I've been expecting this sort of thing to eventually be e-mailed to me, or at the very least be left behind in the comments area (which was a useless attempt at getting outside feedback as a public forum. Apparently, whoever reads this regularly doesn't want their opinions known to the entire world, and with good reason I'm sure.).
Several bouts of my ignorance have been cited and debunked (for lack of a better word) in a rather lengthy, very professional, letter I received this morning. In it, they noted my inexperience in everything I complain about. They also cite instances where I could have bettered myself, but obviously didn't due to fear and personal hang ups. My naive nature was obvious to me before, but this letter made it seem more like I have never grown up past the rose-colored days of year 10 by clearly telling me that my experience in Seattle was just a sick man's way of getting off through manipulating me.
Keep in mind that this wasn't insulting in any way. It was very professional to the point where there was little emotion displayed by the writer. If anything, more emotion was displayed on my end.
The letter goes on to say that how I'm not entirely a fool, just inexperienced. Quoting several proverbs, I felt like I was being told to either step up or shut up. I've been told this a few times, but mostly in the heat of arguments where feelings of mutual anger are at their most dangerous levels. With no emotion from the other end and with myself feeling like a puppy who was being scolded for pissing on the Chinese rug, those fortune cookie sayings had more impact than anything.
Which brings me to the main reason for posting this.
For a while now, the posts have been tapering to a slow halt. This isn't the first time, I'm sure, but it becoming more and more obvious that writing here, be it educated opinions or the foolish rants of inexperience, is becoming less and less frequent and more idiotic. While I may not be completely ignorant (and I'm very grateful that I'm not), I am still without any kind of right to talk or write about anything that a good majority of people if not the other 99% out there knows well enough about. I may not come off as a complete moronic fool, but I sure as hell feel like one.
I originally started this blog with the emotional intent of trying to figure out why I act the way I do, why I frustrate people, and why people generally don't like me after they get to really know me. Four years later, this e-mail comes around and tells me why. Even with the compliment at the end to try and give me (or the writer, I'm not sure) hope, I now see that I'm that guy that your mother always tells you to avoid even in the day light.
I'm taking the very long way of saying "I'm going to shut up now," so I'm just going to stop right now before this ends up to be another foolish rant. If this ever updates again, it probably won't be any time soon.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
"Every flower blooms at its own time."
I've been e-mailing this guy for a while now, and recently something has come up that makes me a bit pissed off. Mostly because of the sense of conformity that it's caused.
Given his age (early 30's), he is embarrassed that he lives at home. He's tried, like myself, to get out in the world and stay financially secure as best as any middle-class American can. But, like myself, he's ended up back in a place that is not only unnuturing for his growth as a person but a place where he generally hates being stuck in. Unlike me, however, he's done this process several times. I only did it once. I'm easy to defeat. He isn't.
But he's starting to get tired of the ordeal. His last e-mail makes me worried. It sounds a bit like he is wishing for that quick fix to help him get out of the debt hole everyone finds themselves in at one point in their lives. Then again, who wouldn't? That's why radio stations always have those kind of "we'll pay of your debt" contests.
The thing is, he shouldn't be embarrassed by it or feel ashamed when he's forced to admit it. I don't know where society got off on this, but saying you are 30 and living at home is not a bad thing given the situation. There is no law saying that everyone has to move out at 25 or even at 22. There is no law saying that everyone must have a job at 18. There is no law saying you can't move back in with your parents at 30 even if you are financially unable to support yourself. And yet we do have this "laws." They are unwritten laws of society, and anyone that doesn't abide by them is seen as a loser not worth dating.
Who came up with this shit? That's like asking a super model if she ever stripped before and telling her to stick to answering only with the words "Yes" or "No." You don't know the situation that lead up to the choice. It can be justified even if you yourself think the profression isn't. But there is this high chance that the public won't let you get even that far into the door. It's been my experience that the moment you mention anything that the other doesn't like, they more than likely not like you because of it. If they don't end up not liking you, then there is the chance that they will also think less of you due to your inability of being able to do what is suppose to be a simple task.
These simple tasks and abilities are often taken for granted. Take driving for example. The day you learn how to drive, you get a new found sense of independence for about a day. Then you get into your first wreck, or you have to drive your friend to point A because you are on the way past there so you might as well car pool. Or, when you move out, you find out that you can only fit so much into your car without the need to spend more money on a moving van or even a hitch trailer. By this time, driving as an ability is taken for granted. The joy and sense of freedom is lost due to the repeative and mundane act of driving. When you think about it, what is driving? Pushing a pedal down so some gas can be put inside of a chamber to explode so another piece of machinery can make the wheels go around. The average teenager is learning how to push a pedal so the car can do all the work and turn a wheel so the car knows what way to crash into.
Jobs are the same way. They say you won't know a value of a buck until you have a job (or so says the old proverb). I say, you won't know a value of a buck until you have a job and then lose it like I did. Once you have no source of steady income, you start becoming budget conscious. That's when you start to realize what the true value of a dollar is in society, as well as establish that fear of debt and the paranoia of not being able to pay it off over the course of your life. After all, the last thing anyone wants to do is go to the grave with red numbers on their records.
In nature, any animal that can't defend themselves without their parents is more often than not killed and turned into fodder by someone higher up on the food chain. Thankfully, humans don't have that going for them (granted we are one of the few species on the planet does attack their own species). Had we not socially evolved to this point, people like my friend and myself would be dead by now simply because we can't survive outside of the home. This isn't a bad thing. It's no different than the 12-year-old who still has training wheels on their bike because their equilibrium isn't there yet.
