Feeder 1.1--- 9/15/10
The Stimulus Package Problem: It's All About Perspective
Image : www.wnd.com/?pageId=101920
Today, the old adage, “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure,” is coming up to bat on the political playing field. Debate persists concerning the pertinence and effectiveness of projects within President Obama’s multi-billion dollar economic stimulus package. Senators John McCain and Tom Coburn are among those who take a negative view on the stimulus package, expressing this opinion in their recent report entitled, Summertime Blues: 100 Stimulus Projects that Give Taxpayers the Blues. The report targets stimulus projects they consider wasteful; however an editorial, published in Nature journal of science and written in response to Summertime Blues, highlights the significance of two projects as they relate to the field of science. An issue of perspective is what creates the opposition between the senators and the writers of Nature because, while the senators judge the value of stimulus projects economically, the writers of Nature do so from a scientific perspective.
McCain and Coburn’s Summertime Blues report claims that the stimulus projects it addresses are wasteful. The Senators justify their conclusions about the ventures by analyzing their effectiveness with regard to the stated purpose of the stimulus package to “stem the loss of American jobs and keep the economy from floundering.”[1] The introduction of the report makes it clear that the Senators consider the goal of the stimulus package best achieved through the creation of jobs and the support of the economy without increasing the national debt.[2] The list they have compiled contains projects that fail to contribute to the overall goal of the package; however, the article in Nature, entitled “Cheap Shots,” combats their judgment of two particular science-related projects contained in the list, and claims the report to be nothing more than a cheap shot at the Obama administration because its lacks consideration of the noneconomic benefits of the projects it lists.[3] The report includes eighteen science-related projects and studies and the Nature article makes its point by challenging the inclusion of two such studies.
The first project the article examines is listed at number six in Summertime Blues and is entitled “Ants Talk. Taxpayers Listen.” It discusses a California study of over three thousand ant species on islands of the Indian Ocean.[4] The report indicates the purpose of this study is, in part, to “foster a large pool of ant taxonomists” thus, in addition to questioning its role as a stimulus project through its inclusion in the report; they also mock the study itself.[5] The Nature article reveals the fact that ant diversity is a leading indicator of habitat quality in conservation biology and refutes McCain and Coburn’s claim by suggesting that, while the study may not have an immediate effect on the economy, its importance lies in its value to environmental science.[6]
The second project listed by McCain and Coburn, and countered by the Nature article, is titled “Monkeys Get High for Science,” in Summertime Blues. The real name of the study is “Effect of Cocaine Self-Administration on Metabotropic Glutamate systems,” and it focuses on the observation of chimpanzees as they self-administer cocaine.[7] The report actually mocks the project by opening discussion on the topic with the sentence “Researchers at Wake Forest University think that, at least in this case, it is good to monkey around with stimulus dollars.”[8] Nature contradicts the mockery and criticism by pointing out that that the ultimate goal of the project is better treatment for addicts.[9]
While it does highlight the significance of both of these projects, the Nature article does not provide any other key evidence to support its claim that Summertime Blues is nothing but a cheap shot at the Obama administration. The facts present in McCain and Coburn’s report are legitimate, the projects it listed provide few jobs and, considering their cost, they have little benefit to the economy. The ant study, for example, is costing the government 1.9 million dollars and provides jobs to a small number of researchers.[10] Because the Nature article did not address the veracity of the statements made by the report, the authors are guilty of the same crime for which they accuse the senators. Both pieces present an opinion and support but neither the report nor the Nature article can completely refute the other, making it clear that the difference of opinion between them is not based on fabrications provided by either, but is a result of differing perspectives.
Debate over the value of the 2009 Stimulus package and its projects continues to play a part on today’s political stage. John McCain and Tom Coburn’s report, Summertime Blues: 100 Stimulus Projects that Give Taxpayers the Blues, highlights wasteful projects that failed to provide tangible benefits; however the contradiction of their judgment provided by, Nature journal of science, makes it clear that perspective matters when judging the worth of these projects because McCain and Coburn’s “trash” is Nature’s “treasure.”
