#moderation and reality vs storytelling

[tirralirralirra]

something I love about having read/watched frieren and dungeon meshi concurrently is getting to see that, despite their similar broad genres (fantasy, DND-esque settings, failure op elf girls /lh), they are two very distinct stories that ultimately achieve the same* thematic goal through different narrative means.

like you have frieren's contemplative, almost slice-of-life style storytelling that focuses on how the connections between people make an impact, and how it's beautiful to cherish the memories of those we love, even the small ones (especially the small ones), and that being alive is so, so beautiful because of those things. Then juxtaposing this with the overall narrative of a literal journey to a land beyond in order to meet with the dead, while not losing focus on those that are alive. Frieren as a story takes time to explore the small things that make life beautiful (fields of flowers, the beauty and not the power of magic, stargazing and sunsets with your friends).

and then you have dunmeshi's tight narrative arcs that are built around urgency (saving falin, first from digestion, then from...chimera-ization), but also continually return to the same concept as a core tenet to both the literal narrative structure around meals and the overall story: to eat is a privilege of the living. That there is joy to be found in eating because it means you are alive, that you survived. That taking time to take care of yourself is honoring your life. That death is a part of life through the acts of killing monsters to eat, and that the dungeon's condition where a soul remains tethered to the body is unnatural.

For that last bit, I love how we're just introduced to the concept in the beginning as a bit of world building, something you might just take at face value of, "oh, I guess this is how this works in this story", and over the course of the story the characters start to interrogate that reality, culminating in Marcille's realization at the end that they took death for granted because of the dungeon's condition:

[ID: Manga panel of Marcille looking down in thought and saying "Look, this might sound a little weird, but...I think the entire point of this journey we went on....was learning how to accept death.]

(Panel is from the ehscans version, will update with official eng when the final volume releases)

I also love that the story takes the time to say, look, you can be in a hurry, but you still need to take care of yourself. Eat well, sleep well, What will you achieve in the service of yourself or others if you don't take care of the most basic qualities to survive first? The most recent episode is a good example of that with the focus on shuro vs. laios, and then there's this reinforcement of the idea by the end:

[ID: Dungeon meshi manga page showing Laios, Chilchuck, and Senshi shouting "A balanced diet!!" "R-regulating our daily rhythms!!" "And moderate exercise!!" respectively, followed by the three in various poses in front of the word "VICTORY" and Laios saying "If we watch these three points...we'll naturally work our way to strong bodies!!"]

Anyways this is all very disorganized and I have other things I need to do and I could write a more cohesive, actually organized thought piece on all of this with like, coherent points, but I don't really like to delve into literary analysis on my fandom account. it just lives in my head, rent free. thank you for coming to my ted talk tumblr. don't expect to see more of this, lol.

*I say same goal, which is not to say the only goal. stories can have more than one theme, it's ok if you disagree with me on this, but please bear in mind that I'm speaking very, very broadly.

[theblindmachine]