People develop at different times than other people. Unfortunately, it will take a long time for other people to realize this, as some have realized this before most of society. Ironic when you think about it.
Given his age (early 30's), he is embarrassed that he lives at home. He's tried, like myself, to get out in the world and stay financially secure as best as any middle-class American can. But, like myself, he's ended up back in a place that is not only unnuturing for his growth as a person but a place where he generally hates being stuck in. Unlike me, however, he's done this process several times. I only did it once. I'm easy to defeat. He isn't.
But he's starting to get tired of the ordeal. His last e-mail makes me worried. It sounds a bit like he is wishing for that quick fix to help him get out of the debt hole everyone finds themselves in at one point in their lives. Then again, who wouldn't? That's why radio stations always have those kind of "we'll pay of your debt" contests.
The thing is, he shouldn't be embarrassed by it or feel ashamed when he's forced to admit it. I don't know where society got off on this, but saying you are 30 and living at home is not a bad thing given the situation. There is no law saying that everyone has to move out at 25 or even at 22. There is no law saying that everyone must have a job at 18. There is no law saying you can't move back in with your parents at 30 even if you are financially unable to support yourself. And yet we do have this "laws." They are unwritten laws of society, and anyone that doesn't abide by them is seen as a loser not worth dating.
Who came up with this shit? That's like asking a super model if she ever stripped before and telling her to stick to answering only with the words "Yes" or "No." You don't know the situation that lead up to the choice. It can be justified even if you yourself think the profression isn't. But there is this high chance that the public won't let you get even that far into the door. It's been my experience that the moment you mention anything that the other doesn't like, they more than likely not like you because of it. If they don't end up not liking you, then there is the chance that they will also think less of you due to your inability of being able to do what is suppose to be a simple task.
These simple tasks and abilities are often taken for granted. Take driving for example. The day you learn how to drive, you get a new found sense of independence for about a day. Then you get into your first wreck, or you have to drive your friend to point A because you are on the way past there so you might as well car pool. Or, when you move out, you find out that you can only fit so much into your car without the need to spend more money on a moving van or even a hitch trailer. By this time, driving as an ability is taken for granted. The joy and sense of freedom is lost due to the repeative and mundane act of driving. When you think about it, what is driving? Pushing a pedal down so some gas can be put inside of a chamber to explode so another piece of machinery can make the wheels go around. The average teenager is learning how to push a pedal so the car can do all the work and turn a wheel so the car knows what way to crash into.
Jobs are the same way. They say you won't know a value of a buck until you have a job (or so says the old proverb). I say, you won't know a value of a buck until you have a job and then lose it like I did. Once you have no source of steady income, you start becoming budget conscious. That's when you start to realize what the true value of a dollar is in society, as well as establish that fear of debt and the paranoia of not being able to pay it off over the course of your life. After all, the last thing anyone wants to do is go to the grave with red numbers on their records.
In nature, any animal that can't defend themselves without their parents is more often than not killed and turned into fodder by someone higher up on the food chain. Thankfully, humans don't have that going for them (granted we are one of the few species on the planet does attack their own species). Had we not socially evolved to this point, people like my friend and myself would be dead by now simply because we can't survive outside of the home. This isn't a bad thing. It's no different than the 12-year-old who still has training wheels on their bike because their equilibrium isn't there yet.
People develop at different times than other people. Unfortunately, it will take a long time for other people to realize this, as some have realized this before most of society. Ironic when you think about it.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Philosophical Musing of Uselessness
It has become more and more apparent that there is a cycle to how some people do things. A cycle which can be cruel or not depending on the task at hand. I'm talking of course about the fact that most everything we do involves some kind of time waiting. Waiting for a bus, waiting for a time slot to roll around, or waiting on a DVD to finish burning. It seems we are all always waiting on something.
The cycle starts when we initialize the action. We come up with an idea, share it, sketch it out in our notebooks (be them in our heads or in actual notebooks), and then we attempt to produce the idea into reality.
The process then goes into the waiting phase. We wait on financial backing for the idea or we wait on the product to pop out in its finished form.
We then enter in another waiting stage which is variable depending on how we present the object. Here, we try to make people believe that what we are producing is the greatest thing of all time and that everyone should have at least two in their own home. In the commercial sense, that is. This phase of waiting can be applied in a variety of fashions from waiting on results back from a loan review to even waiting on something as trivial as for someone to sign on your favorite internet messaging system.
And then the results come in. They are either what we want or what we don't want. That isn't up to us to decide in the end, although some would argue that we can determine how to change it into the results we want. Then what happens?
We wait some more while we either come up with a new idea or make money off the one that was sold to the masses. We wait through the summer until the new school year starts, sometimes doing nothing if we can get away with it. We wait until someone calls us back for another job interview because they liked our applications. We wait for opportunity even though we say that opportunity waits for no one.
We are always in the wings. We can be and more often than not are doing something else while we are waiting, but nevertheless, we are always waiting for something. We only think we are not because we make ourselves busy by doing other things.
Now, there are others out there that are all about taking action and not waiting but doing something. Even the most persistent of activists are waiting for a result, waiting on a change if not demanding it. What makes them any better than the average person that does nothing but wait? Is it because they get their results quicker?
Their results do not come quicker than any other person's attempt to change the world. It just looks like they are. The activists may come off as impatient given my view, but they are more of a catalyst than someone who is impatient. They rush results, sometimes poorly. And rushed changes can result in conflicts as seen from all the revolutions that happened before my typing this entry. Some minor, some major, and others biblical.
