ATOM
N I A R B T F LE
M O T R E ATHE COV
ON
P
hotographers capture perception. They aspire toward creating unique perspectives to articulate something meaningful.
I often find myself in awe of nature’s beauty – the striking colors of the natural world, seemingly independent of time, the inherent symmetry of earth’s natural processes flowing together, conjuring our deepest contemplations. To me, photography is a way to express how I see the world around me. In my attempt, I try to invoke a sense of place in my photographs, a sense of self insignificance in a vast infinite landscape. It is nature’s complexion that creates a sense of serenity, a sense of experiencing the moment. It is living in the moment, and exploring the unknown of our world that make our lives truly profound and meaningful. You can see more of Patrick’s work at http://patrickkao.tumblr.com/.
H
ello and welcome to the long-awaited follow-up to our Right Brain issue. In this issue, we explore the idea of the left brain— all of those logical, right-angle, verbose, critical things that are encapsulated by the other half of our grey matter. We even have a fascinating piece about how the brain really puts things together, so you can learn about the brain while using your brain! No matter if you’re more of a left brain or a right brain person, we think you’ll enjoy the array of content we have in store for you. Keep reading! -brendan
M O S R T O T I A M THE ED
O R F
M O T A
EDITORIAL
Ashleigh R. Hill Brendan G. Nystedt Spencer J. Sands
CONTRIBUTORS Boran Vukajlovic Derek Cabrera Diane Solomon Erin Brown Fordy Shoor
FEATURED ARTIST Sera Cocora
FEATURED PHOTOGRAPHER Patrick Kao
Additional ART Ashleigh R. Hill Spencer J. Sands Brendan G. Nystedt Erin Brown Derek Cabrera Boran Vukajlovic NASA Š 2013 Atom Magazine
cut & paste by Erin Brown • Breathing New Life Into an Old Tome
Simply Roasted • Whiskey, Four Ways
Moving From Right & Left to Embedded Metacognition by Derek Cabrera • Variations on a Theme: Science Throughout Literature • My Left Brain by Diane Solomon
Righty Loosey, Lefty Tighty by Fordy Shoor
The Hunt
Place One & Place Next To It by Boran Vukjalovic • Featured Artist: Sara Cocora • Featured Photographer: Patrick Kao
Copy and Paste by Erin Brown
S
ewing can be a wonderful and liberating experience that will allow you the opportunity, nay, the pleasure to create any article of clothing in any manner you could possibly imagine! However, it’s really only rewarding if you know that garment will fit you and not make you look like you rolled in glue and then fell into a pile of scraps. In order to make clothes that are shaped like clothes you could go to your local fabric peddler to pick yourself up a pattern which you’ll then have to go through the torture of sizing correctly. The disappointment of vanity sizing, and the agony of putting all those tissue paper pieces back into that tiny envelope may make you want to throw yourself onto your shears, but today I’m going to introduce you to another option, my friends. Why pay money and go through the trouble of store bought patterns when your closet is filled with clothes that you know already fit you? WHY?! There’s a better way! Listen to me and I’ll guide you through making own patterns out of things you already own and you’ll be introduced to a whole new world of fantastic.
The first way to achieve this would be to choose something that you know fits you but that you no longer care about and cut it up. To do this get your scissors and cut along the seams of the chosen garment and simply use the pieces as templates for your new creation! Make sure while cutting that you allow for seam allowance, as failure to do so will result in a smaller size than anticipated (unless you want to size down your garment slightly, but we’ll get into that later). Once the new pieces are cut out, simply use your powers of observation and reasoning skills to put the pieces back together again. The second way to achieve this is to use a garment that you DO NOT want to cut up, and draft a pattern without any harm to the original. Now, you might be thinking; “But how would one achieve this alchemy?! Surely your proposition is a farce!” To that I say; “BAH!” and elaborate further.
Five rules for drafting patterns 1) Flatten it out. To get the most accurate cuts make sure that the garment is flattened out with the seams lined up on the edge you’re going to cut. 2) Pay attention to knit direction. You need to make sure that if you’re copying something stretchy that you have the knit running in the right direction. Stretch out the garment you want to copy and take note of which direction it stretches in (from neck to hem, or side seam to side seam) and make sure you orient your fabric accordingly to ensure that the new garment fits the same as the old one. 3) Cut doubled pieces on the fold. Pieces like sleeves are symmetrical, so to cut them out flatten them and position them on the fold when you cut. 4) Always leave enough seam allowance (typically seam allowance is 5/8th of an inch.) If you intend on resizing your pattern cut the new pieces slightly larger or smaller depending on your measurements. (For instance, if your shirt is slightly
too big, cut the side seams smaller, and if it’s too snug cut the side seams slightly larger.) 5) Be creative! Use a t-shirt to make a shirt dress, or a pull over sweatshirt to make a hoodie. Once you get comfortable with copying patterns you can alter them into anything you can think of! Step One: Plan out what you want to copy and what you want your finished product to be. Before you start cutting all willy nilly, make a plan of attack. Try sketching out what you want to do first to get some ideas then make the necessary changes. Here I’ve gone with a fitted t-shirt that is a tad bit snug which I’m copying to make a simple shirt dress. To do this first lay out the fabric with the right sides folded together and lay the shirt on top (mind the knit direction!) Step Two: Cut out the pieces allowing for any adjustments needed, pin the sides together and cut the neck line (or don’t! If you like a snug neck line leaving it untrimmed would be called a boatneck.) Sew shoulder seams and side seams. Step Three: The sleeves. This part is a little bit tricky because you have to cut alongside the seam where the sleeve meets the shirt body without seeing what you’re doing. What I like to do is cut a little bit more that I’m going to need and once the sleeve is finished lay it on top of the shirt to trim it closer to the right shape. Once you have one sleeve cut, use it as a template to cut out the other sleeve and attach to the garment at the shoulder seams. Aside from any embellishments you want to add you’re done! Hopefully now you’re armed with the skills and confidence to go out and copy yourself a new wardrobe.
