Monday's Movie & Musical Clichés

There's a long-running thread at Quora relating to disliked movie clichés - most of the entries were TL;DR (too long; did not read) for me, on my way skimming through the website. A short one with several images to support it struck me as a good example, it came from one Daniel Andrew Lockwood:

In almost EVERY movie that has trains, somehow, for some reason, the lead character ends up on top of it. If there’s a good guy and a bad guy they end up in a fight on top of it.

Ain't that the truth?

A few regular groan-inducing clichés, in films and TV dramas, for husband and me include:

Scenes where a character is brutally attacked, hit on the head falls to the ground then is kicked mercilessly, but soon after can get up and act as though it was just a few grazes and bruises - instead of what must have obviously caused broken bones, internal bleeding or worse.

Scene where female character decides to chop off her long locks, for one reason or another - using a pair of kitchen scissors, possibly quite blunt. She hacks away indiscriminately. Next time we see her, she looks as though she'd spent a half day at some celebrity hairdressing salon.

My own pet hate: The Dog in Film rule: if there's a dog in a film, the cuter the better - the dog will die, one way or another.

Hacking with ease: character searching for password to access someone's personal computer data - a few random guesses and he's in! Or hacking into websites of huge corporations, this takes a bit longer but there's always a whizz-kid expert who can do it in a hour or so.

Husband's pet groan moment: in horror movies, character looks in a mirror, usually bathroom cabinet mirror, looks away for a moment - then the villain appears, in the mirror behind him/her.

An ever present scene these days, supposedly titillating, I guess, but because it's so common now it has become slightly ridiculous; we even start a count as to how long it will take for two characters to get into bed together, naked, or take some other, more athletic pose up against a wall etc. and perform sweatily for the camera! This often happens well within the first 20 minutes.

Finally, because it is Music Monday, a rundown of the top ten most used, and over-used, songs in movies. The video is 14 minutes long, but it held my interest - do give it a whirl:

Aquarius Unplugged

Around this time each year I inwardly grumble, about Aquarius, and how this zodiac sign has come to be commonly perceived.

What has gone awry? Is it me? I'm probably as guilty as anyone else of being drawn into the crowd's expectations - calling Aquarius quirky, avant garde, rebellious, unpredictable, cold and aloof....you know the rest. Humanitarian, another commonly stated characteristic of Aquarius is often apt, but it fits more nearly with Pisces in reality. Most people with Sun in Aquarius have a planet or two in Pisces. Intelligent? I'll go along with that one, it's the only description common to all Sun Aquarians I've ever met. Intelligent, mind you, not genius or even highly intelligent. They simply possess an innate cleverness irrespective of schooling or higher education, which, in some instances when applied can bring out inventive talent. Aquarius is Fixed Air. Air relates to mental processes, so it's reasonable to expect that all Air signs (Aquarius, Gemini and Libra) will share natural intelligence, honed to sophistication by education, or not, as the case may be.

I don't agree with the "love of groups" thing for Aquarius. Where did that come from? In any case it contradicts the "aloof, detached and cold" motif. I haven't ever met a Sun Aquarian who loves to join groups. I run away from them as fast as my little legs will carry me, so did my Dad, and friends who share Aquarius Sun. So perhaps Aquarius-types can appear to be a tad aloof and detached, but I prefer to think of that as independence.

The rest of commonly used keywords for Aquarius, apart from humanitarian belong, in my opinion, more properly with planet Uranus, delegated to replace Saturn as ruler of Aquarius in modern astrology. I often suspect that Saturn was more appropriate as ruler of Aquarius; a Saturn in Airy mode, lighter and less tied down, whereas Capricorn hosts a heavier, Earthy Saturn.

Where does Uranus truly belong among the signs? Its accepted characteristics can infect and invade any of them with its presence, and with equal intensity. The rush to allocate the outer planets to rulerships was curious, I think. Why was it necessary ? Weren't things working satisfactorily in personal astrology beforehand? The outer planets seem to relate far more to mundane or generational issues.