Still, there are some out there waiting for a change that we only believe has already happened. There are some that believe we have failed in all past revolutions and other social changes, waiting for people to wake up and realize this truth. You can find this in all the satire we see daily in the newspaper cartoons.
All that being said, most people are waiting for something positive to happen like the second coming or something awesome like that. Frankly, I'm just waiting for our race to go the way of the dinosaurs. Given our current state, I won't have to wait very long.
The cycle starts when we initialize the action. We come up with an idea, share it, sketch it out in our notebooks (be them in our heads or in actual notebooks), and then we attempt to produce the idea into reality.
The process then goes into the waiting phase. We wait on financial backing for the idea or we wait on the product to pop out in its finished form.
We then enter in another waiting stage which is variable depending on how we present the object. Here, we try to make people believe that what we are producing is the greatest thing of all time and that everyone should have at least two in their own home. In the commercial sense, that is. This phase of waiting can be applied in a variety of fashions from waiting on results back from a loan review to even waiting on something as trivial as for someone to sign on your favorite internet messaging system.
And then the results come in. They are either what we want or what we don't want. That isn't up to us to decide in the end, although some would argue that we can determine how to change it into the results we want. Then what happens?
We wait some more while we either come up with a new idea or make money off the one that was sold to the masses. We wait through the summer until the new school year starts, sometimes doing nothing if we can get away with it. We wait until someone calls us back for another job interview because they liked our applications. We wait for opportunity even though we say that opportunity waits for no one.
We are always in the wings. We can be and more often than not are doing something else while we are waiting, but nevertheless, we are always waiting for something. We only think we are not because we make ourselves busy by doing other things.
Now, there are others out there that are all about taking action and not waiting but doing something. Even the most persistent of activists are waiting for a result, waiting on a change if not demanding it. What makes them any better than the average person that does nothing but wait? Is it because they get their results quicker?
Their results do not come quicker than any other person's attempt to change the world. It just looks like they are. The activists may come off as impatient given my view, but they are more of a catalyst than someone who is impatient. They rush results, sometimes poorly. And rushed changes can result in conflicts as seen from all the revolutions that happened before my typing this entry. Some minor, some major, and others biblical.
Still, there are some out there waiting for a change that we only believe has already happened. There are some that believe we have failed in all past revolutions and other social changes, waiting for people to wake up and realize this truth. You can find this in all the satire we see daily in the newspaper cartoons.
All that being said, most people are waiting for something positive to happen like the second coming or something awesome like that. Frankly, I'm just waiting for our race to go the way of the dinosaurs. Given our current state, I won't have to wait very long.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Another Emo Post
It's been a while since I last had a whiny post, but I think this morning warrents it.
Last night, I noticed that I was talking too much. I also found myself saying and acting in a way I don't normally do. Something apparently snapped. The social isolation and alienation made me go mad during the conversation.
This morning, a very honest student confided in me that I weird people out. This isn't the first time I've been told this. This isn't also the first time that people suggest that I try and change that.
This isn't the first time I've also said the same thing I've been saying about trying as hard as I could but am unable to change certain aspect of my personality. Nobody believes me.
Humans can change. We are kind of programed to do so. But when we are too much of an individual, we end up becoming weird. To be normal, you have to be unique enough to still be different but conform enough to be the same. It's strange to have a point where we have to stop the change because changing too much is a bad thing.
Another mindless rambling.
Another emo post.
Another bit of my angst trying to get out before it comes out in a bad way.
The fact that I weird people out is something I've accepted, mostly because I've gotten used to the lack of interest in going out and making friends despite this want to socialize. I know, it's not healthy, but knowing how I act around people I'm comfortable with in a private setting? It's probably for the best. Unfortunately, I can't change what people think of me even if I change my more frowned upon characteristics. Someone is always going to be weirded out by me.
Last night, I noticed that I was talking too much. I also found myself saying and acting in a way I don't normally do. Something apparently snapped. The social isolation and alienation made me go mad during the conversation.
This morning, a very honest student confided in me that I weird people out. This isn't the first time I've been told this. This isn't also the first time that people suggest that I try and change that.
This isn't the first time I've also said the same thing I've been saying about trying as hard as I could but am unable to change certain aspect of my personality. Nobody believes me.
Humans can change. We are kind of programed to do so. But when we are too much of an individual, we end up becoming weird. To be normal, you have to be unique enough to still be different but conform enough to be the same. It's strange to have a point where we have to stop the change because changing too much is a bad thing.
Another mindless rambling.
Another emo post.
Another bit of my angst trying to get out before it comes out in a bad way.
The fact that I weird people out is something I've accepted, mostly because I've gotten used to the lack of interest in going out and making friends despite this want to socialize. I know, it's not healthy, but knowing how I act around people I'm comfortable with in a private setting? It's probably for the best. Unfortunately, I can't change what people think of me even if I change my more frowned upon characteristics. Someone is always going to be weirded out by me.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Home Pages and the Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
I originally wrote this for an assignment, but at the end of it, I asked some questions that I think would warrant a pretty interesting batch of feedback. I thought I'd post it here to see if I haven't falling into complete obscurity in a world of global out reach. I encourage people that find this entry to leave a comment no matter how ignorant it may be. After all, simplest response is often the most intelligent.
Web sites and home pages are no different than the television programs we see today. They are part of an "information game" in which the viewer receives information and then has to process it. This information can range from anything from politics to popular culture to propaganda.
What makes the web different from television is the interactivity of the content found in web-based productions. The viewer can not only receive information, but can also produce it. Communication of information on the web is more like a telephone in that it is presented on a two-way road. While one person can use elements of propaganda on their home page, thereby manipulating the information received, another can link to that home page causing a growth or even death of the culture. This interactivity is more engaging than the passive one-way flow of information that television presents. In short, everyone has an opinion and can express it in a way that is uninhibited by massive corporations and most democratic governments.