Listen: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5LTtmPeNI9S0subCdALWWi "### The Great Espionage Showdown: Fleming vs. Le Carré In the world of spy fiction, two titans reign supreme: Ian Fleming and John Le Carré. Each has carved out a distinctive realm in the literary domain, captivating readers with enthralling tales of espionage that blur the lines between fiction and reality. These master storytellers didn’t just write thrillers; they crafted narratives that elevated the genre to heights once believed unattainable. Fleming, the creator of the iconic James Bond, introduced a suave, martini-sipping agent who effortlessly glided through exotic locales, engaging in deadly duels and seducing beautiful women. Bond is an emblem of post-war elegance, a character whose escapades are as tantalizing as the cocktails he consumes. Fleming’s prose is a lush tapestry of glamour and danger, effectively capturing the thrill of Cold War dynamics. His work resonates with those who dream of escaping mundane realities and diving into a world filled with excitement and high stakes. On the other side stands Le Carré, a scribe who deftly delineated the often murky waters of espionage through a darker lens. His portrayal of the British secret service, grounded in his own experiences with MI5 and MI6, exposes a more sobering reality of intelligence work. Le Carré’s stories are steeped in moral ambiguity, peering behind the curtain to reveal the price of secrets and the moral complexities they entail. He invites readers to question not just the motives of the spies but the very system they serve. As his memoir climbs the bestseller lists, it's evident that his legacy is as compelling as his narratives. In a heated literary face-off, both sides have their champions standing ready to declare their preferred author as the ultimate king of espionage. Anthony Horowitz, the creative mind behind the Alex Rider series and official Bond continuation, passionately argues the case for Fleming’s charm and flair. Meanwhile, David Farr, the Emmy-nominated screenwriter of "The Night Manager," staunchly defends Le Carré's authentic portrayal of the intelligence community. The debate attracted not just literary aficionados but also renowned actors like Lesley Manville, Simon Callow, Matthew Lewis, and Alex Macqueen, who brought the rich texts of both authors to life, illuminating the impact they’ve had on culture and cinema. With their dynamic performances and the insightful moderation of Erica Wagner, the discussion transcended mere rivalry; it became a celebration of two vastly different, yet equally influential, narratives about espionage. So, who holds the greater title in this captivating contest? While Fleming's glittering spectacle and Le Carré's intricate dissection of moral dilemmas appeal to different sensibilities, both authors have left an indelible mark on the literary landscape. Each has shaped our understanding of what it means to be a spy, whether dressed in tuxedos or shrouded in shadows. As readers and enthusiasts, we are fortunate to navigate the worlds both men have conjured. Whether you find solace in the high-octane thrills of Bond or the poignant realism of Le Carré, one thing is certain: the realm of espionage novels will continue to thrive, inviting us to question, explore, and—above all—entertain. Interested in getting more insider content like this? Consider becoming a member at intelligencesquared.com for exclusive access to our library of thought-provoking discussions and events. For just £4.99 a month, unlock ad-free podcasts, bonus episodes, and discounts on in-person gatherings! Join us now and stay at the forefront of enlightening conversations."

[redantsunderneath]

Critical Accommodation

The first forum thread I ever started, on some televisionwithoutpity-type forum, was on the topic of simultaneously overrated and underrated art/artists.  Now, I don’t know if I expressed my ideas clearly or not, but in the email exchange subsequent to a strangely angry moderator deleting the post, clarity didn’t seem to be the issue as much as a failure on his part to admit to the idea that the relationship between quality and popularity could somehow be multivalent.  At the time, I probably used Radiohead or something as an example – underrated by any sort of mass audience but overrated by what you might a few years later have call pitcthforkers – but maybe Serial is a good modern equivalent.  I doesn’t hold enough interest for anyone who has seen more than 3 Datelines and thinks the idea of NPRing the concept up is boring, but elicits a little too much ado from the Slate reading contingent who, maybe, believe True Crime as a genre just got invented.

 I kind of lost interest in this as a concept as, after a while, all you can see are the social signaling aspects of this multi-audience interaction, maybe thanks to hipsters turning countersignaling into a game of chicken where they threw their steering wheel out the window. But it seems that multiple axes of “is it good” that coexist have become more obvious lately, and not just because people are starting to notice that everyone lives in a bubble. Case in point: I was involved in an exchange recently about the movie Suicide Squad, with a poster claiming that the response to the movie showed how pronounced the divide was between critics and the casual audience.  I had to ask what this meant because the critics I pay attention to have been very positive about Suicide Squad and the DC movies in general (in relation to the Marvel movies especially) and dismissive of the sea of internet opinions that call the films garbage.  The person bringing it up was talking about the actual moviegoing audience which made the movie immensely profitable because they weren’t told they were supposed to hate it vs. the majority of internet based and payed critics who poo-pooed the movie as you would expect.  Both of these critical-mass divides were true at the same time, but each of us preferentially saw one.