[1] John McCain, Tom Coburn, Summertime Blues: 100 Stimulus Projects that Give Taxpayers the Blues (Oversight Report, 2010)
Growing up in the mountains of Western North Carolina, I was accustomed to majestic views of conifer tipped peaks. I could walk the ridges and enjoy air too cool for most deciduous varieties or I could wander valleys crisscrossed by streams that were still too high to be breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Today, the regal crests of the mountains are tipped with the skeletons of those tall conifers killed by the invasive Pine Beetle, and those valley streams are thick with other insects moving in because of rising temperatures. The causes of global climate change are widely debated; however, in the face of startling statistics concerning melting polar ice caps and rising temperatures, its existence is generally accepted. With this in mind, a group of researchers, based in Australia, focused their research on the effects of climate change on ecosystems and published the article, “Mechanisms driving change: altered species interactions and ecosystem function through global warming,” in the Journal of Animal Ecology. The article relates their discoveries of an array of subtle effects on ecosystems including, physical changes to organisms, changes in their habits and interactions with other organisms, as well as changes to their established habitats through their conduction of case studies and their analysis of previous research and experiments.
The color of an animal’s skin and fur is crucial to the animal’s ability to hide from potential predators and, in addition, skin pigment helps maintain body temperature for many species. It naturally follows that higher temperatures would require a change to the temperature regulating systems of animals. In an experiment done in 2007, and analyzed by the researchers of this article, it was surmised that increased temperatures during metamorphosis altered the coloration of Colias Eurytheme, also known as the Alfalfa butterfly.[1] Changes to coloration can impact predator-prey dynamics because the predator may not recognize its prey or vice versa. In addition to changes in appearance, warmer temperatures have also been shown to affect the reproduction and development of some animals, one of these being the red-eared slider turtle. The survival rates of hatchlings for this species decrease with exposure to higher temperatures as a result of alterations to the yolk mass.[2]
Global climate change has been shown to not only affect the organisms within an ecosystem, but also how they interact with each other. For example, the climate change is affecting pollination rates because the foraging of bees is limited by both temperatures too cool and temperatures too hot and, with temperatures rising, the amount of time in a day that bees can forage is shortening.[3] Changes to pollination systems have been reported on every continent except Antarctica and the restricted movements of pollinators like bees’ results in fewer plants.[4] This is significant to humans considering approximately sixty percent of our agricultural crops still rely on natural pollination.[5] If natural pollinators did not exist in our ecosystems, Americans would spend an addition 112 billion dollars to accomplish the same task.[6] In a functioning ecosystem, a natural synchronicity develops between the times of peak production and activity for different organisms. For example, the peak period of reproduction for a fish that feeds on frog eggs would coincide with peak reproduction of the frogs. Global warming has been shown to disrupt this synchronicity. Sycamore aphids usually hatch at the time of bud burst because the young leaves are the insect’s best food source; however, weather and temperatures can cause the trees to bud early and by the time the aphids hatch, the value of the young leaves may have long since passed.[7] Similar misalignments occur throughout ecosystems and with many different species.
The studies also suggested that rising temperatures are having an effect on the habits of animals with respect to their niches. Natural species specific limitations, such as intolerance of low temperatures, create the network of co-existence of multiple species within an ecosystem by creating niches. For example, some predatory birds, such as hawks, hunt during daylight hours while others, like owls, are nocturnal. This allows them to live in the same environment without having to compete for food; however, temperature changes are altering some of these dynamics. The researchers use the example of two types of snake, the first, a golden crown snake, maintains a low body temperature and is most active at night, the second is the whip snake, a species that needs to maintain a higher body temperature and is most active during the warm parts of the day. Previously these two snakes rarely interfered with one another because they occupied two separate niches but, because of warmer temperatures, the whip snake is becoming more active at night and creating competition for the golden crown.[8]
According to the authors, the concept of changing niches extends to the point of completely altering habitat demographics. As the climate shifts, new habitats become hospitable to species who formerly could not survive the conditions and rising temperatures pave the way for invasive species to flood ecosystems. In the case of the Pine Beetle, temperatures rose and the insect was able to spread to higher and higher elevations, killing lodge-pole pines that were previously unsusceptible.[9] This is what happened to the environment of my childhood. Pine beetles and mosquitoes came with higher temperatures, turning our mountaintops into conifer cemeteries and our creek beds into places of infestation. These invasive species have the advantage of being adapted to warmer environments thus, they spread rapidly and get the upper hand on their victim ecosystems as its native organisms struggle to adapt.[10]
Though many issues surrounding the climate shift remain in contention, the researchers who published this article clearly outlined that whatever the reason behind it may be, rising temperatures are having a drastic effect on the way ecosystems function. Their research was based on case studies, experiments, and forecast models; however, only time will tell what will really happen to Earth’s ecosystems if temperatures continue to swelter.