However, much like television, this level of interactive production is limited only to a certain demographic despite the global implication of publishing on the web. A user is going to get only so-many hits, and most probably won’t be from the other side of the planet. The fact that a home page is potentially available to the world, however, does present us with a way to extend ourselves beyond wherever we live. This indirectly created a sense of production quality, where the more professional the home page appears, the more validated it is received as an information source. The tools are available for this relatively freely. It is how well they are used that determines how valid the home page and the person producing it is at presenting the information.
We are the builders of a new form of cultural identity found within a world of transgendered anonymity where even the English language is a minority.
Questions
- Is it possible for even the most valid-looking propaganda-driven home page to be ignored or seen as complete farce given its level of professional aesthetic?
- What happens to the person who is only known by the screen name they have chosen on the web with the level of anonymity the web offers? In other words, do we hate the person behind the screen name or do we hate the screen name?
- If the web is the essence of cultural production, then why are some governments trying to inhibit what can and can’t be seen and interacted with by users? Are some governments inhibiting cultural growth by censoring the web and its content?
Friday, April 07, 2006
Brokeback Mountain and Fake Love
I read recently that Hollywood loves to produce this thing called fake love. They present this ideal romantic setting that everyone wants to fall into. It's what makes actors sometimes. After all, when you are good looking as some of the actors these days, how can you not fall in love when they start showing that men can be just as sensitive as women want them to be?
I just finished watching Brokeback Mountain for the first time. I bought the DVD the day it came out, but didn't have the time until this evening. The movie ended about at midnight, and I found myself denied something. What was I denied? The idea of romance.
Ever since the movie came out in theatres, it has been built up as this true-to-life gay love story. There are no rose lens covering the cameras. The film tried to be as honest and as contemporary as it can be. It succeeded.
It also made me question my idea of this thing called love. I stumbled upon a National Geographic article earlier this year talking about how love is no different than any other chemical imbalance that triggers things like ADD and OCD. Yet, thanks to Hollywood, we think love is this magical moment where we find someone and time stops. Once that happens, that's it. You are destine to be together until you either divorce or die.
And it's suppose to be magical. But chances are, it rarely is.
The divorce rate in America sums it up nicely. There is no such thing as love. Love is just something we make up to blind us into thinking that we like someone we are attracted to when all we want is either sex or companionship. We claim to make families out of love, but in reality, we are just fulfilling our biological programming. That is, those of us that are not programmed to thin out the herd. But even those of us that are, for us there is no such thing as love either.
The only love that is real is, ironically, the fake love that is shown in movies. It is real because the actors and actresses make it real. They give us what we can never have. Why? Because that is their job. To perform our dreams and our stories for us because we can't live them ourselves.
Is there love out there? No. Is there attachment to another person? Yes. So much so that some of us solidify that obsession by getting married. Right now, I am starting to believe that marriage is no different than having to wash your hands fifty times a day just because you have to.
This film, much like most truths, was a bitter pill to swallow. I didn't take away what most of the reviews took away from the film, about how this is a step forward into opening the country's eyes into the fact that we are human no matter who we fall in love with. What I took away from this film is worlds different than most.
Brokeback Mountain taught me that it doesn't matter what sexuality you are. There is no such thing as love. Period.
I just finished watching Brokeback Mountain for the first time. I bought the DVD the day it came out, but didn't have the time until this evening. The movie ended about at midnight, and I found myself denied something. What was I denied? The idea of romance.
Ever since the movie came out in theatres, it has been built up as this true-to-life gay love story. There are no rose lens covering the cameras. The film tried to be as honest and as contemporary as it can be. It succeeded.
It also made me question my idea of this thing called love. I stumbled upon a National Geographic article earlier this year talking about how love is no different than any other chemical imbalance that triggers things like ADD and OCD. Yet, thanks to Hollywood, we think love is this magical moment where we find someone and time stops. Once that happens, that's it. You are destine to be together until you either divorce or die.
And it's suppose to be magical. But chances are, it rarely is.
The divorce rate in America sums it up nicely. There is no such thing as love. Love is just something we make up to blind us into thinking that we like someone we are attracted to when all we want is either sex or companionship. We claim to make families out of love, but in reality, we are just fulfilling our biological programming. That is, those of us that are not programmed to thin out the herd. But even those of us that are, for us there is no such thing as love either.
The only love that is real is, ironically, the fake love that is shown in movies. It is real because the actors and actresses make it real. They give us what we can never have. Why? Because that is their job. To perform our dreams and our stories for us because we can't live them ourselves.
Is there love out there? No. Is there attachment to another person? Yes. So much so that some of us solidify that obsession by getting married. Right now, I am starting to believe that marriage is no different than having to wash your hands fifty times a day just because you have to.
This film, much like most truths, was a bitter pill to swallow. I didn't take away what most of the reviews took away from the film, about how this is a step forward into opening the country's eyes into the fact that we are human no matter who we fall in love with. What I took away from this film is worlds different than most.
Brokeback Mountain taught me that it doesn't matter what sexuality you are. There is no such thing as love. Period.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Trying to Pursued Myself
I wrote this for a Time Base Media assignment, but ultimately never got to use it because of character limits and the inability to read it as it flashed across the screen. And so, I share the text with the world now.
Yeah, I know. I should practice what I preach.