 I’ve written a lot about textual story and subliminal story in an effort to pick at the meaning of entertainments of all kinds.  But all this is making me think about the fact that there are more levels than just above and below and various audiences are habituated to look for satisfaction at a certain level. One problem is that no matter how smart and attentive the audience member is, they tend to privilege this one layer and, as a result, this strata is optimized for by producers (via a complex Darwinian system) if they are viewed as the primary audience.  So the actual most complicated and interesting multilayered stuff is going to suffer for any specific audience in that it will not be “the best possible thing” at the level they are trained to value the most.  The funny thing is, this system more and more doesn’t favor people who focus on depth and complexity in producing a serious work, but artists who are profoundly unhinged at some level who are willing to operate at the most superficial levels primarily with the deep stuff inadvertently spilling out like piñata guts.  These movies often don’t make intellectual sense.

 I think in order to consider this, text and subliminal aren’t going to cut it.  There is a superficial or visceral level of engagement – incident, big emotion… the action movie thing, but also at a different pitch the romantic comedy thing.  Crowd pleasers that satisfy the lower levels of Maslow’s pyramid – oral (safety, threat, need, good/bad) and anal (dominance, desire, will).  Then you have the mid level engagement of the genital (intricacy, complex relational, intellectual satisfaction) and basic social consciousness (mid to upper Maslow) which is common internet aesthete and print critic land.  If there is talk of screenplay structure or complex characters or representation, it is in this middlebrow-that-thinks-it’s-highbrow area. The Oscar zone.  

 There is another level, though, which me might call the ineffable, the preconscious, the deep structural, the semiotic, the transcendent, or the sublime.  People who I usually pay attention to are focused on this later level to some degree. The thing that ties these people together is an emphasis on visual storytelling (or poetics if we are talking about print) and a philosophical bent.  The escape of conscious forms, of spoken language and structure, receiving symbolic content and using that to construct meaning.  There is a lot of theory in this zone… it is not not intellectual, but rather senses something hidden or unintentional and wrestles that into the zone of language and reason.  This includes primal unexamined societal impulses where the motivations for politics and hatred lie.  

 So group 1 are the conscious experiencers (popcorn moviegoer).  Group 2 are the social intellectualizers (the maven or critic).  Group 3 have found some way to touch an unmediated submerged experience and bring it up to examine, which oddly gives them more in common with group 1 (the dredgers and deep divers).  Everybody at a higher number level has some experience with the lower numbers but what I have noticed is that most people in this hierarchy tend to limit focus to their preferred layer and stick there, losing the ability to really engage at the other levels with something that doesn’t satisfy on theirs.  I do run into more people who are able to put a foot on 1 and a foot on 3, people who go deep on trash cinema for instance, but these people usually take a shit on level 2.  Many of these people hate prestige TV very viscerally.  Others stick to 3 and tend to close read based on one particular “deep topic” like capitalism or gender.

 This leads to extremely insightful people who have a fixed level of focus.  I almost said “myopia” but a better ophthalmologic analogy is loss of lens accommodation, a common problem of age (the need for reading glasses after you turn 47 is this).  With this condition you can be nearsighted or farsighted or have 20/20, but you can’t focus very well outside of a narrow range of your focal length.  My very favorite writers on narrative art are able to focus up and down the scale and, importantly, experience the piece as a blank slate, so the reading can be guided by the piece and not a bias as to level of engagement.  Zizek is great, but I’d prefer it if he seemed to be able to be exhilarated, have fun, recognize bad pacing, or appreciate an actor/actress performance without making these a function of some Marxist/Lacanian equation.