In my old copy of Llewellyn George's "Student Chart Reader" (1934), he has this to say of Sun in Aquarius:

"In Aquarius the Sun gives a quiet, patient, determined, unobtrisive and faithful nature, as a rule. The Aquarian is refined, pleasant, friendly, generous, charitable, dignified and humanitarian; fond of art, music, scenery and literature; cautious, steady, intelligent, intuitive, discriminitive, concentrative, studious, thoughtful and philopsophical. Good reasoner, practical as well as theoretical; strong likes and dislikes and often with very radical and advanced ideas; is cheerful, sincere and honest, easily influenced by kindness, slow to anger, but will not be driven; loves liberty and is fond of occult research."

Aquarius by Johfra (HERE)

I find that description quite fitting, even though parts of it are too general to be identifiable as purely Aquarian - for example pleasant, fond of art, music, scenery. I especially like the the last few phrases (easily influenced by kindness, slow to anger, but will not be driven; loves liberty). Interest in astrology, something I've had, at various levels, for almost as long as I can remember, doesn't seem to automatically connect to Sun in Aquarius, none of my Sun in Aquarius relatives and friends have had the same interest. Perhaps this is another facet belonging more properly to Uranus, or perhaps Pisces, where lies my natal Jupiter. However, there are two Fixed Stars in Aquarius with traditional connection to astrology.




So, my own stripped down, unplugged group of keywords for zodiac sign Aquarius is:

freedom lover, independent, naturally intelligent, quietly determined, loyal, faithful, studious, practical but also theoretical, stubborn, slow to anger, will not be driven.

Radicalism, the avant garde, rebellion and quirkiness will, in my view, be a part of Sun in Aquarius, or other zodiac signs' makeup only when Uranus is in close aspect, or on a sensitive point in the chart. Other characteristics, occasionally found associated with Aquarius, could come via emphasis on neighbouring signs Pisces and Capricorn.

All of the above is, of course, in my not so humble opinion only!

Arty Farty Friday ~ C.E. Brock, Illustrator.

Charles Edmund Brock
(5 February 1870 – 28 February 1938) was a widely published English painter, line artist and book illustrator, who signed most of his work C. E. Brock. He was the eldest of four artist brothers, including Henry Matthew Brock, also an illustrator.
They were trained at the studio of Henry Wiles and their career began in the early 1890s under the helm of Macmillan.

The Brock brothers "were attracted to the architecture, furniture, and costume of the later eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries" (Rogerson, Ian), they "set about gathering period artefacts for their studio", which they shared also with their brother Richard. This is one of the keys to their success as illustrators, since, with the help of family and friends who posed as models attired in those garments and placed in such settings, the Brocks were able to recreate very realistic scenes from the books they would illustrate.
(See HERE)

C. E. Brock was chosen to illustrate Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice in 1895 as part of its Illustrated Standard Novels. Charles Brock's name, thereafter, became forever linked to Jane Austen's. However, he also illustrated books by other highly regarde authors of the time: Jonathan Swift, William Thackeray, Charles Dickens, and George Eliot.

Born on 5 February 1870, in London, there's little to nothing available online about the private life or personality of C.E. Brock. His natal chart suggests a forward-looking, somewhat intellectual character - 3 personal planets in Aquarius, Moon in Aries, and Venus, planet of the arts in imaginative Pisces linked by helpful sextile aspect to Jupiter in Taurus (the sign ruled by Venus). The chart shown is set for 12 noon, as time of birth isn't known. Moon's position will not be accurate, but would be somewhere in Aries. Ascendant as shown is also not accurate.

Impure Reason

We didn't watch last evening's State of the Union speech by His Nibs President Trump - husband put in a suggestion, early on, that we should cease and desist - so we did. I haven't yet read anything about what was said, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the word 'codswallop' hasn't been intoned by someone somewhere! So...apropos of nothing but that:

A few examples from Jayj Jacob's
Codswallop Detector & Critique of Impure Reason.
These are his personal indicators of codswallop (also known as nonsense), found sometimes in astrology but more often elsewhere - I've chosen some of the more universal ones from the list.

The author forms "an objective assessment of faults, logical mistakes and spurious reasoning most apparent and seemingly inherent in astrology and astro-logic. By no means are these mental preconceptions limited to astrology or metaphysics; they are pandemic in western culture."

(Notes in blue strips, below each item, are my own by the way.)