A lot of people are telling me that I should stop comparing myself to other people. They tell me that this is the cause for several moments of self defeat. In all reality, you can't stop being compared to other people even if you yourself don't do this.Unfortunately for me, old habits die harder than new ones. That being said, the first thing I did while viewing my peers work for the class was compare mine to theirs.
When looking for a job, you are going to be in competition with other people who are looking for the same job. As confident as you are that your resume is what they want to see, there is a chance that there is someone out there that is better than you. The employer will no doubt notice this and hire said better person. However, the reverse is also true. You can be the best person that they have in their stack of applications, but they won't hire you. Why? Because you are over qualified for the job.
In this example and in other examples like this, you are still in competition with other people, and you are still being compared to other people. That being said, what are the benefits of not comparing yourself to other people in this society?
One benefit of not comparing yourself to anyone else is that you open yourself up to a realm of purity unhindered by some intangible bar of standards. You can say what you want, do what you want, and act like you want without anyone telling you otherwise. Psychologically, this could lead to a healthier and happier state of mind. In other words, that state of being that has escaped most adults after they start having worries, which is some time in everyone's childhood when something like a deadline is asked from a teacher for a simple piece of homework.
The other benefit to not comparing yourself to anyone is that everything you do is new and exciting, even if someone has done or is doing the exact same thing in one fashion or another. In most projects, be them artistic or even corporate, this causes engagement if not a sense of commitment that is only changed when someone starts thinking about what the other person is doing. With this in mind, comparing your product to the product of your peers will ultimately cause one of two things.
The first of these two is the drive to be better than whom you are comparing yourself to. Being better normally means that you set the bar of standards for everyone else to live by (although not always, as displayed by the example of the overqualified worker). The only down side to this is once you have set that bar for everyone, there will be others that want to pass even that bar. Case and point, the Olympic and World Records of human achievements. Each record is a comparison of people to other people, and each individual record changes whenever someone sees the bar and is driven to go past it. This is the positive benefit to comparing yourself to other people.
The second result of comparing your product to other people is that of inhibiting production. A person will see the bar of expectation and may get discouraged, if not angry and frustrated, by the fact that there is a better product out there. Inventors have to deal with this very often, as someone some where has already invented and beaten the others to the punch with the same idea. Because of this, those that believe originality and innovation is the key to setting the standards often give up, as the novelty of the product has already been introduced into the marketplace. This negative result can only be canceled out by the first result, in which comparing yourself to other results in a drive to become better even if the idea or product is unoriginal, thereby creating what is known as "the new spin."
The key factor in deciding which of these two paths happen depends on the person. In both cases, those that don't compare themselves to anyone are able to work and produce uninhibited by originality or standards. The only definite time for comparison comes when that product is finished. If said person wishes for that product to be on public display, then a path must be picked as to the fate of the product itself and, in turn, the person. From there, the determining factor as to which of the two paths a person picks is strictly psychological. If the product was not meant for the public, then everything I have said and will say about comparison is considered null and void.
It's rather difficult to escape public exposure, as even the most private of things often end up finding their way into the public arena. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the product that everyone produces is automatically going to be displayed in public. Once in the eyes of the public, is it then just as difficult to avoid being compared to everyone else.
The public has a tendency to compare everything to everything else in the realm of general knowledge. Television is a good example of this, as individual program ratings will determine which of the many crime scene investigation shows gets another season and which ones gets cancelled. The public also determines which books sell, which movies get a sequel, and even what brand of toilet paper the local drug store should sell. And they all decide this by comparing everything to everything else. The system of comparison varies from group to group, but the overall idea is this: If it is better and/or cheaper than what is out there now, then that's the one to go with.
This style of comparison may seen as exclusive to the commercial or entertainment markets, but it applies to everything else as well. Someone always is comparing something to something else. The employer is comparing applications for a position he or she needs filled to see who is the more qualified; art buyers are comparing this work to that work to determine which is more engaging to the viewer if not to see if it falls into their personal taste; sport teams and individual athletes review recorded plays of their competition to better prepare themselves in an effort to come out on top; politicians are compared to the ones that came before them or are working along side with them, which ends up determining their public appeal and approval as far as what their actions' effect on the public. We, as the public, even compare culture and religion to each other, mostly to single out the differences between what it is that makes us individuals. But is doing so a bad thing?
Comparing one thing to another is a bad thing depending on what is being compared and why. For example, a criminal is labeled as the worst person since the last criminal with the same title. Barring if said criminal gets the death sentence or not, this comparison is detrimental to the indiviual's overall reputation. He is the meanest of the mean until someone comes along that is meaner than him. This means that there is someone out there that could be worse than the worst person you can think of right now. In this case, one has to hope that nobody wants the title of "Worst Criminal in the World" and is inhibited by that intangible bar.
However, being told that you are the worst at something can cause the positive result to come out. Being told that you are the worst student in the class could cause one to strive to be better and actually meet the standards expected from the class. In this sense, comparing yourself to others is a good thing, as it helps you figure out where you stand in the invisible ranking system of the world. In other words, it isn't so much your fault as it is the fault of the ranking system to determine who is better than you and who you are better than. This is the problem with comparing yourself with other people.
The problem with comparing yourself with others isn't if it is good or bad. It should be obvious that the idea of the action being good or bad is contextual. The problem is with who sets the bar. With national records and Olympic records, the people that set the bar are the ones that have achieved it and have documented proof of such achievement. In matters of public opinion such as which television show is better, the bar is set by the majority. That bar is always in flux. One month reality shows are the big ratings winner, and then the next month the winner are the crime shows. When comparing yourself to others, you set the bar.
