Website and podcasts!

Hi everyone! I'm relocating to a website of my own. Go listen to my first podcast there. Go to: http://web.mac.com/kristinparker/iWeb/Site/Welcome.html
Thanks! Tell your friends :)

The redemption of the mundane

The realm of our experiences is all we know. Sometimes I kick myself for not being more visionary. I feel guilty for being so mundane. But when I think about what my life is--mundane--how can I reasonably expect to be anything but? I'm being unfairly harsh on myself, even cruel, if I expect myself to experience things beyond my everyday world and life.

The redemption of the mundane: life is proof that the mundane matters somehow. I mean, life is ultimately purposeful for most people who mature somewhat in a career, raise a family, build friendships, age, etc. We may not know exactly what it all means but at the same time we know that we've grown and ended up somewhere better (hopefully) than where we started. We should respect ourselves, at least, for working hard and not throwing in the towel. The miracle is that this success is somehow the product of showing up at work everyday, changing daipers, going to doctors appointments, helping friends out when they need it. etc. Life under a microscope is so unglamorous...even pointless. But when you step back and look at it--if you've given it a good try, accepted and lived up to whatever responsibilities you've given yourself--it becomes an opportunity to grow and gain wisdom.

Killing the muse

'm wondering if creativity has more to do with enjoying the technique of doing something than "catching the muse." My brother Ben's songwriting is a great example of this. He's written truckloads of songs, of varying quality (he doesn't labor over them too much). But, above all, he enjoys writing/playing. It doesn't take a solution to world peace or something to get him writing. He writes because it's fun to him in the same way that playing xbox 360 is fun to my brother Jake. So the motivation to write a story, play guitar, paint something...I think that comes in a large part from enjoyment/stimulation derived from those things as activities, not as spiritual awakenings. This helps to explain several phenomenon.

1) It helps to explain why some "unenlightened" people have created great art. Take Ella Fitzgerald. I just did a paper on her. It turns out that she got around, a lot. Performed an abortion on herself at my age and could never have kids later as a result. Never had a marriage that lasted more than a few years. Look, I don't want to judge her too harshly, but this is clearly someone who had some big spiritual pieces missing in her life...and yet she could sing like an angel. To a great degree, I think that's because she sang incessantly and had a naturally beautiful tone.

2)It helps to explain why so few people become "artists." Art is work. Getting technique is work. And most people don't like to work!

3)It helps to explain why great art has been created in circumstances where there is little intellectual or spiritual freedom. Consider the composer Haydn. He was hired by Prince Esterhazy not because he was some free-spirited visionary, but because he was extraordinarily skilled and the Prince knew he could count on Haydn to write pieces for him that he would like. Haydn, and lots of artists before the 19th century, were servants of the court and church. And yet, in the grips of those institutions, they made great art and I think that's simply because they practiced a lot.

4)It can help explain how art fits into everyday life. After all, artists do live in the world. To escape the mundane is to swim upstream, everyday. If art was solely about finding the muse, I'm sure much of it would never have been created. Many of the artists I've learned about had surprisingly ordinarily lives. In other words, they had human lives. Again, what made them artists is that they practiced their craft a lot.

That said, art does have an undeniable spiritual and personal dimension. But that comes after doing something repeatedly, developing technique, and simply caring about something; our lives develop their own personal stamp and meaning in the same way. As we develop habits, live from day to day, and have fun, we develop personalities that make us unique and accumulate wisdom. I've never met two people who are the same, and most are somewhat reflective and learn things from life. Basically, it's human nature to be different and to pursue truth. In the same way, art takes on individuality and spirituality when someone practices it enough and thinks about it enough. Individuality and spirituality are part of human nature and mark all human creations, to one degree or another.

