What Marx already told us...

Someone, e-mail me the Communist Manifesto quick! I know Marx states in far more sophisiticated terms what I'm about to say. Somehow, he predicted many of the problems of our modern (post-modern?) day. I really must read his book. We'd be two peas in a pod, Marx and I.

According to Marx, alienation is the keyword. My existence resounds with alienation. It's a little scary how much I am a product of my culture. Anyway, there are two aspects of my life that I think I can blame just about everything on, and they are caused by alienation, specifically alienation from society and alienation from the self. In my previous posting, I addressed how I am plagued by alienation from others because I am a selfish, white, high-achieiving, upper-middle class female without an activist bone in my body. Alright. The next type of alienation, alienation from the self, is at the core of why I enjoy thrashing around on this blog all the time. After being a consumer for 21 years, I'm dying to have physical, emotional, and intellectual ownership of something, ANYTHING. Alienation from the self: that's when you feel like a product off the assembly line, as I do. The pressing question is if any of it's reversible. Rousseau, with his whole "back to nature" philosophy, believed that once a man is spoiled by society he's, well, spoiled for good. Please, I'm begging with the heavens, may Rousseau not be right for once!

Habits

I thought I'd drop a quick comment about habits. You know, when I first started this blog, I didn't know what to say. I only knew that I wanted to say something. So, I forced myself to get writing. It was a little uncomfortable at first. Given this, the transformation is amazing. It's been a veritable avalanche of postings, of greater or lesser merit, of course. But the more important point is that now I'm in the habit of writing. Suddenly, every time I get an idea, I want to post it on this blog. Lesson learned: set good habits for yourself and just about everything will follow.

You can't have the thing you want the most....

It's a sorry fact of life, but it seems as if the things we want the most are jinxed. Almost like God wants to teach us not to want any one thing too much. I'm not sure why I should divulge my personal jinx, but, for whatever reason, I want to.

I'll weary everyone if I re-recite my institutionalized background, so I won't. But the truth is that, as a result of it, I have an enduring fascination with creative and rebellious people. A large portion of my conscience believes that only those kinds of people attain an enlightened happiness; only they can transcend the brainwashing forces and ho-hum of everyday life. At the same time, I'm well aware of the many intellectuals and artists who live tragic lives and the many everyday people who are perfectly happy to follow convention. My preocuppation with the rebel as artist is as complicated as romantic infatuation: it's a mix of truth, untruth, rationality, irrationality, good, and bad.

To cope with my infatuation, I put posters of Green Day and Bowie on my walls. I listen to loads of recordings and fantasize about making them. Can you guess what I want to be? A creative musician. (And not some correct, accomplished classical-pianist like I already am. They aren't musicians.) Music is the most instinctive of all the arts. It cummicates the most powerfully and purely to myself and to most people. Creating music like that would be redemptive. It would be my way of knowing that I have good instincts, good ideas, and a good soul, with an instictive message coming from the heart. I already know I can be clever and regurgitate the information they give me in school. But can I say something original? Do I have an original mind?

Daily observation shows me what happens when you don't have an original mind. I won't name names, but I look around at most of the people in my life and think they suffered because they didn't think for themselves and didn't find their voice. To not have a voice or to fail to articulate it is spiritual death to me. I'm deathly afraid of not having anything to say. Of not having talent, ability, soul. What is there to life, then? What motivation to grow up? What is there to look forward to? I have to be in love with life to want to live it. I have to find my voice in music or else life does not seem worth living.

"Pressure cooker pick my brain and tell me I'm insane"....a great Green Day lyric that describes my situation. A kind of stalemate. Why? Because when you want something so bad, to the point that failure would kill you, you never try. Because failure would, well, kill you. As a result, I rarely write songs because I think they're horrible. And then I'm just reminded of my inherent inability, or I become afraid of my inherent inability. When you want something so bad, you'll never get it...you'll strangle it. Take it from me.

Mormonism and Utopia

Mormonism was born in New England America in the early 19th century...right in the heat of the American utopian craze. I think that utopianism had a deep influence on Mormonism, or, at least, the inherent utopianism in Mormonism was compatibile with the trends of the time. One obvious "utopian" concept central to Mormonism is that of Zion. We speak of stakes of Zion. We aspire to make our Mormon communities righteous and prosperous like Zion. Zion: a collection of righteous outposts in a wicked world. The favored slogan "in the world, but not of it," summs it up.

Tangentially, Zion extends to the individual. A prevelent theme in Sunday School lessons is that of "setting the example." In primary, one of the textbook exercises is to give kids slips of paper with scenarios in which they are forced to make a choice and "set the example." In the discussion of missionary work, "setting the example," is one of the stock answers thrown out there as a missionary tool. In our wards, we celebrate the great individuals who "set the example" (the Guy Cutlers and Murray Richardsons, sparker :) ).

I'd like to return to the concept of Zion and the Mormon community. Collectively, Mormons make the world a better place in much the same way individuals are urged to make the world a better place: by the setting the example. Mormons seek to create a utopia in the hope that others will follow. We have big, prosperous families. The ideal Mormon succeeds in work and in life. We have the well-manicured homes on the block. We are happy, industrious, and impressive pioneer stock, building Zions that can glow for the world. Seperate, apart, and beautiful from the ugly wickedness of the world.

....Meanwhile, the world rolls along in its wicked ways and I ask how many people really care about our beautiful, glowing Zions. Does the world need more candles in the dark or helping hands? Do utopian Mormon communities improve the communities they are nestled in? Or are they seperate, apart, (or despised and kicked out, in the case of early Church history?)