So, now that we have figure out who sets the bar of standards, another question comes out: how high do you set that bar for yourself? Again, this is contextual based on the individual. An athlete may have a rival whom he or she wishes to beat out in one fashion or another. Normally, this rival is better than said athlete and continues to get better until the athlete beats the rival, during which the roles are reversed. So what happens to the rival? Well, let's pretend that this rival knows that there is someone better now out there, but is unable to pass the newly set bar. He or she does have the drive to attempt to beat out their new rival and quits, seeing as the goal as an impossibility. The athlete's bar set by themselves is to be better than the rest, but the rival knows that no amount of training can get him past the new standard and expectation. Two individuals in the same field with different personalities entirely.
In retrospect, this entire time I've been comparing the good and the bad of comparing one's self to another. And in a strange twist of irony, I have yet to figure out if even comparing those two together is a good or bad thing in itself. After all, the only way to determine what is good and what is bad is either by public or personal opinion. The majority or the individual has the choice of saying what is good and what is bad through nothing but pure comparison.
That being said, the only way I can determine if comparing myself to other people is a good thing or a bad thing is to know where my own personal bar of standards is set for what it is that I want to do. However, before that, I must determine if I even care about what the other person is doing in the same field of interest. If I do care, I have to set a bar. If I don't care, I can choose to set a bar or not depending on my own individual idiosyncrasies. After figuring out if there is even a bar set, I have to ask myself several questions. Chef among the questions is this: do I personally think I can reach if not pass the bar that I set for myself? If not, do I lower the bar? Would lowering the bar be a bad thing in itself when compared to keeping it where I set it in the first place?
The last question is where the self-defeating nature comes in when you compare yourself to others. And again, another comparison comes into play as to if it is a good thing or a bad thing to lower your bar of standards for yourself. At best, this is determined by what other people think of you as a person. For someone seen by other people as not worth their weight in salt, lowering your expectations as to what you are able to do may be seen as being realistic. For someone seen by others as a great person with equally great potential, lowering the bar is a bad thing, as essentially you are denying what people think so highly of you as a person.
But what happens if you don't care about what people think? You ultimately don't have anyone telling you what is good and what is bad for you. Without even that basic comparison, you end up not having to compare anything to anything else. If nobody else's opinion matters, then the only logical choice as to whose opinion does matter falls on yourself. Ultimately, this means that you get to choose what is good and what is bad, not for the world, but for yourself.
So for me, do I consider comparing myself to other people a good or bad thing? Given everything I've said without going into my own personal idiosyncrasies, I've come to this conclusion. The people that have been telling me this for years are right. I really should stop comparing myself to other people.
Yeah, I know. I should practice what I preach.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The Obligation of the Artist to the General Public
Most of the artists today that are living and producing art are idiots. They are idiots because they continue to produce works for an audience whose vast majority will probably not even give two seconds of thought to what they see before them. Yet both idiots continue to interact indirectly with each other as one continues to produce while the other continues to mindlessly view the other’s product, both not explaining to the other why they continue to do so.
The argument can be made that art is not meant for the vast majority of the public. Contemporary art is meant for the socially elite and an artistically inclined intellectuals. In other words, art created for those that can understand then or at least appreciate them. An elite and social group that is outside the general public. And yet the major goal for most artists is to achieve some kind of gallery status.
The gallery is not some exclusive club where only a select few can view works of art. It is open to the general public in one fashion or another. As such, there is some level of obligation to the general public that every form of establishment has that is open to such a vast audience. Doctors have the obligation to explain as simply as possible their vast and often superior knowledge about the human body to someone that doesn’t understand why they suffered a heart attack at the age of forty-nine. Priests have the obligation to explain why Mary being a virgin is so important to the Christian faith. Even someone so low on the occupation latter like a cashier at MacDonald’s has an obligation to the customer on some level. Why? Because they are open to the general public.
Artists used to have an obligation to the public, but that was centuries ago when artists had some form of patronage. The artists of today have no such obligation to the public anymore. As such, their works get misinterpreted. With an audience where the majority thinks art is to look the way it did over a century ago, this should come as no surprise. It’s no different than how a writer choices to lay out the words on the page and what words to use. There is a target audience, but there also has to be an easy way into the piece. Most writers know this, otherwise they will alienate their audience before the first paragraph is even completed. Artists don’t supply that "easy in" as often.
This is the artist’s obligation to the public, to offer an "easy in" to the world of their higher thinking and use of symbolism. Without offering this to the general public, the viewer may be offended or just completely ignore the piece of work for one reason or another. Supplying that easy way in for a viewer that doesn’t know anything about modern art or the arts short of what they learned in public school. This is why landscapes in craft shows are appreciated more than an abstracted landscape in a gallery. The general public doesn’t have to think. They don’t want to think; they rather be told.
If art is a form of visual communication, then there is a way to trick people into thinking about the works. This is no different than posing a question in a classroom. The task is for the artist to figure out how to ask the question and aim it to a public that doesn’t like to think when they are not required to. This isn’t a lowering of high art; it’s merely supplying a door for the common denominator into that exclusive club that is high art.
The argument can be made that art is not meant for the vast majority of the public. Contemporary art is meant for the socially elite and an artistically inclined intellectuals. In other words, art created for those that can understand then or at least appreciate them. An elite and social group that is outside the general public. And yet the major goal for most artists is to achieve some kind of gallery status.
The gallery is not some exclusive club where only a select few can view works of art. It is open to the general public in one fashion or another. As such, there is some level of obligation to the general public that every form of establishment has that is open to such a vast audience. Doctors have the obligation to explain as simply as possible their vast and often superior knowledge about the human body to someone that doesn’t understand why they suffered a heart attack at the age of forty-nine. Priests have the obligation to explain why Mary being a virgin is so important to the Christian faith. Even someone so low on the occupation latter like a cashier at MacDonald’s has an obligation to the customer on some level. Why? Because they are open to the general public.