Authoritism: The dual beliefs that if it's in print it is true & that famous people are always right ('authors' are de facto 'famous'). The more famouser the more righter. "If I haven't already read, or heard of them, they are nobody, and know nothing."

NOTE: I used to believe this, but well over a decade and a half online has opened my eyes - very clarifying it has been!

Conspiritorialism: The conviction that the truth is being deliberately withheld from 'us' by 'them'. The fewer people that know it, or believe it, the truer it is. Denial is always evidence for, rather than against.

NOTE: Sometimes a conspiracy is just a conspiracy, sometimes it ain't!

Cosmenology: The belief that whatever makes the universe seem pretty, kind, caring, etc., is correct. "Beauty is Truth." [reference Robert Pante, "If you look good, and dress well, you don't need to have a purpose in life."]

NOTE: True that!

Audiblation: The assumption that volume makes right. The louder (and meaner) you say it, the truer it is. Capitalization Convinces.

NOTE: Well...online capitalization gets you roundly scolded by all and sundry, so this one is a tad iffy. I suspect most people have grown wise to "audiblation".

Spuriousism: The assumption that if you can make it seem to work for you once, it does indeed work - and must be used by everyone.

NOTE: Yes, this one can be applied to astrology, right enough - also to things like slimming (or other) diet ideas, recipes, political campaigning, themes and plots for film and TV shows.

Scientist, Mystic and... Astrologer - Arthur M. Young

Last week, at Quora I was prompted to a very brief rant about astrological skeptics. It went something like this:

"Skeptics on astrology are some of the most determined and vehement of all types of skeptics. My view is that it makes them feel superior - more intelligent, more logical, more… well, you know! That’s fine by me. Let ’em feel better if that’s all it takes."

Later, I happened upon an old post of mine, featuring a scientist who was also an astrologer - quelle horreur! I shall give it a re-run, ever so slightly edited.

Arthur M. Young was born in Paris, France, his American parents lived there at various periods, while his father, a landscape painter, studied Impressionism. I'm going to call Arthur M. Young AMY, from here on, for brevity and ease of typing. He was a mathematician and scientist first and foremost, and inventor of the first Bell Helicopter. It was later in life that he slid into philosophy, metaphysics, ESP, and even astrology. Shock horror - a scientist who was also an astrologer! Would that there were more of his ilk around today.

In Jeffrey Mishloves "An Appreciation of Arthur M. Young" he writes:

"Arthur was also a student of eastern mysticism and yoga...... was a master of astrology, and he enjoyed demonstrating its value with reference to my own chart. He did so in the most uncanny ways."

There's a website dedicated to AMY. It includes some of his essays, several of which mention his study of astrology, in fact one is dedicated to the subject.

THOUGHTS ON A SCIENCE OF LIFE
Part III: On the Value of Astrology for a Science of Life
by Arthur M. Young (1992)
In summing up his essay, AMY wrote:

To sum up: The rejection of astrology by science is based on the belief of science that there is no way for planets to influence life. This belief is opposed by the practitioners of astrology, who find a factual correlation between the position of the planets and the dates of important events in life.

But the principles on which physics is based do not predict or even accommodate life. Life requires a narrow temperature range and a periodic alternation of this temperature, and hence a very special environment, requiring a planetary system with a certain type of sun. This makes life depend on contingency rather than law, and indicates that while the laws of nature are necessary to life they are not sufficient.

Since alternation (periodic change) of temperature is necessary to the evolution of organic life in plants and animals, it would seem that the evolution of consciousness, which has its inception in organisms which move against entropy, should for its completion require an alternation of longer period than the daily or yearly alternation of temperature. This is what the outer planets supply.

As for the question of how the planets can influence mundane events, this problem already exists in biological rhythms, which have been found to be endogenous; that is, not dependent on known physical influence

That, I can (just about) understand. I'm not going to pretend that I understand his Theory of Process , his studies of consciousness and suchlike. I don't. It's all way over my head. His Theory of Process relies on a kind of wave-like effect which he considers applies to everything in one way or another, because it's the origin of everything, starting with "Light"..... (I think!)