If you extend this metaphor of life for art, how ridiculous the idea of not creating until you've found your individual, creative muse sounds. Would you ever tell someone to not live their life until they "discovered" their personality? Of course not. We discover ourselves, our ideals, learn wisdom, etc. from living and from doing. Isolation, uncertainty, and inactivity can only GUARANTEE that we will never experience anything worth experiencing. The same applies to art. We discover truth in art as we practice it. Art becomes an enlightening experience as we live it by practicing it. In my case, when I brood around not creating anything because I don't feel "inspired," I'm just giving up too soon and ensuring that I will never discover anything through art or develop a skill set to communicate anything once I think I know what to say.

Sometimes I think I expect too much from art. I look to "creativity" to solve all my problems, to make me feel alive, purposeful, engaged with my existence. And when I don't find my muse, I feel aimless and discouraged. But that enlightened state I'm seeking...I don't think anyone gets there completely. Not anyone. Not when we'r'e faced with the realities of providing financially for ourselves, the reality of our deaths, pain, sickness, etc. That's not to say that life isn't good and fun, too, but...it's also inescapably hard. It's demanding too much of any one process or profession to expect it elevate us above all that. Only religion and self-esteem can bring us assurance that life is ultimately purposeful and that we have the ability to get what we want out of life and be happy.

So, what is art and creativity good for? I think, more than anything, art gets it's effect from describing life. Sometimes art does actually answer big-picture questions, but it does so inadvertently, by describing life and leaving the viewer room to infer truth. In this way, truths may be revealed to the viewer that may never have occurred to the artist. It's the idea that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." Perhaps the role of the artist is not so much to meet the muse and deliver truth to the populace like some prophet. Instead, it may have more to do with someone faithfully describing their experiences and thoughts...and then offering this up for general consumption and reflection. Basically, the ability to tap into "the muse" may have little relevance to the artist. Perhaps the more important question to ask the aspiring artist is: "Do you enjoy writing/singing/painting etc. about your life? Expressing even the mundane in your chosen medium?" If not, then art may not be for you. That doesn't mean you have turn your back on the big-questions or creativity, either. There are many other ways to be reflective and creative.

Like Edisson said, creativity is "99% perspiration, 1% inspiration."

The Red, White, and Blue

Thanks Ben!

Red is for the blood spilt in the wars.
Blue is for the oceans that seperate us from other countries.
White is for white supremacy.
The stars are for the stars in Hollywood.

Well put!

On displacement

Wikipedia defines "Displacement" as an unconscious defense mechanism, whereby the mind redirects emotion from a 'dangerous' object to a 'safe' object. I've given some thought to this and uncovered a surprising connection between it and my religious concerns.

First, my primary beef with Mormonism is that it has kept me from embracing my individuality. It's true, my individuality is underdeveloped and unclaimed. But when I take it out on the Church for being responsible for this...how much of that is me attacking the Church because it's an easier target than, say, confronting the complexity of life and the fact that it takes years to develop an individual, artistic vision...Mormon or not. Or simply confronting the fact of my insecurity and self-consciousness and the fact that I haven't practiced enough. Maybe instead of targeting the Church, I should take responsibility for not practicing more and not taking risks. The Church didn't keep me from doing that per se. It's true that the Church does project a conformist message just to keep things uniform. But no one forced me to subscribe to that, and the Temple questions certainly don't. If I suffer under the Church, then I'm just a weak fool inventing constraints that don't exist. After all, believing in God and Joseph Smith is not a constraint. Who thinks that being with their family eternally is a constraint? Well, maybe on some days :)

Constraints that don't exist...do they, or don't they? There is an existant, superifical Mormon culture, and I think it is too prevelant in a Church that is Christ's church. I can't deny this. But I don't have to buy into it.

Secondly, one could argue that to accept doctrines and standards is a constraint. Arguably, acceptance and implementation of anything implies a form of control. However, belief and implementation of ANYTHING implies control. As I try to liberate my music from confining ideas, one could argue that an agnostic perspective could be equally confining. The point is that you can never escape the consequences of what you commit to. There is no "freedom," i.e, no realm where ideas and practices don't have power over you.