Artists used to have an obligation to the public, but that was centuries ago when artists had some form of patronage. The artists of today have no such obligation to the public anymore. As such, their works get misinterpreted. With an audience where the majority thinks art is to look the way it did over a century ago, this should come as no surprise. It’s no different than how a writer choices to lay out the words on the page and what words to use. There is a target audience, but there also has to be an easy way into the piece. Most writers know this, otherwise they will alienate their audience before the first paragraph is even completed. Artists don’t supply that "easy in" as often.
This is the artist’s obligation to the public, to offer an "easy in" to the world of their higher thinking and use of symbolism. Without offering this to the general public, the viewer may be offended or just completely ignore the piece of work for one reason or another. Supplying that easy way in for a viewer that doesn’t know anything about modern art or the arts short of what they learned in public school. This is why landscapes in craft shows are appreciated more than an abstracted landscape in a gallery. The general public doesn’t have to think. They don’t want to think; they rather be told.
If art is a form of visual communication, then there is a way to trick people into thinking about the works. This is no different than posing a question in a classroom. The task is for the artist to figure out how to ask the question and aim it to a public that doesn’t like to think when they are not required to. This isn’t a lowering of high art; it’s merely supplying a door for the common denominator into that exclusive club that is high art.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Stepping On and Stepped On
This morning, spawned from an idea for a performance piece that I won't do until I have the courage to display myself as such, my mind is settled upon the idea of this morbid and somewhat stupid thought.
It seems that more and more often, I'm witnessing how many time people get offended by certain things. Little things like laughing at violence in a movie where that subject is a serious matter. Big things like how a politician said this about this subject that causes this group of people to get pissed off. Stupid things like supplying negative feedback only to be seen as bitching rather than helping due to the displaying of your own ignorance through the negative feedback, however well constructive it may be. Even things that shouldn't even piss people off but do like theme park attractions and cartoons.
There is always something that offends someone that causes some kind of action. Verbal, physical, psychological, and even visual offences cause verbal, physical, psychological, and other forms of action that end up offending other people continuing the circle.
It's strange, because in the course of these, someone somewhere always says "I wish they would just die." Some even go so far as to try and kill the offender. But what does that cause but nothing more but even more offence? Immediate satisfaction leads to more problems, as what may be good for you is not good for everyone else around you. Conversely, what's good for the people around you may not be good for you, and so what then? What do you do in that situation?
There's a message board game I started on Gaia several months back called "What if." In it, we ask mostly stupid questions along the lines of what if this happened. The next person must answer it before asking another 'what if' to keep the game going. Two posts (a question and an answer) didn't make me chuckle or at least think of how stupid the two where. The question was What if the world was one nation? The answer? We'd be in a constant state of civil war.
It makes sense to me. Nobody can agree on anything; we all must compromise. Even then, our compromises cause so many other offenses directly or indirectly. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy offends the gay community because it is implying that the armed forces and even the country they serve don't want to protect homosexuals. Civil Right groups are probably just as upset as you and me that the KKK is still allowed to hold meetings and scout new members. What I write here pisses off a few people because they may read this as angsty writing from someone with the mental age of a teenager.
And to think, somewhere someone is foolishly wanting world peace. There's no way we can get that, and some of us know it. The world will always been at odds with itself. The environmentalists will always be against those that construct and pollute, who in turn will be against those that are pressing against them to stop giving jobs to foreign countries, who in turn are pissed because of the foreign influence coming in and destroying their tradition, which in turn is seen as pagan because it doesn't worship the same god as this religion over here. And so on and so on and so on.
Why can't we just leave people alone? Why do we, as social creatures, insist on making everything my way or the highway? Even when we don't, why do we try to come up with something that fails in the design to please everyone involved in the ordeal?
We offend each other because we can't find that balance. We probably don't even know what it is we need to balance, which may be beyond the obvious.
The only thing positive right now is that peace and compromise of any kind on any level, global or personal, cannot be achieved if with every new developing generation there is a fresh bed made for growing offences. That's why I'm offended when I see protesters taking their children to demonstrations when the child has no idea why their parents are protesting.
It seems that more and more often, I'm witnessing how many time people get offended by certain things. Little things like laughing at violence in a movie where that subject is a serious matter. Big things like how a politician said this about this subject that causes this group of people to get pissed off. Stupid things like supplying negative feedback only to be seen as bitching rather than helping due to the displaying of your own ignorance through the negative feedback, however well constructive it may be. Even things that shouldn't even piss people off but do like theme park attractions and cartoons.
There is always something that offends someone that causes some kind of action. Verbal, physical, psychological, and even visual offences cause verbal, physical, psychological, and other forms of action that end up offending other people continuing the circle.
It's strange, because in the course of these, someone somewhere always says "I wish they would just die." Some even go so far as to try and kill the offender. But what does that cause but nothing more but even more offence? Immediate satisfaction leads to more problems, as what may be good for you is not good for everyone else around you. Conversely, what's good for the people around you may not be good for you, and so what then? What do you do in that situation?
There's a message board game I started on Gaia several months back called "What if." In it, we ask mostly stupid questions along the lines of what if this happened. The next person must answer it before asking another 'what if' to keep the game going. Two posts (a question and an answer) didn't make me chuckle or at least think of how stupid the two where. The question was What if the world was one nation? The answer? We'd be in a constant state of civil war.