There's more information at the Halexandria website:



Ahem (too deep for me) - quickly turning to AMY's chart then -

We should find prominent Saturn/Capricorn(mathematics and science) Uranus/Aquarius (invention and maybe astrology) and Jupiter/Sagittarius (philosophy)

Arthur M. Young born on 3 November 1905 in Paris, France. Astrodatabank gives his time of birth as 10.23am.

His Sun and Mercury in Scorpio remind me that Carl Sagan has these placements (but with even more Scorpio planets). As well as its reputation for eroticism, passion, paranoia etc. Scorpio has that incisive mentality (especially with Mercury there) which can cut through stuff which leaves the rest of us deeply confused. AMY's Scorpio Sun closely trines mystic Neptune in Cancer - here's his draw to mysticism - a draw which Carl Sagan didn't have.

Aquarius Moon trines Jupiter in Gemini. The harmony between invention and philosophy in AMY's life is here, for Jupiter is ruler of Sagittarius (his rising sign, and therefore Jupiter is his ruling planet) and it is in very helpful aspect to his inventive Aquarius Moon.

Now we come to more of what I was expecting to see: Saturn in Aquarius, and....Uranus in Capricorn. Aquarius, Capricorn, Uranus, Saturn - there's a peculiar link here.
Aquarius and Capricorn were originally both ruled by Saturn, modern astrology places Uranus as ruler of Aquarius, and in AMY's chart the planets swap homes, with Saturn in Aquarius and Uranus in Capricorn. I'm not sure how that can be interpreted except that it's a conglomeration involving mathematics and science(Saturn and Capricorn) invention and astrology (Uranus and Aquarius) - all kind of related to one another by marriage (as it were), bringing together two very different realms. In addition Moon in Aquarius is in helpful semi-sextile aspect to Uranus in Capricorn - a further blending of the two realms.

So, all in all, AMY's natal chart, even from my minimalist take on it, clearly matches his chosen paths in life.

It has been said that everything everywhere affects everything else.
This may be true.
Or perhaps the world is just full of patterns.
( Terry Pratchett in Wings)

Music Monday ~ Earworms

Earworms! I have two at the moment, thanks to the theme tunes of a couple of old TV series we're watching, at the rate of one or two episodes per evening.

The first song accompanies The Guardian, first aired between 2001 and 2004, starring Simon Baker - I love to watch Simon Baker! He has a gorgeous face. There are times when he reminds me, facially, of the late Paul Newman - now he had a face for the ages! Simon, the guardian, is a very different Simon from Simon The Mentalist.

The earworm - by The Wallflowers:




My second earwormy tune: the theme song from British comedy series The Royle Family, aired originally between 1998 and 2000, with 'specials' from 2006 to 2012. This show is definitely an acquired taste, even for British viewers - and what American viewers make of it I cannot imagine - though my husband gets it, and enjoys many a belly laugh while watching it.

The show's theme song is sung by Neil Gallagher of the band Oasis.

Here it is again...

As John Glenn said,
"There is still no cure for the common birthday"
...in which case:

And I'm taking the weekend off! I'll be just a couple of days older when I return - that's my story!

Arty Farty Friday ~ Pollock

Jackson Pollock was born on
28 January 1912 in Cody, Wyoming. Pollock's art is very much an acquired taste. From biographical notes, and from the movie, Pollock, it appears that he was a veritable poster boy for zodiac sign Aquarius. His natal Uranus, modern ruler of Aquarius, is very close to his Aquarius Sun - just barely in Capricorn, in the last minutes of the sign, and his Sun is at 7.31 Aquarius. That's close enough to combine forces - Aquarius + Uranus = eccentricity rampant!

Pollock was never satisfied with the status quo, always trying for something different. I used to think of those later Pollock works, the paint splatter ones, as a cynical money-grabbing exercise. I changed my mind, after seeing one or two originals on visits to art galleries. There's a lot of skill involved, more than one might initially appreciate. These pieces have a regular "rhythm", yet Pollock danced around his canvas on the floor, slinging paint hither and thither in seemingly random fashion; even so, the finished product looks somehow planned, the colour distribution, the clever choices and mixes of colours. An example:

 Full Fathom Five

Jackson Pollock and Ed Harris: an actor/director, and a maverick artist born a generation plus a couple of months apart: the actor/director, Ed Harris born 28 Nov 1950, in Englewood, New Jersey.