Breathing New Life I
I love my books, a lot. They are one of my major expenses. I’m really glad that my ability to love an nurture living things is not reflected by my ability to keep my books in mint condition. This reference will date me horribly, but I feel like Elmyra from Steven Spielberg Presents Tiny Toon Adventures. For those of you who went outside as children, and or have expunged such information from your mind as adults so that you be successful at your jobs, Elmyra was a human cartoon character who plagued the animal cartoon characters by trying to adopt them as pets and torturing them with too much affection ie. hugs that restricted their breathing. Too often, you can identify the books you love most based on the amount of damage they possess. Unfortunately, sometimes that love-inspired mistreatment becomes too much and compromises the readability of a book. Such was the case for my Pathfinder Core Rulebook. It has been with me for two years, and during that time, has been lugged around to countless games, lived in my car for extended periods of time so that I would always have something to keep me from getting bored, and has been a frequent companion
Into an Old Tome By Spencer Sands
in the stack of books by the side of my bed. The first sign of trouble was when the spine became delaminated. This resulted in the pages and the cover no longer having a firm connection and a lot of flopping about. The edges of the cover were the next to suffer as repeated jostling ripped and tore at them. The final blow came when the pages began to completely separate from the cover completely. It was time to do something. So I did. I’ve become accustomed to being told that my ideas aren’t feasible and, as such, I ask questions in store settings that will get me close to the answers I’m looking for without giving away that the salesperson is dealing with a crazy person. When I entered the art store, I slyly asked if, hypothetically, one were to attempt to rebind a book, what kind of glue the associate would recommend. He answered me like he was dealing with a crazy person:“Probably the bookbinding glue we carry in our book binding section.” That would make sense. I purchased the components and set to work. The first step was kind of the
hardest. Before I could make this book better, I would have to wreck it more. I carefully ripped the pages off of and away from the cover. Once separated, I cleaned up the raggedy edges as best I could. Next, I applied a liberal helping of my PH neutral, archival quality bookbinding glue (thanks, art supply store!) to the strip of cardboard that was originally connected to the spine. I used a playing card to spread the glue into a consistent and thin coating across the whole surface. After I had reseated the pages against the spine, I lay the book on its spine in the bookshelf to let it set up. Once that was dry, I proceeded to use the same methodology to reconnect the thick, material parts on the far ends of the pages to the large cardboard pieces that were once the cover of this proud volume. After they dried, I applied a strip of fancy-pants bookbinding tape to make sure everything was held tight. Putting the canvas binding cloth on the cover was the next step. I laid the book out completely flat on the rolled out canvas and cut out the outline with an additional half inch on all sides to wrap it around the edge. Once cut, I used the same technique as before (with the playing card) to
spread the glue on the canvas and then carefully set the book down on it. I used a ruler to make sure al the air-bubbles had been work out and then did my best to pull it tight over the corners. Next I used the bookbinding tape to create an edge around the perimeter of the book. I also added binding tape the corners and the spine to give the book an academic/spellbook quality. For the inside of the cover, I picked up a very interesting printed paper. I measured, cut, and glued it in place in the same manner as before. The last step was adding a little typography to the spine. I carefully sketched out the letters in pencil and then, with a gold paint pen, filled it in. That was it. It wasn’t too hard and, to be honest, though there are small imperfections, it turned out great. Admittedly, compared to the extremely hammered book I started with, anything would be an improvement, but I’m still proud. All in all, as far as projects go, this one was fun, relatively easy and the results were good.
Simply
Roasted
C
ooking needn’t be complicated. One of my favorite meals is simply roasted vegetables. Eggplant, asparagus, brussels sprouts, sweetpotatoes, zucchini, and cauliflower are some of my favorites, but, really, just about any vegetable will do. I love going to the farmers’ market and seeing what’s in season and what will be good roasted. I start by cutting the given vegetables to my desired size, tossing them in olive oil and salt and pepper (you can make it more complicated if you want, by I like to let the vegetables speak for themselves), and putting them in the oven. Temperatures and times will vary and Google is your friend. If you are feeling more adventurous, somewhere in the 400˚ range is good, and just check it, looking for it to have a caramelized outside and a soft, wonderful inside. I love the crispy exterior that many veggies take on after 45 minutes in the oven. It’s so simple, so tasty, and so satisfying.
Whiskey,
OLD FASHIONED WHISKEY SMASH
2 OZ. BOURBON OR RYE 1/2 OZ. SIMPLE SYRUP 2 DASHES BITTERS POUR OVER ICE IN ROCKS GLASS, STIR, GARNISH WITH AN ORANGE OR LEMON TWIST.
5 MINT LEAVES 1 OZ. SIMPLE SYRUP 1/2 OZ. LEMON JUICE 2 OZ. BOURBON MUDDLE MINT LEAVES WITH SIMPLE SYRUP. ADD LEMON JUICE. POUR BURBON OVER TOP WITH ICE AND GARNISH WITH A MINT SPRIG.
Four Ways
By Ashleigh R. Hill
MANHATTAN BOURBON MILK PUNCH
2 OZ. BOURBON OR RYE 1 OZ. SIMPLE SYRUP 1 DASHES BITTERS STIR WITH ICE, STRAIN INTO A CHILLED COCKTAIL GLASS. GARNISH WITH A CHERRY (NOT SHOWN).
3 OZ. MILK 2 OZ. BOURBON 1 OZ. SIMPLE SYRUP 2 DASHES VANILLA SHAKE VIGOROUSLY WITH ICE IN COCKTAIL SHAKER. STRAIN INTO AN INCE FILLED ROCKS GLASS. SHAVE NUTMEG ON TOP OF FROTH.* *THIS IS AN ICED VERSION OF A GREAT WINTERTIME HOT DRINK WHICH, WHEN MADE WITH STEAMED MILK, IS CALLED A KENTUCKY NIGHTCAP.
3
4
1 1
3 4
@
2
#$% %
2
@
4
1231
4
3 a c ab d
T
Moving from Right & Left to Embodied Metacognition By Derek Cabrera
he appeal of the right-brain/left-brain idea is absolute. Its easy to remember that the “L” in left-brain stands for logical, in-the-box thinking. Whereas, the “R” in right-brain stands for...(well, it doesn’t really stand for anything, that’s how out-of-the-box these creative types are). The brain is sometimes called the last frontier and this simple right-brain/left-brain (RB/LB) idea helps us get a grasp this ungraspable organ. RB/LB helps quickly stereotype floopy creatives versus stodgy bean-counters. Imminently adaptive, the RB/LB idea is ambidextrous and is useful as either flattery or epithet. As a dichotomous generalization, RB/LB sweeps pesky facts about how the brain works under the rug. As a master metaphor for our minds, RB/LB sells books. RB/LB makes people easy to understand, even when they are not. RB/LB reveals that people are either in-the-box or out-of-the-box, which allows us to put everyone we meet neatly into a box. In short, RB/ LB helps us to do a lot of things we like to do: oversimplify, generalize, stereotype, feel good, sell stuff, label, and pretend. That makes the right-brain/left-brain idea a very powerful and useful tool. This powerful tool has only one teeny weeny drawback: its a myth. A Unicorn. Bupkis... Let’s start with something that the RB/LB idea gets right: the workings of the human mind are embodied in physical form. But the form upon which the mind is based, isn’t the bicameral brain, its the entire body. Therefore, our understanding of the mind is limited if we think of it in a dichotomous, brain-based way. We must think systemically about the mind as integrated in the body. Scientists call this “embodied cognition”. As we look deeper into what it means to be embodied, we will discover four simple but sublime patterns that provide a more accurate basis for understanding the mind than does the RB/LB.