It makes sense to me. Nobody can agree on anything; we all must compromise. Even then, our compromises cause so many other offenses directly or indirectly. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy offends the gay community because it is implying that the armed forces and even the country they serve don't want to protect homosexuals. Civil Right groups are probably just as upset as you and me that the KKK is still allowed to hold meetings and scout new members. What I write here pisses off a few people because they may read this as angsty writing from someone with the mental age of a teenager.
And to think, somewhere someone is foolishly wanting world peace. There's no way we can get that, and some of us know it. The world will always been at odds with itself. The environmentalists will always be against those that construct and pollute, who in turn will be against those that are pressing against them to stop giving jobs to foreign countries, who in turn are pissed because of the foreign influence coming in and destroying their tradition, which in turn is seen as pagan because it doesn't worship the same god as this religion over here. And so on and so on and so on.
Why can't we just leave people alone? Why do we, as social creatures, insist on making everything my way or the highway? Even when we don't, why do we try to come up with something that fails in the design to please everyone involved in the ordeal?
We offend each other because we can't find that balance. We probably don't even know what it is we need to balance, which may be beyond the obvious.
The only thing positive right now is that peace and compromise of any kind on any level, global or personal, cannot be achieved if with every new developing generation there is a fresh bed made for growing offences. That's why I'm offended when I see protesters taking their children to demonstrations when the child has no idea why their parents are protesting.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Beaten Up and Creatively Spent
The creativity is gone. Here I am trying to come up with three ideas for my next assignment in Time Base Media, and I have nothing but something that will be immediately shot down because it isn't art. Why? Because I would just be copying something I saw in Full Metal Alchemist. I would be drawing a circle with symbols and my own version of the alphabet on the outer rim of the design. And apparently, that isn't art. Ideas like this sometimes make me wonder if Andy Warhol ever went through his kind of critique with himself.
Ironically, this critique never came from myself. It came from other people I posed a similar idea to. Everyone from people I respect to total strangers that think they know something about art call my idea trash. Having to try and defend it is challenging in itself, because no matter what I say to justify it, nobody will buy into it. They will just see it as nothing more but me being stupid and copying someone else's idea.
And because of this, my education has once again taken a back seat on the priority car. I found myself playing games again and wasting time sleeping trying to figure out my own personal path in life, knowing full well that what I want to do is just so far over my head it might as well be in orbit. And with such a broad scope of what I consider to be art without any kind of justification as to why I categorize them as such just makes it even more difficult to win my peers over and give myself some kind of validity.
Sometimes I wonder if I was better off untrained. The people I was around before seemed to appreciate what I was doing. Now the people I'm around tell me how bad something is and then close it all nicely by saying "Thank you for sharing" as if it was the best thing in the world. If this is the world of the artist, then I guess I should learn how to grow some balls and just take it.
But I'm burned out. The more I try to think of something intelligent and artistic, the more I realize that I don't know anything at all. The only things I do know are the things that classified as trivial and useless. And the things that I do as art are seen as naive and blatant copying.
I hate to do this to Terry, because he's seen it and told me about it first hand. I'm starting to feel like the only way I can make what I want is to just do it to spite the teacher. You know, the kind of art program where by this time, the students are so beaten up over the head by technical skills that they break all the rules out of rebellion. They blatantly make blank canvases and call it art citing everyone that came before them to justify it, bullshitting to legitimate themselves. And they get away with it but don't grow as artists because they are denying their education simply because they are just burned out.
But what else can I do? I can't think of any other ideas that would be cheating both the class and myself.
I wish the process for making art was more about "make it now, look for meaning later." I've been taught that is rarely ever going to be the case the world I thought I wanted to go into. Now I wish that I could go back to the days when people saw my cartoons and actually liked them.
Ironically, this critique never came from myself. It came from other people I posed a similar idea to. Everyone from people I respect to total strangers that think they know something about art call my idea trash. Having to try and defend it is challenging in itself, because no matter what I say to justify it, nobody will buy into it. They will just see it as nothing more but me being stupid and copying someone else's idea.
And because of this, my education has once again taken a back seat on the priority car. I found myself playing games again and wasting time sleeping trying to figure out my own personal path in life, knowing full well that what I want to do is just so far over my head it might as well be in orbit. And with such a broad scope of what I consider to be art without any kind of justification as to why I categorize them as such just makes it even more difficult to win my peers over and give myself some kind of validity.
Sometimes I wonder if I was better off untrained. The people I was around before seemed to appreciate what I was doing. Now the people I'm around tell me how bad something is and then close it all nicely by saying "Thank you for sharing" as if it was the best thing in the world. If this is the world of the artist, then I guess I should learn how to grow some balls and just take it.
But I'm burned out. The more I try to think of something intelligent and artistic, the more I realize that I don't know anything at all. The only things I do know are the things that classified as trivial and useless. And the things that I do as art are seen as naive and blatant copying.
I hate to do this to Terry, because he's seen it and told me about it first hand. I'm starting to feel like the only way I can make what I want is to just do it to spite the teacher. You know, the kind of art program where by this time, the students are so beaten up over the head by technical skills that they break all the rules out of rebellion. They blatantly make blank canvases and call it art citing everyone that came before them to justify it, bullshitting to legitimate themselves. And they get away with it but don't grow as artists because they are denying their education simply because they are just burned out.
But what else can I do? I can't think of any other ideas that would be cheating both the class and myself.
I wish the process for making art was more about "make it now, look for meaning later." I've been taught that is rarely ever going to be the case the world I thought I wanted to go into. Now I wish that I could go back to the days when people saw my cartoons and actually liked them.