Ed Harris starred in and directed the 2000 movie "Pollock". Harris's father once bought his son a book about Jackson Pollock. He felt that Ed bore a strong resemblance to the painter. That book no doubt kick-started the actor's apparent fascination with the artist.

It seems logical that the actor/director would need a deep understanding of the real-life character he portrays, and that somewhere in the natal charts of the two men there would be a link. There are several. The inner chart is Pollock's; chart placements in the outer circle are Ed Harris's.

I can find no time of birth for Pollock, though a rectified time is suggested at Astrodatabank - 12.06pm (26 Taurus). Astrodatabank gives 5.32am (17 Scorpio) for Ed Harris. I'm not including ascendants here, just comparing planetary positions.

I think Ed Harris's natal chart indicates a kinder and warmer character than Jackson Pollock seems to have been. Still, there ought to be some link which enabled Harris to give such an outstanding portrayal of the artist on screen. The actor seemed to understand Pollock's oddball nature very well.

Pollock said several times that he couldn't separate himself from his art. Not knowing much about his art when I began to read about him, it was more his persona, his struggles as a human being, that were interesting to me.
(Ed Harris).

Harris's Mars and Pollock's Mercury are both at 16 Capricorn.

Pollock's natal Venus lies at 9 Sagittarius. Ed Harris's natal Jupiter at 9 Sagittarius.

Ed Harris's natal Venus is at 28 Sagittarius Jackson Pollock's Jupiter at 29 Aquarius- in harmonious sextile aspect.

Their natal Suns are at 7 Aquarius and 5 Sagittarius- also sextile.

Harris's natal Moon at 17 Cancer is close enough to be termed conjoined to Pollock's natal Neptune at 21 Cancer. The Cancer/Capricorn opposition in Pollock's chart, Mercury/Neptune is echoed in Harris's by Moon/Mars.

These connections must surely have significance. The "feel" of a connection is there, without resorting to individual interpretation of the links.

Astrology is stranger than we realise - stranger even than Jackson Pollock!

Waves of Change, Wired-in.

An old article at Live Science, "Some Brains Are Wired For Change", by Amelia Thomas is an interesting read. Astrologers have long realised that an inbuilt easy acceptance of change, some individuals are born with, has specific astrological indications. A preponderance of well aspected personal planets in the mutable signs (Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces) or positive emphasis on the zodiac sign Aquarius or planet Uranus.

According to the linked article, scientists are finding that:

"People who welcome new experiences have stronger connections between their memory and reward brain centers than people who tend to avoid anything new, research now shows.

Specifically, people who actively seek lifestyle changes may have a more developed connection between two specific brain areas: the hippocampus, a site for storing and retrieving new and old memories, and the ventral striatum, a reward system which is responsible for those carpe diem moments, said researcher Dr. Bernd Weber of the Life & Brain Center at the University of Bonn in Germany. Turns out, if the hippocampus identifies an experience as new, it then relays signals to the striatum to release neurotransmitters which lead to positive feelings.

"The strength of the connection is positively correlated to novelty seek[ers] ... but this does not imply that having weaker connections is a 'bad' thing," Weber told LiveScience.

Weber and his University of Bonn colleague Michael X. Cohen used non-invasive MRI imaging technology on 20 subjects to follow the flow of diffused water through their brain tissues. The information was then used to reconstruct a nerve pathway to the striatum. If the pull of water diffusion is stronger, that in turn implies a stronger nerve fiber tract, Weber said.

The test candidates also took personality surveys, choosing the best descriptions of their attitudes about trying new things. The data revealed the relationships between a person’s personality and their physical brain structure.

"Brain 'wiring' and personality are not really one causing the other," Weber said. It's more likely to be an interaction between the two."

All of which led me to wonder whether if, at certain times in the cycles of the year, vibrations, electri-magnetic waves, ...or something... provide a helpful mix to strengthen, in a newly born child, connections between specific centers in the brain described in the article. If so, do these times coincide with times when astrological doctrine expects similar characteristics to be identifiable in a personality?