 The good reviews of Batman vs. Superman I have seen dwell on the visual composition and fuck off attitude, but also focus on the movie as a critique of a kind of moral simplicity implicit in nerd/internet culture who can’t see what these characters are really up to.  The film is deliberately provoking the group that generates all the reviews.  Superman is an alien who is hyper aware of the conflict between humanity’s potential and its reality. His choice to act for the good in Man of Steel is that of a god in absolute agony as he has to take the war into himself, killing because moral choices are horrific and don’t have the external consequences they should in a just universe. Superman knows he chooses his path to suffer and serve the good and the universe could care less (Nietzsche’s Ubermench, anyone?). His suffering imposes a moral order on the universe.  In BvS he confronts the prospect of progressive inaction, the Obama path, do no harm because everyone seems to want you to be blamed, shamed into will-less-ness… one of the failure modes of the current American (masculine) spirit. Batman represents the other failure mode, the wallowing in the anger at traditional American values violated by the rise of selfishness and me first mentality.  Of course they need to fight – they are primal opposites: deflated optimism vs. pessimism on steroids, past vs. future, sun vs. void, naturally gifted immigrant vs. driven legacy born on third base.  

 These are gods, and are presented like gods, in a series of mise-en-scene straight ripped from renaissance paintings. It is wrong to speak of subtlety, because subtlety is the opposite of the point.  Look at those (Turin?) horses, gaudy symbols like oranges in the Godfather! The structure of the story is a mess by normal metrics, but there is a shape there, and that is enough when you are dealing with art film rules.  The collision of two celestial objects, awaiting the feminine to mediate their Hegelian synthesis and convert their masculine valances to the positive.  Dwelling on act structure is stupid.  Recognizing that they failed to make this a conventional narrative is useless.  Citing plot inconsistencies, “X wouldn’t do that,” and calling it emptyheaded and over the top mean you are watching a movie you can’t handle.  This is a skilled, smart but “off,” bodily centered outsider artist grappling with shit that is really, really big and deep.  It isn’t perfect, but no one should want that out of this (there are countless clockwork left brain things to watch)… you should come to this wanting a mess, gods of ideas punching your midbrain, opening you to experience the catharsis of basic archetypal struggles in the world.  You know, like superheroes work.  It is wrong to privilege level 2 which, remember, is where mass of expressed “learned” opinion is.  This is where the DC Verse lives.  Marvel is centered in DC’s hole, and it is right to talk of story as structure.

 My point is that the best thing you can do is learn to focus where the thing is most ready to connect with you and be flexible enough to let the thing tell you how to read it.  There is a lot of crap, but there is a lot of good stuff that gets critically ignored because too few are focusing in the right areas.  If you like more stuff, if you find everything more interesting and complex, you win. Not everything is good, but you can almost always find a way to engage it at its best.  You can say many bad things about the book Twilight, but damn if there isn’t something there about the subject/object struggle of being desired as a young woman, the disconnect of inner and outer experience, and the consideration of the choice of traditional-relationship-as-road-to-marriage in a modern context.  If you smirk and say Mary Sue, you have failed.  

 This three cluster model isn’t perfect, but explains a lot why I see lumpy, weird high budget stuff with the high viewership (mass audience), pissed off forums and think pieces (critical consensus/perceived audience if you live online), and elated jaded curmudgeons (deep critics) troika so often.  I think this is more than just a status economy (though that is clearly involved) but the production system has adjusted so that the qualities of the output levels align to the audience expectations.  The most interesting stuff is that which crosses levels, which requires risking a product that will probably seem suboptimal to everyone.  So, let’s have a toast for the auteurs who don’t fit, making movies that are a scrum of potential meanings that require you to get dirty and renounce the tyranny of “the way it should be done.” And I mean Michael Bay as well as David Lynch.  If they seem insane, it’s a feature not a bug.

[sempiternalsandpitturtle]

Where does content come into an interactive marketing strategy?

Burger King said it best with its slogan of over 40 years: ‘Have it your way’. Putting users in control of the product/service marketed to them is useful in both internal and external marketing.

Interactive marketing was made famous in recent times by streaming platform Netflix with two ‘choose your own fate’ television programs, but it’s has been around for a while – nearly half of respondents to a Content Marketing Institute (CMI) survey report said they have already used it. It’s just that many businesses don’t know where content come into an interactive marketing strategy.

In this guide, we will discuss:

What is interactive content marketing?