A utopian approach to service has more to do with Mormons making life rosy for other Mormons and then feeling spiritual and self-less because of it. Consider the latest "Service Auction" activitiy in Relief Society. Suggested acts of service included making jam, teaching other women to make jam, delivering desserts to someone for three months, and sharing favorite books with someone. Consider the offical Relief Society clubs I read about in the binder passed around today: the Luncheon Club, Mothers in the Park Club, the Quilting and Knitting Club. Sounds kind of like the Ice Cream socials we had in mutual, and the Stake Play, where moms busteled around to outfit the Mormon youth in sparkly costumes so they can sing and dance for each other. I'm not saying this stuff is bad, but it isn't the most important service. This is fun, social stuff. Meanwhile, why aren't we donating blood? Helping out at the soup kitchen? Helping poor Spanish kids with their homework? Why are we so darned isolated and trivial? We have a Bishop's Storehouse...why aren't more of us volunteering at it? But no. We'd rather create a perfect community that get our hands dirty with service that really matters.

Someone could very well ask me why I feel so strongly about this when I do so little service myself. Who am I to criticize when my own life has been so self-absorbed? I live, eat, and breath school. I am quite possibly one of the most selfish young women you will meet. Smart and accomplished, but selfish. Just like all the other successful, white, upper-class American youth who attend top-10 universities. The world belongs to US. It's about US!!

I'm sensitive to this issue of service because I desperately need a Church that will bring me out of my selfishness. Not to cook jam for other sisters. Not to visit teach. Not to be a glowing, righteous, successful example. Not to save my individual soul. Not to raise perfect children. I want a religion that will open my eyes to classism and racism, the real ills that plaugue society. Mormonism, with it's value of individual perfection and utopianism, has only fed my need to get perfect grades, to have a perfect image, to be the perfect example. It didn't enable me see the importance of things beyond my own damned success. In contrast to perfection, I think religion has a lot more to do with dealing with complexity and imperfection: extending help to the imperfect "other," the outsiders and downcast in the word, where things aren't as pretty.

Religion and social justice should dovetail

I have been to church every Sunday since I was an infant and have only heard the poor mentioned in connection with an annual Christmas stocking charity program and the Bishop's storehouse program. But the stocking program is just a once a year thing, and I've only been to the Bishop's storehouse once. Meanwhile, I got my Laurel project doing three things: making a blanket for my brother, reading the Book of Mormon, and making the annual Father's Day booklet. Those are NICE things, but when people are going hungry in my own community, I think I've missed out on far more important ways to serve.

Look, I'm sure poverty has come up...but the fact that I don't remember when it last came up says something. I think it also says something that only fast offering money (the tiny amount on the donation slip relative to tithing) is used for humanitarian aid and Bishop storehouse stuff. Helping the poor--unless they're our own, Mormon poor--is not on the church's agenda.

They say the church helps out quietly in other ways. I'd like to know in what ways. And we shouldn't do it so quietly. Maybe we'd have a higher profile as a church and our congregation, at least in my area, wouldn't be so, well, white.

So where does the Church spend it's tithing money? I've been paying tithing all my life and all I know is that it builds temples. Great. Temples are important. But I remember a non-member friend describing the Oakland temple as grand and imposing. Does the Lord deserve the best? Yes. But I think His definition of best expands to include the poor. Frankly, I'd rather have my 10% go to the fast offering category. Jesus said the poor will always be with us. Let's care for them first.

Well, people need to get their ordinances done. But what about this life? I just read about an earquake in Indonesia that killed thousands. And then I got an e-mail from the Red Cross. They need more money because of hurricane season is fast approaching. I don't understand why the Lord would want us to spend all our 10% on temples, meetinghouses, and manuals. (The Church publishes lots and lots of manuals!) Food and medical treatment are more pressing needs. I desperately wish I could donate more to organizations that I think are more closely fufilling Jesus's command that we care for the poor.

Meanwhile...I'm going to Church tomorrow. Plenty of SUVs will be parked in the lot. (That is NOT to say that everyone in our ward is doing well.) But we are a long ways off from poverty. In fact, as a Church, I think we're quite wealthy. Meanwhile, the directive inside Church is to choose the right, to keep the commandments. The emphasis is on individual accountability and purity. Look, purity's great. But the exclusive focus on it along with the repeated prayers of thanks for our many blessings can sound a little hollow and, dare I say selfish? when there is so much poverty in the world. Basically, I go to church to scrutinize my conscience. But church doesn't bring me any closer to helping people in material need. Heck, if I were chaste and pretty with a Mormon missionary on my arm and a temple marriage on the calendar, I'd have my golden ticket to heaven as far as appearances are concerned. But virtue's a luxury when you're starving.

The kinder lower-middle class

In one day, I managed to visit all the tire companies in my area. I finally found one shop--Pep Boys--who were able to unlock the lock on my tires and replace them. Anyway, I talked with more mechanics today than I probably will for the rest of my lifetime. They all had one thing in common: a casual, down-to-earth approach.

In general, I try to avoid making generalizations about the races and classes. In fact, I feel uncomfortable even speaking of races and classes, but lets face it: America is classist and racist. I saw it in the tire companies today. The mechanics tended to be hispanic and black. I'm sure they don't make a lot of money. In the auto industry, race and class dovetail. (And what race do you think their supervisor often was? White!)

Maybe I was just getting fleeced :) (It's easy/tempting to take advantage of a girl in an auto shop, right? Oh no! Now I'm making gender generalizations. Well, let's face it once again: girls on average know less about cars than guys.) Fleeced or not, (I happen to think I got a fair deal), I was charmed by the easy-going, friendly nature of many of the mechanics I encountered. In comparison to the type-A people in my Berkeley school environment, these mechanics had a sense of humor and took the time to be friendly.

That is not to say that these guys aren't working their buts off! But, here's the difference. The (mostly) white and Asian, upper-class kids at my school are on the make. We have been raised to believe that, with hard work, the world can be ours. We are there to be successful, to accumlate status, to get good degrees that lead to good jobs. Sounds smart and practical, right? The fatal flaw here is identification with work. Our self-esteem gets so wrapped up in what we're doing. We have such high expectations for our careers. We expect personal fulfillment and great compensation. Our high expectations keep us willingly going at 150 mph.

