I’ve found it is more often the human that escalates the encounter.

Another misconception I run across is that the majority of B-movie creatures were created through nuclear waste. While it’s true that radioactive waste triggered mutations in some, it is mostly a convenient (though important) metaphor for humans and not scientifically accurate. Part of my job is to review documentation and data to parse when human intervention has occurred and when coincidence makes it appear that way.

What are your favorite B-Movie creature(s) and if you yourself could be a B-Movie creature, what would you be?

It’s hard to choose a favorite, but a recent creature I’ve studied and grown fond of is the “mollusk” in The Monster that Challenged the World. It presents a taxonomical difficulty I still haven’t entirely worked out. And, what can I say, I have a soft spot for California creatures.

To be honest, I don’t think I would want to be any of them. I’ve seen how their story ends too many times.

 

C. Relkbi is a scientist studying the genotypical and phenomenological characteristics of B-movie creatures. Her research focuses on human-creature interactions. She has published numerous papers in a variety of journals.

Rebecca Nakaba is a writer and multi-media artist studying the genotypical and phenomenological characteristics of humans and nature. Her research focuses on human-creature interactions. She has published in places.

FIND MORE B-MOVIE ABSTRACTS in The Meekling Review:

+ COPIES ARE NOW AVAILABLE AT POWELL’s BOOKS in PORTLAND, OR, for all you left coast folks +

B-Movie Abstracts by C. Relkbi, aka Rebecca Nakaba

Role of Visible, UVA, UVB, and IR radiation in Aggressive Creature Encounters

by C. Relkbi

23 September 20XX

Abstract

It is a well documented behavior that many organisms (heretofore: creatures, historically “monsters”) present in major box office habitats (MGM, Universal, Paramount, ARC, etc.) have an extreme aversion to light in the visible spectrum (390 to 700 nm) and often themselves utilize light for defense or aggression in UVA/UVB (< 390nm) or IR (>700nm) wavelengths. Humans documented to be involved with said creatures are often noted to possess a flashlight, largely at night or in shaded environments—where, because of the lack of visible light, creatures preferentially inhabit and humans preferentially illuminate. Ideally, this would create equilibrium for violent human-creature interaction: close contact with a creature’s own UVA/UVB/IR radiation can be debilitating to many human functions, but the average flashlight emits a continuum of light in the visible range, providing adequate repellant of a creature. Therefore, human and creature may exploit one another’s weakness in uncontrolled environments and situations, keeping “the balance of nature” in check.

Why, then, do many humans rarely succeed at repelling the creature? This paper seeks to answer this question and to suggest improvements to the flashlight for human use in defense against aggressive creature encounters. We will first examine the comparative strength of the visible radiation of the flashlight to the strength of documented creature-emitted UVA/UVB/IR radiation. The efficacy of the laser, whose light is monochromatic and coherent as opposed to the flashlight’s incoherent continuum, will be examined against a smaller subset of relevant creature-emitted radiation data. Lastly, a new model of flashlight created from the results of this paper (see Tables 3.1, 3.2, and Figure 5) is proposed, and the benefits of its papier-mache body woven of continuum-spectrum LED nano-fibers is discussed. Future experiments involving tube length, casing shape, and shock absorption are discussed in the Conclusion section.

 

Correlation Between Chest Albedo and Frequency of Female-Creature Interaction

by C. Relkbi

3 October 20XX

Abstract

While the average movie set is habitat to a variety of B-movie “monsters”, each with its own unique behavior and drive, it has been noted first by Corman et al. (1991) and more recently by Birch et al. (2004) that, regardless of habitat, genotype and phenotype, creatures are preferentially drawn to exposed females. Additionally, creatures that are otherwise solitary are observed to disregard their “usual” behavior in pursuit of the exposed female—analogous to the moth that flies into the flame. This paper seeks to provide a scientific analysis of the phenomena in response to the highly philosophical, sociological, and psychological implications that have surfaced over the past ten years in critical creature discourse.

