Wednesday, April 26, 2017

50 Years of Science - Part 8

This is the eighth in a series.  An index to the entire series can be found at http://sigma5.blogspot.com/2017/04/50-years-of-science-links.html.  I take the Isaac Asimov book "The Intelligent Man's Guide to the Physical Sciences" as my baseline for the state of science as it was when he wrote the book (1959 - 1960).  More than 50 years have now passed but I am going to stick with the original title anyhow even though it is now slightly inaccurate.  In these posts I am reviewing what he reported and examining what has changed since.  For this post I am starting with the chapter Asimov titled "The Shells of the Air" and then moving on to "The Gasses in the Air".  These chapters are from his section entitled "The Atmosphere".

Asimov starts with Aristotle.  He is one source for the idea that everything is composed of four elements:  earth, water, air, and fire.  To this traditional list Aristotle added ether, some kind of "fifth element" that was what the heavens above the earth were composed of.  This place above the earth is where the celestial spheres of classical astronomy resided, for instance.  And, as Asimov notes, the ancients had no notion of a vacuum, an absence of everything.  And the ancients, at least those who followed the Greek way of thinking, subscribed to the idea that in some sense perfection existed.  The celestial spheres were perfectly spherical for that reason, for instance.

The fact that nothing actually seemed to be perfect was some kind of perceptual failure on the part of humanity.  But this led to a lot of arguments along the lines of "it has to be that way because 'X' is perfect (or the best or whatever).  Anything that is less than perfect is obviously wrong.  So we can discard without further debate any idea that requires the perfect to be replaced by the less than perfect."  This line of thinking took a long time to overcome and held progress back for a goodly length of time.  Replacing circular orbits (circular = perfect) with elliptical orbits (actually mathematically and geometrically very similar to circles but still less than perfection) was one of the critical nails in the coffin that buried this argument.  But back to the air.

In spite of massive evidence to the contrary there were supposedly concentric shells of earth, water, air, and fire (with a super shell of ether at the top of the hierarchy).  One of the problems with these ideas, Asimov notes, was that it should have been possible to use a pump to raise water to any height.  But it turns out there was some kind of magic 33 foot limit.  Investigations of this problem led to the conclusion that air had a small but definite weight and that there must be a limit to the height of the "air column".  Further investigation led to Boyle's law that doubling the pressure halved the volume of a fixed amount of air (and later, any gas).  This in turn led to the Montgolfier brothers inventing the hot air balloon.  Others replaced hot air with other gases like Hydrogen.  These gas balloons could rise to greater heights and this in turn led to the idea that the atmosphere has various layers.  The first two to receive names were the troposphere and the stratosphere.  Since these early days various other layers have been defined and named.

World War II saw the discovery of the jet-stream, actually jet streams.  At the time Asimov was writing his book there was little thought about the interaction of jet streams and weather.  But we now know they play a critical role.  They are meandering flows of high speed winds, winds often reaching 500 miles per hour.  The streams themselves but also the locations of the meanders have a powerful influence on the pattern of movement of air masses.  This in turn heavily influences the tracks storms follow and, even more importantly, precipitation patterns.

Until roughly a year before I write this California suffered severe drought conditions for four years running.  In the most recent year the weather has changed completely and the state is now experiencing higher than usual amounts of rain and snow.  In both cases the reason behind these patterns are changes in the shape and intensity of the jet stream.  With the jet stream meanders in one configuration all wet air was routed away from California resulting in a severe drought.  With them in another configuration a greater than usual amount of wet air was directed over the state.  The drought in California ended when the jet stream meanders switched to a new configuration.  Jet stream patterns now figure heavily into medium and long range weather forecasts.

In 1960 the first weather satellite, Tiros I was launched.  Since then the number and sophistication of weather satellites has grown by leaps and bounds.  It is unimaginable that a modern TV weather forecast would be without "satellite photos" showing cloud patterns.  A large amount of other data of meteorological significance is now also collected via satellite observation.  And in the past decade or so this has been joined by Doppler radar images.

The technology requires sophisticated radar equipment, possibly available in 1960.  But it also requires massive amounts of computer power to process the data from the radar.  Computers of that time were not anywhere near capable enough to do the job.  And Doppler radar allows not only the amount of water vapor in the air to be measured but also the direction it is moving in.  When I was younger I remember the occasional large storm emerging from out of the North Pacific with little or no warning and wrecking havoc far and wide.  Somehow the satellite pictures did not allow the weather people to accurately gage the size of the storm.  But a Doppler radar unit pointing out to sea was installed on the coast a few years ago.  It should make those kinds of surprises a thing of the past.