I think the guys in the auto shop are better able to putting work in its place. They don't expect so much from their job. It's tedious, pays comparitively low, and that's that. Anyway, they don't expect work to bring them everything worth having. There's a sense of seperation from the job. (They can't identify themselves completely with their job, right? They'd be depressed!) So they take the time to be friendly, to have a sense of humor, to have a little personality.

Can Consumers be trusted with culture?

This is a nice follow up to my last posting. If consumers are more interested in identity shopping than the music, can they be trusted with "culture"?

Actually, I'm writing this out of deep regret for something that happened in my community. Cody's Bookstore, a Berkeley landmark, has just gone out of business. I loved Codys. It was the best place to find a good book. With its passing, I know the intellectual vibrancy of Berkeley--and Telegraph Ave. in particular--will suffer.

Many sources have been blamed for Cody's closure. One, of course, is the internet. With so many cheap and shipable books available on places like Amazon, students are buying less books from the local shops. In addition, students browse a lot, but they don't buy. Basically, kids aren't reading books for fun these days. We get our textbooks and that's that. Not that I blame us. We are so overworked with text-books assignements. I have so little time for anything outside of school :(

So if people aren't buying books, what are they doing? I'm willing to give Berkeley students the benefit of the doubt. But what about the millions of folks who voted on the last episode of American Idol? Do consumers put their money in the right place? Can we trust the market to support the best art? To preserve and create new, exciting art forms? NOT like reality TV?

From where this is heading, I'm sure you're expecting me to say: NO. But of course, it's more complicated than that. My neo-liberal economic leadings have led me to protest the protection/subsidizing of dying industries. Out with the old, and on with the new, has always been my motto. And of course, I'm fed up with my professors at school, who seem more interested in the museumification of music than the creation of fresh, vibrant sounds.

Plus, there is some great music that has done well commercially, against great odds. Take the sounds of Jamaica. That little island had everything stacked against it. And yet, some of the greatest sounds of the last century came from there, including ska, rock steadky, reggea, dancehall, and dub. Reggea has done especially well commercially. The success of Jamaican music is heart warming. It makes you believe that the best does rise to the top. In addition to economic troubles, the Jamaican people made music in opposition to the neo-colonial policies of their political leaders. Basically, lots of upper class Jamaicans and politicians like Manley and Seaga wanted the international community to associate Jamaica with high class art like European classical music. Too often, the "preservation" of art has conservative political undertones. And it causes people to overlook the great sounds that are defining the values of the here and now.

A great example of this is my relationship to hip-hop. I never listened to hip-hop until now because I thought it was dirty and low class. Without melody and harmony, I thought hip-hop was unsophisticated. Well, that's just because I wasn't exposed to it. I've listened to it a lot more now and I have a much greater appreciation for the sophisticated verbal and rhythmic skills of the rappers. I think they're great musicians. But my loyalty to "fine" music--especially classical music--growing up, enabled me to dismiss these new sounds as inferior.

So, I guess I don't have answers. My point is that consumers have supported good music. Values change. Times change. Music must change with the sounds. That is not to say that traditional music is bad music, but it's preservation should never inhibit the creation of new sounds. Meanwhile, I can't deny the beauty of classical music and "classic" art. I've proved my dedication by buying a mammoth "History of Painting" book. I guess I just don't know how to deal with those fine arts...most of us don't like them. So what do you do? Preserve them? As long as you can preserve them without stifling new sounds....

Identity Shopping

Go ahead, open up the latest issue of Rolling Stone, (or even Mojo or Uncut), and you'll SEE a lot more of the artists then you'll read about their sounds. Basically, it proves the old adage that "image is everything." Even the ghetto rappers look airbrushed on the glossy pages.

I think this profoundly affects why people listen to music and how the music sounds. Fashions and attitudes--certain looks--have ossified around the sounds to the point that a visual charicature exists for every genre. We know what a grunge artist looks like, right? Boots and flannel, long shaggy hair, and a stoned expression . What about a punk artist? Piercings, studded belts, and bondage pants go a long way, and a scowl. Emo kids just need a pair of converse, a vintage T shirt, a pale complexion, and an oddly vulnerable/narcissitic pout to play the part. Reading a magazine like Rolling Stone is about finding the fashions and attitudes that strike your fancy so that you can copy the masters: identity shopping, if you will. This is reinforced by the placement of music reviews AT THE BACK of the issue!

Of course, identity shopping has infiltrated the creative process, too. As an aspiring song writer, I've often wondered, on conscious and subconscious level, what my shtick is. Am I the contemplative singer-song writer prophet from the 70s? Am a punk rock chick, a Chrissie Hynde wannabe? Am I one of those sleek and fashionable art school grads turned musician? There's a lot of pressure, one way or the other, to make my sounds conform to the dominant imagery.

Anyone who knows anything about me knows that I can integrate David Bowie into every conversation. I'll bring him up again in this case. Obviously, he's a model for all of us, being non-conformist and all of that. I know so little about him, but I do know that he's always been interested in art. I think that served him well. If you can visually create a new world, it can help to liberate the sounds. Seeing is believing, as they say. If you can see other places and aesthetics, it can help you believe in something different, and therefore create fresh, rebellious sounds.

Please leave comments!

I just installed a cite counter on my blog and checked the stats. Someone from Europe just checked my blog. Way cool! You know who you are. If you have something thoughtful to say, why, please drop me a comment and I will happily read your blog, too :)

Humor and intelligence

The most intelligent people laugh at life. They are intelligent enough to perceive the underlying absurdity of existence and, at the same time, the mystery and joy inherent in it. This is manifest in how they criticize (make fun of) life through pleasure (laughing at it). Intelligent people are not threatened by the world around them. They understand it. Understanding gives them the power to be spontaneous. In contrast, somber people are dull people. They lack the wit to perceive the irony in situations and the confidence to speak up and make fools of themselves. Somber people are proud people. They would never deign to make you laugh for fear of becoming, well, laughable.