Common interactive marketing techniques.

Interactive versus static content and how to use both in a dedicated marketing strategy.

With that in mind, it’s time to make a choice. Learn more or leave now. Choose the light side or the dark side. The blue pill or the red pill. The decision is yours!

via GIPHY

What is interactive content marketing?

Interactive content allows users to determine their own personalised outcome to a narrative or question.

Netflix’s “Black Mirror: Bandersnatch” weaves interactive elements into the show’s narrative about a mentally ill game developer, Stefan Butler. Stefan loses his grip on reality while obsessively creating a video game with multiple possible story threads based on player choices. The Netflix audience chooses actions for Stefan to take, with each decision affecting the episode’s events and outcome. “Bandersnatch” was a critical success, showing the appeal of interactive content.

This led to another interactive series. “You vs. Wild with Bear Grylls”, being released months later. This time users are partnered with famed survivalist Bear Grylls as he is dropped into a variety of remote environments. Viewers are in full control of how he survives his wild encounters, getting to choose between different scenarios that change the narrative as it goes.

But despite having similar interactive abilities to “Bandersnatch”, “You vs. Wild” hasn’t been met with the same critical acclaim or audience interest. This shows interactive marketing is more than just a gimmick – it needs high quality, engaging content to keep users invested in making decisions.

Interactive content marketing can include:

Interactive images and videos.

Opinion polls.

Quizzes/assessments.

Drip email campaigns.

Keep this list in mind – we’ll come back to these specific examples later! The common factor uniting this content is active engagement. Users need to involve themselves with the material in front of them to learn more information, progress through a story or fill a curiosity gap.

Common interactive marketing techniques

The list above accounts for both internal and external marketing strategies. Internal interactive content engages those close to your business, like employees or prospects on a mailing list.

External interactive marketing techniques, meanwhile, are targeted at top-of-funnel customers. CMI’s report shows around two-thirds of marketers who use interactive content do so with engagement and education as the main goals.

Interactive images and videos

Interactive videos and images allow users to interact with different onscreen elements to find the information needed. Interactive video content, as seen with Netflix’s successful shows, can be excellent for driving storytelling with the user experience at its heart.

However, interactive images, like maps or a customer review collage, also have a role to play. Images with interactive elements can have as much power as video, giving an online audience the perfect platform to learn more about what your business does.

Opinion polls

Everyone has an opinion, and the internet is fertile ground for people sharing them. However, imagine being able to capture your users’ thoughts about your business in a fun online poll? Tools like Apester allow businesses to create online platforms that keeps customers on-page for longer and allows them to share opinions. This data can then be used in future marketing efforts.

Quizzes/assessments

Testing online users’ knowledge of a given subject is another good way of engaging attention. This interactive marketing technique is often used alongside static content such as a blog article. Using a strategy tried and tested since the earliest days of schooling means businesses can assess how much information readers obtained and retained from the written blog content, while also keeping these individuals on the blog platform or organisation’s website for longer.

Drip email campaigns

While drip campaigns are most often used once customers have directly interacted with a business, this email marketing is also used to engage with new online users. Here different users will receive different ‘threads’ of information depending on their interactions with an initial email. The different user paths of a drip campaign are illustrated below, indicating how marketers can use different content messages and styles to try re-engage passive audiences.

Below is an example how different responses to the same email would generate a follow up message with two different pieces of content attached.

How to use static and interactive content in holistic marketing

Static and interactive content can be used in both external and internal marketing techniques, in support of one another, to engage and inform as wide an online customer base as possible.

Creating a united strategy comes from meeting three basic principles:

The written content is valuable and serves a purpose.

Interactive content is not reliant on interactivity solely for effect.

All content reflects the values of your customers and brand.

Let’s take a previous example of using a quiz in support of a blog article to demonstrate how important the above points are.

Articles need value takeaways. If they don’t offer users anything they don’t already know, they won’t read far enough to take the quiz.

The quiz should ask questions related to your enterprise and products/services.