[1] Lochran Traill, Matthew Lim, Navjot Sodhi, Corey Bradshaw, “Mechanisms driving change: altered species interactions and ecosystem function through global warming”, Journal of Animal Ecology, Vol. 79 No. 5, Aug. 2010, pg 940
[3] Ibid 941
[4] Kearns, C.A., Inouye D.W., Waser N.M., “Endangered Mutualisms: The conservation of plant-pollinator interactions,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 29, 1998 pg 85
[5] Lochran Traill, Matthew Lim, Navjot Sodhi, Corey Bradshaw, “Mechanisms driving change” pg 941
[6] Kearns, C.A., Inouye D.W., Waser N.M., “Endangered Mutualisms” pg 84
[7] Lochran Traill, Matthew Lim, Navjot Sodhi, Corey Bradshaw, “Mechanisms driving change” pg 942
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid 941
Unit 1 Project---10/13/10
Unit 1 Project---10/13/10
The Growing Problem: Regulation of GMO's
Today more than 800 million people go hungry and suffer malnutrition, all the while this number continues to swell as the third-world populace expands.[1] Demographers predict the world’s total population to reach eight billion in 2020 and as a result, more and more scientists and citizens place stock in genetically modified foods as the solution to the hunger problem. [2] Thus far, strict regulation has prevented the theory’s validation or refutation by restricting the distribution of genetically engineered varieties such as golden rice. Ingo Potrykus, a Golden Rice Humanitarian Board chairman, considers these regulations unnecessary and impractical and his article, “Regulations Must Be Revolutionized,” argues for their revision or removal. Potrykus claims golden rice can solve the hunger problem and blames superfluous regulation for countless deaths; however, lifting regulations will yield countless more. Agricultural genetic engineering is a new technology that research has shown can lead to health issues among consumers, as well as environmental damage, and it needs firm regulation until these concerns can be nullified.
Potrykus’ opinion piece for the Nature science journal, fails to provide background information concerning genetic engineering or golden rice before opening the argument. Readers must have prior knowledge concerning the subject matter to fully comprehend his claim. Genetically modified crops, or GM crops, differ from ordinary crops because they have been genetically altered through biotechnology. This technology allows scientists to combine the genes of “totally unrelated plants, microbes, and animals” to isolate desirable traits such as high nutritional value, rapid growth, and pest and herbicide resistance.[3] Supposedly, GM crops can yield more consumable food under poorer conditions while using smaller tracts of land. These potential benefits cause many to consider agricultural genetic engineering the future solution for the world hunger problem.
Golden rice was designed to address this issue and it features nutritional enhancements to target vitamin A deficiencies in impoverished populations, preventing blindness and even death.[4] It has potential to achieve this because “it has been engineered to contain the genes necessary to make up the biochemical pathway for pro-vitamin A production. Moreover, the genetic construct was designed to be expressed exclusively in the edible part of the seed.”[5] Debate still surrounds the viability of most GM varieties including golden rice, and potential negative consequences have prevented them from reaching the market. Ingo Potrykus, a golden rice developer, addresses this fact in his article “Regulations Must Be Revolutionized.”
Through the article, Potrykus pushes his crop’s viability while arguing against current regulations restricting it and other GM varieties. He employs an emotional appeal to cement his assertion by using genetic engineering’s potential to save millions from starvation and revisiting this image repeatedly throughout the article. Potrykus predicts golden rice to reach the market in 2012 and he discusses the fact that it could have done so in 1999 but never reached plates due to “regulatory differentiation of genetic engineering from other, traditional methods of crop improvement.”[6] He compares the fact that golden rice faced a rigorous two years of biosafety authority analysis and data collection, to the fact that other new plants, modified by more traditional methods, require no safety data.[7] Potrykus highlights the lack of serious health and environmental concerns associated with golden rice to support his claim that such intense regulations are excessive. He also makes an allegation that the misrepresentation of GM crops and their associated risks is partly responsible for their market delay. Potrykus implies that the imbalance between the genetically modified crop regulations and natural variety’s raises unfounded public fear and makes it more difficult and more expensive to bring golden rice and crops like it to market. With “Regulations Must Be Revolutionized,” he discredits the current system and demands that crops like golden rice be regulated according to their novelty rather than their breeding.[8]
Potrykus addresses GM crop regulations across the board using golden rice as an example, and here lies a fundamental problem with his argument. At one point, he mentions golden rice’s failure to cause negative health or environmental effects; however, by using golden rice as a synecdoche for all GM crops, he implies that the same safety level applies to other varieties. Considering studies have shown some genetically engineered crops do have negative side effects for health and the environment, Potrykus misleads his readers. In reality, GM varieties are likely to trigger allergic reactions because many crops contain the genes of known allergens. Over 7 million people suffer from food-related allergies in the United States alone and avoidance is the most effective way to prevent attacks; however, the United States does not currently require GM products to be labeled.