So, so slow to change...

Consistency: I've lived my entire life putting consistency on a pedestal. Somehow, I thought that consistency and genuineness meant the same thing. Allow me to explain.

I have an eye for "posers." For better or for worse, I'm the little kid pointing at the emperor without clothes. The problem is that I hold myself to the same, sever standards. So what happens when I feel myself changing inside? When I decide that I prefer guitar to piano? Rock & Roll to Chopin? It takes me a LONG time to change because I'm cynical about myself. (This is the worst kind of cynicism!) suspicious of myself, I assume the worst, that I just want to be more "cool" or something. Just another poser.

My hero David Bowie could never have gone from mod singer to hippie to ziggy to blue-eyed soul man to thin white duke to golden boy to earthling creature if he had held himself up to the same strictures. The key is not to define who you are in terms of looks, hobbies, friends, etc. The key is to decide what it is that is most essential about you, if in fact you attempt to define yourself at all. A definition like "creative" or "compassionate" is nice, right? There are many ways to embody these things. And then you can feel free to mutate as many times as you want without betraying yourself, so to speak.

What is love?

Umm, it's a darn good thing that nobody reads this blog because this is getting kind of personal :) However, what I am about to say must be written.

Love is multi-faceted. I'm interested in discussing a facet that is largely overlooked: the selfishness of "love."

Please! I'm not hopelessly cynical! I don't enjoy reducing everything to the self, although I think that many things can be. This comes right out of my own experience...

So there's this guy...that's how every love story begins, and, in my case, ENDS. Well, when he sort of dumped me I felt awful. I almost didn't eat for a week and cried all night, just like in the movies. I thought, for a brief spell, that it was because I missed him. Then, I realized it all had much more to do with me missing who I am when I'm with him.

You see, love deifies women. It's the one moment when we feel like goddesses. (That sort of doesn't last into marriage, but, hey, at least we get it when we date.) Dating is all about men enjoying the challenge and the pursuit and women enjoying being in a position of power: the power to refuse. Plus, this guy I liked was really smart and I felt smarter being around him. I flat out LIKED the Kristin associated with this guy. So was it love, or self-love that made me want the relationship? Or some conflation of the two? To what extent is love really about loving someone else?

The visibility of poverty: buying lunch

Today I bought a mental homeless man lunch. I'll admit that I resited it. I was finishing up my burrito outside the student cafe, in a hurry for my next class. But he caught my eye. He was wandering from table to table, asking for someone to buy him food. Should he have been there? Probably not. Is it good for business to have him soliciting the place? Probably not. But it doesn't really matter. Buying him lunch had more to do with me not wanting to brush the ugliness of poverty under the rug. I just had to face it, do my part to help a hungry person. He didn't even say thanks. He just darted away with his food after asking me for more money. I didn't mind. After a delicious lunch and sunny break, I felt relieved to do something for someone without my good fortune.

I'm glad he was wandering around. I see lots of other folks like him, digging through garbage cans, etc. on Sproul. It doesn't beautify campus, but, if anything, it reminds all of us students like me with our minds in the clouds--homework, friends, boyfriends, career, homework, friends, boyfriends, career, new clothes? homework, friends, boyfriends, career, am I skinny enough?! etc.--basically, we need to see that life isn't so pretty for some people before we commit to our little rat race tracks.

Age discrimination

I strangely enjoyed bouncing down the steps to the subway trains this afternoon. I felt so young and healthy. It felt good to trot and hop along. Simple pleasures, eh? It made me think about older people, though. My grandpa would break his neck doing what I did; my Grandma would roll out of her wheelchair and that would be the end of it if she even ATTEMPTED to descend below ground. No subway rides for the old folks.

Say, where are the old folks? I don't see them in my community, but they must be there. All the young people of yesterday...where are they today? Poof? Do you just disappear once you reach a certain age? Apparently. Or, more transparently, you end up in a rest home where no one wants to see you because it's so depressing. So that's what happens when you get old. The public space no longer belongs to you. Your wisdom is left to rot with you in your wheelchair. And people wonder why history repeats itself...

The arts as tools

I guess it shows just how pedantic I am, that I would enjoy defining what must already be so obvious: I enjoy writing as a tool for problem solving. If I write something, somehow I explore, exhaust, and conclude it...Unless, of course, my writing helps me discover something new, in which case I have to repeat the process. Well, I guess what fascinates me is how different arts serve different purposes for me. So writing is my problem-solving tool. But music exists on an entirely different plane. Music is how I tap into my subconscious mind and my spirituality. (Are those two the same thing? I'm not sure.) Proust referred to music as the purist, highest form of art. For me personally, that is true. Music is a spiritual experience. Better than church. (I was just listening to Naughty by Nature's O.P.P. Not know what the lyrics meant ;) I had that good ol' holiness feeling.) My response to the visual arts is different. Art--painting and sculpture--expands my imagination so that I can think of new people and environments. Art exists somewhere between writing and music on the intellectual/spiritual dichotomy...If in fact the two are so diametrically opposed. (I'm not sure that they are.) Once again, I'm right in line with Proust, haha. He did believed in the intellectual/spiritual dichotomy and ranked the arts in terms of spirituality (from lowest to highest): writing, art, music.

What it means to live a good life

I've been coming back to this question time and time again. What does it mean to live a good life? My religion tells me one thing. Society at large tells me another. I despise the selfish underpinning of the first, (save your own soul!), and the materialism of the second. The answer doesn't even lie between the two. And, I think it's beautifully simple and accommodating: make the world a better place. I believe we each possess a conscience that can help us find our unique niche in this collective mission. Of course, it means different things to everyone and involves service on different scales. There is no one way to go about it, but the end is always the same. Raising a good family, being creative, doing a good turn. If we collectively focused on improving the world for all, (not just improving our own lot in life), then I'm sure the world would be better. So life would be better here and no doubt pleasing to the higher powers that be. A nice reconciliation between the demands of the here and now and the hereafter. This is just another way of saying what Aristotle put more eloquently: "Where your talents and the needs of the world cross, there lies your vocation."