The common factor across the over two hundred data points synthesized was albedo as it pertains to the female’s exposed chest. Albedo was calculated using several skin-reflectance parameters from the Harvard MERL/ETH database. The area of reflectance was determined using the classical anatomical definition of “bosom”, and pixel sampling was performed with an n-Rooks algorithm. We conclude that a strong correlation (graphs 6.7, 6.8, 6.9) between magnitude of albedo and frequency of creature-(female) human interaction exists. While it is outside the scope of this paper to postulate the causality behind this correlation, several theories are proposed in a subsection of Conclusions, including the potentially hypnotic effect of the highlighted female bosom as referenced in scientific and popular literature for the duration of the Anthropocene.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: A significant constraint of the dataset used is the inescapable problem of film observation as opposed to direct sampling. Archival footage can only provide information relating to sight and sound, while more nuanced variables such as smell, touch, and chemical analysis must be inferred. However, given uniform high occurrence of creature preference for exposed females across a spectrum of female interaction, it can be concluded that individual-specific elements such as pheromone production and gland activity are insignificant (Methods 1.3). It can be assumed within an acceptable margin of error that the phenomena is ocular. For details on the control sample of covered female chests, see Methods 1.4.

 

C. Relkbi is a scientist studying the genotypical and phenomenological characteristics of B-movie creatures. Her research focuses on human-creature interactions. She has published numerous papers in a variety of journals.

Rebecca Nakaba is a writer and multi-media artist studying the genotypical and phenomenological characteristics of humans and nature. Her research focuses on human-creature interactions. She has published in places.

FIND MORE B-MOVIE ABSTRACTS in The Meekling Review:

+ COPIES ARE NOW AVAILABLE AT POWELL’s BOOKS in PORTLAND, OR, for all you left coast folks! +

Q&A with KANPHATA, aka Aditya Bahl

 
We were mesmerized at first glance of KANPHATA’s NAME/AMEN, a series of concrete poems formed from the deconstructed names of canonical Anglophone poets — Auden, Eliot,  Plath, etc. What is the meaning of a name proffered then dissolved and its remaining fragments? We asked the poet about this; we inquired too about the influence of Wittgenstein and Badiou on this work. From there KANPHATA guided us through a vast terrain of language and ideas, moving swiftly from fake poets and language games to the gap between what exists and what can be said, the contextualization of names, as well as his coming to Anglophone poets as a nonnative speaker of English. 
 
 
Who/what were your inspirations and influences for NAME/AMEN?
 
The project NAME/AMEN follows from a sheer desperation with using English language for literary purposes. English is not my native language, I have hardly ever spoken it in the everyday life (before recently coming to the US). And yet, I grew up (as a poet) reading a lot of Anglophone modernist poets. Largely because significant portions of their work are available to read online. This project, as I understand it now, is the wasteful remainder of my ambition to cure myself of my “double consciousness” as a poet. I had been strenuously striving to work myself out of the influence of a decidedly Western poetry and poetics, and yet, it was as if the more I was meaning to formally subvert the Western paragon of newness the more I would end up imitating the “great” Western poets.
 
This neurosis, and its attendant trials and tribulations, (howsoever romantic they might sound in retrospect, especially to a reader’s “lyric-ears”!) could not be sustained for long, and it culminated into a very painful and traumatic (for me) breakdown of the language I had been working with. A total breakdown at that, right down to the bare physical elements of the language. Although I was loosely aware of traditions of concrete and visual poetry in Brazil and Italy, I was not sure where I was going with this. I mean there was no ambition to create “art” or “poetry” of any “avant” kind, which is why making these works had offered little compensation.
 