Up to and including the time of the book balloons were an important tool in the weather man's arsenal.  And that continues to be true today.  But their days are probably numbered.  Thousands of weather balloons are currently being launched each day.  But they are a single use package and that makes them expensive.  Drones and other techniques are now becoming available that can gather more data at less cost.  So the routine use of weather balloons will probably end within a decade.

The Tiros I satellite mentioned above was launched on a rocket.  Modern rocketry, the kind not associated with fireworks, only dates back to 1801.  And the scientific foundations of rocketry were laid down by an American, Robert Goddard, and a Russian, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, in the first half of the twentieth century.  Very little has changed since, Elon Musk not withstanding.  The latest SpaceX rocket differs little from the Russian Lunik III rocket that returned the first pictures of the far side of the moon in 1959.  The instrumentation and guidance computers have advanced by leaps and bounds but the motors and fuel have changed little.

The era of manned spaceflight had not begun at the time of the book's writing.  The first man in space was a Russian, Yuri Gagarin.  But his flight took place in 1961.  The Russian 1957 launch of Sputnik I, the first "artificial moon", initiated the "space race" between the US and the USSR, as Russia was then constituted.  The high point, at least in US eyes, was the "Apollo" moon landings between 1969 and 1972.  But since then, without the political and propaganda necessity of "beating the other guys", manned space exploration has languished.  The computer of 1960 was, by modern standards, a small crude affair with extremely modest capabilities.  Modern computers are literally a million times more capable.  This has made the robotic space probe possible.  And the results have been spectacular.

In outer space electronics are much easier to keep healthy than people.  So long duration missions based on equipment that consumed tiny amounts of power and no air or food became possible.  One or more missions have now been sent to every planet, including the dwarf planet Pluto.  Long duration missions to Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, comets, and the asteroid belt have all been successfully undertaken.  Meanwhile, the International Space Station flounders along and nothing much of interest, either to scientists or to the general public, happens there.  There is talk of tourist flights to the edge of the atmosphere (arbitrarily defined as 100 miles up) and even a publicity stunt manned flight around the moon.  Various schemes are also afoot to colonize Mars.  But all the "man/woman in space" stuff looks like wishful thinking to me.

Asimov then moves on to the composition of the atmosphere in "The Gases in the Air".  The ancients considered the atmosphere to be a simple, homogeneous substance.  That started changing in the seventeenth century.  The first component discovered is a minor one, Carbon Dioxide.  Next up to be discovered were Oxygen (a little less than 20%) and Nitrogen (roughly 80%).  Much later Argon was discovered.  Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon combine to make up 99% of what air consists of.  Carbon Dioxide and the other trace components together add up to less than 1%.

At the time of writing the small amount of Carbon Dioxide in the air did not seem to make much difference.  We now know better.  Carbon Dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas.  Sunlight is a combination of many frequencies of light.  The visible light that we can see is only one part.  The air is transparent to visible light.  It is also somewhat transparent to infrared light.  The way a greenhouse works is that the glass passes sunlight light in so that it can be absorbed by plants, etc.  But this causes things inside the greenhouse to warm up.  Warm things emit infrared light.  The glass traps the infrared light inside and the greenhouse gets warm.

The earth as a whole works the same way.  Sunlight of many frequencies hits the earth.  This warms things up and infrared light is emitted.  The temperature of the earth is governed by the balance between these two processes.  If the earth emits a lot of infrared light it cools down.  If it emits very little it warms up.  Carbon Dioxide behaves like the glass in a greenhouse.  It traps the infrared and doesn't let it escape to space.  So the more Carbon Dioxide in the air the less infrared light escapes to space and the warmer the earth gets.  Scientists have been measuring the average amount of Carbon Dioxide in the air since about 1960 and it has been increasing.  It goes up during parts of the year and down during other parts.  But on average it goes up.  And if you average out the temperature of the air over a reasonable amount of time, it is going up too.

There are confounding factors.  But scientists have studied them all.  Volcanoes emit Carbon Dioxide.  But their influence is easily measured.  The earth is closer to the sun at some times and further away at other times.  This too is easily measured.  There are complex techniques for figuring out where the Carbon Dioxide comes from.  More and more of it every year comes from burning fossil fuels:  coal, oil, and natural gas.