[9] Consumers have no way to distinguish foods have been modified using their allergen from those that have not. Genetic modification often creates new proteins altogether and another concern exists in the possibility that these proteins may have allergic potential. Few methods exist by which scientists can predict the human body’s reaction to new proteins and, though tests exist to screen for allergy triggers, they cannot mimic the human body’s reaction range.[10] The transference of GM traits to consumer is an additional possibility and has the potential to alter interactions within the body. Resistance to anti-biotics characterizes some GM crops and if this trait transfers to humans it will heavily reduce the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy.[11] Right now the probability of this transference appears low; however, it could become more likely if the items are consumed over an extended time period. If GM foods become widespread, this time period would be a lifetime, thus the potential long term effects remain an important factor to consider.[12]
Human health concerns considered, GM varieties have also displayed the capacity to have negative effects on animals and ecosystems. Lab animals display several physical side-effects including low body-weights, stomach erosion, undersized and underdeveloped organs, and changes to the blood’s composition.[13] Wild animals feeding from fields where genetically modified crops are grown could face many of these concerns and their deaths could alter ecosystem dynamics. The environmental effects of genetically engineered crops extend beyond the realm of animal populations because they also have the potential to alter the surrounding plant-life dynamics. Most GM crops still pollinate and breed by natural methods, making it possible for crossbreeding to occur between the modified plants and their wild neighbors. The resulting gene transfer would make the wild varieties equally resistant to herbicides currently used to control them, making it necessary to develop stronger herbicides. In this event, the evolving plants would dominate their ecosystems because their modifications enable them to withstand conditions that remain deadly to ordinary varieties. As a result, the available reproductive gene pool would narrow and a potential future blight could have even more devastating effects.[14] The gene transfer problem applies to insects as well. If insects assume the qualities of the plants, they too will be pesticide resistant and we will require stronger pesticides to combat the mutations. Ultimately gene transfer between GM crops and local insect and plant life could mark the beginning of a cycle where innovations are constantly needed to combat mutating organisms.[15]
Genetic engineering technology is too new not to be regulated. Contrary to Ingo Potrykus’ argument, genetically modified crops do have negative effects on human and environmental health and because of their unpredictability and varying nature; they should remain intensely regulated to prevent unforeseen consequences in the future.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/pdf/466561a.pdf (Ingo Potrykus)
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=101&sid=4495c981-e230-4e9e-8c62-c0f525b3619c%40sessionmgr114 (Artemis Dona and Ioannis Arvanitoyannis)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3334191?&Search=yes&term=rice&term=golden&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dgolden%2Brice%26gw%3Djtx%26acc%3Don%26prq%3Ddefine%2Bgenetically%2Bmodified%2Bfoods%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=1&ttl=19284&returnArticleService=showFullText (Bao-Rong Lu and Allison A. Snow)
[1] Peter W. B. Phillips, “Will Biotechnology Feed the World's Hungry?” International Journal, Vol. 56 No. 4, (2001) pg. 665-677
[2] Ibid
[3] Charles W. Schmidt, “Genetically Modified Foods: Breeding Uncertainty,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113 No. 8, (Aug. 2005) pg A526-A533
[4] Suman Sahai, “Golden Rice: Not Food for the Poor: New Developments in Syngenta and Humanitarian Board,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39 No. 2, (Oct. 2004) pg. 4612-4613
[6] Ingo Potrykus, “Regulations Must Be Revolutionized,” Nature, Vol. 466, (July 2010)
[7] ibid
[8] ibid
[9] Mary Eubanks, “Allergies à la Carte: Is There a Problem with Genetically Modified Foods?” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 110 No. 3, (Mar. 2002) pg A130-A131
[10] ibid
[11] ibid
[12] Artemis Dona and Ioannis Arvanitoyannis, “Heath Risks of Genetically Modified Foods,” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, Vol. 49, (2009) pg. 164-175
[13] ibid
[14] ibid
[15] Bao-Rong Lu and Allison A. Snow, “Gene Flow from Genetically Modified Rice and Its Environmental Consequences,” Bioscience, Vol. 55 No. 8, (Aug. 2005) pg. 669-678
Feeder 2.1--- 11/2/10
TV and Obesity
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2008 childhood obesity report estimated seventeen percent of adolescents were overweight or obese; adult obesity was estimated between twenty and thirty percent.[1] The CDC also reports percentage increases, both adult and child, since 2008. Many researchers have addressed the growing concern, rooting out potential causes to enable future treatment and prevention. Since the investigation’s beginning, food quality, genetic predisposition, increasing portion sizes, and sedentary activities such as television and video gaming have each received blame regarding what is now termed the “epidemic’s” emergence. Many Americans do not get enough daily physical activity and thus, the calories they consume outweigh those they burn. Sedentary activities like watching television exacerbate the situation.[2] Katherine Jones, Jennifer Otten, Rachel Johnson, and Jean Harvey-Berino recently conducted a study to determine whether or not having a bedroom television set negatively affects the owner’s health. Their study furthers existing research concerning television’s contribution to poor health because they discovered bedroom televisions do not seem to augment the existing health risks of sedentary activities.