Other characteristics might be similarly led by conditions at certain points in the yearly cycle. I don't find this an outlandish idea at all. We are all part of the same universal physical network. "We are star stuff", a scientist called Carl Sagan said so!

We must not discount family inheritance of physical or mental strengths and weaknesses, of course, but anyway, astrological links within families are known to exist.

It's unlikely that data obtained from surveys such as the one described would ever be made available to astrologers, more's the pity.

The (Scary) Circle

Some movies are supposed to be scary, some are unintentionally so. I haven't yet decided which best describes "The Circle", currently available via Netflix. We watched it last week, and it scared me! George Orwell's "1984" seemed to be coming to life, but in slightly different guise and flavour. Remember that famous quote attributed (possibly mistakenly) to Sinclair Lewis? "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" ? After watching "The Circle" I decided a re-phrase of that quote would be apt: "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the internet and carrying a smartphone."

"The Circle" is a movie adaptation of Dave Egger's 2013 novel of the same name. It's a cautionary tale, the story of a young tech worker, Mae Holland, played by Emma Watson. She gets an entry-level job with The Circle, a powerful internet corporation based in The Bay Area, California.

The Circle stores data, unbelievably huge amounts of data: financial, medical, social, personal, about its account holders. The Circle's leaders convince account holders that collection of their data is for their own convenience and will bring about a better life experience. Open sharing is good, they are told constantly. There are no grim oppressors here, their role in this digital age is taken over by smarmy, insincere Machiavellian figures, played by Tom Hanks and Patton Oswalt.

The Circle, the original 2013 novel, was set in what was then the near future - a near future so near now, in 2018, that you can taste it! Some elements of the story are already here.

I'll not outline the story in detail, in case any stray reader might want to read the book or see the movie. There are numerous reviews around the net for anyone curious to know more. Reviewers in general are not impressed with the movie adaptation, though most do say that the theme is a good one - the adaptation for screen could have been handled better. I agree. There was something missing, for me. I found The Circle scary and prescient though, because of what I've read about today's social network websites. The movie's worst failing, I thought, was that it felt flat, in tone. Tom Hanks played the part he was supposed to play well enough, yet it's not easy to erase his long-time chat show image: a genuinely nice, good guy. A different actor in that part could have added extra edge and a brisker tone. Let's see, who can play smarmy, charismatic, but basically manipulative and...well...bad, with no ingrained "good guy" background?
Bryan Cranston? James Spader?

Music Monday ~ Meet the Genres

At Quora last week, someone posed a question along these lines: If music genres were people what would they be like? I'll have a bash at this one, thought your friendly neighbourhood blogger. This is what I came up with:




Classical - Tall, handsome gentleman, polite and charming, with a beautifully dressed lady on his arm.

Swing & Big Band - Clean-cut happy-go-lucky guy in blazer and slacks, will buy drinks all round at the bar, girl friend is a leggy blonde who loves to socialise.

American Standards - A bit of a solitary nerd, horn-rimmed spectcles, always scibbling on the back of tickets and cigarette packets.

Jazz - African American couple, moody, changeable, charismatic, but for outsiders, not easy to understand.

Blues - Solitary, gloomy African American guy - tends to study his own navel a lot.

Early Rock and Roll - Teen school friends, frequent the coffee bars, a bit full of themselves- they think they've invented the wheel.

Psychadelic 60s - Good looking young couple, long flowing hair, he bearded, she bra-less, both smoking - something.

Country - A couple who've been through the mill, romantically and in life generally. They drive an old truck & go to church of a Sunday.

Folk - A youngish couple who have an oddly old fashioned look, a bit rumpled, a bit unkempt, yet they always retain a certain classiness.

"You've either got or you haven't got class..."

Ann Landers was a pen name created by Chicago Sun-Times advice columnist Ruth Crowley in 1943 and taken over by Esther Pauline "Eppie" Lederer in 1955. For 56 years, the Ask Ann Landers syndicated advice column was a regular feature in many newspapers across North America. Owing to this popularity, "Ann Landers", though fictional, became something of a national institution and cultural icon.
(More at Wikipedia, HERE).

While much of the advice dished out by "Ann Landers" writers would now feel seriously dated, the following quote, on how to have 'class' endures .