And who wants art that is uneffected by ideas and practices? I want my music to take intellectual and creative risks. But do I want this to happen in a total vacuum from religion, the economy, society, etc.? All the institutions that define human life? On the one hand, I hate institituions and societal obligations, but, on the other, to engage with them is to engage with the ideas that define human life and therefore the ideas that will be meaningful to myself and my audience. Again, commentary/criticism/support or whatever of these institutions is what makes art interesting.

Besides, there is no way of escaping institutions. Sometimes, I lament my birth in the Church and wonder who I would be if I were born somewhere else. And then I think about the alternatives. They would be equally challenging. Sorting through Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, you name it, would be problematic in terms of individuality and free will. Then there's economics. Everyone has bills to pay and their debt to society, etc. If had been born poor, that would have been another pound of rocks to sort through. No one escapes the inevitiblity of participation in the pressures, institutions, and responsibilities that come from being a member of any society and culture. So the name of the game is not to escape but to carve out your own niche and do what you can to change things in accordance with your values. To do so though, you have to participate at some point. No one changed the world brooding away in a cave.

So maybe I should stop complaining and start practicing. Too bad...I can no longer believe that it's easier for everyone else to write great songs.

Great Teachers

I just finished watching "Coach Carter" with Samuel L. Jackson. It's a great movie! For whatever reason, I feel like I should apologize for liking it because it clearly is one of those "inspirational" movies. But I bought it, hook, line, and sinker. I'm thankful for uplifting movies like this. The point of the movie is that we are successful when we overcome our fears of being our best selves, the idea being that, for whatever reason, many of us are afraid to live up to our potential. Along those lines, the movie argues that when we become our personal best selves, we give others room to be their best selves instead of bringing them down to our lowest level. This is contrasted with the ghetto culture, which binds people down through pressure to conform. Conformity to low standards=a sucky life.

So...what I got from the movie was a renewed appreciation for great teachers. One teacher comes to mind from my high school experience: Ms. Hellman. My AP US History teacher. She was extraordinarily proud of her students and her job. After lots of drilling, testing, and encouragement, she prepared a classroom of teenagers for the AP History test. Let me tell you! That is one hard test. Along the way, she made us feel like we were important to her as individuals, as more than students. What leadership and intelligence. To be capable of bringing out the best in people year after year. She's an unsung hero.

Of course, this idea means a lot to me because I'm a piano teacher. I've had such a hard time keeping my students practicing and engaged. To connect with them on individual basis and inspire them would demand some serious people skills I just don't have. But I must try. It would be so satisfying to watch my students improve, to make a difference.

This leads me to my final point about good teaching: at the end of the day, it must be selfless. Coach Carter's players loved him because, ultimately, he cared more about their life success than any flashiness on the court. And it wasn't about Carter's vanity, about his need to be validated by transforming lives. I've encountered despicable teachers like that, too. My choir teacher in high school, for example, clearly singled out struggling kids and turned them into her pet projects. At the same time, she was never particuarly nice to me. That's because I didnt' need her. I wasn't a problem kid. So she didn't care about me.

As I strive to be a good teacher and be my personal best, etc. I must be ever watchful of myself. Sorry to be cynical, here I go again. It's just that for every great teacher I meet, I meet another who abuses their authority by using it aggrandize themselves in some way. I hate people who abuse their authority, or seek to "mentor" for self-interested reasons. It's so base.

Garcetti v. Ceballos

Thanks to oneworld.net, I found out about this puzzling, even distressing, Supreme Court decision. Basically, it's about the relationship between government employees and their first-amendment rights. In this case, Ceballos was an assistant District Attorney in LA. (A prosecutor). In a particular case, the defense requested that Ceballos investigate a search warrant afidavit, claiming that it was purjorious. After his investigation, Ceballos concurred and wrote a memo requesting that the case be closed. His supervisors in the prosectution, however, wished to continue with the case. Later, in a hearing about this affidavit, Ceballos testified to the truthfulness of his memo. He claims that it was in retaliaiton that he was demoted and relocated. His law suit finally surfaced, after several appeals, in the Supreme Court.