The study, published in Behavioral Modification and entitled “Removing the Bedroom Television Set: A Possible Method for Decreasing Television Viewing Time in Overweight and Obese Adults”, was conducted in response to previous studies that found a positive correlation between the amount of TV children watch and the presence of a set in their bedrooms. One study, cited by the authors of “Removing the Bedroom Television Set,” found that beginning at age one, the percentages of children who had TVs in their rooms increased with age. In addition, the body mass indexes of these children tended to be higher than children who did not have personal TV sets.[3] This is because the researchers discovered children with bedroom TVs spend nearly 5 hours more per week watching TV than those who do not and are thus less active. The study targeted preschool aged children but it implied similar results were possible for older children and adults because percentages of a bedroom television’s presence increased with age. This concept served as the foundation for the researchers who published “Removing the Bedroom Television Set” who enacted a similar study to determine if bedroom TVs really do have the same affect on adults as they have been proven to have on children.
The adult version of the study was conducted using overweight and obese subjects between twenty-one and sixty-five years of age who reported watching TV between three and eight hours per day.[4] The data was collected over a three week period during which, the subject’s use of all household television sets was monitored. The participants also kept a sleep log to determine the effects of a bedroom television on sleep habits because these habits are disrupted by obesity.[5]
No significant relationship was found between bedroom television view time, BMI, or amount of sleep. The study did find, however, that subjects with bedroom televisions watched approximately two more hours of TV a day than those who do not, amounting to twelve more hours a week.[6] While the study found little correlation between the BMI of its subjects and the presence of a bedroom television set, it did suggest that having one also increased the amount of time spent watching TV outside the bedroom. In addition a chance finding of the study included the fact that bedroom TVs were more prevalent in subjects with lower education levels.[7]
The authors account for the results by clearly outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their study. The strengths include objectively measured amount of time watching television. This was achieved by installing mechanical monitors on all TV sets that required a code for subjects to turn on. This made their findings more accurate. In addition, the clear definition of a bedroom TV set enabled the researchers to ensure that their subjects fit the requirements for the study.[8]
The weaknesses outlined in the study’s publication include the fact that the sample size was small and the time allotted for data collection was short. A similar weakness was the fact that all of the subjects were already overweight or obese at the start of the experiment. Because of these weaknesses, the study’s cross-section does not accurately represent overall population. The authors suspect that the results of their investigation into the correlation between bedroom television viewing time and BMI were skewed by the subject’s preexisting weight conditions and suggest a better cross-section be taken for future research. Another weakness stems from the fact that the study used paper sleep logs that the subjects filled out themselves. This choice of data collection augments the possibility of human error and subsequently limits the accuracy of the findings they uncovered about their subject’s sleep habits.[9]
Ultimately, the researchers conducted a very limited introductory study. They found potential practicality by discovering the increased TV viewing times among subjects who had bedroom sets, removing them will lower the time spent watching TV; however, the authors call for more research done with a wider scope and more diverse cross-section in order to get a more accurate impression of the relationship between bedroom television viewing and overall physical health, especially weight.
[1] "Overweight and Obesity." March 13, 2010.http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html (accessed 22 Oct. 2010).