Peter Pan...Forever.

This is a posting I will have to return to and edit multiple times. It's one of those enduring questions for young people. "When," we desperately ask, "are we done growing? When they finally tell us we can smoke? drink? vote?"

Sadly, being an adult is over-rated. In my childhood fantasies I thought that adult responsibilities = freedom. But no. Off to work, 8-5, you go. Meanwhile, most people grow up only to grow old. The rampant patriarchy in our culture is partly responsible for the 50% divorce rate...Basically, happy marriages are few and far between. Kids are cute but, my oh my, are they are to raise. So...a call to all adults out there: where's the incentive to join the ranks?

I don't have any answers at this point. I just want to make the following statement: in America, social chores are disguised as individual fulfillment. Society want us newbies to lust after a fat life in suburbia, pumping our money and kids into a corrupt system that we THINK is inevitable, even good for us. If growing up means working 8-5 and sending my kids to school so that they can someday work 8-5, I'm checking out. I'll teach piano and drop off the social radar. Peter Pan...Forever.

The importance of dancing

From the tone of my writing you can probably already tell that I'm a closet dancer: one of those hopeless crackers who hears and feels the beat without my feet. I'm not proud of it. I desperately wish I knew how to dance when the music comes on. I'm blaming my race, my whtie culture. It's just like how it is for the kids from Hong Kong in my summer school class--they have all the intelligence in the world, but, without fluency in English, they have a hard time expressing themselves. In the same way, I lack a "physical vocabulary," in part because I NEVER saw my parents dance. Heck, I tried to get my Dad to dance with me at a church social and he felt awkward. Parkers clap their hands politely or tap their foot daintily when the beat is right. My parents no doubt learned that from their parents who learned it from their parents. We're all missing out. In the Caribbean, people start dancing to music from day one. They have more fun and are better musicians because of it.

Puttering about...

This posting will be of no use to anyone else, but I just have to make a statement so that I can feel like I learned a lesson. I just spent 1 1/2 hours trying to get my scanner working, just so that I could upload my stupid picture to this blog. There's nothing I hate more than puttering about on useless tasks and errands. One could spend all day fixing things. I have a resolution to just go without next time. Maybe things will sloppier or imperfect, but that's better than wasting a person's most valuable recourse: time.

I'm a rabbit (Chinese zodiac) for my "inner self" and that means I'm obsessed with details. I have to work really hard to move past any bumps along the way. This might be a good time for me to make a plug for the Chinese Zodiac. Remember you have an animal for your public, inner, and secret self. It's fascinating--and really scary--how accurate the zodiac is, (for me, anyway). Trust me, I always thought this was a bunch of hocus pocus, but I'll think twice now before disrespecting the zodiac!

The Anti-Authority Authority paradox

One of the most amusing things about an artist is how they pose for photographs. Do they smile? Scowl? Are they carefully posed or caught in the act? Have they given special care to their outfit? Hairdo? What about body language?

Photographs are necessariliy revealing because they involve presentation. In our image-conscious culture, how--and, more importantly, why--a person chooses to present themselves is crucial. The real question is whether or not presentation is the end or a means to an end.

You can probably already tell where this is heading. I despise the steely scowls, thuggish posturing, and glittering female bodies that fill up most music magazines; a divide between the artist and audience is created that defies the purpose of art. The signal sent from the artist to the reader is: "You're lucky to know me; I'm too cool to know you."

Although these "artists" supposedly lead anti-authority oriented lives, they set themselves up as authoriites on how to buck the system, on how to be "cool." But I think that goes against the spirit of art. Art is not about knowing anyhing, least of all about coercing others. Art is about searching. The best art is born out of experimentation and uncertainty. An authoritiative posturing can only deaden the vitality of art.

What is the purpose of art?

It's unbelievable how much time I spend thinking about the purpose of art. I've always wanted to be creative, but something holds me back. I've always felt like I had more to think through before I seriously tried my hand at anything. Up until now, I thought it was just self-consciousness or something. Well, there probably is some of that. But I think it has more to do with my concern for the purpose of art and my desire to produce art that sends the right message, or has the right values. "Right," of course, is totally subjective. Is art supposed to be smart? Political? Pleasurable? High culture? Low culture? Informative? Emotional? Is art about the creator or the audience? What purpose does art serve in our society today, a society that seems so disinterested in art? Finally, a connection with my hero David Bowie. He was fascinated by this issue, and I think his investigation into it resulted in his mercurial career.

The historical context of modern art

If modern art were limited to Damien Hirsch's formaldehyde experiments, I wouldn't even bother posting this. It turns out that modern art is much more diverse, politicized, and philosophical than I thought. I used to think modern art meant stripes on a canvas--or, better yet--an all black canvas, as I've seen at the Berkeley Art Museum. I'm still learning the lingo, but I think the correct label for that art is actually "post-modern."

Modern art refers to art from the 1860's-1970s, approximately. The ideology behind it stems from two important intellectual movements: the Enlightenment and the Quarelle of the Ancients and Moderns. Both are associated with the 18th century. The Enlightenment most famously maintains that "man is the measure of all things," the primacy of reason, etc. The Quarelle of the Ancients and Moderns is quarrel between two Enlightenment camps: the Ancients idealized classical civilization and envisioned a return to the politics and arts of the past. The Moderns, in contrast, wanted a radical break with the past...but where to? The unknown destination of modernism is partly responsible for the diversity of styles and subjects within modern art. But what characterizes "modern" art is a belief in reason and the ability of people to make a new, better world. It's very intellectual and optimistic. On the other hand, modern art can be interpreted as being pessimistic because it does value confrontation. Modernist thought favors controversy and ugliness over traditional ideas of harmony and beauty, with the idea being the progress comes through breaking with the ideals of the past and addressing the ugly realities of the present. Two paintings summarize the difference between the "Ancients" and the "Moderns" in this famous quarrel:
Jaque-Louis David's "Oath of the Horatii" 1785 and Delacroix's "Massacre at Chois" 1824. Notice how symmetrical and academic the first one is. The second is more tumultuous, violent, chaotic, dirty--more ugly and "real."