I have enjoyed the wondrous fake anthology of South American poets written by Kenneth Koch, perhaps all the more wondrous for putting into relief the then prevalent mode of “transparent” translation practiced by the likes of Robert Bly. Also, Kent Johnson’s A Question Mark Above the Sun. Robert Kelly’s Earish, his homophonic translations of Celan, is great. And there are several other works too, esp. Brandon Brown’s translations (!!!), but then, alternating between real poems by fake authors and fake poems by real authors, I ended up operating in a completely different medium, one which is neither (only) language nor (only) image, and the personal context of this work is very different too.
 
 
We found inspiration for the Review in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s statement (from his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus): “The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense.” How does this speak to your process in NAME/AMEN, or contradict it?
 
Upon receiving my copies, I kept thinking about this quote from Wittgenstein, which prefaces the volume, as also about the relationship between philosophy and poetry in general. If only in a way, Plato onwards, philosophy has traditionally come to be marked by a rather tragic persistence to philosophize the poem. But, as Marx says, what takes place as a tragedy often repeats itself as a farce. It is not surprising, then, that with the advent of the ’60s the very realm of philosophy should come to be poeticized! In the light of this turn to language, a famous proclamation from Wittgenstein comes to mind : “I think I summed up my attitude to philosophy when I said: Philosophy ought really to be written only as a poetic composition.” But what is supremely interesting is that Wittgenstein himself did not write his philosophy as a poetic composition. At least not the Wittgenstein of Tractatus. Instead, he takes recourse to a propositional form of writing, one which is almost pointillist in its logical effects, in order to repeatedly hone and clarify the limits of all that can be said, and to thereby circumscribe “the unsayable.” I believe there are important insights to be gleaned from the Wittgenstein of Tractatus. The most crucial of these relate to the minimal but absolute gap between what exists and what is (or can be) said of this existence. To collapse this gap is to fall into an abysmal sophistry of language games, whereby the poet-players mistake their poetics of semiotic deconstruction and glitch-noise for a destruction and/or re-organization of the oppressive forms of social relations we find ourself materially implicated in. Of course, this is not to discount the efficacy and a possible strategic use of the poetics of semiotic noise, especially in the current political situation of the world, but one must remember that noise can remain noise if it determines itself as noise. And this, I sincerely believe, cannot happen if one remains stranded in a wholly sublimated realm of language.
 
Thinking of NAME/AMEN in this context is kind of difficult for me. Each of these works is an improvisatory organization of black and white loops, curves, arms, chins, serifs, bars, stems on the white surface of the screen. Is this decontextualization of “the letter” a simple formalism of sorts? But then, why is each of these object-glyphs titled— name of __? Is there a hermeneutic to be sought, a bridge of positive correspondence to be built over the otherwise impassable gap separating the title (the name of __) from what it appears to refer to? Surely, this cannot be a meaningless exercise? Etc. There is, for me, an intense affective dimension to this work, one which refuses to be simply brought into consciousness. But let us not compensate the apparent meaninglessness of the work with a discourse of an ordinary pathos of biography, let us not make a spectacle out of the self-hatred the poet had felt while making these works. Let us just say that the work followed from an intensely affective experience with language, that of which one cannot discursively speak. In this regard, the work stands its own stead. To come to think of it now, this does chime rather well with the Wittgenstein of Tractatus— “Whereof we cannot speak thereof one must remain silent.”
 
 
The series begins with a quote from Alain Badiou: “ The proper of the name sabotages the common of the concept.” What is the significance of a name, common and proper, and of a name deconstructed?
 
