20070623

      This afternoon (6:15 pm, to be precise), I sit outside a cheap cafe in a neighborhood of Southern Amsterdam which I am told by the two counter-cultural looking women who just bought me an espresso is one of the more desirable neighborhoods of Amsterdam. I had the brilliance to rent a bike for EU5/day and bike in whatever directions looked pleasing until I found this place, which has given me an enormous amount of food and a soup for what will probably be less than EU10. This must be how non-tourists survive here. I am now eating one of my two pita shoarmas and it is excellent! I think it is curried french-cut lamb. Unfortunately my conversation with the women was cut short by a short rain shower, typical of Amsterdam, but I did manage to have a fragment of a conversation with them and discover that the free culture here is great for adults, but dangerous for children. Any small child with a 16 year old friend can get hold of weed, which can permanently impair their development before they have a chance to make an informed decision.

      For anyone traveling soon to Amsterdam, I recommend getting your own bicycle and heading off at random; or if you want to follow my footsteps to a local deli, go to Rooseveltllan 67 (at the intersection with Waalstraat) to Lunchroom Broodje. Order the shoarma, or 2 and a soup if you want to be stuffed for cheap. The neighborhood, however, is deceptive. The buildings are all large monoliths which could just as easily be a housing project as a desirable neighborhood. I suppose their location near Centrum makes them quite attractive.
      I should also tell you what I did earlier today: The Van Gogh Museum. It was nice. Unfortunately, you should not expect to see Starry Night; perhaps the Louvre has that one. If you are an art-buff like me, you should budget at least 30 minutes to see the whole thing. (Just kidding; I spent over 2 hours there, though you can do all the Van Gogh easily in 1:30, assuming the crowds aren't any worse for you than they were for me. Seriously, it made me a bit agorophobic, which is not normal at all for me.) In fact, I'm not supposed to say this since it sounds so remarkably uncultured, but you're probably better off looking at postcards by Van Gogh, since his style is best regarded from a distance not permitted by the hordes of spectators. The entire religious experience of art-viewing is destroyed when you must deal with people walking in and out of the art, and when you must limit yourself from soaking too long in the warmth of a piece. So, postcards and art-books it is, in the privacy of your own home, or in a local cafe with a fine cappuccino.

      But also at the Van Gogh Museum, quite fortunately, was another exhibit hidden in the half of the museum that crowds don't see. This Max Berkman (sp?) exhibit was really incredible; I wish I had some pictures for you, but they were prohibited. All decent artists are either insane, or have a focused angst rising near the level of insanity. Berkman seems to have problems with women, and later with Nazis. One piece in particular of his struck me: a simple pen-sketch of a dream, he stands on the edge of the left-half of a bridge which would cross the entire canvas except for a section in the middle of the bridge which has been removed. Standing on this dark left-half of the bridge and about to fall into the chasm below, he is trying to reach the lighter right half of the bridge. At the bottom of the chasm is a nude woman laid out below, her mons ready to catch the artist when he falls. So far as I can read into the piece, it's a compelling display of man's need for woman to complete him, and man's fear of the loss of self which necessarily accompanies this transformative experience. Best of all, it's done in simple and powerful ink. As I will say time and time again, I wish I could have a picture for you; instead I must use 1000 words.