What do we mean when we say that “cognition is embodied”. Let’s take this step by step to reveal several different levels of understanding. At the most basic level, the brain is integrated with the body through circuitry and sensation. The body is not merely a vehicle for carrying the brain from place to place, the two are integrated in what we call, the mind. At a deeper level, it is easy to see that the physical state of the body can effect our thoughts. For example, when we reject what someone is saying, we are prone to cross our arms or legs. Likewise, when we cross our arms and legs, we are more prone to reject what someone is saying. At yet another level of depth, embodied cognition is more nuanced. Abstract concepts are also embodied. For example, when we say that an idea is “hard to grasp”, hard is a physical metaphor for difficult and grasping is a physically embodied metaphor for understanding. In fact, the way that we learn or understand any new idea or word is through the process of rounding in a physical embodiment. To truly understand the mind we need to go one step deeper into what is meant by embodiment. For this exercise, I want you to travel back in time before brains and even before complex organisms. I want you to think of those little amoebic things you might have seen under a microscope in high school. Little squiggling bodies. It makes no difference what kind of bodies (e.g., cells, dogs, popcorn, organisms, organizations, etc). What we want to explore is the essential patterns of embodiment—through a simple example of bodies.
Let’s start with a few of these bodies. We’ll call them Things. In this new world there are four things: Thing1, Thing2, Thing3, and Thing4. Each is defined not only by what it is (Thing1), but also by the other things that it is not (Thing1 is the same as Not-Thing234). 1
1
2
3
4
3
Distinction 1
1
2
3
4
Distinction 2
1
2
3
4
Distinction 3
2 4
Distinction 4
Note that there are four things as well as four distinctions. For a distinction to form, it requires the interaction of a thing and other things. If there is no distinction, then there is no thingness and therefore no body. So distinctions are a requirement of embodiment. Every thing—in a way that paral1 2 lels the sophistication of that thing—knows what is and is not itself. You know when your chewing on yourself because it hurts. You might not know much about the other, but you do know that it is not you. Distinction (thing-other) is one of the universal patterns of embodiment. For the human mind to learn or understand any new idea or word, it must distinguish it from others. 3
4
Let’s look at another universal pattern of embodiment: relationships. It turns out that although thing-hood involves being distinctly different from other things, evolution has ensured that its also important to interact with other things. So, its part of life that when you’re a thing, you have ways of relating to other things. The number of ways that you can relate is as plentiful as the number of things that exist. You might have some little cilia or hairs; you might emit some chemicals; you might create sounds or guttural utterances; you might have a binding agent or grabbing apparatus. In any case, the second pattern of embodiment is action-reaction relationships. It tells us that to understand new things we must relate them with other things. 1
3
2
Let’s zoom in on our four things to see what’s going on inside. What we see is that every thing is made up of parts. Isn’t that remarkable?! Every little thing is actually made up of other parts to form a whole. We can call these part-whole systems, which is the third pattern of embodiment. In other words, the human mind understands things by constructing (lumping) or deconstructing (splitting) ideas into part-whole systems.
4
Let’s take a look at the fourth and final pattern of embodiment: point-view perspectives. On the face of it, to think that some little amoeba-like thing could have a perspective seems ludicrous, but take a closer look. Let’s say that our group of four things are aware of (related to) each other in the ways shown in the 1
1
2
3
2
4
4
Thing1's perspective
Group
1
2
2
3
3
Thing2's perspective
4
Thing3's perspective
1
3
4
Thing4's perspective
image labeled “group”. If we take the perspective of Thing1, we see that Thing3 is not part of their point-of-view. Similarly, from Thing2’s point-of-view, Thing4 doesn’t exist. Thing3 and Thing4 also have their unique viewpoints on the world. This is an example of a rudimentary thing taking a crude perspective. You can understand this in the real world if you think of Things 1, 2, 3, and 4 as people in a social network. As you can imagine, Person1 is not aware of Person3 and therefore does not consider them in their perspective of the network. Of course, as things increase in their complexity, the sophistication of the perspective also increases. Little amoeba-like things are good for establishing the basics, but what we care about is understanding our own brains and minds. These four patterns of embodiment help us ground abstract ideas by making distinctions, recognizing relationships, organizing ideas into part-whole systems, and taking multiple perspectives on ideas. Overtime, individual bodies relate so strongly and continuously that them become systems of related individuals. For example, our group of 4 things started to relate and they continued on relating to such a deep and significant degree that over time they began to go everywhere together. In fact, what these four things have done is quite remarkable! Through continuously relating, they have transformed themselves from things into parts of a new thing we can call, Thing1234. 1
2 2
3
1 3
4
4
2
1234 1
4
3
Amazingly, it doesn’t stop there, because Thing1234 now has its own unique perspective that is different than Thing1’s, Thing2’s, Thing3’s, or Thing4’s (who maintain their perspectives). And, get this..Thing1234 might wander into a new environment and meet some other things such as Thingabcd and Thing#$%@. They could begin relating and in time form a new more complex Thing.  This embodiment and evolution goes on for several billion years. Various parts specialize to form wholes that can do interesting new tasks. These part-whole systems made up of part-whole systems, become complex multicellular organisms. In essence, we fast forward in evolution a bit and see how organisms have formed based on iterations of this same process over and over again. Each iteration has the same general outcomes: new things (distinctions), new systems, new relating abilities, and new perspectives. Note too, in reality there would be differentiation between cells, thereby forming new systems with increasingly distinct form and function. 2
1234 1
a
abcd
3
d
4
b
c
%
#$%@ @
$ #
One example of cell differentiation is a neural cell: a cell that has particular chemicals and electrical impulses to cause the first “thought-like” interactions in the system. As thinking cells begin to evolve, the basis upon which they function is their embodiment. They, like all the cells before them, are an embodied form and, therefore, follow the same four patterns of embodiment. These cells naturally build their processing abilities as extensions of their embodiment. That is, these cognitive cells begin thinking in terms of embodiment: thing-other distinctions, action-reaction relationships, part-whole systems, and point-view perspectives. Over time, a new complex multicellular organism takes the familiar shape of the human body and brain, forming what we call an embodied mind or embodied cognition. Simply stated, we know that our brain exists throughout our body through a complex of specialized neural cells. The brain forms in sync with the body. As such, our cognition is embodied. Both neural cells and body cells are integrated and exist as perspectival things existing in relational webs and nested in hierarchical part-whole systems. The neural cells responsible for “thoughts” are embodied. When we see and touch a dog, the abstract concept of dog is generated as a thought. Thus, our conceptual understanding of “dog” is grounded in the touching, seeing, smelling, and real-world experience of interacting with an actual dog. The concept has meaning because it is grounded, embodied, in a sensory experience. Once we had thoughts, humans began to develop language as a way to better relate to other humans and express our thoughts. The mind uses both phonemic utterances and (eventually) abstract symbols to evolve into a symbol-grounding machine. Go back to our idea of “dog.” That thought, “dog”, was the result of a physical/ sensorial experience with a real dog. In other words, the symbol, in this case, the word d-o-g, is given meaning in relation to an actual experience. So, symbols such as words and numbers, become conceptual thoughts through a grounded, real world experience. For example: A real-world experience of a sheep grounds the more abstract idea of sheep which in turn is the ground for the word, s-h-e-e-p. A real world experience of counting three fingers or three stones grounds the more abstract idea of the quantity three and