DIGITAL STRATEGIST CENTER EMEA: SEO EXPERT PREDRAG PETROVIC

 determining the "best center" for EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa) strictly geographically is impossible as it depends on a multitude of factors beyond just location. Different cities hold strengths and weaknesses depending on the specific needs and priorities of a business or individual considering setting up a center there.

However, I can provide some insights into Belgrade and Athens, and compare them against the general criteria for an EMEA center, potentially helping you narrow down your search:

General Criteria for an EMEA Center:

• Central location: Ideally positioned for easy access to major markets and transportation hubs.
• Business environment: Supportive infrastructure, skilled workforce, favorable tax regime, and ease of doing business.
• Cost of living and operations: Lower costs compared to Western Europe can be attractive.
• Cultural factors: Time zone compatibility, language options, and cultural alignment with other EMEA regions.
• Quality of life: Adequate infrastructure, healthcare, education, and living standards for employees.

Belgrade:

• Central location: Situated in the Balkans with good air and rail connections to Western Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.
• Business environment: Improving infrastructure, growing tech sector, and lower business costs than Western Europe.
• Cost of living and operations: Relatively low compared to Western Europe, making it potentially budget-friendly.
• Cultural factors: Time zone overlaps with most of Europe, English increasingly spoken, and cultural similarities with some Eastern European countries.
• Quality of life: Growing city with decent infrastructure, affordable healthcare, and improving living standards.

Athens:

• Central location: Ideally situated at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.
• Business environment: Established infrastructure, English widely spoken, and access to European Union markets.
• Cost of living and operations: Higher than Belgrade but still lower than many Western European cities.
• Cultural factors: Time zone overlaps with most of Europe, strong English skills, and cultural ties to both Europe and the Middle East.
• Quality of life: Good infrastructure, affordable healthcare, and rich cultural heritage.

Comparison:

Both Belgrade and Athens have their advantages and disadvantages as potential EMEA centers. Belgrade offers lower costs and a slightly more central location for Eastern Europe and the Middle East, while Athens has a more established business environment and better access to Western European markets.

Ultimately, the "best center" for you depends on your specific needs and priorities. Consider factors like:

• Target markets: Which regions in EMEA are you aiming to reach?
• Industry: Are there specific talent pools or industry clusters relevant to you in either city?
• Budget: How much are you willing to invest in operational costs and living expenses?
• Company culture: Does the city's overall atmosphere and lifestyle align with your company values?

I recommend further research and possibly visiting both cities before making a decision.

Remember, there is no single "best" center for the entire EMEA region. The optimal location for your specific needs will depend on your unique circumstances and priorities.

Toward a Concrete Utopia: Learning from Yugoslavia | MoMA LIVE

When we listen to music

 When we listen to music, we must distinguish between the experience of space in a metaphorical sense, that is, when we perceive the space suggested or evoked by the musical characteristics of a piece, such as melody, harmony, and rhythm; and the experience of physical space, which gives us spatial information that has to do with sound sources and the spatial region in which they are located. In analyzing the way we perceive space when we hear musical sources, I will focus on the experience of physical space. I will apply a model of the way we experience non-musical (or environmental) sound sources – a model that I will call the “matryoshka model” – to the perception of musical sound sources. The conclusion I will reach is that the spatial experience of non-musical sound sources and the spatial experience of musical sound sources are similar, at least with regard to those musical compositions in which space is used as a certain type of aesthetic medium. Furthermore, my analysis suggests that if we want to understand the difference between the musical experience and the experience of non-musical sounds in relation to space, we must focus on the experience of space in a metaphorical sense.

Explanation:

The author of the passage is discussing the two ways in which we can perceive space when we listen to music. The first way is in a metaphorical sense, as when we perceive the sense of height or depth that is suggested by the melody, harmony, or rhythm of a piece. The second way is in a physical sense, as when we perceive the location of the sound source in the room or environment.

The author argues that the experience of physical space is similar for both musical and non-musical sounds. Both types of sounds can be perceived as coming from a specific location, and both can be identified as coming from an object or group of objects.

However, the experience of metaphorical space is different for musical and non-musical sounds. Musical sounds can evoke a sense of space that goes beyond the physical information provided by the sound source. For example, a rising melody can evoke a sense of height, even if the sound source is actually at ground level.

This difference between metaphorical and physical space is important for understanding the difference between the musical experience and the experience of non-musical sounds. The musical experience is not just a matter of physical perceptions, but also of emotional and cognitive perceptions. The musical characteristics, such as melody, harmony, and rhythm, can evoke images and sensations that go beyond the physical information provided by the sound source.