There are other greenhouse gasses besides Carbon Dioxide.  The two most common ones are water vapor and Methane.  But there are weather processes that keep the amount of water vapor in the air relatively constant when averaged over time and space.  Methane in actually a much more powerful greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide.  A pound of Methane gas traps much more infrared radiation than a pound of Carbon Dioxide.  But Methane flushes out of the air relatively quickly and Carbon Dioxide doesn't.  When you factor "residency time" in Carbon Dioxide has a much bigger impact.

All this and more have been carefully investigated by scientists and by far the biggest contributor to global warming in the burning of fossil fuels.  But all this was in the future and not even imagined when Asimov was writing.  The basic mechanisms (i.e. the greenhouse effect of Carbon Dioxide) were understood at the time.  But there didn't seem to be any reason to investigate further because there was no perceived problem.

So far we are talking about the lower atmosphere.  It didn't take scientists long to figure out that the composition of air changed with altitude.  Initially there was a lot of speculation and not much data.  One theory had it that the upper atmosphere might contain large amounts of Hydrogen and Helium.  It doesn't, a fact established before the book was written.  If you go high enough you do find something interesting, Ozone.  This is a highly ionized form of Oxygen.  Other atoms and molecules that are generally not found at sea level were also discovered.  In general the upper part of the atmosphere is bombarded with high energy particles.  This causes strange things to happen.  And some of those strange things are dangerous.  But fortunately other lower layers of the atmosphere shield us from this bad stuff.

One of the contributing factors to understanding the upper atmosphere was the discovery of ions.  These are molecules that do not have the usual number of electrons.  If the molecule is short electrons it will have a positive charge.  If there are extra electrons it will have a negative electric charge.  The discovery of ions predated the discovery of electrons.  Ions only made sense, however, after electrons were discovered.

All of chemistry boils down to the interactions between the electrons of different atoms.  There are different kinds of chemical bonds but these are fundamentally just different ways for electrons to interact with ions and other electrons.  The basics of this were understood by the time the book was written but at best they could handle simple cases.  At about the time the book was published a theory called Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) was being developed.  It allowed more complex situations to be analyzed.  Since then advances in theory (i.e. QCD - Quantum Chromodynamics) and the available of massive amounts of computer power have allowed more and more complex situations to be handled.

Experiments with radio, starting about 1900 in at least in some cases produced surprising results.  Radio waves normally travel in a straight line.  Yet sometimes they will sometimes bend to follow the curvature of the earth.  This lead to the naming of the Heaviside layer and investigations of what we now call the Ionosphere.  At the time it was assumed that other than the odd radio nut this was of little interest to anybody else.  We now know better.  Decades later the effect of CFC chemicals on the Ozone layer was discovered.  The Ozone layer is critical to our health and CFC chemicals were damaging it.  So they were phased out.  And the problems caused by CFCs are now much reduced and on their way to total elimination.

And while we associated Ozone with the upper atmosphere it turns out to also occur in trace amounts at sea level.  And it has the nasty characteristic of combining with car exhaust to produce smog.  At one time the problem became particularly acute in Los Angeles.  As a result various regulations governing car exhaust have been put in place and ground level Ozone is now routinely monitored.  Here too we have a success story.  The smog problem in Los Angeles and elsewhere is pretty much a thing of the past.

Other problems are caused by some components of exhaust from Diesel cars.  This has resulted in various rules and regulations that have gone a long way to reduce these negative impacts.  But there are costs involved.  And Volkswagen decided the costs were too high.  So they engaged in an elaborate scheme to cheat.  They were caught and forced to pay billions of dollars in damages and penalties.

In Asimov's time that last 1% seemed of primarily academic interest.  That has definitely turned out to not be the case.  It is yet another example of a situation where "useless" scientific investigations eventually turn out to be critical.

50 Years of Science - Links

Normally I do not update posts after they are initially published.  I feel it is only fair that you be able to go back and see what I said then and judge how it stands up in light of subsequent developments.  This post will violate that policy.

For some time I have been publishing a series of "50 Years of Science" posts.  The best way to read them as a group is by reading them in the order I published them.  But I publish installments on an irregular basis so that is hard to do.  I can link the current entry to the previous entry.  And you can follow the chain all the way back to the first entry.  But that means you end up reading them in reverse order.