these embodied ideas in turn provide the grounding for a squiggle written in the dirt that represents the number ‘3’. To your mind, the concept of the number 3 is a real thing made up of parts and has relationships to other numbers. Yet, you have never seen the number 3 in real life. It doesn’t exist. What exists is 3 pencils, 3 rocks, 3 dogs, 3 people, 3 houses. You’ve experienced those in real life because they are real, physical entities. But you have never experienced the abstract idea of 3. It is an embodied metaphor which your mind has turned into a thing. If you doubt this, go find the number 3. Point to it. Touch it. Pick it up. Hand it to a friend. You can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. But your mind, because it is embodied can bring it into existence by making a metaphor to processes that it is most accustomed to seeing, touching. These four processes underlie embodiment itself and allow the mind to handle abstractions: thing-other distinctions, action-reaction relationships, part-whole systems, and point-view perspectives. Embodiment. And, it is this embodiment that provides the foundation grounding that makes the written symbols and verbal utterances that we call language, meaningful. These four patterns of embodiment are found universally in the physical realities of the world around us: distinctions, systems, relationships, and perspectives. In seeking to understand the world around us, we must seek and see the very way in which the universe is structured and its symmetry to our own bodies. If we know that cognition is embodied, we can therefore understand how we understand things through the four patterns that exist in both the physical, conceptual, and metaphorical realms. Our bodies and our thoughts are no different than
one another. As we seek to dissect the brain in left versus right to better understand ourselves, we are missing the very essence of the brain’s greatest and most illuminating characteristic - that it is us. In other words, we are distinct, systemic, relational and perspectival beings. Our thoughts are built as our bodies are - we make distinctions, we organize ideas into parts and wholes, we make relationships among ideas, and we take multiple perspectives to deeply understand things. Our whole selves, our whole brains are embodied by these four patterns - and it is these four patterns that provide true insight into how we come to know and into who we are as knowers. The story of your mind, of your ideas, your thoughts, feelings, everything that makes up you, can be summed up in four simple patterns. These patterns form your thoughts, your perceptions, the clarity of your speech, the integrity of your character. They make up you. They are you. This is the story of you. These four patterns are also the story of a new and important offshoot of the field of embodied cognition: embodied metacognition. The four patterns and their complex dynamics form the basis for a new theory of embodied metacognition: Thing-other distinctions, action-reaction relationships, part-whole systems, and point-view perspectives. It’s not left and right brained thinking, but it is right.
Dr. Derek Cabrera holds a PhD from Cornell University, is an author of six books and an internationally recognized expert in cognition, systems, and learning, and taught at Cornell University. His theoretical models of “systems thinking” have made impact worldwide as the basis for individual learning and educational change as well as organizational learning and design. He is cofounder of ThinkNation (thinknation.com), a movement to inspire a Nation of Thinkers. Derek is currently a senior research scientist at Cabrera Research Lab in Ithaca, New York. 2
34
12
4
1
3
3
4
2
a cd ab d 1
b
c
1
@
%
%
#$
2
@ $
#
3
1
2
3
2
12
4
34
1
3
4
3
2 1
a cd ab d
%
%
#$
2 1
4
b
c
@
3
@ $
#
Variations on a Theme Science Throughout Literature
I
By Spencer Sands
know I look like a super cool dude (or hep-cat, or whatever the kids are calling it these days) on the outside, but internally, I am a huge nerd. When people first learn my deep, dark secret, one of the initial questions they ask is whether I like Star Wars or Star Trek. I am always confused by this because I didn’t realize they were at odds with one another (honestly, the director of the newest Trek films is spear-heading the new Wars films. Can’t we all just get along?). I love both, a lot, for very different reasons. The most obvious, to me anyway, being that they are not even in the same genre. “What?” you are undoubtedly yelling at your magazine, or digital magazine-reading apparatus. “You fool! They are both science fiction, or sci-fi, as true fans such as I call it! I question your credentials! I should be writing this article, not you, for you are obviously a dunce!” Well, super-fan, I would agree with you that one of them is sci-fi, but hardly both. Star Trek, I would argue, with rare and often unfortunate episodes/exceptions, is thoroughly science fiction. There are more technical manuals out there based on the future-science of the Trek universe than I could every hope to comprehend. And their existence helps to prove Trek’s status as true science fiction. There is, to a large degree, a scientific basis for the technologies and settings of the Trek universe. The engines of the star ships are powered by matter/antimatter reactions or, more accurately, con-
trolled matter/antimatter annihilation. When matter and antimatter meet they destroy each other violently. In the early, post-Big Bang, universe, matter and antimatter duked it out for control, matter winning out because of an advantage in numbers. There was simply more of it, so it stuck around. Is it inconceivable that by controlling that kind of reaction, people could generate the huge amounts of energy needed to propel spaceship through our galaxy? In effect, controlled reactions of this kind are not that different from the nuclear reactors we use today, so I’m inclined to say that no, it’s not that ridiculous. In contrast, we have Star Wars, which I would firmly classify as science fantasy. How does a hyper-drive
work? What keeps the lightsabers for extending infinitely? Up until the release of Episode I in 1999 (more on that in a moment), the answer was simple: “Uh, the Force?” Star Wars is, at its best, all about mysticism and classical hero-cycle story telling. There are allusions to the technology, but never enough to really move it out of the realm of fantasy. Sure, Luke wants to go to Tachi Station to pick up some power converters, but if he were in Trek instead of Wars, either a Geordi Laforge, a Data, or a Spock would have had to explain what the power converters do, why they are necessary, and maybe even throw in a suitable metaphor to make the technobabble understandable to us ley-people. But, he’s not, so we don’t hear any of that, and that immortal line remains a simple thorough-way to show how whiny our protagonist can be. The Force is what really makes Star Wars a fantasy. Somehow, it can guide a torpedo to its destination at the center of a space-station via an exhaust port far more accurately than a computer, help you block annoying lasers without the use of your eyes, and is described by one of its believers as being far more powerful than the aforementioned moonsized, planet destroying super-laser. In 1999, with the release of the first prequal, an honest, if not flawed attempt was made to push the most fantastical aspect of the franchise into the realm of the fictional. Episode 1 introduced midichlorians, the micro-organisms that all living beings have in their blood-streams, but that Jedis possess the most of. They offered a quasi-scientific
explanation for something that needed no explanation. Honestly, I don’t care where the Force comes from, only that it’s there. You wouldn’t know it to read the first part of this essay, but I want to bring up a third genre that I have been read and thoroughly enjoying that starts with the word “science.” Actually, this one is interesting because it both starts and ends with the word “science.” Science writing, when well written (I suppose that is the case with all writing, regardless of genre), is so much fun and, honestly, inspires the same, if not a greater, sense of wonder in me than the aforementioned genres. From science writing designed to be approachable and entertaining, to science writing that is way less approachable, I find myself staying up way past my bedtime, and (when I have the audiobook version) sitting in my car long after I’ve parked. Authors like Mary Roach and Sam Kean make what in so many chemistry and biology classes would be mind-numbing into something whimsical and fun. Similarly, watching documentary series like Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, or Discovery’s recent How the Universe Works fill me with the same childsih sense of wonder I got the first time I watched Luke’s snowspeeder trip a lumbering AT-AT walker. Circling back, I basically can’t get enough of media that revolves around science; fantastic, fictional or actual. I love it all and will never pick a favorite, because really, they just aren’t the same.