I'll have to finish this posting later, but, basically, Modern art has its roots in the "progressive" and controversial art of the 19th century.

Answers? Anyone?

I guess I'm putting this online--instead of locking it up in my journal--with the hopes that someone will have ideas to help me out. I'm sure a lot of other people have given thought to the same issues that preoccupy me. Please, please, e-mail me.

I'm interested in identifying the forces--exterior and internal--that make me who I am. I guess no one can help me out with that internal part, but we've ALL been shaped by external forces. The question here is first what those forces are and second, if those forces influence us for the better. Does culture bring out the best or worst in a person?

The second question is how much control do we have over the forces that impact us? Are our actions driven from the outside or inside?

The third question is: what makes a person happy? The western assumption is that independence and agency bring happiness. But considering the realities of modern life--the multiple groups we belong to by necessity--does happiness come from articulating an individual, distinct philosophy, or from reconciling oneself with society?

Is truth depressing or liberating?

I was just thinking about those scales of observation. I realized that the one thing that allows me to be happy with my religion is the idea that I can live with mutliple scales of observation at once. If I was always conscious of my religious beliefs--thus always conscious of "truth"--I would never have any fun. I wouldn't take any time for anything but missionary work and public service. I would always be afraid of sinning. The idea that this life matters too--even if this perspective is an inferior "scale of observation"--makes me happier. As obsessed as I thought I was about finding the true "scale of perspective" I guess I'd rather juggle scales of perspective. The remaining question is if my religious one is the "true" one. Do I need to modify it? Does there exist a true scale of observation is that is both true and empowering?

It is the scale of observation which creates the phenomenon

"In other words, one can say that from the standpoint of man it is the scale of observation which creates the phenomenon. Every time we change the scale of observation we encounter new phenomena."

This fascinating quotation comes from Lecomte du Nouy's "Human Destiny." It can be used to elucidate the concept of relativism; however, it puts a more optimistic spin on relativism than is typical.

Relativism maintains that there is no absolute truth. Every culture has its own agreed upon codes of morality. This is because there is no absolute truth: only cultural mores. Durkheim used several models to explain this phenomenon. One is the idea that if you look at a portrait in newspaper print, you see a portrait--at a normal scale of observation. If, however, you examine the print with a microscope, you will see black, white, and grey dots. At that scale of observation, there is no portarit. The existence of the portrait is depedent on one's scale of observation.

Here's another useful quote:
"On our scale of human observation, as pointed out before, the edge of a razor blade is a continuous line. On the microscopic scale, it is a broken but solid line. On the chemical scale we have atoms of iron and carbon. On the sub-atomic scale we have electrons in perpetual motion which travel at the rate of several thousand miles per second. All these phenomena are in reality the manifestations of the same basic phenomenon, the motions of the electrons. The only difference which exists between them is the scale of observation."

I like this analogy because it shows how, ultimately, there is a "true" scale of observation: the motion of electrons. (Wait a minute, isn't there Heidegger's Principle, which states that we can't pinpoint the location of electrons? I guess that would mess up my theory. I'll do a little more research.) Well, assuming that the motion of electrons is constant, the idea of stripping away incomplete scales of observation to finally arrive at the right one is interesting.

Every group has a culture

I mentioned those sociology lectures in my last posting. The most useful point learned so far has to do with every group having their own culture. (Groups, by the way, can include as few as two people or as many as a nation of people). I'm not sure why this never occurred to me before, but this concept came as a great relief to me because my American, Silicon Valley, and Mormon culture does not make me very happy. I probably wouldn't be happy in any dominant culture since I'm so sensitive to control. That said, I wonder if would feel more at home somewhere else. It's nice to know that there isn't just one way of doing things. So if you don't quite feel at home somewhere, it may not be your fault. It doesn't make you inhuman. When you think of the myriads of civilizations across time that have existed, it's fascinating to think of how different life has been for different people. And yet we're all, of course, people.

Perspective

Big thoughts are more useful than little ones. I took a class once on World War 1 and we spent most of the time hashing the minute diplomatic and miltaristic details. It was handicapping. I don't remember a thing. Perspective was lacking. Perspective must precede the little thoughts!

I just listened to an introductory lecture on sociology. http://www.trentu.ca/trentradio/tklassen/, for those interested. I loved how this professor began by addressing sociology in the broadest, most common terms possible. He gave me an immediate point of entry into the subject and already has made me see the world a little differently.

I can project this perspective idea onto a larger model for living life. If one went through everyday with a large scale perspective, think of how one might live. I wouldn't putz about the house or say "yes" to so many favors. I would watch my time the way I watch my money (closely, jealously!) I would take more walks. I would prioritize happiness above achievement. I would be less afraid. I would come closer to appreciating my life for the brief gift that it is.

Intellectual justification for EVERYTHING

People cling to logical explanations when they least trust their emotions. I've observed this on a large and personal scale.