You can, of course, start with the first one.  But it does not contain a link to any of the subsequent ones.  So, in general, you must hunt around to find them all.  And it's hard to know if you have found all of them.  I have decided to fix that problem.

The sole reason for the existence of this post is so that it can contain links to all the posts in the series.  That way you can use this post as your home base and read any or all of the posts in the series in whatever order you want.

But I expect to add additional entries to the series from time to time.  But from here out when I add a new entry I will update this entry to include a link to that new entry too.  This will necessitate updating this post from time to time, perhaps long after the initial version is published.  And that's my justification for making this a living post.

I will periodically update this entry on an "as needed" basis.  At the time I am creating the initial version there are 7 official entries.  I am also including a link to a closely related entry.  (See below for details.)  But I expect to create an eighth official entry in the series soon.  That will necessitate updating this post shortly after the initial version is published.  Subsequent additions to the series will necessitate further updates.  So there will probably never be a final version.

Here are the links:

Part 1 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2012/07/50-years-of-science-part-1.html

Part 2 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2012/08/50-years-of-science-part-2.html

Part 3 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2012/09/50-years-of-science-part-3.html

Part 4 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2012/09/50-years-of-science-part-4.html

Part 5 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2016/03/50-years-of-science-part-5.html

Part 6 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2016/03/50-years-of-science-part-6.html

Part 7 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2016/08/50-years-of-sceince-part-7.html

Predictions -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2016/09/50-years-of-science-predictions.html
Note:  This isn't technically part of the series.  But it is based on Asimov's writing.  In 1964 he published an article in the New York Times in which he made a number of predictions about the state of Science 50 years in the future.  This post discusses his original story, an interesting commentary by the noted Science Fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson, and, of course, my observations on both.  If you are interested in the series I think you will be interested in this post too.

Part 8 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2017/04/50-years-of-science-part-8.html

Part 9 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2018/02/50-years-of-science-part-9.html

Part 10 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2018/07/50-years-of-science-part-10.html

Part 11 -

Part 12 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2018/10/50-years-of-science-part-12.html

Part 13 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2019/03/50-years-of-science-part-13.html

Bonus -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2019/05/rare-earth-20-years-of-science.html
Note:  This isn't technically part of the series.  But it falls within the spirit of the series. So I am including it as a bonus.

Part 14 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2019/06/50-years-of-science-part-14.html

Part 15 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2019/08/50-years-of-sceince-part-15.html

Part 16 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2020/02/60-years-of-science-part-16.html

Part 17 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2020/03/6-years-of-sceince-part-17.html

Part 18 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2020/05/60-years-of-sceince-part-18.html

Part 19 -
https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2020/07/60-years-of-science-part-19.html

Part 20 -

Part 21 -

Part 22 -

Part 23 -

Note:
With the addition of the link to Part 23 the series is complete.  That means that no more updates will be made to this post.



Saturday, April 15, 2017

Vaudeville

I went to a Vaudeville performance a couple of weeks ago.  Well, not exactly vaudeville, but more on that later.  Vaudeville was a hot thing from about 1880 until about 1920.  When it first started it seemed very forward looking and modern.  That's because at the time it was.

Vaudeville was invented by a fellow named Keith in Boston.  At the time entertainment options were very limited.  In big cities like New York there was an active theater scene.  New York provided a large enough audience pool to make theaters providing a variety of entertainment a paying proposition.  The same was marginally true in a place like Boston.  But the question for potential theater owners in markets smaller than Boston was how to make a go of it?

There was a big enough audience to keep a theater profitable if enough acts of high enough quality could be found.  But playing in the "sticks" seemed like a crap shoot to many acts so often so they didn't try.  From their perspective it looked expensive for a single act to put together the publicity and absorb the other expenses necessary to attract a big enough crowd to make it a paying proposition.  So almost nobody tried and many that tried lost money on the deal.  The result was that outside of a few large markets like New York there was just not much going on.

But technology had marched on.  Specifically the telegraph and the railroad had achieved penetration into many small to medium sized markets.  Keith was the first to really figure this out.  Using the telegraph he could organize a string of theaters in small and medium markets to act as a group.  And the acts could use the railroad to move around reasonably inexpensively and in reasonable comfort at reasonable speed.  And they could stay, again reasonably comfortably and reasonably inexpensively, at the "railroad hotels" that sprang up close to railroad stations.