3D issatisfaction
By Brendan Nystedt
I
In the haze that washes over the technology industry post-CES, many pundits take the opportunity to see into the future. One trend noticed this year was the lack of 3D-based technology compared to the surfeit of 3D TVs, games, glasses and other accoutrements in the past. More than one tech blog predicted the death of 3D, which lead me to wonder—did 3D ever even truly live?
The cinema post-Avatar tried desperately to recreate the groundbreaking experience that James Cameron brought to life in that film. Some films succeeded to certain degrees artistically but very few were able to bring the hype and the financial success that the blue Navi warriors reaped. Greedy content providers pushed 3D in order to create a new wave of popularity in both theatres and in living rooms, driving adoption of new projectors and, if everything worked as planned, a new wave of HDTV sales. More new films were planned in RealD and Dolby and IMAX 3D, conversions of previous hit movies were also put into motion. Since the HDTV boom was sure to slow, it was a safe bet that another, non-resolutionbased upgrade for consumers would be needed before another resolution-based upgrade would have time to mature and come along (presumably that will still be the still non-standardized 4K changeover). None of this has truly come to pass, though, since 3D just isn’t a very compelling feature on its own. It was never really used in any way that made the content that much better so that the masses upgraded their a/v setups with glasses and a shiny new TV. Having the Hulk toss debris into the audience will never be that important, so if the story and acting were no good, The Avengers would have been an undisputed flop. Even the critically acclaimed Hugo was a magnificent film without the 3D effects, showcasing how all the 3D in the world couldn’t make a great film greater any more than it could turn a total turd into something watchable. For instance, talk to anyone who forked over their hard-earned cash to have their peepers assaulted by George Lucas’s 3D revamp of Star Wars: Episode I 3D. I’m pretty sure no one is clambering for Casablanca in 3D. Worse than the rampant misuse of the technique, many audience members cannot enjoy 3D films without becoming fatigued or nauseous. Additionally, 3D films cut the brightness in half due to the polarizing process. Many theatres never bothered to maintain the brightness of their projectors, siting bulb life and cost savings as a reason in some cases. By putting their equipment into a dimmer mode which caused the film to lose clarity and color, these theatres compromised the original vision of the director. Personally, the best usage of 3D I have seen thus far is on the Nintendo 3DS handheld video game system. Utilizing a glasses-free screen to trick the brain into seeing depth, the 3DS uses its trick sparingly and tastefully, without reducing itself to requiring each game to have 3D. The best part of the 3D on the 3DS is the on/off switch placed handily on the screen. 3D adds greatly to levels in games like Super Mario 3D Land, where there are worlds high up in the sky. The vertigo paired with the depth and camera movements induce some precarious situations, heightening tension and raising the player’s pulse along the way. Other moments where precision are called for mean turning the 3D off entirely. Because of way the stereoscopic screen works, it’s really quite easy to get off the sweet spot, completely throwing off your perspective and often screwing up the gameplay in progress. For me, the important boss levels where the stakes were highest were the levels where I hated the 3D for making the game that much harder to play. Hats off to Nintendo for getting the on-the-fly nature of 3D entertainment. In some cases, it’ll be a nice addition but where it might be a hindrance, it’s so easily disengaged as to not get in the way. 3D didn’t redefine anything in any real way, so having it be an option is really cool and I sincerely hope that other instances of 3D in the future will understand this better. The media is what’s really being showcased, and if the 3D just gets in the way, no one will want it.