While trying to engage readers, you must ensure all engagement is moderated to ensure abusive or offensive content isn’t promoted.

Nearly 80 per cent of content marketers who are using interactive content plan to increase their

use of it in the next 12 months, according to CMI. Is it time to jump on the band(ersnatch) wagon? You choose!

from http://bit.ly/2WHpKDl

[foryourart]

ABDULLA IBRAHIM & EKAYA IN TRIBUTE TO THE JAZZ EPISTLESPhotos and auction catalogs from the 1910s in the Getty Research Institute's provenance research holdings. Image courtesy of the Getty Center. 

PLAN ForYourArt: March 1–7

Thursday, March 1

Olafur Eliasson's Reality projector and Albert Oehlen and Peppi Bottrop: Line Packers, Marciano Art Foundation (Mid-Wilshire), 11am–5pm. 

Talk: Gallery Talk: Point of View—Fashion and Culture in Painted in Mexico, 1700–1790: Pinxit Mexici, LACMA (Miracle Mile), 12:30pm.

School of Music Visiting Artist Series: Jacob Shea, CalArts (Valencia), 2–4pm.

Graphic Design Lecture Artist: Anita Cooney, CalArts (Valencia), 4:30pm.

TOURS & TALKS: Stories of Almost Everyone Walk-through: Sarah Lehrer-Graiwer, Hammer Museum (Westwood), 6pm.

Persons of Interest: The Status of the Self in Digital Cultures, Wende Museum (Culver City), 6pm.

Damien Hirst: The Veil Paintings, Gagosian (Beverly Hills), 6–8pm.

Gesture | Form | Pop | Process, Kohn Gallery (Hollywood), 6–8pm.

AMERICA MARTIN, JoAnne Artman Gallery (Laguna Beach), 6–8pm.

Nelson Ramírez de Arellano Conde: I Wish I Could Understand: A History of Photography in Cuba, Annenberg Space for Photography (Century City), 6:30–8pm.

Provenance Research—A Personal Concern, Getty Center (Brentwood), 7pm.

Matthew Rolston: Hollywood Royale: Out of the School of Los Angeles, Fahey/Klein Gallery (Hollywood), 7–9pm.

Screen: Black Radical Imagination, MOCA Grand Avenue (Downtown), 7pm.

READINGS: Poetry: Rosanna Warren, Hammer Museum (Westwood), 7:30pm.

Friday, March 2

School of Music Visiting Artist Series: Jürg Frey, CalArts (Valencia), 10am–12pm.

First Fridays: L.A. Invents, Natural History Museum (Downtown), 5–10pm.

Walead Beshty: Equivalents, Regen Projects (Hollywood), 6–8pm.

Jessi Reaves, Mother Culture (Downtown), 6–9pm.

9th Annual Art For Hearts Fundraiser by Pico Youth & Family Center, Robert Berman Gallery (Santa Monica), 7–11pm. $15–40.

Movie Nights at the Museum: Wattstax, Los Angeles Poverty Department (Downtown), 7pm.

LALUZAPALOOZA 2018: OUR 32nd ANNUAL GROUP SHOW, La Luz de Jesus Gallery (Los Feliz), 8–11pm.

Yoshito Ohno: Flower and Bird, REDCAT (Downtown), 8:30pm. $20–40. Also March 3.

Saturday, March 3

Ranch Clinic - Safely Preserving Food at Home, The Huntington (San Marino), 9–10am.

ANDY WARHOL: Prints from the Collections of Jordan D. Schnitzer and His Family Foundation, Palm Springs Art Museum (Palm Springs), 10am–5pm.

Photo Workshop – Awkwardless Photos, ESMoA (El Segundo), 10am–12:30pm.

Workshop: INHABITANTS, A Physical Theatre Activation Lab with Gema Galiana + Emily Meister, Pieter (Lincoln Heights), 11:30am–3pm.

Artist at Work: Paper and Light, Getty Center (Brentwood), 1–3pm. Also March 24.

