Steve Jobs featured in ‘American Cool’ exhibit in Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery

“Living just out outside of D.C., my wife and I often find ourselves in the district on the weekends, taking our daughter whatever museum is at the top of her list at the given moment,” Blake Patterson reports for Byte Cellar.

“Today we visited the National Building Museum followed by the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery,” Patterson reports. “While in the latter, we stumbled upon a limited time exhibit called American Cool.”

Patterson reports, “It is a photo account of a great many cool characters through recent American history, including Madonna, David Byrne, Sam Shepherd, Tom Waits, Paul Newman, Jimi Hendrix… and Steve Jobs.”

Steve Jobs on his 1966 BMW R60/2 motorcycle,  1981 (Photo by Charles O’Rear, National Geographic Image Collection, Washington, D.C.)
Steve Jobs on his 1966 BMW R60/2 motorcycle, 1981 (Photo by Charles O’Rear, National Geographic Image Collection, Washington, D.C.)

Read more in the full article here.

Back in 2010, Peter Orosz reported for Jalopnik, “Two years before even the original Macintosh was introduced, Apple’s then-and-current CEO was pictured for a National Geographic Magazine feature on Silicon Valley, riding a 1966 BMW motorcycle.”

“Twenty-seven years old, sporting long hair, fancy tan boots and no black turtleneck, Jobs is very much a sidebar in Moira Johnston’s piece ‘High Tech, High Risk, and High Life in Silicon Valley,’ published in the October 1982 issue of the magazine, which focuses on the cultural changes the machines then still called microcomputers would bring on the world in general and Silicon Valley in particular,” Orosz reported. “Because of Silicon Valley’s location in the state of California, the article also has pictures of bearded men and hot tubs, which you can study in detail if you instruct your microcomputer to follow the hyperlink to an internet page on the weblog Modern Mechanix, where you can read the whole thing.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: It doesn’t get much cooler than that.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “Lynn Weiler” for the heads up.]

34 Comments

  1. Next door, there is another exhibit, called “American Fool” which will have pictures of Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, alongside portraits of Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, and Barack Obama. This exhibit obviously won’t be as popular as “American Cool”.

    1. Maybe, “Stinking Rich American Fools” PS- As much derision that I may have for those Microsoftians, and their questionable business practices, at least they actually built a business, and I hear that Obama was a pretty good neighborhood organizer. It’s the Kim and Paris fame and fortunes that make me weep.

  2. The exhibit is designed to celebrate people who made America “cool,” which the National Potrait Gallery describes as carrying “a social charge of rebellious self-expression, charisma, edge and mystery.”…

    That’s me!!! However, for some reason, I don’t see my portrait?!?

    1. Well, cool is relevant. Teenage girls at the time thought she was cool and a lot of Madonna-wanna-bees could be seen. I was older, thought she was interesting and had some talent (I think more talent than most of the pitch corrected singing porn stars the industry puts out songs with today. I liked “Rain,” a good song of hers that wasn’t teenyboppy.

        1. Yes, The Beatles did, but Madonna’s is totally different, not a cover version of The Beatles song thankfully! I’m not a fan of twisted Beatle songs by bands trying to make it “their own.” Madonna’s song just has the same title.

    2. TOTALLY HOT!!
      by anyone with eyeballs and the other kind of balls, and even a bunch with none of the other kind balls but with a brain that appreciates the esthetic of erotic presentation, in other words, iWould and most others too

    1. Yeah, but seeing him with no helmet makes me nervous for the future. Oh, wait a minute! I know how it turned out… nevermind. Miss you Mr. Steve, so very much.
      Go Apple!

          1. I’ve ridden for more than 40 years and have not cost you, or my insurance company, a penny. I wear a helmet now and probably would even if there was no law. But there is no denying that riding without a helmet is a completely different experience, and your self-righteous, priggish comments won’t change that. And by the way, motorcycle policies are written for motorcycle riders, with premiums pursuant to their risk. Unless you own and operate one your policy is unaffected by any claim I might make.

            You probably don’t like dodgeball either.

            1. In my circle of friends, I count half a dozen emergency physicians who witness first hand the carnage from motorcycle accidents. Here, helmets are mandatory but many choose to wear these very abbreviated helmets that offer little protection and only give the appearance of a legal helmet. These people get head traumas at a very much higher rate than proper full helmets and those who survive take up disproportionately more hospital staff and rehabilitation dollars than nearly any other identifiable group of patients.

              How do you feel about the time that is taken away from other patients because of a few irresponsible people who won’t wear helmets? Freedom must be attached to some form of responsibility.