Keith was the first to put it all together.  He organized a number of theaters in the northeast into a "circuit".  He promised them a series of quality acts.  They provided the local marketing.  After all, it was in their interest to fill their theaters.  Then he could talk to various acts.  Sure, it wasn't New York but he could promise them six, twelve, eighteen weeks of continuous employment as they traveled the circuit from theater to theater.  All they had to do was show up and do their act.  All the rest of it would be taken care of "for a modest fee" by the Keith organization.

Keith made one other decision.  He promised "family friendly" entertainment.  Men could take their wives and girlfriends, even their children, to a Keith Vaudeville show and be guaranteed "good clean fun".  This formula was an almost immediate success.  The locals knew that the "Vaudeville show" at their local theater would be a good entertainment value even if they had heard of few if any of the performers.  And the show was a "variety" show.  It consisted of a number of acts, each lasting five to ten minutes and each different from the preceding act and the following act.  The idea was that most acts would appeal to most people.  But if you really had no interest in a specific act it would be over soon.  And the next act would be "something completely different" that was more appealing to you.

A vaudeville show was a success for a patron if they liked a few acts a lot, thought most of the acts were okay to good and really didn't like only a few acts.  In many marriages the tastes of the couple might be quite different.  But they could both go to the same vaudeville show and enjoy themselves.  The wife might hate a couple of the acts that the husband loved and vice versa.  But they could both find enough to like in the entirety of the show that they both enjoyed themselves.  And they probably felt that sitting through a couple of relatively short performances that they really didn't like was a cheap price to pay to maintain marital harmony.

On the other hand, to be a successful vaudeville act all you needed was between five and ten minutes of popular material.  This might consist of anything.  Many opera singers did well in vaudeville.  Opera is not for everybody but it is as good as it gets for some.  And even if you really didn't like Opera you could put up with it for five or ten minutes and then score major "culture" points later.  But the bulk of the acts were singers or dancers or story tellers.  Will Rogers got his start in vaudeville telling jokes and doing rope tricks.  But if you had a good juggling act or magic act or whatever, you could be a hit on the "circuit".

And it turned out that a lot of different people had a lot of different and interesting ideas about how to entertain people for five to ten minutes.  And if they could break into the circuit and attain some measure of success they could earn a very good living.  So once vaudeville got established as a viable entity the acts started appearing seemingly out of nowhere.

And theaters were able to develop a reputation for providing a consistently good product.  And the show was changed frequently, typically every week or so.  So even if you had seen the vaudeville show just a couple of weeks ago there was reason to come back.  The lineup would have changed and you would see a new set of acts.  And then there's the lineup.

There is a famous song that has a line that goes "we were on next to closing".  What's that about?  Well, the strongest act was booked as the second to last act.  It turns out that a significant portion of patrons like to "beat the rush".  So they leave before the last act finishes.  So the last slot is not the best slot.  And people are finding their seats and settling down when the first act comes on.  So you want an act that grabs people's attention and can survive a certain amount of commotion as your opening act.  And the last act before intermission is a good spot.  Performers and bookers quickly figured out which were the better and not so good slots in the bill.  If your act was continuously being moved to a better slot your future was secure.  If your slot kept getting downgraded it might be time to "freshen up the act".  And so on.

Anyhow, Keith was the first one to figure this out.  But others quickly caught on and emulated his technique.  Keith was "east coast".  The Orpheum circuit out of San Francisco was one of the early "west coast" Vaudeville circuits.  It was quickly joined by the Pantages organization out of Seattle.  Orpheum and Pantages battled it out for domination for years.  But for a good long while there was enough business for several vaudeville circuits to do well simultaneously and they did.

But what technology make possible technology can often make obsolete.  And that's what happened to vaudeville.  For a long time it was pretty much the only game in town.  Before vaudeville if you did not live in the big city then occasionally some kind of  traveling entertainment might come through town.  But it was intermittent and relatively expensive.  One single act had to recoup enough from box office receipts to cover all the expenses.  With vaudeville the economies of an assembly line that delivered act after act into town after town meant that the price of a vaudeville ticket could be relatively low.  But the cost was only relatively low.