I was really into Alain Badiou while preparing a manuscript for Meekling’s call for submissions. The quote comes from his essay on Nietzsche. For Badiou, the nomination of the indiscernible is a difficult enterprise. The “indiscernible” is indiscernible because it comes to “make a hole in the given situation,” and for the reason of its incalculable novelty it cannot be named . . . and yet. Badiou resolves this aporia by ensuring that the name of what is otherwise indiscernible is not of the order of signification, but rather it is a name which embodies an “evental quality.” To understand this difference, let us take the example of Kashmir, a symptom of the sovereign democracy that the Indian nation state professes itself to be. On the one hand, in the legislative structures of the Indian democracy, “Kashmir” is identified as one of the 29 states of the country and Kashmiris as legal citizens of the nation. But on the other hand, “Kashmir” is also the name of the freedom sought by those rioting masses in the streets, the masked men, women and kids who spontaneously emerge in the streets day after day armed with nothing but stones to pelt at the Indian army, resisting, in conjunction with an otherwise organized armed militancy across the state, the forced occupation of their homeland. The state, meanwhile, continues to exercise its “right to legislate,” and thus “identify” these militants as Pakistani terrorists or make sense of the riotous rabble as citizens of India who have been seduced by the Pakistani infiltrators and so on, and thus normalize the state of emergency it otherwise perpetuates. This antagonism between the ethos of democracy (farcical as they are) and the militant attempts which resist the forced Indian occupation of Kashmir is constituted and sustained by the same name—“Kashmir”—at once belonging to the legislative structures of the Indian constitution and sustaining the militant longing for freedom. Here, the difference between Badiou and the philosophers of language must become absolutely clear. For unlike the latter, for Badiou the interventional resistances stand in no need of a “different” register of signification. The newness of any movement lies not in the artificial novelty of the names it assumes for itself, for it is not the names themselves which exceed the situation. The novelty of a movement relates instead to the referential meaning of the name it assumes. The name “Kashmir,” if we are to go by Badiou, is supernumerary, is foreclosed from all determinants of Indian democracy, simply because there exist militants who have politically decided on the status of Kashmir, and have, thereby, chosen to demonstrate their fidelity to the same. In this regard, Kashmir is an empty name, or to put it otherwise, it has been named emptily, for it refers only to a world yet to come. The militant profession of the name Kashmir is a persistent clearing away of the forced occupation; it leaves the actual referent of the name void, to be duly filled in the future. What this historically entails for the future we do not know. Does it pertain to Kashmir’s emancipation as a nation-state? But, given the geopolitical situation, does not Kashmir’s emancipation rest upon the emancipation of the whole of South Asia? Of course, Badiou’s formalized abstractions are useless when it comes to these real geopolitical considerations. But I had found his rumination on the anti-Hegelian philosophy of Nietzsche particularly interesting.
 
The example I have used pertains to politics. The decontextualization of names that the project NAME/AMEN undertakes operates at an entirely different level of abstraction, that of poetry. It is dangerous to use either poetry or politics as an analogy to suit the other’s ends, but please, please indulge me awhile, and at least for now let me wager my thoughts! In a way, I think this project seeks to name these poets emptily yet again, to destroy the modernist monoliths. I mean who cares about the “great modernist works” and their “newness”? At least I did/do not.
 
 
You say you wanted to become a yogi but became a poet instead—at what point did these paths diverge?
 
In order to become Kanphata, a disciple of Gorakhnath, he had to have his ears split. But once it came to pass, he mysteriously turned into a visual poet, a people’s answer to Zarathusra’s complaints— “Must one smash their ears, so they may learn to listen with their eyes?”
 
 
KANPHATA: At my birth I split my ears to be able to see better. I grew up wanting to be a yogi. I ended up becoming a poet.
 

Aditya Bahl is a member of the Delhi-based Marxist collective Radical Notes. A book of poems will be out soon from Delet-e (Delete Press). A chapbook of poems is forthcoming from LRL Textile Series. A chapbook called this is visual poetry by aditya bahl was published in 2013 by Dan Waber’s imprint this is visual poetry.
 
 

Find more of KENPHATA’s NAME/AMEN in The Meekling Review:

from NAME / AMEN by KANPHATA aka Aditya Bahl

“The proper of the name sabotages the common of the concept” Alain Badiou

name of stevens mallarme eliot 

 

name of stevens

name of mallarme

name of eliot

 
KANPHATA: At my birth I split my ears to be able to see better. I grew up wanting to be a yogi. I ended up becoming a poet.
 
