dear kristine, i really thought of ayumi hamasaki and middle school and can't sleep and am typing this without glasses. i can't see.

i saw some people's "artistic" photos on facebook. they were taken by a diana+ camera. i looked up diana camera on wikipedia. it says:

The Diana camera is a simple, low-quality plastic-bodied box camera. The Diana takes sixteen 4 × 4 cm pictures on 120 film, leaving a large part of the film surface unused. Dianas are said to have a 50 % chance of light leaks & other photographic problems. The design of the Diana incorporates a lens that produces an image circle which only marginally covers the diagonal of a film frame. This marginal coverage field produces images with often pronounced vignetting. The poor quality of the plastic meniscus lens results in generally low contrast, odd color rendition, chromatic aberration, and blurred images.

then it goes on to say

Although these attributes are generally thought undesirable in a camera, some photographers have intentionally utilized these characteristics to produce photographs with interesting or artistic effects, led prominently by American Nancy Rexroth in her highly-influential 1976 series "IOWA," in which she claimed to have made many of the photographs with her eyes closed and none of them in the physical state of Iowa.

i guess low-quality, wasteful garbage is art. makes sense. the more unclear it is, the harder it is to see anything to criticize, since nothing can be seen. and the inconsistency, it just adds individuality. and we love individuality. i want to film a movie with cell phone cameras and all that low quality pixelated, high iso cameras. too bad it was kind of already done by hideaki anno (evangelion's maker) in "love and pop". WELL, my movie will be filmed in the state of denial!

i watched edward yang's "confucian confusion". it's about people's lives in fast-paced taipei society. and yea. it's better than yiyi, i think. had a lot of talking, which was kind of interesting. and whatever. it left happy feelings, unlike yiyi, which was kind of ambiguous. and i dont know what else to say. rip edward yang, i guess.

some random screenshot from the movie. this writer guy was being depressed, but then he suddenly had some realization about life and went on and on about a bunch of stuff. it was funny.

update (as requested)

illogical thoughts seem to override logical thoughts.
illogical > logical. (1)
actually that doesn't even make sense. see (1)

but that is a logical flow.

illogical thoughts seem to override logical thoughts. illogical > logical. actually that doesn't even make sense. because illogic and logic aren't really measured values. but if they were, illogical would be the opposite of logical, because of that "il-", so it would be a negative of whatever value logical is. which means, logical has to be negative? illogical is positive? logical reasoning is negative and detrimental. all turn towards illogic. that's not even a word. logic is, but illogic isn't. that's so illogical. well, it might be a word, but firefox keeps underlining it as not. yes it is a word, i looked it up. that's more logical. well, don't be logical. the logical thing is to be positive, which would be to be illogical, which means you should be negative, which means you should be logical, which means you should be positive. i really like where this is going. if it was logical to be negative, that would be logical. oh wow. i guess this means we're back to being a nobody to each other.

it's been a while since i posted a site update here. so i'm going to say i finally made a new flash animation. usually i wouldn't post news of it here, but people probably don't check the movies section and i spent too much time on this one. (there's color! omg. and 30 frames per second! and widescreen aspect ratio!) but whatever. check it out. i'm kind of happy about it. (although, i originally had larger plans for it. [hence, the high fps and size], but that kind of fell through [so it was kind of delayed a few months]). whatever, whatever comes. i still like it. i feel so avant-garde "composing" the music. it was tough. well, that is all.

today i drove back to school. i bought some groceries. then i went to the gas station. after that, my car wouldn't turn on. oh no. what do i do? car battery just died a few months ago, it can't die. the lights still work. battery isn't dead. car doesn't start. could be the starter. could be the fuses. pop lid. look at fuses. don't understand cars. call parents. call insurance. call parents. turns out the car was set in drive not parking, so obviously it can't start. sigh. lesson of today. the obvious should not be skipped.

everything will be okay.

there is a song by u2 called "with or without you." he sings "with or without you. i can't live. with or without you." what does that mean?! with you and without you are mutually exclusive, so that encompasses all possibilities. which means he can't live no matter what. i feel like i'm missing the point of the song.

was that a rhetorical question? because this is a rhetorical answer!