"Class never runs scared.
It is sure-footed and confident.
It can handle anything that comes along.
Class has a sense of humor.
It knows a good laugh is the best lubricant for oiling the machinery of human relations.

Class never makes excuses.
It takes its lumps and learns from past mistakes.
Class knows that good manners are nothing more than a series of small, inconsequential sacrifices.

Class bespeaks an aristocracy that has nothing to do with ancestors or money.
Some wealthy “blue bloods” have no class, while individuals who are struggling to make ends meet are loaded with it.

Class is real.
It can’t be faked.

Class never tried to build itself by tearing others down.
Class is already up and need not strive to look better by making others look worse.

Class can “walk with kings and keep it’s virtue and talk with crowds and keep the common touch.” Everyone is comfortable with the person who has class because that person is comfortable with himself.

If you have class, you’ve got it made.

If you don’t have class, no matter what else you have, it doesn’t make any difference."

― Ann Landers

Arty Farty Friday ~ Cindy Sherman

Happy Birthday, Cindy Sherman! As her birthday this year has fallen on Arty Farty Friday, I'm re-airing a post I wrote about her work in May of 2010.

It was tricky finding a photograph of the real Cindy Sherman, which is odd really, because almost all her best-known photographs feature just....herself. Having studied many pages of her photographs, on-line, I'm left with an impression of her as the Tracy Ullman of photography - or maybe it should be the other way around....Tracy is the Cindy Sherman of comedy? Either way, they both present themselves as caricatures or satirical images of cultural archetypes or stereotypes.

Cindy Sherman, in costume and makeup, portrays images of the female sex in all their glory or ignominy, spotlighting their foibles, conceits and human frailties. A series of black and white photographs in the style of film stills from the 1950s was a feature of her early work. More recently she concentrates on American female stereotypes. Some of her photo-portraits seem, on first sight, overly harsh, bitchy and unnecessarily cruel - but then life's like that! There is underlying social comment here I guess - but without much trace of compassion or empathy.

Before I looked at her birth data and natal chart I was expecting to find evidence of a self-centered personality. After all, her main body of work depicts only herself, albeit in many guises. Perhaps there'll be some close alignment to Sun or Moon by Uranus, planet of the unexpected and weird, or of Neptune representing photography, creativity and illusion.

Cindy Sherman was born on 19 January 1954 in Glen Ridge, New Jersey at 4:27 AM (Astrodatabank).


Sun conjunct Venus in the last degrees of Capricorn conjunct Mercury in first degrees of Aquarius, with Uranus in opposition from Cancer. Here we have weird old Uranus's involvement! Moon in early Leo also opposes Sun/Venus/Mercury. Neptune, planet of photography and illusion is in square aspect to the Sun Capricorn/Aquarius cluster. Both opposition and square aspects are thought to be challenging rather than helpful. Initially this might be thought to be a poor fit here, yet these hard aspects and challenges could well account for the overly harsh treatment Sherman gives to her portraiture. Furthermore, Mars and Saturn in Scorpio (a harsh trio if ever I saw one)could well reflect a lack of compassion I see in her work.

Sun (essence of self)forming an axis with Moon (inner self) represents her seeming need to "use" herself in her work. I'd have expected either Sun or Moon to have been nearer to an angle though. Sun is in 2nd house, the house of earnings and possessions. Her work does command record prices - a Sherman "movie still" sold for $2.1 million (Christie's, 2007). Amazing!

Sagittarius was rising as Sherman was born - no planets close to the ascendant though, but Jupiter in Gemini is on the opposite angle, the descendant, giving it extra significance in her chart and her nature. Jupiter represents exaggeration, Gemini = communication of all types, so her urge to portray exaggerated portraits for public consumption fits this placement well.

“I feel I’m anonymous in my work. When I look at the pictures, I never see myself; they aren’t self-portraits. Sometimes I disappear.”

“I didn’t want to make ‘high’ art, I had no interest in using paint, I wanted to find something that anyone could relate to without knowing about contemporary art. I wasn’t thinking in terms of precious prints or archival quality; I didn’t want the work to seem like a commodity.”
— Cindy Sherman