I'm writing this here, of course, because the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the prosection. For the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote: The controlling factor in this case was that Mr. Ceballos was acting purely in an official capacity when he complained internally about the search warrant. “Ceballos wrote his disposition memo because that is part of what he was employed to do. He did not act as a citizen by writing it.” Basically, the court is claiming that if a public employee is hired by government to do something and they protest or impede the execution of said duties, they are not protected from disciplinary action by the government. The ruling is designed to help the government run more efficiently. I'm assuming that, in this case, Ceballos is not protected because, as a prosecutor, his job is to prosecute and not keep cases from court. The Court admits that government employees should be able to speak out...but only in the public sphere as "public citizens." This is based on precedent: another Supreme Court case, Pickering v. Board of Education, ruled that government employees can speak out when it can be proven that they speak for the public benefit as public citizens and when their speech does not significantly impair the functioning of the government.

So should Ceballos have taken his grievances to 60 Minutes? It isn't realistic that everything be resolved in the public sphere. And if public employees, who arguably have the most expertise at their jobs, can not criticize the government, who will? This ruling is absurd. I puzzled over the Court's official briefing for over an hour and I still don't understand how they can seperate an employee from a citizen, stating that "citizens" enjoy 1st amendment protection while employees don't. What? I thought we were always citizens and always protected by the 1st Amendment.

It's important to note that this case was debated while Justice O'Connor was still on the Court. She resigned, however, and left the Court with a tie. Justice Alito broke the tie on this one...

The courts official slip opinion is here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-473.pdf

Read civilrights.org assessment here:
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/nominations/details.cfm?id=44005

Krazy Kat and Ignatz Mouse

Thanks to wikipedia.org's featured articles, I came across this deligihtful comic strip that dates to the Jazz Age. The surrealist text earned the respect of poets like ee cummings, while the likewise surreal and chromatic illustrations caught the attention of the artistic community. The plot is endearing, too. It's a triangle between Krazy Kat, Ignatz Mouse and the Cop. Krazy Kat loves Ignatz, but Ignzats just wants to throw bricks at Krazy Kat, who of course takes this as a sign of affection. Meanwhile, the Cop is constantly plotting to apprehend Ignatz for throwing bricks. I can't believe Herriman's ingenuitiy. With this limited storyline, he managed to create hundreds of scenarios. Click here for a readable version:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/1922_0121_krazykat_det_650.jpg

The self and religion

I think I've finally figured out an approach to religion that will work for me: a focus on others verses myself. In Mormonism, you have to swim upstream to practice religion this way, but, so be it. When I measure my "activity" based on how I treat others, religion makes all kinds of sense. I can better understand why God would institute religion when it is understood as a tool to help us (make us) care for each other. And I've never had a problem with the golden rule, etc. But religion bites when it becomes a lifestyle of endless self-scrutiny and self-examination. In retrospect, I realize that there are many things I should have done but failed to do because I was too afraid of "crossing the line" or pushing buttons. When crossing the line involves compromising your integrity or the spiritual/phsyical health of someone else, sure, restraint is necessary. I can deal with complexity. It's just this endless pursuit of perfection that DOESN'T make me happy like they say it will. That whole "Plan of Happiness" slogan is pure propaganda...and the myth that happy families and happy lives exist only within the church is bs. Mormon culture definitely keeps that myth in circulation; a singles ward I attended (and soon fled for my old family ward!) had an activities committee dubbed "The Good Life Committee." What in the hell does that mean?! Anyway, to repeat myself, when I measure my activity in the gospel in terms of how I treat others instead of how perfect and worthy I am, I feel so much happier. Not only does it motivate me to do service, but it gives me the freedom and space I need to not always feel shiny, happy, bright, and perfect. The art I love doesn't come from that safe place. My own art doesn't come from that safe place. So should I always feel unsettled with who I am? Do I have to white-wash everything to practice my religion? It goes against my conscience.