I realize I'm about to make a sweeping generalization...but take Modern and Post-modern art. Modernism, for example, emerged at the turn of the 20th century, when society, (European society, at least), felt profound unease about the future. The Romantic era's celebration of unbridled passion had not only come to an end, but was put into question. The buzzword here is "decadence." In response to this, art became increasingly intellectualized. The atonalisim, serialism, and complex textures of the music associated with the Second Viennese School excellently represents this. This music valued the intellectual genius of the composer. I would argue that emotion comes second here, mainly because these pieces fail to make an emotional impact until they're studied....and studied very, very closely. Scrutiny reveals the ingenious construction and relationships inherent in the piece, but none of this is easily heard. This is stuff made by academics, for academics. Post-modern art is marked by a distancing of the individual personality from the music. Consider John Cage's chance operations, fascination with environmental noises, and preoccupation with the unintentional. Cage's music seemed to give him freedom, (freedom? to hear his pusle? the sound of clashing pots and pans? noisy body parts?). Well, I hear alienation in it instead. Cage sounds alienated from his music, while the music sounds alienated from other people. (Honestly, you have to be "initiated" to enjoy that stuff!)

I think it's significant that composition took a turn for the intellectual just when society most questioned it's values. (Turn of the 20th cent. and after the World Wars). I'm a professional student, and I've certainly never looked at things this way before, but....intellectualism is a crutch when it becomes the end and not the means to an end. You turn to the intellect for the last word when you can't trust your conscience/gut.

Alright, for any of you die hards who have read my other postings...you already know by now that I have a bittersweet relationship with my faith. Based on my "Mormon Checkmate" theory, it now makes perfect sense why, last summer, I used to go to the library and check out truck loads of books. I read to save my soul! I woke up sometimes at 4:00 AM just so I could read more.

I was searching for intellectual justification for my ideas. I wanted to recognize Rousseau's philosophy in my lyrics, etc. I needed to read it from someone else first before I felt comfortable thinking it myself. I only felt comfortable being "original" if that originality was somehow linked to bonafide great ideas. I think that's because I've been so afraid of thinking something wrong, going off the deep end. Remember, in Mormonism you're taught that there's a Devil out to get you and a narrow path back to God. Even though my theory doesn't perfectly make sense, (why didn't I stop to consider that the Devil might be in Rousseau?), the idea of not being able to trust my heart holds up. Sponteneity and real originality felt dangerous and I turned to the intellect to give me confidence in my ideas.

You know, Christianity can be hard on people. The idea of having one life that can make or break your afterlife is rough! The idea that Satan is a spirit and can lead you astray is terrifying on a subliminal level throughout daily life. It makes you feel afraid of yourself. The idea of having a conscience that can be stolen from you or infiltrated, leading you down. Perhaps that's why the Catholic Church has such a rich, scholarly tradition. St. Anselm must have felt such sweet relief when he proved God's existence on paper. Then he didn't have to consult his feelings at all. He could cling to the blessed facts.

Art and values

I think art is about values. It's kind of bizarre how sounds and images can make spiritual and ethical statements, but, somehow, they do. If art fails to do this, it comes off as nothing more than sounds and images.

I guess I'm in-line with 19th century Romanticism in viewing art as a spiritual calling. I think anyone can be an artist potentially, but art involves a lot of soul searching that most people are too impatient for. It isn't lucrative or glamorous. Often--but not necessarily--it involves espousing unpopular values.

It is the artist's calling, I think, to create art that offers an alternative world view based on better values and higher ideals than those of the surrounding society. At the same time, it's important that this not be done in the spirit of elitism, but in the spirit of making the world a better, happier place.

I think that's why I feel so at odds with my religion. It doesn't encourage me to ask questions or construct my own values system. It can be punishing, making one feel like they're getting off track and waisting time when they think independently. Part of this comes from the fear of damnation. The other part of it comes from the pragmatic, pioneer spirit of the Church. The Church was built by no-nonsense, hard-boiled American poineers. Emotions and art...that's just for softies.

When art hits you in the gut

If there's anything I've learned from this semester in school, it's that there are three kinds of art: art that's intellectually clever/adventuresome/innovative, art that's driven by emotion and spirituality, and art that brilliantly combines the two. The whole divide between the intellect and emotion is a real one. Art that exists solely for intellectual display (I put a lot of 20th century composition in this category!) comes off as distant and cerebral. It soudns inhuman. And guess what. From what I've read about post-modern composers, that was the whole point of their art! To distance it from their personalities and emotions. Take John Cage's I-Ching chance operation stuff. In Un Ballo Maschura, Verdi would never have left the melody of Riccardo's cabeletta up to chance operations. Verdi's music--and Italian opera in general--can sound almost drunken with emotion. It's so passionate. That isn't to say that it's unintelligent, but emotional expression is the priority. I think Chopin brilliantly combines the two worlds. He admired Bellini and Italian Opera and his melodies are inspired by that tradition. However, he unites this with intellectually rigorous counterpoint, or, more often, implied counterpoint. The texture of his music is super sophisiticated, while the melodies are always singing and cantabile, expressive and accessible. And that's when art hits you in the gut. It celebrates both the intellect and emotion.

Mormonism and Creativity

A quick glance at a Mormon church building tells you a lot about the faith itself. Mormon properties are always beautifully well maintained and furnished. Simple, clean, and elegant. Just like the beauitful people attending the Church. The virtue is in the polished efficiency of it all...of life as a Mormon. The ideal Mormon life is as perfect and uncomplicated as the visage of a polished white Mormon temple. It's kind of like when they told me at Young Womens to say "I'm doing great!" when asked.

Sometimes, I write poetry that's very vulnerable and, well, complicated. I feel like the world is imperfect. If I pretend like it's perfect, I feel like I'm in spacey denial.

I guess the Church is right on one point: the surest way to have a perfect life is to, well, believe everything's perfect. But that's too simpleminded. It goes against my conscience. Above all, I can never be an artist with that mentality, because art is about emotional depth. People who go through life with the intent of making it as pretty as possible--a fashion show of virtue--stay on the surface of things.

The Mormon Checkmate

This posting definitely applies to Mormonism and I think it applies to other faiths, too. It helps to explain the profound unease religion makes me feel at times. On the one hand, my faith tells me that I'm in control: I have the capacity (intellectual, spiritual) to make choices from day to day...choices that will effect my eternal progression. On the other hand, the Mormon faith tells me that if I arrive at any conclusion different from the Church's on points of importance, then it's because I've been tempted or led astray. So they have me in checkmate. They say one thing that sounds democratic, but ultimately police my activity by making me feel afraid of my own convictions.