Closing reception: Hunter/Killer, Big Pictures Los Angeles (Mid-City), 3–7pm.

The Big Picture - Chinese & Mexican Artists Examine Contemporary Muralism in Mexico and China, USC Pacific Asia Museum (Pasadena), 3pm.

Bahia Through the Senses: A Capoeira Workshop, Fowler Museum (Westwood), 4–7pm.

Kcymaerxthaere: The Story So Far... (Folio 1) // Book signing and storytelling w/ Eames Demetrios, Arcana Books on the Arts (Culver City), 4–6pm.

NIRA PEREG: Melt Away Before You or I Can't Believe it's Not Battle!, LAXART (Hollywood), 4–7pm.

LAUNCH PARTY - FULL BLEDE Issue Four: The Pattern and WILLIAM POWHIDA – AFTER ‘AFTER THE CONTEMPORARY  and IT'S OK.↘ closing receptions, Charlie James Gallery (Chinatown), 4–7pm.

50th Anniversary of the East L.A. Walkouts, The Church of the Epiphany/La Iglesia de la Epifanía (Lincoln Heights), panel discussion, 4pm.

Robin Mitchell: Paintings & Nancy Monk: Twelve by Nine, Craig Krull Gallery (Santa Monica), 5–7pm.

Martel Window Project: David Schafer and Roger Herman, Richard Telles Fine Art (Fairfax), 5–7pm.

Zoe Buckman: Let Her Rave, Gavlak (Hollywood), 5–8pm.

MYTHOPOETIC, Coagula Curatorial (Chinatown), 5–9pm.

YOUR MOUSE GOD IS DEAD (and other new works), CalArts (Valencia), 5–7pm.

¡ADIÓS, CUBA IS! Closing reception, Annenberg Space for Photography (Century City), 6–8pm.

Amy Sol and Liz Brizzi, Thinkspace Gallery (Culver City), 6–9pm.

Katherine Sherwood: The Interior of the Yelling Clinic, Walter Maciel Gallery (Culver City), 6–8pm.

Despina Stokou: Oh, Honey, Praz-Delavallade (Miracle Mile), 6-8pm.

Ben Sanders: I Come to the Garden Alone, Ochi Projects (Mid-City), 6–9pm.

Peles Empire and Oliver Osborne: Empire/Osborne, Moran Moran (West Hollywood), 6–8pm.

HIGHLIGHTAMIR NIKRAVAN: WORLD OF INTERIORS and KATHRYN GARCIA: A TANIT, Various Small Fires (Hollywood), 6–8pm.

By The Lights of Their Eyes, Shulamit Nazarian (Hollywood), 6–9pm.

Norm Clasen: Titled (Cowboy), M+B Photo (Hollywood), 6–8pm.

By The Lights Of Their Eyes, Shulamit Nazarian (Hollywood), 6–9pm.

Robin Cameron: No Now, Moskowitz Bayse (Hollywood), 6–9pm.

Emanuel Röhss: Out of Joint, 818 South Spring Street (Downtown), 6–9pm.

Emmeric Konrad, Tieken Gallery LA (Chinatown), 6–10pm.

NOTHING TAME, Keystone Art Space (Lincoln Heights), 6–11pm.

NOTHING TAME, ESMoA (El Segundo), 6–11pm.

Momo No Sekku and Year of the Dog, Giant Robot 2 (Sawtelle), 6:30–10pm.

Closing event, we tbd, Human Resources (Chinatown), 7–10pm.

ABDULLA IBRAHIM & EKAYA IN TRIBUTE TO THE JAZZ EPISTLES, CAP UCLA (Westwood), 8pm.

Analog vs. Digital, Hive Gallery (Downtown), 8–11pm.

To Kill Capitalism by Denae Howard, CalArts (Valencia), all day. Through March 9.

Sunday, March 4

KIDS: 826LA@Hammer: Advice Bot Repair Shop, Hammer Museum (Westwood), 11am.