[2] Allison C. Morrill and Christopher D. Chinn. “The Obesity Epidemic in the United States”. Journal of Public Health Policy. Vol. 25, No. 3 / 4. (2004) pg. 353-366
[3] Barbara A. Dennison, Tara A. Erb, Paul L. Jenkins, “Television Viewing and Television in Bedroom Associated With Overweight Risk Among Low-Income Preschool Children”. Pediatrics, Vol. 109 No. 6. (2002). Pg. 1028-1035
[4] Katherine E. Jones, Jennifer Otten, Rachel Johnson, Jean Harvey-Berino. “Removing the Bedroom Television Set: A Possible Method for Decreasing Television Viewing Time in Overweight and Obese Adults”. Behavior Modification, Vol. 34, No. 4. (2010)
[5] ibid
[6] ibid
[7] ibid
[8] ibid
[9] ibid
Feeder 2.2--- 11-11-10
Feedback on Facebook
A podcast about Facebook's influence in my life
Unit 2 project--- 11-23-10
Final Feedback on Facebook
The results portion of my Facebook behavorial experiment
Feeder 3.1---11/29/10
The Dali Dilemma
From melting clocks, to stilt legged elephants, to floating heads, Salvador Dali’s abstract art is well known. Though he was underappreciated in this own century, he is a superstar of the twenty-first. His trademarks have become overly commercialized and this tarnished his image in the eyes of many. Cristina Carrillo de Albornoz, writing for Art Newspaper, addresses Dali’s current status in artistry and its sources, as well as outlines how the Gala-Salvador Dali foundations is working to recast his character and career in the rightful role of a true visionary artist. They are preventing commercialization of his work, dispelling rumors, and presenting the truth about Salvador Dali.
According to the article, Dali’s trademark, the melting clock, has been so overly commercialized that it appears on everything from lunch boxes to beach towels.[1] Dali’s repute is threatened by the “thousands of websites claiming to sell ‘authentic’ works by the artist.”[2] The Gala-Salvador Dali foundation, officially in control of his estate, has had to invoke its trademark protection twenty-four times to prevent the illegal use of his name and work in advertisements including some promoting soap and candy.[3] In addition, false “Dali museums” have popped up all over the place and are damaging the global Dali industry. All these things are trivializing the artist and this is exactly what the Gala-Salvador Dali foundation seeks to prevent. In this article, “Rehabilitating Salvador Dali,” the foundation clarifies the realities behind Dali rumors and presents the artist’s true legacy, through the voice of Cristina Carrillo de Albornoz.
One rumor the foundation dispels involves the most controversial part of Dali’s career, his graphic prints. Many believe that Dali wanted his work printed in mass and advertised as originals; some even say that he signed blank pages for his future prints. The foundation denounces this thought and reveals the fact that prints became so widespread because the printers took advantage of the artist. He agreed to have one-hundred printed, yet they secretly printed five-hundred.[4] They assert that Dali never consented to the forgery of his work.
The foundation has been working tirelessly to correct images like this one, while promoting the three legitimate Dali museums that make up his estate. They have been doing research to unearth more information about the mysteries surrounding his graphic art and paintings and have been attempting to regulate his appearance in commercialized industries. The Gala-Salvador Dali foundation has already refused eleven film proposals castings actors like Al Pacino and Johnny Depp to play his part.[5] They seek to reaffirm his place in the realm of legendary artists, rather than encourage modern gossip about his life and work and to this end, they present his legacy unclouded.
Salvador Dali has become an icon of the twentieth century. Many believe him to have been the forerunner of modern artistic movements like pop art. Antoni Pitxot, director of the theater museum said “he was 50 years ahead of his time” and with his hands in nearly all genres of art as we know it including painting, literature, drawing, photography, cinema, stage design and interior design, he asserts that Dali was the “pioneer of mass culture.”[6] It was Dali who became friends with Warhol and Walt Disney and who saw the potential of various medias and how to exploit them. Salvador Dali and his work have been superficially valued in academia and his life and works deserve more than the shadowed reputation they have been given.
Ultimately, the Gala-Salvador Dali Foundation, found its voice in this article and its author clearly presented Dali’s current problematic situation, used the words of the foundation to dispel tarnishing rumors, discussed what is being done to preserve the great artist’s image, and laid out a legacy suitable to his memory. Now only time will tell if the efforts of the foundation will have an effect on the public memory of Salvador Dali, for now it is nothing but a melting clock.
[1] Cristina Carrillo de Albornoz, “Rehabilitating Salvador Dali,” Art Newspaper, Vol. 18, (June 2009) pg. 42-43
[2] ibid
[3] ibid
[4] ibid
[5] ibid
[6] ibid
Feeder 3.2--- 12-2-10
The Dali Dilemma
Unit 3--- 12/6/10
Warhol's Mao