Aditya Bahl is a member of the Delhi-based Marxist collective Radical Notes. A book of poems will be out soon from Delet-e (Delete Press). A chapbook of poems is forthcoming from LRL Textile Series. A chapbook called this is visual poetry by aditya bahl was published in 2013 by Dan Waber’s imprint this is visual poetry
 

Find more of KENPHATA’s NAME/AMEN in The Meekling Review:

 

 

Meekling Press Press

It’s been a festive season of fairs for us — a highlight was tabling at the first ever Chicago Art Book Fair, an exquisite gathering of art book makers both local and international, coming from locations as distant the UAE. We’re thrilled now to discover Meekling Press was featured as one of Sixty Inches From Center‘s five highlights from the fair! Thanks to Emily Breidenbach for the shout out — be sure to check out some pics of our wares (and our mugs) here:

http://sixtyinchesfromcenter.org/five-highlights-from-the-chicago-art-book-fair-2017/

 

see you @ the CHICAGO ART BOOK FAIR

CHICAGO ART BOOK FAIR

COME SEE US next weekend at the CHICAGO ART BOOK FAIR, November 16 – 19.

We’ll be showing off our wares amongst a sea of rad art book publishers who are  taking over two floors of the Chicago Athletic Association Hotel. There’s a lot of great programming associated with the fair, and it’s all open to the public and $FREE$  —    we recommend you check out the full schedule & exhibitors list here:

http://cabf.no-coast.org

You can find us on the first floor of exhibitors during the book fair hours — come say hi!

Thursday, Nov 16: 6–9p (Opening/Preview)
Friday, Nov 17:   12–7p
Saturday, Nov 18: 11a–7p
Sunday, Nov 19:   12–6p

Chicago Athletic Association Hotel // 12 S Michigan Ave Chicago, IL

 

Q&A with Critic Matthew Lacker on Gabriel Kendra’s Ten-Second Sculptures

We spoke briefly with art critic Gabriel Kendra about his critical practice as well as his obsession with artist Matthew Lacker’s Ten-Second Sculptures, four of which are featured alongside Kendra’s analyses in the latest Meekling Review. Lacker’s analysis of Kendra’s $33,224,369.98 was featured previously on the blog.

IMG_9479
From Matthew Lacker’s lecture on Gabriel Kendra’s Ten-Second Sculptures at the NeoFuturarium, September 21, 2017.

What first drew you to Gabriel Kendra’s work? And please, tell us more about his Ten Second-Sculptures in relation to his larger body of work.

His larger body of work–at least as far as I have seen–seems to focus on living a life that produces a constant stream of actions, objects, events, performances, structures, and thoughts that each individually could be construed as artworks. When I first encountered it I was fascinated by the way that art can be made so readily and so freely, it’s almost too good to be true. Whether it’s hitting a snooze button or swiping a metro-card I can sense that artful intent is present. I also feel that this artful intent is eager to be researched, developed, produced, market, financed, and distributed, which admittedly is the extent of my involvement with it.

I’m curious about your passion for non-glossy finishes. What else are you passionate about, Matthew Lacker?

When I was younger strangers would often confuse me with “Matte Lacquer” which is the matte version of a liquid made of shellac dissolved in alcohol, or of synthetic substances, that dries to form a hard protective coating for wood, metal, etc…  As a child I was fascinated that another Matt Lacker existed, and I guess my fascination just grew from there.

 Is art history/criticism your usual metier?

No, actually. I began as someone interested in the creation of art but found that it was not my forte.  I lacked the panache, both technically and conceptually to compete in the mêlée that is the modern art world and ultimately felt that I was just a poseur with a Papier-mâché facade. Perhaps it is a faux pas to admit such personal failings, but now it is a fait accompli. I think I have evolved beyond the gaffe of my earlier career, and have become a creative entrepreneur of sorts, a generalist where each task is an hors d’œuvre which combine into an overall joie de vivre. I do not primarily dabble in art history or critique but it is one of my intellectual ac·cou·tre·ments. A knot in my macramé of pursuits I suppose.