Real Worlds: Brassaï, Arbus, Goldin, Give and Take: Highlighting Recent Acquisitions, Jackson Pollock’s Number 1, 1949: A Conservation Treatment, and Lauren Halsey: we still here, there, MOCA Grand Avenue (Downtown), 11am–5pm.

Shared Exhibition, Hannah Hoffman (Hollywood), Kristina Kite (Mid-City), Park View Gallery (MacArthur Park), 12–5pm.

Workshop: Improvisation Strategies for the Individual and Group with Spenser Theberge, Pieter (Lincoln Heights), 12–3pm.

Mr. Fish + Robert Scheer | Conversation + Book Signing, Robert Berman Gallery (Santa Monica), 1–3pm.

Mindfulness and Self-Care Tools for Healthy and Joyful Living, Main Museum (Downtown), 1–3pm.

An Old-Fashioned Craft-Cocktail Workshop with Bar Mattachine, Craft & Folk Art Museum (Miracle Mile), 2–5pm. $70–80.

Garry Neill Kennedy: Printed Matter: Selections from 1971 to Present, as-is.la (MacArthur Park), 2–5pm.

Eric Zammitt: Exhibition & Open Studio, 323 E. Altadena Drive (Altadena), 2–5pm.

Artists on Artists: Paul Mpagi Sepuya on Real Worlds: Brassaï, Arbus, Goldin, MOCA Grand Avenue (Downtown), 3pm.

CONVERSATION@PAM: AUSTENISTAN, USC Pacific Asia Museum (Pasadena), 3–5pm.

Drawing from the Masters: Drawing on the Edge, Getty Center (Brentwood), 3:30–5:30pm. Also March 18.

Shana Lutker: Chapter 5: Phosphorescence, Pheasants, and Unpleasants and book signing, Art Catalogues at LACMA (Miracle Mile), 4–6pm.

Ramiro Chaves & MANIMAS: NIESO NIESOTRO, Ruberta (Glendale), 4–7pm.

Nick Kramer: No Neighbors, Street Lights Are Out and Jennifer Rochlin: Wild is the Wind, The Pit (Glendale), 4–7pm.

Vittorio Brodmann: Two Birds, Two Stones, Freedman Fitzpatrick (Hollywood), 6–8pm.

SISTER SPIT TOUR 2018: QTPOC Cruising the West, Human Resources (Chinatown), 7–9pm.

Monday, March 5

A Day In the Garden, private estate (Palm Springs), 11am–1pm.

UPCOMING: School of Music Visiting Artist Series: Jerónimo (Jxel) Rajchenber, CalArts (Valencia), 2–4pm.

THIS, NOT THAT LECTURE: MARK FOSTER GAGE, UCLA (Westwood), 6:30pm. 

Kip's Desert Book Club: The Dispossessed by Ursula K. LeGuin, private home (Joshua Tree), 7pm.

Wu Man and the Huayin Shadow Puppet Band, The Huntington (San Marino), 7:30pm.

Across Times, Bodies and Space: Films by Vivienne Dick, REDCAT (Downtown), 8:30pm

Tuesday, March 6

Points of Access: Artists in Conversation with Kenyatta A.C. Hinkle, Ramsess, Mark Steven Greenfield, and moderated by Isabelle Lutterodt, Art + Practice (Leimert Park), 7pm.

READING: Some Favorite Writers: Mary Gaitskill, Hammer Museum (Westwood), 7:30pm.

ArtCenter Spring 2018 Graduate Seminar Lecture: Laura Owens presents Candida Alvarez, ArtCenter College of Design (Pasadena), 7:30pm. 

Wednesday, March 7

FOWLER OUT LOUD: CHRISTIAN BESA WRIGHT, Fowler Museum (Westwood), 6pm. 

Cut! Paper Play in Photography, Getty Center (Brentwood), 7pm.

Distinguished Fellow Lecture - Conversion & Religions of the World in 18th-Century America, The Huntington (San Marino), 7:30pm.