            2. This is for your “how so?” question, and the fact that I have to answer it also indicates how very thick you are.

              1. Spark comes out with a nice nostalgic statement.
              2. You shit all over it. “Yes. The days when motorcyclists took responsibility for their own lives and total medical cost without making us share it with our premiums.” and shit again “The ‘freedom’ to not wear a helmet comes at a cost to us all. There is no free ride. I believe that every freedom must be tied to a responsibility too.”
              3. Spark, points out that you’ve basically missed the point (as you constantly do). “And by the way, motorcycle policies are written for motorcycle riders, with premiums pursuant to their risk. Unless you own and operate one your policy is unaffected by any claim I might make”
              4. You shit all over it again. “How do you feel about the time that is taken away from other patients because of a few irresponsible people who won’t wear helmets? Freedom must be attached to some form of responsibility.”

              You are incredibly full of shit, and you have no clue on how to wipe your ass.

              A. A total lack of comment to Spark along the lines of “Gee, that’s right, there is no premium sharing. Thanks for educating me and expanding my horizons.”
              B. You go on with as Spark very accurately puts it “self-righteous, priggish comments”. Your “How do you feel” question is moronic. You may as well as “how do you feel about the time that is taken away from other people because engineers, lawyers, feedback groups had to implement helmet laws, helmet design, helmet sales, marketing?”

              You are totally irresponsible on this site, and you know what. You can be because you are free do to so. That’s my point, and you know what, I know you won’t get it, and even if you did, you are way to self-righteous to admit that “gee Spark was right.”

              I feel that someone like you that goes and shits all over a nice nostalgic moment and shits like you did has some serious issues.

              For the record asshole, I’ve ridden a bicycle (not a motorcycle) with and without a helmet depending on the local laws. In both circumstances it’s a risk. I’ve had repeated attacks on my bicycle that comes from a type of bird. It’s a magpie that is notorious for attacking shiny helmets from behind during the bird’s mating season. Wearing a helmet in that environment is dangerous because of this. Now I am not sure but I do believe it is because all those helmets are shiny, that’s what the locals tell me although I’ve been attacked while walking as well. Oh yes, indeed walking without a helmet is dangerous, these magpies will draw blood and can cause serious injury.

              Plus many people sustain head injuries from car accidents. A whole bunch, so should car drivers should be wearing helmets? Heck no, they have gas bags and seat belts. Alternative wear. Butt weight, there’s more. Pedestrians get hit by cars and sustain head injuries that perhaps could have been prevented if they were wearing a helmet.

              Gee moron, “How do you feel about the time that is taken away from other patients because of a MAJORITY of irresponsible PEDESTRIANS who won’t wear helmets?

              Go fuck yourself asshole.

            3. 1. You have not answered my question. The question is:

              “How do you feel about the time that is taken away from other patients because of a MAJORITY of irresponsible PEDESTRIANS who won’t wear helmets?”

              Of course there is no data to show whether or not there is an increased danger for pedestrians by not wearing helmets. I doubt such a study has ever been done. Perhaps there should be. There have been however lots of studies on bicycle helmets and some have concluded that they don’t reduce head injuries.

              http://road.cc/content/news/34527-cycle-helmets-dont-reduce-head-injury-risk-much-its-thought-claims-new-analysis

              In fact there is a belief that helmets laws for bicycles are manipulative:

              http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/lobby.html

              That’s all beside the point, of you not answering the question but your post is not void of useful insight. I used the same format of my question as the one you put to Spark. Your comment is that I’m being obtuse and silly in an effort to bait you. That comment reflects back onto your intent of your question. You were being obtuse and silly in an effort to bait Spark. He pointed that earlier regarding your self-righteous priggish comments. It’s part of your modus operandi.

              It gives credibility to my name calling. You may wish to consider that in the future, or make clear that your intent is to make obtuse, silly, self-righteous priggish comments to others and as I can now add to deflect any questions directed to you as you still have not extended me the civilized courtesy of answering my question. I’ll take it to mean something along the lines of you lacking the skills, or are too lazy, too obtuse, and/or too silly or too scared to express your emotion(s).

              Now to answer your question, about whether or not I am angry, of course not. You don’t have the power to make me angry.

              Enjoy your day.

            4. Hey 3l3c7ro.

              I took the liberty of answering your question “How so?”.
              During that answer I brought up another question

              “How do you feel about the time that is taken away from other patients because of a MAJORITY of irresponsible PEDESTRIANS who won’t wear helmets?”

              You haven’t answered my question, instead you’ve brought up another question.

              When you take the civilized step of answering my question, I’ll return the courtesy and answer yours.

            5. National and state data don’t show any increased danger for pedestrians by not wearing helmets. You are just being obtuse and silly in an effort to bait me. You lost any credibility be your name calling in your posts about this issue today. Get some rest and enjoy the rest of your day.

    1. I note, for the record, that I was commenting on the photograph of Steve enjoying his BMW with the wind blowing through his hair. And if I remember right, Steve was uninjured on his ride and died many years later of cancer.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.