Do you know if Kendra is constructing more 10-Second Sculptures in response to these politically fraught times? If so, can you disclose any hints as to what they might  involve?

I am sure he is. As far as I am aware Kendra is in a near perpetual state of performing actions and identifying objects that have profound political and cultural resonance.  He often does not speak candidly as to their meaning–I will have to take time out soon to examine them for significance.

Matthew Lacker is passionate about non-glossy finishes.

Gabriel Kendra is from Richmond, Virginia, and a graduate of VCUArts, currently living in Chicago and occasionally making zines.

Find more of Kendra’s Ten-Second Sculptures & Lacker’s analysis in The Meekling Review:

Matthew Lacker on Gabriel Kendra’s $33,224,369.98

Join us TONIGHT for a new hour of TALKS featuring two lecturers presenting on their work in The Meekling ReviewC. Relkbi (aka Rebecca Nakaba) will be presenting on her B-Movie research and Matthew Lacker will be speaking on Gabriel Kendra’s Ten-Second Sculptures. Lacker’s analysis of Kendra’s $33,224,369.98 (below) also appears in The Meekling Review.


 
 
$33,224,369.98 is an instillation by artist Gabriel Kendra consisting of a medium-sized slab of 24-karat gold (donation courtesy J.P. Morgan) situated in an abandoned plot of land in Richmond, Virginia, where the artist currently resides. This action speaks plainly of society’s dichotomous relationship with the economy and the environment, as well as illustrating Homo sapiens’ unchanging relationship with the landscape over the history of recorded space-time.
 
The object proclaims the dominance of American capitalism despite growing ecological anxieties—its existence a reference to the entire history of human achievement, which has allowed for the accumulation of and forging of precious metals into art objects. The placement of the golden slab into a less-valuable landscape is a reference to the 21st-century technological achievements eclipsing the venerability of works of God—specifically the hundreds of years of natural endurance which have crafted the landscape.
 
By investigating the subjective measures of utility and worth, this Ten-Second Sculpture seems to concisely and authoritatively bring to a close the age-old question of what is greater: man’s lust for capital or for the sublime.
 
The golden slab was valued at approximately $33 million at the time of the project’s execution.
 
 
Matthew Lacker is passionate about non-glossy finishes.
 
Gabriel Kendra is from Richmond, Virginia, and a graduate of VCUArts, currently living in Chicago and occasionally making zines.
 

Find more of Kendra’s Ten-Second Sculptures & Lacker’s analysis in The Meekling Review:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEEKLING TALKS: LIT CRAWL EDITION

 

MEEKLING TALKS:

LIT CRAWL 2017 EDITION

 

A whole new hour of TALKS!
Thursday, September 21, 9:30 PM
@
The Neo-Futurarium

 

Meekling TALKS are fictional lectures for lifetime learners and people who want to KNOW, regardless of the facts. This evening’s talks will feature two distinguished lecturers presenting original research recently published in The Meekling Review:

 

Dr. C. Relkbi (AKA Rebecca Nakaba) will be discussing her scientific research on B-Movies, possibly addressing such questions as: do swamp habitats alter a monster’s genetic makeup, thereby making it even more monstrous? what is it about exposed female chests that make Science fiction monsters attack?

 

The art critic Matthew Lacker will be presenting on the work of artist Gabriel Kendra, talking in particular about Kendra’s Ten-Second Sculptures.

.

This evening of TALKS is just one of many events happening in conjunction with Lit Crawl 2017.  

Come early, stay late, and end your crawl with us! (& thanks to Metropolitan Brewing, for providing free beer!)

SEE YOU THERE….

 

The Neo-Futurarium
5153 N. Ashland Ave, Chicago, Illinois 60640

 

***Meekling TALKS are sponsored by Meekling’s Department of Continuing Education***