Movies, particularly the "talkies" could deliver quality entertainment much less expensively.  And by about 1930 radio could do the same thing.  A radio receiver was expensive.  But once you owned one it was free. An argument could and often was made that vaudeville was "better" entertainment.  But it was also more expensive entertainment.  And people could opt to go to a vaudeville show every six weeks instead of every two weeks.  And lots of people did.  But as the audience shrank and the pressure on ticket prices increased it became harder and harder to keep vaudeville in the black.

At the height of the vaudeville period it was a good investment to build spectacular theaters.  So lots of towns ended up with a Fox, or an Orpheum, or a Pantages theater, or perhaps all three.  And the interiors of these theaters were spectacular.  But by the twenties they were all converted to show movies.  And both the Keith and the Orpheum vaudeville chains eventually got merged into the RKO (Radio, Keith, Orpheum) movie studio.  And what RKO was buying was a string of theaters to snow movies in.

Technically, the show I went to was not a vaudeville show.  It was a burlesque show.  Remember the whole "family friendly" idea Keith incorporated into his business plan.  Well, burlesque is the "adult oriented" version of vaudeville.  A lot of comics could move freely between the two modes of entertainment.  They could do family friendly material on a vaudeville bill.  But for when people wanted an act with a little more bite, they could "go blue", add adult language and situations into their material.  And since the movies and radio were aggressively family friendly burlesque outlived vaudeville by several decades.

And the other component we associate with burlesque is the strip tease.  XXX movies effectively did in the old strip tease market.  Why would you pay good money to see a pretty girl take most of her clothes off if you could see an equally pretty girl getting it on with some guy.  And there was no "tease" in porn.  Nothing was left to the imagination.  But police departments prohibited full nudity in a strip tease act.

But it turns out this sells strip tease short as an actual art form.  When strip tease was "as dirty as it gets in public" then all the focus was on the "dirty" part and people sneered at the idea that there was any art involved.  And there were certainly a number of strip tease "artists" whose performance was almost entirely "strip", little if any "art", and often not much "tease" either.  But that was not uniformly true.  The most famous example is Gypsy Rose Lee.  Her performances were actually performances.  They contained a lot of entertainment.  And the point was not how naked would she be at the end of the act but how entertaining she was able to make the path was that she took the audience down along the way.

So we went through the phase where it was a lot of vaudeville and not much burlesque.  Then vaudeville was killed off but burlesque lived on.  But it was all about the dirty.  Then porn came along, first in run down urban movie theaters and then on home DVD players.  And that killed off burlesque.  But once it was completely dead it got resurrected, eventually

Gypsy had made an articulate case that there was an art to artfully taking your clothes off.  There is a story that one time the only thing she took off during her whole act was one glove and the audience loved it.  But by the '60s mostly strip tease was used as a cultural cue.  The 1963 file "The Right Stuff" contains a sequence in which Sally Rand is performing her famous "Fan Dance" number in the background.  The events in the 2002 film "Chicago" supposedly take place in the '20s.  So there is a "fan dance" number executed by the chorus that is a complete steal of the Sally Rand performance.  It's a great number in a family friendly film.  And that more than anything makes the case for Ms. Lee and her modern acolytes.

The most famous of these modern acolytes is Dita Von Teese, who became interested in the subject in 1992.  She got mainstreamed by appearing several times in Playboy.  She used her exposure to, among other things, promote strip tease as an art form.  Her performances included a Sally Rand fan dance.  But among here other offerings was disrobing in an oversized martini glass, a dance with a large ball (actually a balloon), and a delightful number featuring a claw foot bathtub with about 6 inches of water in it.

The baton has now been passed from Mr. Von Teese to, among others, a local favorite of mine, Lily Verlaine.  And this revival of strip tease as an art form is now established enough to go under the name neo-burlesque.  Wikipedia now has a long list of where you can go to see these kinds of shows at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Burlesque_festivals.  The show I went to is part of and annual event in Seattle called Moisture Festival (Link:  http://www.moisturefestival.com/).  It encompasses multiple performances, some vaudeville and some burlesque. 

Porn is now only a few clicks away on the Internet.  So the draw is no longer necked ladies doing naughty things.  In some ways it is quite tame.  The ladies strip down to pasties and a G-string but no further and that's now enough to make most police departments happy.  And while most performances are designed to be erotic it's not always true.  But there is never any overt sexual content.  It's all about the artistry.  Now more than ever, "You Gotta have a Gimmick", as the song from "Gypsy" tells us.  Take it from me, a good gimmick is a thing of beauty and a joy to behold.