For example, a piece of music that uses complex counterpoint can evoke a sense of complexity and movement, even if the sound sources are actually static. A piece of music that uses dissonant harmony can evoke a sense of tension and conflict, even if the sound sources are actually harmonious.

These differences between metaphorical and physical space are what make music such a rich and engaging experience. Music can evoke a sense of space that goes beyond our physical perceptions, transporting us to a new and imaginary world.

Additional notes:

• The author uses the term "matryoshka model" to refer to a model of how we perceive the spatial relationships between multiple sound sources. The matryoshka model is based on the Russian nesting dolls, which are a set of dolls that fit inside each other. In the same way, sound sources can be nested inside each other, with each sound source providing additional information about the spatial location of the other sound sources.
• The author suggests that if we want to understand the difference between the musical experience and the experience of non-musical sounds in relation to space, we need to focus on the experience of metaphorical space. This is because the experience of physical space is similar for both musical and non-musical sounds, while the experience of metaphorical space is what distinguishes musical sounds from non-musical sounds.

Rhythm, Melody, and Harmony : SPATIAL ARTS

 Architecture and music are two very different art forms, but they are also connected in many ways.

Both architecture and music are spatial arts. They both create experiences that are perceived over time and space. When we enter a building, we experience the space in a sequence, moving from one room to another. When we listen to music, we experience the sound in a sequence, from one note to the next.

Both architecture and music use rhythm, melody, and harmony to create structure and emotion. Rhythm is the repetition of patterns over time. Melody is a sequence of notes. Harmony is the relationship between different notes played at the same time. Architects use rhythm, melody, and harmony to create a sense of flow and balance in their buildings. Musicians use rhythm, melody, and harmony to create a sense of structure and emotion in their music.

Both architecture and music can evoke strong emotions in people. A beautiful building can make us feel awe-inspired and happy. A moving piece of music can make us feel sad, joyful, or angry. Architects and musicians both use their art to create emotional responses in their audience.

Here are some specific examples of the connections between architecture and music:

• The shape of a concert hall can affect the sound of the music played inside it. Architects design concert halls to create the best possible acoustic experience for the audience.
• Some composers have been inspired by architecture in their work. For example, the French composer Olivier Messiaen was inspired by the architecture of Notre Dame Cathedral when he wrote his piece "Quartet for the End of Time."
• Some architects have been inspired by music in their work. For example, the Finnish architect Alvar Aalto designed concert halls and churches that are shaped like musical instruments.

Overall, architecture and music are two art forms that are connected in many ways. They both use rhythm, melody, and harmony to create structure and emotion. They can both evoke strong emotions in people. And they can both inspire each other.

FASCINATING BRUTALISM - FASCINANTNI BRUTALIZAM

 

Brutalism is a style of architecture that emerged in the 1950s and was popular until the 1970s. It is characterized by its use of raw concrete, geometric shapes, and large-scale structures. Brutalism has been criticized for its harsh and unforgiving appearance, but it is also admired for its boldness, originality, and social idealism.

There are a number of reasons why Brutalism is so fascinating. First, it is a highly distinctive style. Brutalist buildings are often unlike anything else, with their bold forms and exposed concrete surfaces. This makes them stand out from the crowd and catch the eye.

Second, Brutalism is a style that is full of contradictions. On the one hand, it is often associated with harshness and severity. On the other hand, it can also be seen as a symbol of social idealism and a desire to create a better world. This ambiguity is part of what makes Brutalism so compelling.

Third, Brutalism is a style that is constantly evolving. While the core principles of Brutalism remain the same, there is a wide range of variation within the style. This makes it a dynamic and exciting style to explore.

Here are some specific reasons why people find Brutalism so fascinating:

• Its scale and monumentality. Brutalist buildings are often very large and imposing, which can be both awe-inspiring and intimidating.
• Its use of raw materials. Brutalist buildings are often made of exposed concrete, which gives them a raw and unfinished look. This can be seen as a symbol of honesty and authenticity.
• Its geometric simplicity. Brutalist buildings often have simple geometric shapes, such as cubes, rectangles, and triangles. This simplicity can be seen as a reflection of the Brutalist belief in the importance of function over form.
• Its social idealism. Brutalism was originally conceived as a way to create affordable and high-quality housing for everyone. Many Brutalist buildings were built in low-income areas, and they were designed to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing.

While Brutalism is not for everyone, it is a style that continues to fascinate and inspire people around the world. Its boldness, originality, and social idealism make it a style that is worth exploring and understanding.

ČAČAK Mausoleum (Serbia) - Spomenik video profile / Балканские истории /...

ČAČAK Mausoleum (Serbia) - Spomenik video profile / Балканские истории /...

KADINJAČA monument (Serbia) - Spomenik video profile / Балканские истори...