Righty Loosey, Lefty Tighty: The Left Brain’s Role in Creative Writing By Fordy Shoor
M
ost of my life I’ve been lopsided. To be more exact, most of my life I’ve had a tendency to live a lopsided life. Since childhood, I have used stories, play, and discussion as a means to make sense of the world as well as my reactions to it. It often made me quite “spacey” or “aloof”, reserving most of my Left-Brain for organizing stories, remembering lines and creating characters. My brother, both a keen Left Brainer as well as Left Hander, always used to get frustrated with me for the outward effects of my Right leaning hemisphere. Not encased in the same membrane, our weighted brains were at a loss in the absence of a corpus-collossum to communicate between the two of us. He is a man who orders his thoughts through political theory and pragmatism, into strategy and the encouraging of social responsibility. To this day, his ability to deftly navigate the world still astounds me and encourages me to help balance my brain. In an act of self-preservation, I’ve since taken on efforts to beef up my Left side in my life as well as in my writing. As an example, when I found out Atom Magazine was doing a Right Brain/ Left Brain “two-parter”, I thought to myself: ‘maybe I should contribute this time.’ Then I went back to my stories. Two weeks later, I thought to myself: “maybe I should just keep working on the other stories I have so that next time I’ll have a story for them.” When I got a notice from them, that the Right Brain was long gone and the Left Brain was around the corner, I thought the least I could do was take a break and tailor some thoughts for them. Being forever disorganized yet repentant, I’ll let this advice settle the score as to the indispensible importance of the Left Brain in the creative process. As a precaution, I should tell you that I personally advocate
a more “balanced brain” position in creative writing; despite this, the following advice may seem to distill the mystique of creativity to a science. Try to keep in both mind and brain that the cold heavy logic punctuating this essay is merely the result of advice from a “Leftist” perspective. As is often the case with advice, it’s only valuable when in demand. So, when writers come to me with a problem, my last ditch phrase inevitably resurfaces: restrictions can breed creativity. For this issue, it can be aptly translated to: “let your Left Brain work for your Right”. The most useful thing to know about your Right brain is that it works best when it is coddled; but, if you have a tendency to overfeed it, it will become a monster. It will try to resist any of the restrictions placed on it by the Left but, like all symbiotic relationships, it needs those boundaries. Much like the injustices of the world and unlike you, it simply can’t be changed. It can be fussy and uninhibited, petulant to the point that it aggravates those who make their living on it. Despite the lack of monetary or critical compensation, I get to enjoy its surplus output around the clock, with this very thought born around 4:00 in the morning, between bouts of restless sleep. Simply reading this might make you wary, helping to illustrate why the Left Brain is of prime importance to not only a writer, but any creative actor as well. As a matter of fact, were it not for my sense of equal opportunity towards my Left Brain, this piece would have been no more than words and feelings without meaning, inhibition or logic. For that human inclination, I am truly thankful that the world has Twitter. The saying may be true that some people aren’t “meant to be” something they aspire to but I like to use an argument to that statement. Consider William Shakespeare; his
first several plays are, even now, considered rudimentary. Moreover, he was constantly perseverating over this fact. A wordsmith of his time, he simply consumed a lot of past literature on top of toiling over millions of words and years before even attaining an iota of what people attribute to him. Later, I received a shirt that has a picture of him on it with a caption saying “This shit writes itself”, attributed below to William Shakespeare. I love this shirt because you don’t even have to have an English degree to get it; while some can see it and bask in “His” glory others, myself included, can smile at the misconception of Shakespeare as a Literary Deity, a Saint to remain unblasphemed in the annals of history. After a semester of what I crudely call “Bard blowing”, I realized that brilliance is not born, it’s grown with tender patience in aggravating increments. Simply put, he worked his ass off to become, admittedly, one of the most expressive Writers in the English language; by that measure, everybody can be capable of doing the same. So, let your intuition and maybe a close, general consensus determine what you are “made” or “not made” to do. In the meantime, if it feels good to write, do it; I guarantee it’s not bad for your health, at least the type not the type you expect. We have so much input going on these days that its more important than ever to take some time out of your day to process all the wackiness of the world. This is why my first piece of advice is to maintain the relationship between your ear, your brain, and your hand. Keeping journals will become essential. If you don’t have a little notebook in your purse, pocket, or on your person, you “best go on home to mama”. I know what you’re thinking but consider this; a pad of paper doesn’t have Internet or friends. Your brain works a lot better when it’s not trying to be constantly connected to something else. Writing by definition and practice revolves around being alone so, if you have separation anxiety, maybe
you should go into party promotion. Not unlike the distinct features of Eastern Philosophy, you must give yourself time to be, accepting your emotions is vital in being able to write about them. It never ceases to amaze me what people do to avoid this very simple act that, to me, is compulsory. You’d be amazed how much you can uncover about yourself and how you see the world, a fact that can always make you a more enriched and, in my case, a more tolerable person. Writers like Marcel Proust staked their claim in self-reflection, not to mention every Philosopher throughout history, illustrating the rich plasticity of the mind. Either way, you must catalogue your thoughts as they begin to come spewing without hesitation from your mind. Your memory simply can’t hold it all and, besides, it works better when not having to do so. I have four notebooks on me, two at all times. Two fit into my back pocket and are for tiny notes, usually mixed up with daily notes like Sushi orders or addresses. The other two are Moleskine notebooks, one full page, and the other a quarter-page. The small one is for “Small Ideas” including detailed analysis, character attributes, scraps of dialogue, exposition, plot points, questions, etc. The larger one is reserved for blocks of Prose that will be placed directly into a work. Your Left Brain cannot let the Right Brain down when it has a really good idea. But as is expected, you can get caught off guard. Let’s say you’re driving and you simply cannot pull over and write; maybe even thinking about doing so makes you anxious about what you might miss if you do, either in life or in thought. In this case, I use my phone to record rough ideas that are usually mixed between sounds of turn signals and reactionary driving commentary. This will, of course, be deciphered later when it comes time to collect and transcribe these ideas for composition. Author Michael Chabon recommends to aspiring writers to
compose, excuse the paraphrase, like 1,000 words a day. At first, I could only assume this was how his prose reached the thickness of bricks but, after having written that much a day, I realized writing and Writing are two different entities entirely. After the discovery, I accepted his advice as somewhat of a challenge. Though the streak didn’t last long, it helped produce Atom’s publication of my last story A Secret Chord, not to mention the convoluted skeleton of its second half, on top of several novel chapters, a novella, and a pilot episode. Whether any of these are worthwhile collections of words should be much less concerning to a writer than a reader, or hopefully an Editor. And while this writing is creatively cathartic and able to truly explore the reaches of the mind and memory, it is most definitely not Writing. To be clear, I would still consider myself of the lowercase variety, with hopeful glimpses of an uppercase every once in a while. Again, this shouldn’t dissuade anyone. In the end, it’s up to you as the reader to determine whether that’s words with a “W”. However, words can begin to mean very little if they come with such ease. It’s at the point of refraining from using them that it begins to get quite scary for some writers. To those aspiring or simply recalling, I know why you write; by now, we all do. You want to make sense of the lovely things, the icky things, or the confounding things you feel or have felt. Ultimately, you want your own