Mormonism maintains that you make righteous choices when you have the "spirit," or the companionship of the Holy Ghost. Then they tell you that there's only one way to have the companionship: by being loyal to the Church and its teaching. Basically, what they're saying is that you only have control and presence of mind--the power to make the right choice--when you submit yourself to the control of the Church. You don't have the power to make the right choice independent of the institution.

You can do ANYTHING

Wow, I feel like I have to put something positive down here or else no one will want to come back to my blog. That was such an angry posting about Mormonism and women, but, of course, it was all true.

Religion comes and goes as a positive influence on my life, but certainly miracles never cease. There are lots of small miracles in life that go quite unnoticed. Surviving the daily grind, getting through school being one of them. Today, I just survived the most hellacious schedule. I had a final from 8-11 AM and studied (crammed) for my next final from 5-8 PM. Factor in a 1 1/2 hour commute and you can see it was a very busy day.

What astonishes me is...how well I did. I mean, I was practically suicidal last night, and tonight I feel great. I wrote 7 essays for one test (for three hours straight) and several other essays for the other test for the same amount of time. And the facts and phrases kept rolling, they were great essays. It seemed like I wasn't even thinking. It was weird. I've had this same identical experience of success under stress when it comes to piano recitals. I never thought I could get up and play by memory, but, in general, it worked out.

The more important point, though, is that lots of other people play instruments, write essays in school, etc. I'm amazed at what young people accomplish. And I'm sure lots of people felt like I did...like they couldn't do it. I mean, if you gave me the choice, I would never have even tried those essays. They would have taken me weeks to write as homework assignements. But put a gun to my head, set the clock ticking, label it "Final Exam," and, somehow, it pops out.

It's a miracle what can be accomplished when one quiets all the noisy, fearful voices in the head, and focuses instead. What can't be done with pure focus? Tell me! If I can survive these tests--the most paranoid, insecure, obsessive compuslive student there is--than seriously, anyone can do anything.

Women in Mormonism: Deification and Entrapment

Today is Mother's Day. This is an important day for the Mormon church, for better and for worse. Admirably, in Mormonism, families are sacred. Motherhood is sacred. The Church is right on that last point. That said, my beef with the Church is that Mormonism deifies women to the point that if they choose careers over kids, (or some complicated combination of the two), their motherhood--and thus womanhood--is defiled. This happens because, in the Church, motherhood and womenhood are intimately entwined. Meanwhile, there exists a tacit understanding that good mothers express their devotion by foregoing the world and staying at home with their kids. Nowadays, this isn't said explicitly, but it exists as a tacit understanding. It's a pressure I've felt ever since we analyzed the "Proclamation to the Family" in Young Womens, dwelling especially on paragraphs explicitly affirming the woman's sacred, divine-appointed role as mother. Well, what faithful woman in her right mind is going to read that and think that the juggling of a career and kids will be as impressive to Heavenly Father as a single-minded devotion to parenthood? Trust me. If you go to Young Womens' year after year and hear that lesson enough, you think twice--or long and hard--before you feel comfortable with putting a career on par with kids. Or choosing not to have kids.

Well, I suppose that the emphasis on mom as a stay at home mom isn't so bad considering that kids do need to be raised. However, the dominant imagery of the woman as supermom devoted entirely--I mean entirely (physically, emotionally, mentally)--to her children is simply imbalanced. No one can be happy when they are ENTIRELY devoted to anything, be it school, work, play. This devotion was summarized in a line I heard today in church, where a woman praised her mom because she knew her mother's single joy in life was parenthood. The brethren just make things worse when they flatter women into the role by praising their virtue: "Women are so good, they're better than us. Those sisters. They're so great. They make the best, most compassionate moms."

HONESTY. I just want honesty. Instead of wrapping motherhood up in sparkly, celestial packaging, why can't they just say that a parent--mom or dad--needs to be home because kids need attention? Now that's the real story. It isn't so much that one sex is inherently more compassionate, more gentle, better suited for tending to children...and therefore the recipient of a God-given mandate to parent.

That kind of gender definition is dangerous and unfair because it necessarily distances men from the parenting process. It dicates that men are rougher around the edges, and therefore better suited for bringing home the bacon and schooling their children in the ways of the world, instead of communicating with them on a deeper level and sharing more intimate experiences with them. It divides parenting up into roles; these roles are justified because men are women are "different," and therefore have different things to contribute to the family. For example, I have often heard my parents say with pride that they make a great "team," meaning: Dad brings home a great paycheck while Mom is supermom with the kids. Sounds good on paper, but I blame this Mormon paradigm for the lop-sided relationship I have with my parents: it basically guaranteed that I spent more time with mom, talked more with mom, etc. and I think it deprived my Dad of the chance to get to know me on a deeper level.

Ironically, the Mormon paradigm can be hard on families. It can result from the emotional estrangement of the father from the home; as the father identifies himself more and more with work, he becomes less and less emotionally attached to the goings on at home. Meanwhile, this sole identification with work results in increased self-pressure to perform well at work and increased stress as life gets more one-dimensional. Ultimately, it can cause the father to unconsciously (or consciously!) resent the family as the expensive appendage, the financial cancer. And that's when families fall apart. Moms feel their spouse's emotional estrangement and feel bitter about their own one-dimensional lives while Dads feel broken from financial stress and resentment.

Roles are terrible! Roles are wrong! Gender essentialization is wrong. Men can be at home; they aren't wimpy men. Women can be career women--or choose not to have children-- without being soulless.

Increased freedom makes sense even if you maintain that men and women are inherently different. Won't kids be better off if they spend more time with their savvy Dads? Wouldn't the government and corporate world be more compassionate if women were involved in top decision making? There would be fewer wars...