Brain: During the setup to the joke, my cortex's left hemisphere begins its analytical function of processing words. Shortly afterward, most of my activity moved to the frontal lobe which is the center of emotionality. Moments later, my right hemisphere's syntheses capabilities joined with the left's processing to find the pattern--to "get" the joke. A few milliseconds later, before you had enough time to laugh, the increase in my wave activity spread to my sensory processing areas, the occipital lobe. The increased fluctuations in delta waves reached a crescendo of activity and crested as I "got" the joke and your external expression of laughter began.1

1 Paul E. McGhee, "Humor: How Does it Work?" in Holistic-Online, [online magazine] (2002 [cited 3 July 2003]); available from World Wide Web at http://www.holistic-online.com/Humor_Therapy/humor_therapy.html

...Butt Seriously: some words on the exhibition by Aja Albertson

A friend and I were once incapacitated by a clown's performance. We died. Beyond silly, this lanky performer's way was sneaky and self-gratifying, yet ironic in the fact that his pies were self-inflicted. His physical mannerisms were low, while his giggles were rhythmic and devilishly high. Large parts of this occurrence, though often discussed, remain a welcome mystery, therefore deductively leaving the only certainty to be that humor itself is an art form. ...Butt Seriously is an exploration of humor, motivation for its use, styes employed, and an acknowledgement of various responses to the material. In many cases, consideration must be iven to the cultural relativity of a piece (ie. Britain's dry sensibilites, America's violence and sexuality, and Asia's cute and often whimsical, yet fast-paced expressions). Many say that artists take risks (save Andy Warhol: "...if you say that artists take 'risks,' it's insulting ot the men who landed on D-Day, to stunt men, to Evel Knievel, to stepdaughters, to coal miners, to hitch-hikers, because they're the ones who really know what 'risks' are."1). Contrary to Warholian wisdom, our beloved comedian of yesteryear, the jester, risked life and limb or the sake of his art. God forbid that this vintage fool caught the queen on an "off" day, lest a fate worse than tomatoes awaited him... "Off with his head!" In other words, opinions divide when it comes to what's funny.

Beyond the sociological impact of humor, the funnies serve a physiological funciton as well. Laughter keeps our insides from petrifying. It is healing. Laughter may or may not become the aspirin of the 21st century, but it does ower lood pressure and allow our muscles to relax, alleviating stress, thereby boosting our immune systems. Comedy is also a means of attracting a mate, a fluffing of the feathers, so to speak. As well, comic interjections can be means of exerting control: when you tell a joke, you do it to "make them" laugh. This slyly forceful approach is a way of convincing our recipients that we are correct. In debate, or even point-driven artworks, a humorous approach is often the honey in the medicine. It has been philosophically suggested that, "...you should kill your opponent's earnestness with jesting..."2

Ironically so, the achetype of the artist has frequently been the center of jest, and the primary propellant for these jokes has been his seriousness. Many have pegged the artist as a deep thinker, and one of considerable intelligence. The artist, the 20th century personification of the mythological beast, possesses shamanic powers, and is deservedly untouchable. This is debatable, to say the least. Intelligence certainly comes in handy when art is the game. Let's ake our given father-of-conceptualism, Marcel Duchamp, for instance. Much of the man's work surrounds art itself, as well as science, and touches upn these subjects with a humorous frame of reference. Duchamp and his readymades came about at a time when technology was at a booming pace. Duchamp, in the circle of artists and thinkers with which he surrounded himself, frequently discussed, not only art, but also held meetings where science and technology were subjects of conversation. These discussions took place in a jocular atmosphere. This cultural spirit breaks the tension and monotony that can be found in the stiffness of scientific, not to mention artistic, pursuit. Could such a natural coping mechanism as laughter really be considered groundbreaking in the field of uncrackable stoicism?

To laugh is to relinquish control, or fear of the unknown. Whether it is approached with a touch of jaded spirituality, or cerebral sarcasm, dark humor fearlessly wraps itself around its subject. Being that death is the ultimate unknown, I submit an ending about the end: "Here's a riddle. The riddle is: What's the similarity between a trip to the bathroom and a trip to the cemetery?... When you gotta go, you gotta go!"3

1 Andy Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (from A to B and Back Again) (San Diego: Harvest Books, 1975)

2 Aristotle, as translated by W. Rhys Roberts, Rhetoric (New York: Random House, 1954)

3 Truman Capote, In Cold Blood (New York: Random House, 1965)