“peace of mind”. Assuming you expect people to read your words, much less enjoy them and generate responses of their own free will, you must shape your “peace” into a “piece”. This is the largest wall for most beginning writers, especially English majors who know full well how cruel Literary critics can be. It’s true; if writing is expressive and freeing, then revising could be in a way repressive and constraining. To avoid the tantrums and the resistance while still maintaining your sensitivity, do everybody a favor and distance yourself from your writing. In my own personal experience, it’s better to do it with your writing than with your real emotions. The cycle only works when it’s cyclical and habitual; if you never revise, you never go back to the “Eye” part of the process. You need to let your Left Brain periodically piss on your Right Brain’s whimsy in order to evolve creatively or your avoidance of criticism will inevitably cause you to stagnate. If things do start to muddy and ideas are few and far between, it’s best to remind yourself to keep it open. Your Left Brain becomes imperative in building and maintaining those options for the Right Brain’s creativity. Writer’s block functions much like erectile dysfunction; it’s usually psychological and it usually revolves around inadequacy—however, there’s no pill marketed for writers’ block, though I’d imagine J.D. Salinger could have benefitted from its use. Indeed, it’s hard to know when and where to be critical. This is the other wall for most beginning writers, especially those formerly instructed in the art of creatively destructive Deconstructionism. Further, even to the expert reader, it’s hard to know what types of stories have legs. That said, allow yourself some variety and have at least three projects open at all times. First off, this helps you designate ideas into particular stories; I, of course, assume stories as “Fiction”, but feel free to supplant my medium for your own purposes. The one tendency for beginning writers is to place all their material indiscriminately into one story that, inevitably, becomes too large to maintain. Worse, it might become nowhere near the story they want to tell. Your Right Brain will cripple under such pressures. If you can maintain the feel of a story and what it’s “about” to you, it will help you to sense when ideas fit in and when they don’t. Vague, I know. For instance, when George Orwell was writing about talking animals, why would he place it into the plot of 1984 instead of creating a whole new story like Animal Farm that allows him to utilize allegory and satire? These decisions are not as daunting as they seem. Since the brain is constantly looking to make connections, it will lead your mind down the path it wants to go and eventually begin build atop your previous choices. Mainly, this type of planning allows the Right Brain to move on when faced with a wall. Being loosey-goosey as it is, the Right Brain is effectively blind and, when it hits a wall, it can’t see a way out; it needs to feel it out. If you create other stories or outlets for yourself, the Right Brain can move on without stewing and dissecting itself, destroying what it does best. For example, at this point in the draft, I reached a wall and started working on my other novella Down Low; one of the reasons I will be able to come back to this so easily is because of the dreaded Outline I prepared. Teachers always tell students about the value of organization in writing, inevitably suggesting some form of diagram or outline. I’m here to tell you, as both an aspiring writer and teacher, that you don’t need all of them; but you do need something. I will never tell people that there is one way to organize a story but I will ask them to explore and think about what type of organization works best for them. It’s best to think of a model you are familiar with and is simple as your outline will be tweaked and grow in complexity. Screenwriters are suggested to use flash cards with scenes written on them
and, by adjusting the placement, they can alter the whole flow of the story. Some tend to stick with standardized outlines while some authors sometimes use the simplified Character Arcs, with a Beginning, Rising Action, Climax, and Resolution. It wasn’t until I hyper-extended my Left Brain through my weakest subjects of Astronomy, Statistics and Experimental Design that I started developing a variation more like a graph. I haven’t used it since but it could be helpful to some. This graph elaborates on the notion of Character Arc, including interplay between characters, their emotional states, major plot points, and the overall pacing of a story. It basically looks like a standard line graph with each line representing a character. The horizontal Axis represents the linear progression of the story, breaking it up into segments—I sometimes use Acts, for example—while the Vertical Axis represents the general “personal state” of a character. Factors that contribute to the vertical placement of a line are those that directly reflect the character’s “personal state”; some of these factors could include as a character’s self-confidence, emotional state, psychological state, and success rate in obtaining his or her desires. With each character represented as a separate line, all of the protagonists will have visual representation in relation to both each other and temporal location. Try out your own variation or something similar; if you attempt these varied, potentially more challenging methods of organization, I guarantee you’ll always find new ways to look at the same thing. Graphs like these can help your parallel narratives make sense of each other and become richer in the process while still maintaining an effortless coherence. When composing a story, it’s best to always keep everything connected. You want advertent details to be large enough to be sensed but subtle enough to be inconspicuous. This is why, I feel, it’s best to let your themes come naturally because, as it is, you will write about the ideas that you tend to be drawn to. In fact, you often can’t help yourself from it; if you do, your work will inevitably appear “fabricated” and your themes “applied” rather than deriving from within. A way to move from this thought process is a screenwriting tip. Instead of considering so much what you want to convey, think of how you want to convey it. Ask yourself Materialist questions such as “how do people convey anxiety”, “what are physical features that remind me of _______”. Part of my own personal belief of the value of the novel in the Modern age is its ability to continue to convey the features of life other media cannot truly replicate, namely complex emotional states. Though it’s easier—not to mention faster—to have somebody explain what they think and feel, it’s boring as well as almost demeaning to readers. The tangible world mixes itself up and to assume that a character makes sense of it through simple inner-monologue or blocks of exposition is preposterous. The images you use, the rate at which you apply them, where they’re juxtaposed and how; all these help to support the narrative to its end. We enjoy reading because we have complex cognitive processes that connect little features together, elevate themes and ideas in ways that even the authors themselves could never have predicted. We enjoy writing because it allows our Right brain to play and our left-brain to facilitate that play in a truly symbiotic manner. Luckily, it’s encased in your head, with all your little scattered thoughts and impulses ready to be plucked with prudence by your deft Left. The true creation, however, is born from the timeless interplay between both the imagination of the two literary hemispheres: the Writer and that of the Reader.
THE H By Brendan Nystedt Every few weeks, the same bug seems to bite me. It’s time to go lens shopping. The fun of owning an interchangeable lens camera is partly up to what you attach to it. The problem is, though, that modern lenses are expensive. Photography is a fun hobby but I can’t imagine myself spending thousands upon thousands on lenses just to goof around with it on my days off. That’s why I’ve increased my lens portfolio by buying vintage. By “vintage,” I mean film camera lenses, be they from the ‘90’s or from the ‘70’s. It’s not a perfect solution but it’s cheap and a fun thing to do on a weekend. Personally, I own a Pentax camera, which makes using vintage lenses dead easy. The Pentax K-mount lens system has been around since the mid-1970s and there are millions of lenses that use that standard (including plenty of lenses not made by Pentax themselves). If you have a mirror less camera like a Sony NEX or a Panasonic or Olympus Micro Four Thirds camera, hop on eBay or Amazon and buy some adapters and you can rock whatever lenses you want. Other DSLR systems can also use adapted lenses, as well. Keep in mind that you’ll be doing all the work—it’s highly likely that the lenses you find will be fully manual and will require you to focus and choose aperture with your brain instead of the camera’s.