Louis Armstrong: trumpeter of angels

It's a rare case indeed when I hear a performance that is so magnetic that it turns me on to an entire genre of music. Louis Armstrong's done that for me for jazz. I always dismissed jazz as something cool and cerebral; it's true that certain veins of it still come off this way to me. But Louis Armstrong's jazz is so far from that. He plays with the most exuberant tone I have ever heard produced on ANY instrument. His sound is full of joy, life, and soul. It effects me spiritualy as well as physically. (The physical part comes from his superb rhythmic sense. Whether he's singing or trumpeting, he makes the music swing like no one else).

A listen to the tune Muggles, 1928, makes his abilities easy for non-jazzers to quickly appreciate. The tune begins with an okay clarinet and trombone solos, but when Armstrong comes on, everything changes. The rest of the band momentarily drops out because his sound is so electric. It's on a different rhythmic and emotional plane. The tempo picks way up, while his solo introduces an intense swing. His bandmates join in after a chorus, and the band is instantly cooking. One man did that!

Armstrong transformed not only that track, but jazz music itself. Everyone wanted to swing like him. Arrangers like Fletcher Henderson and Benny Moten picked up on the swing, creating big band swing music. Other innovations attributable to Armstrong include scat singing and the idea of a jazz as a soloist's art. Before him, jazz was characterized by collective improvisation and polyphony, ie, the "New Orleans" sound. Because his solos were so amazing, though, the genre changed to accomodate him by featuring him as a single soloist. Other players soon picked up on this, and viola, the concept of the virtuoso soloist was born.

Fantasy and intellectual ownership

Have you ever listened closely to Beck's lyrics? One of my favorite lines goes..."Rampart boys with loaded rifles /
Guatemalan soccer ball instant replays / Mango ladies, vendedores / And a busstop singer Banda macho chorus." It isn't quite fair of me to present them this way. I mean, part of what makes them great is the way they relate to the beat and the sound effects. Anyway, doesn't it seem like it would be easy to write these lyrics, in terms of content or subject matter? Just pick a couple phrases out of the air and paste them together, right?

Now that you're pefectly set up for my punchline...the answer is NO. I tried, really, really hard to write something like this and it came out ridiculous. Or maybe it's just that I don't have the confidence to say it all with conviction. Confidence is everything...

If you read my previous post about "Exotic Locations and Romanticization" you will better understand the crux of my argument. I assumed, up until this very moment, that I could never write lyrics like that because my lyrics would be necessarily bad. Why? Because I'm so institutionalized. I only know classrooms and sunday school rooms, right? And suburbia...Well, the point is that I thought I needed weird/cool friends and weird/cool experiences to qualify me to write this stuff. Actually, that would be helfpful, if only to give me more ideas. But when it comes to writing what you know, when it comes to being authentic, who's to say Beck knows more about loaded rifles, mango ladies, and a "Banda macho chorus" than me? You can't exactly meet these things in real life. He had to invent them and then believe in them. That's the trick, the great challenge. No more flying off to London to meet my muses in person...

Exotic locations and romanticization

Just show me a picture of 1960s London and I'm gone. Gone into my imagination...not reality, I mean. Of course, for so long I've confused the two. Show me that pic and I'll imagine a place where producers scrounge the street for talent, musicians play the underground all day, theater blazes, art abounds. A free place for artists where the imagination and reality can finally mingle. A place where the opportunities are boundless! I imagine that because artists I admire, including David Bowie, emerged from that scene and I've always assumed that such people NEVER had to go to school, pay the rent, feel untalented, work away without recogition. Everything seemed ripe, twinkled. Like in the glossy photos in the music mags.

Well, I hope it's a sign that I'm growing up. I was just thinking how life is unglamorous and hard wherever you go. All the good stuff I read about in the glossies...those are golden moments born of the imagination. All the stories Bowie tells in his lyrics...they come from his imagination. I used to dream about moving to London after I graduate and have finally realized that no physical location can bring me to that liberated place I hear in Bowie music. I have to get there with my imagination. No more grand, escapist thoughts. Those are just a type of procrastination. It would be much better to surround myself with the best my community has to offer and then...get practicing.