HUNT Crop factor Cameras have different sized sensors. Because vintage lenses were intended for 35mm film and most compact system cameras and DSLRs generally have smaller sensors (normally APS-C, Micro Four Thirds cameras have their own standard size), the lens acts differently than if it were on a film camera. This is called “crop factor,” and it refers to the missing part of the image since the sensor takes up less area inside the image circle that the lens produces. On Pentax cameras with APS-C sensors, the crop factor is 1.5x. Doing the back of the envelope calculation, that means if you were to find a 50mm vintage lens, that would effectively act like a 75mm lens (50 times 1.5). If you have a full-frame DSLR, adapted vintage lenses will act the same as they would on a film camera. Find out what your crop factor is so you know how lenses will behave on your camera. Mildew Many vintage cameras weren’t stored in the best of environments before making their way to your local garage sale or flea market. Since lens elements need to move in order to focus, there’s plenty of space for moisture to accumulate. Where there’s moisture in a small, closed off space, it’s super easy for mildew to develop. Much of the time, the mildew is stuck in between ele-
Pentax cameras with the K-mount can use all other Pentax K lenses. Other cameras, like Sony NEX or Micro Four Thirds system cameras will need adapters. Nikon DSLRs generally work with vintage Nikon glass but Canon cameras will require an adapter.
ments of the lens, making it impossible to clean. If you suspect a lens of having mildew, investigate before buying. Clean the front and rear elements with a soft cloth and inspect the inside of the lens by holding it up to the light. If all you see is a little dust, then it should be good to use—internal dust usually won’t show in pictures and some dust is normal. Sometimes, the mildew will be limited enough that it won’t impact your image quality. Other times, it’s really bad and will need to be cleaned. If you’re handy, you might be able to partially disassemble a lens with a set of small screwdrivers in order to clean it. At that stage, be prepared to break something and have something go wrong. Lenses are precision-made and it’s likely you’ll screw it up. But, if you didn’t spend much for a lens, then why not give it a go? If you clean it successfully, congratulations! Do some research It’s likely that someone else on the internet has used the lens you’re about to purchase. Whip out that expensive smartphone of yours and look up the lens you’re thinking about buying. There’s some excellent resources out there for all kinds of vintage camera equipment and sometimes you can even read the feedback of people who love and shoot with that very lens all the time. There’s a flip side to this tip which is that: Not all vintage lenses are good It’s likely that some of the lenses you find will be really not great. While some are hidden jewels just begging to be brought back from the dead, others were built to be cheap and were included with a camera body as a kit lens. Shooting with a lens you unearthed is exciting, but temper your expectations until you get back to your computer and can see the results on a bigger screen. If your research tells you that a lens you’ve found is soft and produces crap photos, you can sidestep that disappointment. Test it Before putting down money, be sure everything appears to be in working order–test out the focussing action, how well the aperture ring turns and also if the aperture blades appear to be in working order. I found a lens that had a choppy, crappy aperture ring literally had a screw loose that I put back once I had taken off the mount plate on the back of the lens. Haggle Part of the fun of digging up old stuff in person is that you can talk to whomever is selling it. If you use the right tone of voice and bring up some problems with what you’re looking to buy, they’ll likely come down in price and you’ll walk away even happier than you would have otherwise. I try to set a limit of 15 bucks for an older lens in decent shape. YMMV. Expect to spend more if you have to buy an old camera body in order to get the lens you want. If something feels wrong with the lens and you want to try to fix it, explain that to the person trying to sell you the lens. If time = money, and you think you’ll have to put time into a lens to get it to decent working order, you shouldn’t have to pay quite as much for it. Enjoy the hunt Even if you come home empty-handed, part of the fun of the hunt is enjoying the hunt itself. Go, take some photos while you’re at it, too! Enjoy your vintage lenses while looking for other promising finds.
PLACE ONE & PLACE NEXT TO IT
By Boran Vukajlovic
Place One My first kiss was in a dorm room drab-sun Incendiary device of Monterey Offering up paper trail opportunities to mist-soaked boys And women contemplating mornings after The comfort of the Pacific dunes and naked buttocks Tumbling down the highway of America’s Pleasure zone. Dirty enticed to flaming the wish of Gods Behaving the passage of raspy-throated change, Stifling the mind, firming up the body, Absolving the sins no body went out looking for, And me, Racking up the coming days when freedom was declared ‘Conditionally debatable,’ The arms tossed ‘round the necks of Fools Searching an embrace, Finding a fuck, Embracing an icy detached shake-off, A dismissive mantra to the kind gentry, Bullshit asserting buried beneath their feet so as To not feel it Beating the chests, Thumping the Word, Bullshit! Over the heads of like-minded brothers-in-standard.
Place Next To It Declaring Where, o where! America the Sensual, America the Open America the Pitiful, America the Bountiful America the Symmetrical, America the Reparatory America the Perfect, America the Approachable America the Ideological, America the Passionate America the Island Where, o where! Declaring Be this treason to make you A brick worth shattering minds for? A coalition to allow such a design for? A thing admonishing me for such a design? For if my soul be wedged in the cracks Of ever-improving highways of the Heartland, Tarmac-sealed invisible, Foundation for posterity making what ideology it must, Might then, I too, Be allowed a purple-potted plant, A claim of a narrow windowsill, A plot of sun’s bounty, A soaring spirit To see this tender flower bloom.
Featured Artist:
Sera (Rosie Coco)” Cocora
S
era Cocora, “Rosie Coco” hails from the San Francisco Bay Area where she works her “real” job as a Marketing Specialist for a Performing Arts Theatre & her real dream job as an illustrator in between. The inspiration for her left-brain pieces come from her very left-brain family. A brother who’s studying to become a Theoretical Physicist & a mathematician father who’s writes for McGraw-Hill. Sera draws her inspiration from comedy & pop psychology. Her whimsical & colorful illustrations come from how vividly she see’s the world, as well as how clumsily she stumbles through it. Her next project is a graphic novel she coins a “sit down comedy”. It’ll be a mini series compiled with jokes written & illustrated using the same rhythmic style as stand up comedy. Visit her site for more of her work : http://rosiecoco.com
Featured Photographer:
Patrick Kao
ATOM Thank you so much for reading this issue. To keep up on all things Atom in the mid-issue lull, please visit our blog (blog.atommag.net) follow us on Twitter (@atommag) and like us on Facebook (Facebook.com/atommag). Tune in next time for our next issue, where we’ll will take “ACTION”. If you have something you want to contribute, please let us know at: theatom.mag@gmail.com. We are on a constant search for partnerships with sponsors, so if you have any interest in advertising, please contact us at theatom.mag@gmail.com. Thanks once again to our amazing contributors, there would be no Atom without you.
atommag.net shop.atommag.net facebook.com/atommag Spring 2013 Recommended Retail Price: $10